Creationists

[UltimateReality]

Good. Now we know you are thoroughly dissociated from reality. It's like magic! "Dna could contain jibberish or complex instructions to build a complex organism". It doesn't matter which, because with "the magic code of DNA" (being "chemically independent from the informational code it carries"), you could replace the bases in DNA with any random reactive chemical, and nothing about "informational code" it carries would change. Good. Just great.

WOW! You're retarded.

I never said any of that!!! You can't replace the coded information and have it mean the same thing!! Just like you can't alter 0's and 1's in a computer program and get the same outcome. Why is this so hard for you to figure out? Your the special needs buffoon that insists on building caricatures and then accusing everyone else of doing it.

I won't waste my time with you anymore. Seriously, it reminds me of trying to argue with a drunk when I was a cop. Pointless!!!!!

 

[UltimateReality]

We now know that the DNA molecule is an intricate message system. To claim that DNA arose by random material forces is to say that information can arise by random material forces. Many scientists argue that the chemical building blocks of the DNA molecule can be explained by natural evolutionary processes. However, they must realize that the material base of a message is completely independent of the information transmitted. Thus, the chemical building blocks have nothing to do with the origin of the complex message. As a simple illustration, the information content of the clause "nature was designed" has nothing to do with the writing material used, whether ink, paint, chalk or crayon. In fact, the clause can be written in binary code, Morse code or smoke signals, but the message remains the same, independent of the medium. There is obviously no relationship between the information and the material base used to transmit it. Some current theories argue that self-organizing properties within the base chemicals themselves created the information in the first DNA molecule. Others argue that external self-organizing forces created the first DNA molecule. However, all of these theories must hold to the illogical conclusion that the material used to transmit the information also produced the information itself. Contrary to the current theories of evolutionary scientists, the information contained within the genetic code must be entirely independent of the chemical makeup of the DNA molecule.

You know, dear. It is in good form to identify the source of your cutting and pasting.

DNA Double Helix

Why bother? You never do. You just pass it off as your own material, POT!

 

[UltimateReality]

I'm not the one imagining anything here.

An explanation for how non-living matter becomes life has been provided for you COUNTLESS times. We all understand that you find it insufficient to "PROVE" that life arose from non-living matter--we get that. Seriously.

But now it's your turn: Since you're so smugly asserting that life must--unconditionally, and ultimately--come from life, I would suppose you are now ready to provide your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this "Creator" that you say is the source of life on this planet.

Otherwise, it is patently clear that your beliefs regarding the subject have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.

Are you again going to put your little pink booties on and dodge?

The evidence says you most certainly will.

Noyou have not, epic fail again. Listen real hard there is no viable explanation to how life spontaneously started do you ignore the evolutionist that actually possess a brain that agree with me ?

I'll note with amusement that the "evilutionist" who agree with you are typically connected with Harun Yahya and similar creationist organizations.

Additionally, nothing in the above serves your arguments for supernatural, supermagical gods.

So Dawkins and Hawkins are connected with Horun Yallie?? Hollie, no disrespect, but you really are the most ignorant person I have ever encountered on the internet.

 

[Hollie]

We now know that the DNA molecule is an intricate message system. To claim that DNA arose by random material forces is to say that information can arise by random material forces. Many scientists argue that the chemical building blocks of the DNA molecule can be explained by natural evolutionary processes. However, they must realize that the material base of a message is completely independent of the information transmitted. Thus, the chemical building blocks have nothing to do with the origin of the complex message. As a simple illustration, the information content of the clause "nature was designed" has nothing to do with the writing material used, whether ink, paint, chalk or crayon. In fact, the clause can be written in binary code, Morse code or smoke signals, but the message remains the same, independent of the medium. There is obviously no relationship between the information and the material base used to transmit it. Some current theories argue that self-organizing properties within the base chemicals themselves created the information in the first DNA molecule. Others argue that external self-organizing forces created the first DNA molecule. However, all of these theories must hold to the illogical conclusion that the material used to transmit the information also produced the information itself. Contrary to the current theories of evolutionary scientists, the information contained within the genetic code must be entirely independent of the chemical makeup of the DNA molecule.

You know, dear. It is in good form to identify the source of your cutting and pasting.

DNA Double Helix

Why bother? You never do. You just pass it off as your own material, POT!

Oh my. You poor angry fundie. You were cutting and pasting from creationist websites and not attributing your cutting and pasting and that causes you to lash out like an unruly child.

A cosmic spanking is in order.

 

[UltimateReality]

read through the last few pages and YWC is STILL ASKING THE SAME QUESTIONS HE'S ALREADY ANSWERED
UR is still yammering about materialistic religion as the devil's handiwork (oxymoron).
KG flew in on her broom stick babbled something meaningless then flew away..
still wating for gods' barcode...

The genetic code barrier.

There is nothing supernatural about genetic code. Much of DNA biology is understood, thus we have replaced lack of knowledge with knowledge. That Is generally the process of science. The fear and superstition you would foist on others is superceded by understanding and knowledge.

It's just a shame that you wish to return humankind to the Dark Ages of fear and superstition.

Atheist cut and past accusation #16:

ID is really an attempt at overthrowing the well established principles of science. It is a theory which denies the history itself of modern rational thought and of our scientific tradition.

This objection completely misreads the debate. For centuries, design thinking defined the scientific landscape and held fast to the proposition that a transcendent creator fashioned the universe for discovery. That is the “old” idea that inspired many great scientists from the days of Newton to those of Einstein. By contrast, it was the “enlightenment” approach to philosophy followed by the Darwinian approach to science that completely reshaped our notions about the physical world. Design thinking remains consistent, but evolutionary thinking keeps finding new ways to explain away design and shrug it off as an “illusion.”

In that sense, the questioner has it backwards. In fact, it is ID that is preserving an old idea and arguing against a new idea, namely the proposition that design is an “illusion.” ID is simply challenging a challenge, asking Darwinists to provide evidence that supports that new idea. So far, they have only offered evidence for that which we already knew, namely that features in living organisms change over time. By contrast, they have offered no decisive evidence – question-begging imposed “rules” don’t count — for their extraordinary claim that law and chance alone can explain the apparent design of life.

 

[UltimateReality]

You know, dear. It is in good form to identify the source of your cutting and pasting.

DNA Double Helix

Why bother? You never do. You just pass it off as your own material, POT!

Oh my. You poor angry fundie. You were cutting and pasting from creationist websites and not attributing your cutting and pasting and that causes you to lash out like an unruly child.

A cosmic spanking is in order.

Oh you poor mental midget. Don't look now but your drool cup is overflowing.

 

[UltimateReality]

J
Man you are seriously stupid. I have all said 500 times that I am of the Judeo-Christian persuasion.

You seriously don't know your gods.

Sure he does our God has many names but only one God.

Hollie totally missed the joke on her when she claimed she was of "the male persuasion" posing as Rugged Touch.

 

[Hollie]

Noyou have not, epic fail again. Listen real hard there is no viable explanation to how life spontaneously started do you ignore the evolutionist that actually possess a brain that agree with me ?

I'll note with amusement that the "evilutionist" who agree with you are typically connected with Harun Yahya and similar creationist organizations.

Additionally, nothing in the above serves your arguments for supernatural, supermagical gods.

So Dawkins and Hawkins are connected with Horun Yallie?? Hollie, no disrespect, but you really are the most ignorant person I have ever encountered on the internet.

There's no need to project your failings and inadequacies on others.

Lashing out like a petulant child will not cover your tracks at being hopelessly inept. The discussions that require you to cut and paste from creationist websites are causing you angst. Your failing at any productive participation. You should just leave... for the third time.

 

[UltimateReality]

Hollie you are not a god.

Prove I'm not.

Don't have to your posts have shown that.

She is not God. She is a gawd.

 

[UltimateReality]

Evolution and the Illusion of Randomness

Your Giraffe'ism conspiracy theory was addressed and refuted earlier.

I will show you how ignorant your view is. If the giraffe slowly evolved he would have went extinct from either bending over and the blood rushing to his head and blowing out his brain or raising his head to fast and passing out when predators appear.

What is so amazing is this little sponge like thing in the brain that stores blood to prevent him from passing out and this valve that restricts blood flow so he don't blow his brain out.

The fundie giraffe conspiracy has been debunked earlier.

Dreamer, you're just a little dreamer, and you put your... Woohoo Supertramp!

 

[Hollie]

You seriously don't know your gods.

Sure he does our God has many names but only one God.

Hollie totally missed the joke on her when she claimed she was of "the male persuasion" posing as Rugged Touch.

I'll take this to mean that you can't find anything to cut and paste so you're left to childish attempts at personal attacks.

There's a good christian boy.

 

[Hollie]

I will show you how ignorant your view is. If the giraffe slowly evolved he would have went extinct from either bending over and the blood rushing to his head and blowing out his brain or raising his head to fast and passing out when predators appear.

What is so amazing is this little sponge like thing in the brain that stores blood to prevent him from passing out and this valve that restricts blood flow so he don't blow his brain out.

The fundie giraffe conspiracy has been debunked earlier.

Dreamer, you're just a little dreamer, and you put your... Woohoo Supertramp!

All the tact of a 12 year old.

Yes ladies and gentlemen. It us appropriate to point and laugh at the deranged fundie.

 

[UltimateReality]

If the development of living organisms DID NOT generally progress from less complex organisms to more complex organisms, then I have no idea why Evolutionists would say that it did.

That's really funny!!! When I made the claim this was a tenant of evolutionary theory, I was told it was a strawman. Me thinks someone is a little loose with the fallacy accusations.

 

[UltimateReality]

Natural law does not vary with biology. All of nature remains subject to the same natural constraints and capabilities.

Wow! Now we can agree on something...

"Our Constitution is based in part on Natural Law. Now what is that? Natural Law is seldom studied in America, outside institutions of higher education and seminaries. However, it was well-known to our nation’s founders, from their studies of the writings of Marcus Tullius Cicero (106 BC-43 BC) an accomplished Roman philosopher/lawyer; and Sir William Blackstone (1723–1780), an English jurist, who wrote the doctrines of English Law in “Commentaries on the Laws of England” (1765–69).

Cicero described Natural Law as True Law: “True Law is right reason in agreement with nature (God, the Supreme Being); it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting; it summons to duty by its commands and averts from wrongdoing by its prohibitions …. It is a sin to try to alter this law, nor is it allowable to repeal any part of it ….”

Further explaining his concept, Cicero added that Natural Law comes from God to man through man’s ability to reason, “(Man) is the only one among so many different kinds and verities of living beings who has a share in reason and thought (given by God) …. And reason, when it is full grown and perfected, is rightly called wisdom … the first common possession of man and God is reason.” (“Great Political Thinkers,” by Ebenstine).

Thus Natural Law is law that can be reasoned by man, because it is law written on man’s heart by God. God doesn’t just grab us and in a lightning bolt write with his finger on our chest. Natural law is embedded in the conscience. Natural Law provided our founders with such concepts as: unalienable rights, unalienable duties, self-preservation or the right to self-defense, justice by reparation and duty to take care of one’s self, to name a few."

Natural Law pivotal to founding fathers » Opinion » The Edmond Sun

 

[Hollie]

If the development of living organisms DID NOT generally progress from less complex organisms to more complex organisms, then I have no idea why Evolutionists would say that it did.

That's really funny!!! When I made the claim this was a tenant of evolutionary theory, I was told it was a strawman. Me thinks someone is a little loose with the fallacy accusations.

I suspect you're not able to keep track of the material you cut and paste and you wind up stumbling over conflicting authorship.

 

[UltimateReality]

I'll note with amusement that the "evilutionist" who agree with you are typically connected with Harun Yahya and similar creationist organizations.

Additionally, nothing in the above serves your arguments for supernatural, supermagical gods.

So Dawkins and Hawkins are connected with Horun Yallie?? Hollie, no disrespect, but you really are the most ignorant person I have ever encountered on the internet.

There's no need to project your failings and inadequacies on others.

Lashing out like a petulant child will not cover your tracks at being hopelessly inept. The discussions that require you to cut and paste from creationist websites are causing you angst. Your failing at any productive participation. You should just leave... for the third time.

I'm not lashing out. It really is a very true statement. You are, by far, the most ignorant and foolish person I have ever encountered on the internet. I mean that in the most non-theatening and sincere way.

 

[Hollie]

Natural law does not vary with biology. All of nature remains subject to the same natural constraints and capabilities.

Wow! Now we can agree on something...

"Our Constitution is based in part on Natural Law. Now what is that? Natural Law is seldom studied in America, outside institutions of higher education and seminaries. However, it was well-known to our nation’s founders, from their studies of the writings of Marcus Tullius Cicero (106 BC-43 BC) an accomplished Roman philosopher/lawyer; and Sir William Blackstone (1723–1780), an English jurist, who wrote the doctrines of English Law in “Commentaries on the Laws of England” (1765–69).

Cicero described Natural Law as True Law: “True Law is right reason in agreement with nature (God, the Supreme Being); it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting; it summons to duty by its commands and averts from wrongdoing by its prohibitions …. It is a sin to try to alter this law, nor is it allowable to repeal any part of it ….”

Further explaining his concept, Cicero added that Natural Law comes from God to man through man’s ability to reason, “(Man) is the only one among so many different kinds and verities of living beings who has a share in reason and thought (given by God) …. And reason, when it is full grown and perfected, is rightly called wisdom … the first common possession of man and God is reason.” (“Great Political Thinkers,” by Ebenstine).

Thus Natural Law is law that can be reasoned by man, because it is law written on man’s heart by God. God doesn’t just grab us and in a lightning bolt write with his finger on our chest. Natural law is embedded in the conscience. Natural Law provided our founders with such concepts as: unalienable rights, unalienable duties, self-preservation or the right to self-defense, justice by reparation and duty to take care of one’s self, to name a few."

Natural Law pivotal to founding fathers » Opinion » The Edmond Sun

What a waste of time and bandwidth.

One of the downside to the web is that it can become a playground for mindless cut and pasters.

 

[Hollie]

So Dawkins and Hawkins are connected with Horun Yallie?? Hollie, no disrespect, but you really are the most ignorant person I have ever encountered on the internet.

There's no need to project your failings and inadequacies on others.

Lashing out like a petulant child will not cover your tracks at being hopelessly inept. The discussions that require you to cut and paste from creationist websites are causing you angst. Your failing at any productive participation. You should just leave... for the third time.

I'm not lashing out. It really is a very true statement. You are, by far, the most ignorant and foolish person I have ever encountered on the internet. I mean that in the most non-theatening and sincere way.

You need help for your feelings of failure and inadequacy.

 

[UltimateReality]

The discussions that require you to cut and paste from creationist websites are causing you angst. Your failing at any productive participation. You should just leave... for the third time.

Canned Athiest Accusation #5: Intelligent Design is “Creationism in a Cheap Tuxedo”

In fact, the two theories are radically different. Creationism moves forward: that is, it assumes, asserts or accepts something about God and what he has to say about origins; then interprets nature in that context. Intelligent design moves backward: that is, it observes something interesting in nature (complex, specified information) and then theorizes and tests possible ways how that might have come to be. Creationism is faith-based; Intelligent Design is empirically-based.

Each approach has a pedigree that goes back over two thousand years. We notice the “forward” approach in Tertullian, Augustine, Bonaventure, and Anselm. Augustine described it best with the phrase, “faith seeking understanding.” With these thinkers, the investigation was faith-based. By contrast, we discover the “backward” orientation in Aristotle, Aquinas, and Paley. Aristotle’s argument, which begins with “motion in nature” and reasons BACK to a “prime mover” — i.e. from effect to its “best” causal explanation — is obviously empirically based.

To say then, that Tertullian, Augustine, Anselm (Creationism) is similar to Aristotle, Aquinas, Paley (ID) is equivalent to saying forward equals backward. What could be more illogical?

 

[UltimateReality]

There's no need to project your failings and inadequacies on others.

Lashing out like a petulant child will not cover your tracks at being hopelessly inept. The discussions that require you to cut and paste from creationist websites are causing you angst. Your failing at any productive participation. You should just leave... for the third time.

I'm not lashing out. It really is a very true statement. You are, by far, the most ignorant and foolish person I have ever encountered on the internet. I mean that in the most non-theatening and sincere way.

You need help for your feelings of failure and inadequacy.

...Says the Christian-Hating, Angry Lesbian Atheist with fundie-Christian Gay Hating parents.