Creationists

[Youwerecreated]

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.

you mean the one there is no proof for?
btw didn't you say something like: "this is my last post to you... mental midget" -YWC
do you always fail to keep your word?

Really no proof. Why do kinds only reproduce their own kind ? Why have so many groups of organisms gone extinct ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Microevolution vs Macroevolution
Is There A Difference Between Microevolution & Macroevolution?
By Austin Cline, About.com Guide
.See More About:evolution & sciencemicroevolution vs macroevolution
There is one particular aspect of evolution that needs to be given specific attention: the somewhat artificial distinction between what is called “microevolution” and “macroevolution”, two terms often used by creationists in their attempts to critique evolution and evolutionary theory.

Microevolution is used to refer to changes in the gene pool of a population over time which result in relatively small changes to the organisms in the population — changes which would not result in the newer organisms being considered as different species. Examples of such microevolutionary changes would include a change in a species’ coloring or size.

Macroevolution, in contrast, is used to refer to changes in organisms which are significant enough that, over time, the newer organisms would be considered an entirely new species. In other words, the new organisms would be unable to mate with their ancestors, assuming we were able to bring them together.

You can frequently hear creationists argue they accept microevolution but not macroevolution — one common way to put it is to say that dogs may change to become bigger or smaller, but they never become cats. Therefore, microevolution may occur within the dog species, but macroevolution never will.

There are a few problems with these terms, especially in the manner that creationists use them. The first is quite simply that when scientists do use the terms microevolution and macroevolution, they don’t use them in the same way as creationists. The terms were first used in 1927 by the Russian entomologist Iurii Filipchenko in his book on evolution Variabilität und Variation. However, they remain in relatively limited use today. You can find them in some texts, including biology texts, but in general most biologists simply don’t pay attention to them.

Why? Because for biologists, there is no relevant difference between microevolution and macroevolution. Both happen in the same way and for the same reasons, so there is no real reason to differentiate them. When biologists do use different terms, it is simply for descriptive reasons.

When creationists use the terms, however, it is for ontological reasons — this means that they are trying to describe two fundamentally different processes. The essence of what constitutes microevolution is, for creationists, different from the essence of what constitutes macroevolution. Creationists act as if there is some magic line between microevolution and macroevolution, but no such line exists as far as science is concerned. Macroevolution is merely the result of a lot of microevolution over a long period of time.

In other words, creationists are appropriating scientific terminology which has specific and limited meaning, but they are using it in a broader and incorrect manner. This is a serious but unsurprising error — creationists misuse scientific terminology on a regular basis.

A second problem with the creationist use of the terms microevolution and macroevolution is the fact that the definition of what constitutes a species is not consistently defined. This can complicate the boundaries which creationists claim exist between microevolution and macroevolution. After all, if one is going to claim that microevolution can never become macroevolution, it would be necessary to specify where the boundary is which supposedly cannot be crossed.

Conclusion:
Simply put, evolution is the result of changes in genetic code. The genes encode the basic characteristics a life form will have, and there is no known mechanism that would prevent small changes (microevolution) from ultimately resulting in macroevolution. While genes can vary significantly between different life forms, the basic mechanisms of operation and change in all genes are the same. If you find a creationist arguing that microevolution can occur but macroevolution cannot, simply ask them what biological or logical barriers prevent the former from becoming the latter — and listen to the silence.

Microevolution vs Macroevolution: Is There A Difference Between Microevolution & Macroevolution?



Creationists like to erroneously claim that it is impossible for the
accumulation of microevolutionary changes to produce macroevolutionary
changes. A "genetic barrier" is oftern cited to account for this, although
it is never identified. The hypothesis states, "there is a 'genetic
barrier' that prevents one 'kind' from evolving into another 'kind.'" I have
yet to see any attempt to justify this hypothesis using actual genetics or
science. Furthermore, there clearly is not a justification because modern
genetics has disproved this hypothesis (see below). However, it is another
creationist buzzword that has no actual scientific value.

The hypothesis of a "genetic barrier" was not originated by creationists. It
arose almost a hundred years ago by biologists/evolutionists to describe the
difference between macroevolution, evolution apparent between species, and
microevolution, evolution apparent within a species. Creationists like to
claim that the mechanisms from macroevolution are fundamentally different
from the mechanisms for microevolution; this is their genetic barrier. They
then assert that there is no evidence for macroevolution while
microevolution is well supported. They never show why any evidence
supporting macro is wrong; they just say it is. A long quote (please forgive
me) from Futuyma helps explains the issue:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>One of the most important tenets of the theory forged during the
Evolutionary Synthesis of the 1930s and 1940s was that 'macroevolutionary'
differences among organisms--those that distinguish higher taxa--arise from
the accumulation of the same kinds of genetic differences that are found
within species. Opponents of this point of view believed that
'macroevolution' is qualitatively different from 'microevolution' within a
species, and is based on a totally different kind of genetic and
developmental repatterning. The iconoclastic geneticist Richard Goldschmidt
(1940), who held this opinion, believed that the evolution of species marks
the break between 'microevolution' and 'macroevolution'--that there is a
'bridgeless gap' between species that cannot be understood in terms of the
genetic variation within species. Genetic studies of species differences
have decisively disproved Goldschmidt's claim. Differences between species
in morphology, behavior, and the process that underlie reproductive
isolation all have the same genetic properties as variation within species:
they occupy consistent chromosomal positions, they may be polygenic or based
on few genes, they may display additive, dominant, or epistatic effects, and
they can in some instances be traced to specifiable differences in proteins
or DNA nucleotide differences. The degree of reproductive isolation between
populations, whether prezygotic or postzygotic, varies from little or none
to complete. Thus, reproductive isolation, like the divergence of any other
character, evolves in most cases by the gradual substitution of alleles in
populations.
(Evolutionary Biology, third edition. 477-478)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Barrierists believe, like Goldschmidt did, that macroevolution and
microevolution are fundamentally different; however, unlike Goldschmidt,
they use the absence of a macro-only mechanism as proof of a creator and
proof against evolution. The reason for the absence of a macro-only
mechanism is that the same mechanisms apply to both micro- and
macroevolution. This is not an "easy out" explanation, as they'd have
laymen believe. It is backed up by genetic and biological observations and
experiments. Goldschmidt was able to state his claim in 1940 because the
science of molecular genetics did not exist then. It wasn't until the 1950s
that Watson and Crick solved the structure of DNA and showed how genetic
information was passed in cell division via template strands. The genetic
code was later solved, explaining how DNA encoded proteins. Modern
sequencing strategies allow us to map molecular genetic mutations to actual
genes, demonstrating the variability of populations and the power of
evolution. These sequencing strategies also allow us to map the differences
between two organisms' genomes. The genetic distinctions for taxa can be
detected by comparing organisms from different taxa. The data generated from
such investigations show that distinctions between taxa follow the same
rules as distinctions within a taxon.

Genetic Barriers Don't Exist [Archive] - BaptistBoard.com

What is it that prevents different groups from being cross bred ? Why is it that so many groups of organisms go extinct since they can't adjust genetically ? You can't see the limitations this is a very ignorant fundie argument from your side.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Your gods have many names because they were taken from many gods before them.

To the back of the line you go with your angry, hateful gods.

You lie.

If man was created on purpose by someone, then the creator must be one stupid, messed up douchesack. So maybe my beef is with whomever created our creator?

No one created the creator. Who created the evolver ? God gave man freewill and thaty is why many scumbags are here but their time grows shorter.

 

[Youwerecreated]

As is so often the case, you make comments that are pointless, irrelevant and false. I just can't express my revulsion for religion when represented by people such as you and the other death-cult fundie. You represent the very worst of superstitious, hateful and cult promoting David Koresh / Jim Jones type psychopaths.

The more we learn about our universe, the clearer it becomes that the fundamental laws of existence are constant with time. The ability to see events that took place millions or billions of years ago verify that even as the universe evolved, is has expanded within the framework of the same natural law that guides it today.

From this, we can derive that the universe does not need your angry, psychopathic gods; that the universe holds to consistent natural laws; your gods do not change or break “the rules” at whim, and no gods perform “miracles” which would be violations of the natural laws governing the universe.

As the extremes of the universe become more clearly visible with the creation of larger telescopes of all kinds, we see that all other galaxies in existence appear to follow the same laws as this one. There is only one set of laws and those same laws function everywhere in the universe without variation.

From this we can derive that the universe is omnipresent, unitary and holds to consistent universal physical laws.

Natural law does not vary with biology. All of nature remains subject to the same natural constraints and capabilities. All of nature consists of organisms with varying environmental and biological potential but no disparity of biology renders any organism or individual more or less subject to natural law than any other.

The above will be difficult for you as you choose to use your religion to threaten, intimidate and scare those who don't believe as you do. You will find it difficult to accept that your gods are simply a reinvention of earlier gods.

Therefore, you now have good reason to act like a grown-up and cease and desist being an ignorant Harun Yahya groupie.

Just admit it,you do not like limits placed on you.

That doesn't make any sense.

Limits or constraints are against your religion.

 

[Youwerecreated]

ahahahahaha... this coming from the man who believes that Mayans had pet dinosaurs...

I have never suggested this how ever the Asians did.

Of course they did.

Whack job.

I suggest you take a little history.

 

[Hollie]

The genetic code barrier.

you mean the one there is no proof for?
btw didn't you say something like: "this is my last post to you... mental midget" -YWC
do you always fail to keep your word?

Really no proof. Why do kinds only reproduce their own kind ? Why have so many groups of organisms have gone extinct ?

Re: kinds reproducing with kinds... and extinction...

"A celibate clergy is an especially good idea, because it tends to suppress any hereditary propensity toward fanaticism."

Carl Sagan

 

[Hollie]

I have never suggested this how ever the Asians did.

Of course they did.

Whack job.

I suggest you take a little history.

I did. I took a history of your vacuous claims and endless cutting and pasting from fundie websites.

 

[Hollie]

Just admit it,you do not like limits placed on you.

That doesn't make any sense.

Limits or constraints are against your religion.

Still, you make no sense.

 

[Hollie]

You lie.

If man was created on purpose by someone, then the creator must be one stupid, messed up douchesack. So maybe my beef is with whomever created our creator?

No one created the creator. Who created the evolver ? God gave man freewill and thaty is why many scumbags are here but their time grows shorter.

False. A creator is itself subject to a hierarchy of creators.

I suppose your not so subtle threat means your angry gods are plotting? And you know that how?

 

[LOki]

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.

Your silly explanation of blood pressure was addressed by link that debunked a boilerplate creationist claim.

How embarrassing for you.

This post shows a fundie and that you lack the ability to reason.

A nonintelligent process would think to develop this valve or this sponge in the brain. Yeah right it was debunked

Faulty implied premise = existence of said valve is necessarily contingent upon being thought of.

Your "debunking" = debunked.

 

[UltimateReality]

"Actually, your fundie parents twisted the Christian religion when they failed to accept you and they will have to answer to God for that. The Bible teaches there is no condemnation in Christ."- UR
you have no proof hollie is gay lie#1
" " that hollie's parents were fundies
" " of god
" that the bible is accurate..

I'll borrow this from your camp.... prove I have no proof.

Ironically, your admission to being totally comfortable with lying is one of the few points of honest discussion you have offered.

Please confirm or deny the statement. If you deny that it is true, you will have my apology and I will speak of it no more.

 

[UltimateReality]

False. A creator is itself subject to a hierarchy of creators.

In whose rulebook??? A logical claim that the Creator exists outside of space, time, matter and energy, and that It predates the Big Bang, does not necessitate that the Creator follow any of the rules in this universe. How can something that is infinite in both directions on our understanding of the timelien REQUIRE a beginning? If the Creator has no beginning, please explain logically why It would be subject to such a hierarchy?

Hollie, you can't just make statements like that and not back them up. Please present a logical argument as the basis of this claim.

Loki, I have no hope that Hollie will ever make such an argument so feel free to jump in her if you have some material.

 

[UltimateReality]

UltimateReality, I was surprised to hear you declare that you are not a young earth creationist, as I assumed you were. Would you mind re-iterating what is your belief about how humans came to be? How old do you believe the earth is, what is your justification for this, and what mechanism do you think caused humans to exist? Do you deny evolutionary theory entirely, or just certain parts of it? How much do you suppose god is responsible for, and how did he do it?

Youwerecreated, the same questions go to you, if you don't mind. I'm interested to know. Thanks.

YWC and my religious beliefs are pretty much the same. I believe God created the heavens and the earth. And I pretty much believe everything contained in the Creation story, but I believe it is metaphorical, like many stories in the Bible, meant to convey a deeper meaning, but not actually to be taken literally. I believe in an old universe and a 4 billion-year-old earth. I believe the designer has acted throughout history to "seed" the planet. I believe Homo Sapien to be a new design, seeded on earth from the designer within the last 20,000 years. But I also believe Homo Sapien was infused with attributes of the designer, making him like no other animal the earth had ever seen. I believe consciousness, the will to create, and self awareness to be among these attributes. I also believe at some point in early Homo Sapien history, by his choice, evil entered into his makeup. And by makeup, I mean his dna. This brought Homo Sapien into conflict internally, at once battling against his animal urges but also infused with God's awareness of good and evil. The Christianese concept for this is that every human is born into sin. Post Modernist Humanist teach that man is essentially good. Homo Sapien may have started this way, but not now after "the fall". I also believe at the fall, ALL of Creation was corrupted. I believe "sin" is anything contrary to the Designer's intent, but also, anything contrary to the Designer's nature. Whether the fall of man happened in an actual geographically place called Eden, chosen by a real man named Adam, or is metaphorical, I still believe the principles of the fall necessarily abide. I also believe the fall was when copying errors were introduced, giving man an expiration date. I don't believe man is purely material. I believe there is a "spirit" "contained" within his material shell that can't be understood or measured by matter or material sciences.

I believe the Designer crammed his "spirit" into a material body and lived on the earth as a man named Jesus Christ. I believe Christ was the "Son" of God only in the way that humans would understand this relationship. (Obviously, son is an earthly term which applies to human offspring, not God). I also believe Christ is the only Begotten son, meaning he actually came from the Being we believe is God "the Father". This just means that Christ was not part of the Creation, was not a Created or Designed being, and like the "Father" has on beginning and no end. Jesus was 100% God, but on earth, he was also 100% man. I believe he came to earth, lived a sinless life, and then died for our sins. I believe He was resurrected and taken up into heaven (a term used to describe our existence outside of space, time, matter and energy.) I believe Christ, God, and God's Spirit existed prior to the Big Bang. The Bible says the Designer has no beginning and no end. Since Hawkins now admits that even time began at the Big Bang, I don't consider it a huge leap of logic to believe the Designer is not subject to the constraints of time or matter. He exists outside the Cosmos. This is why philosophically, there is no necessity for Him (I don't believe God has a penis by the way) to have a beginning. He is infinite forwards and backwards, outside of time, even though our universe is finite and subject to time.

As far as Creationists go, I really don't see their need to put humans and dinosaurs in the same epoch. I'm not sure why they think Christ's genealogy in the Bible locks them into a specific amount of years for the earth. I know Hollie is always calling me a fundie to get a rise out of me but I am far from a fundamentalist Christian. No where in the Bible does it teach one has to "invite Jesus into your heart." This a phrase coined in the last century by protestant "fundies" but I think really causes people to miss what it really means to be a Christ follower. I am cautious about taking any portion of the Bible too literally or listening to some preacher tell me which parts are literal and which aren't. It is funny to me that Creationists get so caught up in a strict interpretation of the 7 day story. Yet I don't see too many one eyed Creationists walking around. Christ clearly commands if your eye makes you sin you should "gouge it out". Now do I think Christ meant that literally? No, I don't. But I also don't under stand Creationists that would say of course Christ didn't REALLY mean to gouge your eye out. Then why do they believe Moses, regularly credited with being the author of Genesis, was telling a literal story of Creation? How do they pick and choose what is metaphorically and what isn't? I have also heard fundies state that you must believe every single word in the Bible or you have to throw the whole thing out. This stance lacks logic, since it assumes that the decisions mere mortal men made at the council of Trent on what books would be contained in the collection known as the Bible somehow had a more direct line to God than we as modern Christians can have. This may sound cliche', but my God is much bigger than the Bible. Fundamentalists like for things to be black and white and they don't want to have to deal with the hard questions, like, "Did God really tell the Israelites to kill babies???" I don't mind wrestling with those hard questions. I also don't think you can compartmentalize the Being that the Bible tells us "spat stars out of his mouth" in the pages of the same tiny book. God won't be constrained by anything, not religion, and yes, not even the Bible. I still believe the core beliefs and principles of Christianity are simple. God set up rules which He Himself would abide by, because he cannot go against his Godly nature. Man violated those rules, the penalty for which was death (expiration of your dna and an end to your existence-consciousness). However, God loved us so much that he sent his only begotten son to die in our place. He complied with the laws and rules of the universe, at a great price I might add, so that we might live. So get confused about the death the Bible refers to but it is merely the death of your existence, of your consciousness. Even though my body will die, my faith in Christ will allow my existence, my consciousness, to continue on outside of matter, and not constrained by the time of this finite universe. Many have posed questions of Christianity throughout the ages. It always strikes me as funny that folks like Hollie and Loki believe they are wrestling with new concepts. One of those is if God is all knowing, and knows the future, why would he go ahead and create the world anyways, knowing what a mess it would turn into? Theologians have wrestled with this question and many others for centuries. If you are interested in some of these concepts, I can refer you to some very NON Fundie books. One of my favorites is Velvet Elvis by Rob Bell. Another one of Bell's works, Love Wins, has caused quite the stir in fundie circles because it proposes that eventually, we all make it to heaven, or at least some point have the choice too. I'm not sure I agree with Bell on all his points but I am at least open enough to consider them. Hard questions about Christianity don't freak me out. I also really enjoy CS Lewis perspectives. He is a great Theologian, and wrestles with these questions, usually used to attack Christianity, in such a deeply thoughtful and wise way. Hey, even if you don't get anything out of reading them, at least you have educated yourself a little more on the enemy.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Complete-C-S-Lewis-Signature-Classics/dp/0060506083/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1348120042&sr=8-1&keywords=cs+lewis+collection]The Complete C.S. Lewis Signature Classics: C. S. Lewis: 9780060506087: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Love-Wins-About-Heaven-Person/dp/0062049658/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1348120275&sr=1-1&keywords=love+wins+Rob+Bell]Love Wins: A Book About Heaven,Hell,and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived: Rob Bell: 9780062049650: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]


And one of my all time favorite books on Christianity:

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Velvet-Elvis-Repainting-Christian-Faith/dp/B0057D8RU0/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1348120306&sr=1-1&keywords=velvet+elvis+Rob+Bell]Velvet Elvis: Repainting the Christian Faith: Rob Bell: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]

I very much appreciate your responding to my questions in such an honest manner, especially towards the end when you relate your early experiences getting made of. I can relate to this well, but I am too afraid to disclose certain things, even online, so I respect you for that. You seem like a smart guy, and I understand everything you said. One more question: How long have you been a christian, and has the strength of your faith changed over the course of you're being a christian, and for what reasons? Or, have your beliefs regarding the nature of god and the nature and interpretation of scripture changed at all? What brought about these changes, if any?

I realize this is a lot. Answer as much as you feel comfortable doing. While I will admit I don't think I could ever be a christian, I did try for a long time to be one, sincerely. During college, I would talk to ministers on campus, and go do christian social events, but the story never really made sense to me. Namely, if god is all powerful, why did he need to send his son to forgive us? He can do what he wants, and would know what is in our hearts. Believing in Jesus just seems like a technicality without any substance behind it, demonstrated by the fact that people vindicate terrible acts of evil by appealing to this aspect of the christian god, and feel truly absolved. Of course, you might chastise these kinds of people and claim they are not christian, which brings me to my last and most important question: How do you know that you're synthesis of scripture and scientific explanation is correct? I derive this question from some of your claims as, "humans came about 20,000 years ago." I'm not asking you to defend this claim specifically, but more generally, whether you're interpretation was something you deduced yourself, or was inspired by someone else.

I am trying to get a bid out so I only had time for a few quick responses but I will respond later when I'm done working.

 

[ima]

If man was created on purpose by someone, then the creator must be one stupid, messed up douchesack. So maybe my beef is with whomever created our creator?

No one created the creator. Who created the evolver ? God gave man freewill and thaty is why many scumbags are here but their time grows shorter.

False. A creator is itself subject to a hierarchy of creators.

I suppose your not so subtle threat means your angry gods are plotting? And you know that how?

How do you know that "no one created the creator"? You just make that up?

 

[Hollie]

False. A creator is itself subject to a hierarchy of creators.

In whose rulebook??? A logical claim that the Creator exists outside of space, time, matter and energy, and that It predates the Big Bang, does not necessitate that the Creator follow any of the rules in this universe. How can something that is infinite in both directions on our understanding of the timelien REQUIRE a beginning? If the Creator has no beginning, please explain logically why It would be subject to such a hierarchy?

Hollie, you can't just make statements like that and not back them up. Please present a logical argument as the basis of this claim.

Loki, I have no hope that Hollie will ever make such an argument so feel free to jump in her if you have some material.

I'm fascinated by you insisting you're making a logical claim regarding a supernatural, supermagical entity.

Do tell us how you came to such irrationality.

 

[Hollie]

No one created the creator. Who created the evolver ? God gave man freewill and thaty is why many scumbags are here but their time grows shorter.

False. A creator is itself subject to a hierarchy of creators.

I suppose your not so subtle threat means your angry gods are plotting? And you know that how?

How do you know that "no one created the creator"? You just make that up?

The answer is: because I say so!

 

[LOki]

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.

It wasn't so terribly amazing when you posted this before, why is it now?

Where you had no rebuttal got ya.

I didn't have to ... as I pointed out, you pretty much rebutted yourself.

 

[LOki]

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!!!!!

What I really find so hard to believe is they can actually believe an undirected and a nonintelligent process would think to develop a place where life could thrive.

Strawman. Evolutionists do not believe "... a nonintelligent process would think."

That would require magic. Belief in such a thing is Creationist thinking.

Then it would develop living organisms and develop everything that is a necessity for for living things to come into existence.

Strawman. Evolutionists do not believe that a non-intelligent process that thinks "would develop living organisms and develop everything that is a necessity for for living things to come into existence."

That would require magic. Belief in such a thing is Creationist thinking.

What they really hate is they can't prove a natural process could have produced all the life and order we do see in nature ...

Non-Sequitur.

Evolutionists don't really hate that they "can't prove a natural process could have produced all the life and order we do see in nature."

Creationists hate that they can't produce ANY logically valid verifiable evidence for this "Creator" they posit--let alone "proof." "[Creationists] can't explain this ... it's inexplicable!"

... while denying this precision in nature.

Naw. We just don't accept your "Texas Sharpshooting" as any kind of valid argument for the "precision in nature" you keep peddling.

 

[UltimateReality]

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!!!!!

What I really find so hard to believe is they can actually believe an undirected and a nonintelligent process would think to develop a place where life could thrive.

Strawman. Evolutionists do not believe "... a nonintelligent process would think."

That would require magic. Belief in such a thing is Creationist thinking.

Strawman. Evolutionists do not believe that a non-intelligent process that thinks "would develop living organisms and develop everything that is a necessity for for living things to come into existence."

That would require magic. Belief in such a thing is Creationist thinking.

What they really hate is they can't prove a natural process could have produced all the life and order we do see in nature ...

Non-Sequitur.

Evolutionists don't really hate that they "can't prove a natural process could have produced all the life and order we do see in nature."

Creationists hate that they can't produce ANY logically valid verifiable evidence for this "Creator" they posit--let alone "proof." "[Creationists] can't explain this ... it's inexplicable!"

... while denying this precision in nature.

Naw. We just don't accept your "Texas Sharpshooting" as any kind of valid argument for the "precision in nature" you keep peddling.

If you don't hate, why are you here???

 

[UltimateReality]

False. A creator is itself subject to a hierarchy of creators.

I suppose your not so subtle threat means your angry gods are plotting? And you know that how?

How do you know that "no one created the creator"? You just make that up?

The answer is: because I say so!

Daws, are you copying this? ....

Hollie, Please confirm or deny my statement about your personal life. If you deny that it is true, you will have my apology and I will speak of it no more. If you confirm it, I will also speak of it no more.