Creationists

[Youwerecreated]

No. You can't. Not without accepting the existence of some designer as a necessary premise for accepting said "empirical evidence" as support for your conclusion.

If you could, you'd have presented your evidence long ago.

This is just a lame attempt to deny that the necessary consequence of this "design" of yours is the "creation" you pretend you're not advancing.

Evidence has been presented but it goes ignored.

No it has not. I have responded DIRECTLY to the evidence you submit, but YOU fail to address the observation that every bit of this "evidence" you submit is some species of self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance.

This has been demonstrated for you, but you just ignore it.

I am asking for evidence that supports your view that natural processes kick started life.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance.

Special pleading where is this valid evidence you keep spouting about to the questions put to you ?

It has been presented to you a thousand times. Literally.

I have answered you questions every time. Yet, I note, you fail to answer mine.

Why is that, Pumpkin?

I have given you the formation of a cell being impossible to naturally form itself through natural processes. A cell had to have some kind of guidance forming it.

 

[LOki]

Special pleading where is this valid evidence you keep spouting about to the questions put to you ?

It has been presented to you a thousand times. Literally.

I have answered you questions every time. Yet, I note, you fail to answer mine.

Why is that, Pumpkin?

I have given you the formation of a cell being impossible to naturally form itself through natural processes. A cell had to have some kind of guidance forming it.

I didn't ask for that, did I? So you in fact did not answer me.

Why is that? "It's a simple question." Why won't you answer?

 

[LOki]

Evidence has been presented but it goes ignored.

No it has not. I have responded DIRECTLY to the evidence you submit, but YOU fail to address the observation that every bit of this "evidence" you submit is some species of self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance.

This has been demonstrated for you, but you just ignore it.

I am asking for evidence that supports your view that natural processes kick started life.

The natural processes--the interactions of non-living, non-intelligent energy/matter--thorough which life maintains itself and propagates itself; without which life ends, is my evidence that some natural process(es) are the cause of the beginning of life.

Do you deny the existence of the kinds of processes I cite? I didn't think so.

Do you deny that ending those processes also ends life? I didn't think so.

Now, I'm sure you still don't agree that natural processes can account for life in any manner.

And just for the sake of argument, let's just accept that you've just blown the notion out of the water. We'll call the idea illegitimate, and we can now table it.

No need to refute it any more.

So--FINALLY--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.

PREDICTION: If he presents at all, what Youwerecreated will bring as evidence is just more self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts of his creator instead.

 

[daws101]

That is where faith comes in,i have no reason to doubt what the word of God say's.

This is a lie. You have no reason to believe what the word of God say's, because you have no reason to believe there's a god.

Just like you would need faith to believe everything is the result of natural processes.

This is a lie. There is no faith involve when there's valid evidence that supports the belief.

Catching up with this thread so far this is the only post from your side worthy of a response.

Please point out your so called valid evidence that has caused the science community to be in agreement that life came from natural unguided processes ?

asked and answered

 

[daws101]

is it just me, or is all religious writing assumptive?

No because there were witnesses to some of the events written about.

once again why are you answering my posts when you said you wouldn't?
to answer bullshit none of the authors of the bible ever talked to directly to eyewitnesses..even if they did it would be hearsay...and that is not testable evidence.

 

[daws101]

loki, you're arguing with a guy who thinks that invisible people are real and you're losing!

Give it up already. Invisible beings in another dimension that no one has ever been to are hard to defeat!

Shoe on other foot,UR is arguing with someone willing to say the theory he defends is based on facts which in turn makes the explanations facts not opinions. This so called evidence is conjecture has never been observed.

Our invisible beings have been observed when they took human form and non human form.

That's so silly.

it's also unprovable LOL! SCRIPTURE QUOTE IN 5....4.....3....2......

 

[daws101]

catching up with this thread so far this is the only post from your side worthy of a response.

Please point out your so called valid evidence that has caused the science community to be in agreement that life came from natural unguided processes ?

the processes that maintain life, and cause it to grow and multiply are all natural processes--they are all interactions of non-living, non-intelligent bits of energy/matter--and when you interrupt those natural processes life ends.

hey someone can build a car and the car will do what it was designed to do correct ?

false comparison......false premise.... Logical fallacy. Looks like ywc hit the tri fecta of inane on that one!

 

[Hollie]

Shoe on other foot,UR is arguing with someone willing to say the theory he defends is based on facts which in turn makes the explanations facts not opinions. This so called evidence is conjecture has never been observed.

Our invisible beings have been observed when they took human form and non human form.

That's so silly.

it's also unprovable LOL! SCRIPTURE QUOTE IN 5....4.....3....2......

I was curious to see if the fundie was going to elaborate on the invisible beings (notice the plural, "beings"), that have been observed. It seems his fancied spirit world is inhabited by many supernatural and invisible beings.

He is one scary dude.

 

[daws101]

That's so silly.

it's also unprovable LOL! SCRIPTURE QUOTE IN 5....4.....3....2......

I was curious to see if the fundie was going to elaborate on the invisible beings (notice the plural, "beings"), that have been observed. It seems his fancied spirit world is inhabited by many supernatural and invisible beings.

He is one scary dude.

yep!

 

[Youwerecreated]

No it has not. I have responded DIRECTLY to the evidence you submit, but YOU fail to address the observation that every bit of this "evidence" you submit is some species of self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance.

This has been demonstrated for you, but you just ignore it.

I am asking for evidence that supports your view that natural processes kick started life.

The natural processes--the interactions of non-living, non-intelligent energy/matter--thorough which life maintains itself and propagates itself; without which life ends, is my evidence that some natural process(es) are the cause of the beginning of life.

Do you deny the existence of the kinds of processes I cite? I didn't think so.

Do you deny that ending those processes also ends life? I didn't think so.

Now, I'm sure you still don't agree that natural processes can account for life in any manner.

And just for the sake of argument, let's just accept that you've just blown the notion out of the water. We'll call the idea illegitimate, and we can now table it.

No need to refute it any more.

So--FINALLY--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.

PREDICTION: If he presents at all, what Youwerecreated will bring as evidence is just more self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts of his creator instead.

Please give me one example of non living matter producing a living organism.

 

[Youwerecreated]

This is a lie. You have no reason to believe what the word of God say's, because you have no reason to believe there's a god.

This is a lie. There is no faith involve when there's valid evidence that supports the belief.

Catching up with this thread so far this is the only post from your side worthy of a response.

Please point out your so called valid evidence that has caused the science community to be in agreement that life came from natural unguided processes ?

asked and answered

Has never been answered, if it has there would be no debate.

 

[Youwerecreated]

is it just me, or is all religious writing assumptive?

No because there were witnesses to some of the events written about.

once again why are you answering my posts when you said you wouldn't?
to answer bullshit none of the authors of the bible ever talked to directly to eyewitnesses..even if they did it would be hearsay...and that is not testable evidence.

Read up on JOSEPHUS !

 

[Youwerecreated]

Shoe on other foot,UR is arguing with someone willing to say the theory he defends is based on facts which in turn makes the explanations facts not opinions. This so called evidence is conjecture has never been observed.

Our invisible beings have been observed when they took human form and non human form.

That's so silly.

it's also unprovable LOL! SCRIPTURE QUOTE IN 5....4.....3....2......

How bout fallen angel offspring and their DNA that is still with us ?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEyi_5I9JrE]GIANTS , Nephilim and Fallen Angels - PHOTOS and evidence - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Youwerecreated]

the processes that maintain life, and cause it to grow and multiply are all natural processes--they are all interactions of non-living, non-intelligent bits of energy/matter--and when you interrupt those natural processes life ends.

hey someone can build a car and the car will do what it was designed to do correct ?

false comparison......false premise.... Logical fallacy. Looks like ywc hit the tri fecta of inane on that one!

Nope,things that are designed do what they were designed to do, Whether they were cars,homes,computers,phones and last but not least biological mechanisms.

 

[UltimateReality]

This is a lie. You have no reason to believe what the word of God say's, because you have no reason to believe there's a god.

This is a lie. There is no faith involve when there's valid evidence that supports the belief.

Catching up with this thread so far this is the only post from your side worthy of a response.

Please point out your so called valid evidence that has caused the science community to be in agreement that life came from natural unguided processes ?

The processes that maintain life, and cause it to grow and multiply are all natural processes--they are all interactions of non-living, non-intelligent bits of energy/matter...

Because I say so!!

So let me get this straight... We are alive because are parts aren't?

 

[LOki]

I am asking for evidence that supports your view that natural processes kick started life.

The natural processes--the interactions of non-living, non-intelligent energy/matter--thorough which life maintains itself and propagates itself; without which life ends, is my evidence that some natural process(es) are the cause of the beginning of life.

Do you deny the existence of the kinds of processes I cite? I didn't think so.

Do you deny that ending those processes also ends life? I didn't think so.

Now, I'm sure you still don't agree that natural processes can account for life in any manner.

And just for the sake of argument, let's just accept that you've just blown the notion out of the water. We'll call the idea illegitimate, and we can now table it.

No need to refute it any more.

So--FINALLY--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.

PREDICTION: If he presents at all, what Youwerecreated will bring as evidence is just more self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts of his creator instead.

Please give me one example of non living matter producing a living organism.

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

 

[LOki]

Catching up with this thread so far this is the only post from your side worthy of a response.

Please point out your so called valid evidence that has caused the science community to be in agreement that life came from natural unguided processes ?

The processes that maintain life, and cause it to grow and multiply are all natural processes--they are all interactions of non-living, non-intelligent bits of energy/matter...

Because I say so!!

So let me get this straight... We are alive because are parts aren't?

We are alive because of interactions between parts that aren't.

The evidence for this is in the result of interrupting those interactions. This not contestable, is it?

Now, I'm sure you still don't agree that natural processes can account for life in any manner.

And just for the sake of argument, let's just accept that you've just blown the notion out of the water. We'll call the idea illegitimate, and we can now table it.

No need to refute it any more.

So--FINALLY--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.

PREDICTION: If he presents at all, what Youwerecreated will bring as evidence is just more self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts of his creator instead.

 

[Hollie]

hey someone can build a car and the car will do what it was designed to do correct ?

false comparison......false premise.... Logical fallacy. Looks like ywc hit the tri fecta of inane on that one!

Nope,things that are designed do what they were designed to do, Whether they were cars,homes,computers,phones and last but not least biological mechanisms.

We can thus assume that your designer gods designed a flawed and imperfect existence wherein disease, death and suffering were a part of their plan.

Either that, or the gods are simply hapless boobs and can't seem to get much of anything right.

 

[Hollie]

That's so silly.

it's also unprovable LOL! SCRIPTURE QUOTE IN 5....4.....3....2......

How bout fallen angel offspring and their DNA that is still with us ?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEyi_5I9JrE]GIANTS , Nephilim and Fallen Angels - PHOTOS and evidence - YouTube[/ame]

Well, if you read it on the internet, it must be true, right? I read somewhere that every YouTube video posted on the internet is true. I read that statement on the internet thus confirming its accuracy.

So how about fallen angel offspring and their DNA that Is still with us?

How do we check the DNA of supernatural creatures to confirm this? Not surprisingly, I'll wager you watched a YouTube video proposing exactly your claim.

Do supernatural creatures have a need for DNA and such biological mechanisms? I'd have thought the gods would not have burdened angels, jinn and other such supernatural entities with the poorly and carelessly designed biology created for terrestrial life.