Creationists

[UltimateReality]

Ah, yes. With your first sentence you have employed the "you can't disprove it", tactic.

It really is a standard ploy for those whose arguments are intellectually bankrupt and bereft support or substantiation.

Wait, you're talking about Darwinism right? It isn't falsifiable so you can clamor for folks to disprove it.

What was the name of the school you attended again?

 

[UltimateReality]

That's a rather naive claim. It's abundantly clear that bible literalists believe the bible to be more scientifically accurate than science texts. There is nothing in modern science that confirms global floods, a 6000 year old earth or men rising from the dead. Yet, fundies believe that in spite of the scientific evidence refuting those beliefs.

How can it be abundantly clear when no one has made that claim?

I take it you didn't read the links I posted where they believe they did find evidence of the flood and how the parting of the red sea was possible.

People believe many things. People believe they have seen Bigfoot

It was really just Hollie before laser hair removal.

 

[UltimateReality]

How can it be abundantly clear when no one has made that claim?

I take it you didn't read the links I posted where they believe they did find evidence of the flood and how the parting of the red sea was possible.

People believe many things. People believe they have seen Bigfoot and people believe they have been abducted by aliens.

Why not post the results of the data from the scientists who peer reviewed the data collected by those people in your links.

Let me guess - there is no peer reviewed data, right?

So now you want to change the subject?

He/She has already been given links to over 50 peer-reviewed ID papers and of course, she conveniently pretended like they didn't exist by ignoring them. Just like she is ignoring my questions on her education.

 

[newpolitics]

Where has anyone said the Bible was MORE scientifically accurate than modern day academic science books?

Either provide the proof or retract your accusation.

That's a rather naive claim. It's abundantly clear that bible literalists believe the bible to be more scientifically accurate than science texts.

Keep dreaming, Man-hands. What school did you go to?

If creationists prefer the hypothesis that god created humans over the theory of evolution, then this is exactly what they are doing. For people that believe evolution and god are incompatible, you can not deny that you believe the bible to be more scientifically accurate than modern science books which discuss evolution.

 

[UltimateReality]

How can it be abundantly clear when no one has made that claim?

I take it you didn't read the links I posted where they believe they did find evidence of the flood and how the parting of the red sea was possible.

People believe many things. People believe they have seen Bigfoot and people believe they have been abducted by aliens.

Why not post the results of the data from the scientists who peer reviewed the data collected by those people in your links.

Let me guess - there is no peer reviewed data, right?

So now you want to change the subject?

He/She has already been given links to over 50 peer-reviewed ID papers and of course, she conveniently pretended like they didn't exist by ignoring them. Just like she is ignoring my questions on her education. She thinks if she waits long enough everyone, Loki, NP, Daws, will forgot she accused YWC and I of having no science training and also stated we never went to college. But I have the post numbers written down, so when folks get aggravated at continuing to see the large fonts, I will just refer them back to Hollies posts. Hollie has degraded this entire thread into a nonsensical, childish game, and in case you haven't noticed, I'm more than happy to play along. She just posts the same stuff over and over that has no relevance to the topics at hand. She is here to troll and aggravate. Either she is really really stupid [which I'm starting to believe] or she thinks she is manipulating YWC and I by aggravating us. What she hasn't realized is I shook the dust off my sandals many, many pages back and I'm already in the next town.

 

[UltimateReality]

Ah, yes. With your first sentence you have employed the "you can't disprove it", tactic.

It really is a standard ploy for those whose arguments are intellectually bankrupt and bereft support or substantiation.

So yes, I have proof that there was no great flood, that no one ever rose from the dead and the sea never parted.

Prove I don't.

Well there is evidence that shows some of those things did happen or were at least possible.

Not really. Not consistent with the Bible story. Sorry.

For good reason.

You weren't there either. Explain yourself.

That's probably why we call believing in Christ as having faith.

Right. You need neither verifiable evidence nor valid logic to hold your belief, but you insist upon absolute conclusive proof to change your mind.

We are well aware of the intellectual dishonesty practiced by the faithful.

You have absolutely nothing to support your argument other than "it didn't happen".

Nonsense.

C'mon Loki!! Noah "might have" built an ark [we see many modern day men building ships] and he "could have" taken two of every animal in with him [we see lots of animals rounded up by men for modern day zoo's] and a flood that covered the whole earth "might have" happened [we've seen some pretty big modern day floods with the tsunami's and all]. Sheesh, that sounds just like one of them there just so Darwin stories you are always spoutin' off about. Guess I've outlaid irrefutable scientific evidence of Noah and the Ark using some good old Darwinian magic. Yep, it's a fact alright.

In fact, by some mistake on Noah's part, the giraffe's cages had no food. They had to try and get food from the Hippo's pen above. Only the giraffe's with the long necks survived the boat ride. The short necked giraffes on the Ark died of starvation.

 

[newpolitics]

People believe many things. People believe they have seen Bigfoot and people believe they have been abducted by aliens.

Why not post the results of the data from the scientists who peer reviewed the data collected by those people in your links.

Let me guess - there is no peer reviewed data, right?

So now you want to change the subject?

He/She has already been given links to over 50 peer-reviewed ID papers and of course, she conveniently pretended like they didn't exist by ignoring them. Just like she is ignoring my questions on her education.

Don't mention the number of peer reviewed articles for ID and cite this as evidence that ID is a legitimate scientific theory. In comparison to the number of peer reviewed articles about evolution, it is next to nothing. Why is this? Because the facts for ID don't bear out.


Project Steve: A list of scientists named Steve, who support the theory of evolution. (hint: it is more than the entire list of creation pseudo-scientists who "dissent from evolution")

Project Steve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[UltimateReality]

It makes sense because you want it to make sense. Darwinism has survived due to man's sinful nature and the convenience for the purpose of denying God. Do you find it odd that so many youths in religious homes who struggle with same sex attraction seize upon the atheism that the Darwinian myth provides and wind up denying the religion of their youth? Darwinism is merely a tool to rationalize God away. If I can convince myself that God doesn't exist, then maybe I can get rid of all this guilt and shame that comes from giving into my sinful human nature.

So, you suffer from self-loathing and religion helps you through the day. Super!
Do you find it odd that so many who deny their same-sex attraction seek out gods as a way to deny that attraction?

I don't find it odd at all that you just make up this nonsense as you go along.

It can only be concluded that your posting more creationist nonsense... unless, of course, you can post some data to support your claim.

If it turns out that someone comes up with indisputable evidence proving there is no God, I can guarantee you that evolution will not be the reason we eventually find for everything that exists. One day not too long from now people will look back and wonder how so many intelligent people could have bought into such a foolish proposition as the Darwinian Myth. Even if I were to admit God didn't do it, it still doesn't change the fact that natural selection and random mutation didn't either.

There is a wealth of indisputable evidence proving there is no God. Can you prove their is not?

Can you prove you have any formal education?

 

[UltimateReality]

No, not exactly the same. Your complaint about your strawman expression of natural selection was that it is circular and not falsifiable; what I have provided for you in it's place, is falsifiable and not circular.

Please provide a scientifically workable definition of fitness to be applied to these "traits" to make this falsifiable.

Fuck you.

All you have to do is identify an organism whose traits are suited to surviving in the environment it lives in, and then put that organism in an environment that the organisms traits are NOT suited to survive in.

If the organism survives anyway, then "fitness" is falsified.

Can you grasp that, Skippy?

I said a minimum of 10,000 years ago spanky. Any nitwit knows what happens to a fish out of water. Ha! Kind of like you in this thread.

And yeah, I am grasping your circular reasoning loud and clear, Crunchy Jif.

 

[UltimateReality]

Why do you presume to believe that others will accept something as true that is known to be false? The bible says that God found his creation to be a disappointment and that he had no more patience or forgiveness, and sent a great flood to drown most of humanity. If you think this is not the very definition of evil, go drown your children. Let us know how that works out. The next time, the gods will use fire. How great is that?

Beyond the staggeringly cruel and immoral implications of that horrific story, the alleged "Great Flood' would have been such a catastrophic event that it would have left unambiguous and unmistakable traces. But none of that evidence can be found. The Flood of Noah is a complete myth. A tale and nothing more. So is the tale of a young earth. The fact is, there is no compelling evidence for a 6000 year old earth.

If you have uncritically bought into the fable that the first man was created from dust or mud, and the first woman was made from his rib, YOUR problems addressing the rational world have only just begun. Time for a reality check!

Oh Hollie. Where is the facepalm emoticon when you need one? Evolution also teaches the first man came from dirt, and the second man, and the third man, and the... so who is the really foolish one here? By the way though, which of the hominids were the first "man'? Also, the word "rib" is a mis-translation. Rib actuall stands for Ribosomes.

You probably didn't realize that's what you learned in college. By the way, where was it you attended???

You have managed to get every statement wrong.

You should try actually opening a science text instead of spending so much time worshipping at the altar of Harun Yahya.

Okay, Hollie, you got me! I admit it!!! I love Harun Yahya. He is so dreamy don't you think? I just can't get enough of his teachings. Everything I've learned to post in here comes from this amazing muslim man. He is so wise. Where did you learn all your massive knowledge? Was it at a college?

 

[UltimateReality]

That's a rather naive claim. It's abundantly clear that bible literalists believe the bible to be more scientifically accurate than science texts.

Keep dreaming, Man-hands. What school did you go to?

If creationists prefer the hypothesis that god created humans over the theory of evolution, then this is exactly what they are doing. For people that believe evolution and god are incompatible, you can not deny that you believe the Bible to be more scientifically accurate than modern science books which discuss evolution.

This bolded addition above was not a caveat of Hollie's post, and I would not deny the statement you have posted above.

 

[UltimateReality]

So now you want to change the subject?

He/She has already been given links to over 50 peer-reviewed ID papers and of course, she conveniently pretended like they didn't exist by ignoring them. Just like she is ignoring my questions on her education.

Don't mention the number of peer reviewed articles for ID and cite this as evidence that ID is a legitimate scientific theory. In comparison to the number of peer reviewed articles about evolution, it is next to nothing. Why is this? Because the facts for ID don't bear out.


Project Steve: A list of scientists named Steve, who support the theory of evolution. (hint: it is more than the entire list of creation pseudo-scientists who "dissent from evolution")

Project Steve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NP, at the risk of sounding like Loki, this is an appeal to the masses fallacy. Also, even though I will make the claim now, my post before was only related to the fact that ID peer-reviewed studies exist and so far Hollie has chosen to ignore them. I do believe ID is legitimate science, every bit as legitimate as the Darwinian Myth.

 

[LOki]

Well there is evidence that shows some of those things did happen or were at least possible.

Not really. Not consistent with the Bible story. Sorry.

For good reason.

You weren't there either. Explain yourself.

Right. You need neither verifiable evidence nor valid logic to hold your belief, but you insist upon absolute conclusive proof to change your mind.

We are well aware of the intellectual dishonesty practiced by the faithful.

You have absolutely nothing to support your argument other than "it didn't happen".

Nonsense.

C'mon Loki!! Noah "might have" built an ark [we see many modern day men building ships] ...

Yet there's no evidence such a vessel was built, and the evidence leads to the conclusion that such a vessel could not have met it's design specification.

... and he "could have" taken two of every animal in with him [we see lots of animals rounded up by men for modern day zoo's] ...

Yet the evidence is conclusive that no such thing ever happened.

... and a flood that covered the whole earth "might have" happened [we've seen some pretty big modern day floods with the tsunami's and all].

Yet the evidence is conclusive that no such global flood ever happened.

Sheesh, that sounds just like one of them there just so Darwin stories you are always spoutin' off about.

No. Not really. Valid logic applied to verifiable evidence supports evolution.

Guess I've outlaid irrefutable scientific evidence of Noah and the Ark using some good old Darwinian magic. Yep, it's a fact alright.

No. you're a remorseless fuck up.

In fact, by some mistake on Noah's part, the giraffe's cages had no food. They had to try and get food from the Hippo's pen above. Only the giraffe's with the long necks survived the boat ride. The short necked giraffes on the Ark died of starvation.

You should read your own story. Couldn't have happened. There were only 2 giraffes--if any of them had starved, there'd be no giraffes.

 

[LOki]

Please provide a scientifically workable definition of fitness to be applied to these "traits" to make this falsifiable.

Fuck you.

All you have to do is identify an organism whose traits are suited to surviving in the environment it lives in, and then put that organism in an environment that the organisms traits are NOT suited to survive in.

If the organism survives anyway, then "fitness" is falsified.

Can you grasp that, Skippy?

I said a minimum of 10,000 years ago spanky. Any nitwit knows what happens to a fish out of water. Ha! Kind of like you in this thread.

And yeah, I am grasping your circular reasoning loud and clear, Crunchy Jif.

There's no circular reasoning, except for that invented by you in the construction of your strawman caricature of natural selection.

 

[Hollie]

He/She has already been given links to over 50 peer-reviewed ID papers and of course, she conveniently pretended like they didn't exist by ignoring them. Just like she is ignoring my questions on her education.

Don't mention the number of peer reviewed articles for ID and cite this as evidence that ID is a legitimate scientific theory. In comparison to the number of peer reviewed articles about evolution, it is next to nothing. Why is this? Because the facts for ID don't bear out.


Project Steve: A list of scientists named Steve, who support the theory of evolution. (hint: it is more than the entire list of creation pseudo-scientists who "dissent from evolution")

Project Steve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NP, at the risk of sounding like Loki, this is an appeal to the masses fallacy. Also, even though I will make the claim now, my post before was only related to the fact that ID peer-reviewed studies exist and so far Hollie has chosen to ignore them. I do believe ID is legitimate science, every bit as legitimate as the Darwinian Myth.

It's convenient to claim that peer reviewed papers exist, (peer reviewed by scientists, not ID quacks), you just consistently fail to present evidence for those peer reviewed studies.

 

[UltimateReality]

Not really. Not consistent with the Bible story. Sorry.

For good reason.

You weren't there either. Explain yourself.

Right. You need neither verifiable evidence nor valid logic to hold your belief, but you insist upon absolute conclusive proof to change your mind.

We are well aware of the intellectual dishonesty practiced by the faithful.

Nonsense.

C'mon Loki!! Noah "might have" built an ark [we see many modern day men building ships] ...

Yet there's no evidence such a vessel was built, and the evidence leads to the conclusion that such a vessel could not have met it's design specification.

Yet the evidence is conclusive that no such thing ever happened.

Yet the evidence is conclusive that no such global flood ever happened.

No. Not really. Valid logic applied to verifiable evidence supports evolution.

Guess I've outlaid irrefutable scientific evidence of Noah and the Ark using some good old Darwinian magic. Yep, it's a fact alright.

No. you're a remorseless fuck up.

In fact, by some mistake on Noah's part, the giraffe's cages had no food. They had to try and get food from the Hippo's pen above. Only the giraffe's with the long necks survived the boat ride. The short necked giraffes on the Ark died of starvation.

You should read your own story. Couldn't have happened. There were only 2 giraffes--if any of them had starved, there'd be no giraffes.

Maybe the giraffes were considered clean, so he took 7 pairs.

 

[UltimateReality]

Don't mention the number of peer reviewed articles for ID and cite this as evidence that ID is a legitimate scientific theory. In comparison to the number of peer reviewed articles about evolution, it is next to nothing. Why is this? Because the facts for ID don't bear out.


Project Steve: A list of scientists named Steve, who support the theory of evolution. (hint: it is more than the entire list of creation pseudo-scientists who "dissent from evolution")

Project Steve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NP, at the risk of sounding like Loki, this is an appeal to the masses fallacy. Also, even though I will make the claim now, my post before was only related to the fact that ID peer-reviewed studies exist and so far Hollie has chosen to ignore them. I do believe ID is legitimate science, every bit as legitimate as the Darwinian Myth.

It's convenient to claim that peer reviewed papers exist, (peer reviewed by scientists, not ID quacks), you just consistently fail to present evidence for those peer reviewed studies.

Kind of like the evidence of your college attendance!!!

 

[UltimateReality]

Fuck you.

All you have to do is identify an organism whose traits are suited to surviving in the environment it lives in, and then put that organism in an environment that the organisms traits are NOT suited to survive in.

If the organism survives anyway, then "fitness" is falsified.

Can you grasp that, Skippy?

I said a minimum of 10,000 years ago spanky. Any nitwit knows what happens to a fish out of water. Ha! Kind of like you in this thread.

And yeah, I am grasping your circular reasoning loud and clear, Crunchy Jif.

There's no circular reasoning, except for that invented by you in the construction of your strawman caricature of natural selection.

Oh, do tell. Survival of the Fittest is not part of Natural Selection?

 

[Hollie]

NP, at the risk of sounding like Loki, this is an appeal to the masses fallacy. Also, even though I will make the claim now, my post before was only related to the fact that ID peer-reviewed studies exist and so far Hollie has chosen to ignore them. I do believe ID is legitimate science, every bit as legitimate as the Darwinian Myth.

It's convenient to claim that peer reviewed papers exist, (peer reviewed by scientists, not ID quacks), you just consistently fail to present evidence for those peer reviewed studies.

Kind of like the evidence of your college attendance!!!

So you're aware that your fallacious comment about ID, peer reviewed papers is nonsense.

Good for you. You're again exposed as a fraud.

 

[newpolitics]

He/She has already been given links to over 50 peer-reviewed ID papers and of course, she conveniently pretended like they didn't exist by ignoring them. Just like she is ignoring my questions on her education.

Don't mention the number of peer reviewed articles for ID and cite this as evidence that ID is a legitimate scientific theory. In comparison to the number of peer reviewed articles about evolution, it is next to nothing. Why is this? Because the facts for ID don't bear out.


Project Steve: A list of scientists named Steve, who support the theory of evolution. (hint: it is more than the entire list of creation pseudo-scientists who "dissent from evolution")

Project Steve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NP, at the risk of sounding like Loki, this is an appeal to the masses fallacy. Also, even though I will make the claim now, my post before was only related to the fact that ID peer-reviewed studies exist and so far Hollie has chosen to ignore them. I do believe ID is legitimate science, every bit as legitimate as the Darwinian Myth.

Of course it is an appeal to popular opinion to cite Project Steve, but it still illustrates a point. It doesn't necessarily make the claims of evolution true, and that wasn't why I posted it, but it does mean that thousands upon thousands of experts who know far more than you or I about the subject at hand, do think that evolution is true. What's more, is they are actively using this information in their field to improve and understand our world, demonstrated by the technology we see around us in medical biology (ie, vaccines). This is a concrete example of the fruits of understanding evolution, as it lies at the center of understanding biology. The same can not be said for IDers, as their model provides no predictive power. Name one example of predictive power that ID provides.

If the tables were turned, but the facts of evolution were the same, including its inception time (150 years ago), and there only a handful of scientists who believed in it, and the vast majority of scientists believed in creationism; again, it wouldn't mean that either side was necessarily true or false, but it would mean that people who have the firmest grasp of the material seem to be convinced that the propositions of ID are true. Based on this, I might also more seriously consider that side based simply on popular opinion, because this involves somewhat esoteric knowledge, especially in application, which neither you or I have the capability to do. You may study evolution simply to further debunk it, which I know you do, but you do not actually attempt to every apply this knowledge to anything in the universe, because your ideas are not empirically tested in any way. That's a critical distinction. Biologists do. Iders don't, because their hypothesis doesn't offer them this capability .