Creationists

[UltimateReality]

The above is just a reiteration of the boilerplate, science loathing diatribe we’ve read before.

Purely superficially, if one takes the time to briefly read their history, one will quickly realize that gods are a convenience, usually for politically motivated reasons. In ancient times to the present, it is quite simple to whip up a populace into agreeing with a specific idea if you can convince that populace that there is an unseen being that is resolutely on their side. This is an extension of our tribal instincts, wherein we place the mantle of superiority upon a person or persons, providing they can deliver the things we have convinced ourselves we want. No mere mortal can come close to instilling a sense of loyalty and duty that a god can, especially as over the millennia god's powers have been enhanced and expanded.

It’s odd that evidences of the gods would take the form of a book that we know was created by men and which we know was changed, edited and revised such that we have no way of knowing the original contents. In practice, this is the egregious sin of idolatry - specifically, worshiping a book - and a book containing no eyewitness reportage re: the religious traditions that were the basis for the religion, an arbitrary compilation of writings from murky sources collected and edited centuries after the alleged occurrence of the events for which the believers would maintain it provides an infallible account, thus readily attributing divinity to writers unknown (and not to those haphazardly excluded), the compilers, editors, translators, scribes, etc., who had a hand, literally or figuratively, in the literary project. To err is human - unless you are amongst the legions of book worshippers upon whom the believers bestow godhead.

Interesting. Please tell me more about the Koran.

Your worshipping at the altar of Harun Yahya should have given you some insight into the koran.

Pretending that the bibles are materially different is wishful thinking. The classic argument against the proposed attributes of the gods (the omni's) show that the triune characteristics define gods that cannot possibly exist. One cannot be all good, all powerful and all knowing in any logical sense, at least not within the strictures of our present existence. The fact that there is suffering, death, and evil (if one is compelled to believe in things such as good and evil as concepts that exist as realities and not simply as human conventions), establishes that a god, if he is to have created all, has allowed such things to exist in the first place. This is not consistent with omnibenvolence. If a thing is all good, then by definition there can be nothing evil about it; certainly it is incapable of creating anything that in and of itself can be considered evil.

But of course for fundies, logic and rational thinking doesn't account for much.

Haran Yahya is an infidel. I will require you never to mention his name in the same sentence as mine.

 

[Hollie]

Interesting. Please tell me more about the Koran.

Your worshipping at the altar of Harun Yahya should have given you some insight into the koran.

Pretending that the bibles are materially different is wishful thinking. The classic argument against the proposed attributes of the gods (the omni's) show that the triune characteristics define gods that cannot possibly exist. One cannot be all good, all powerful and all knowing in any logical sense, at least not within the strictures of our present existence. The fact that there is suffering, death, and evil (if one is compelled to believe in things such as good and evil as concepts that exist as realities and not simply as human conventions), establishes that a god, if he is to have created all, has allowed such things to exist in the first place. This is not consistent with omnibenvolence. If a thing is all good, then by definition there can be nothing evil about it; certainly it is incapable of creating anything that in and of itself can be considered evil.

But of course for fundies, logic and rational thinking doesn't account for much.

Haran Yahya is an infidel. I will require you never to mention his name in the same sentence as mine.

It doesn't make sense for you to criticize Harun Yahya as so much of the anti-science agenda and falsified science is ruthlessly stolen from fundie Christians.

 

[UltimateReality]

Your worshipping... [useless repetitive dribble deleted for brevity]... much.

Haran Yahya is an infidel. I will require you never to mention his name in the same sentence as mine.

It doesn't make sense for you to criticize Harun Yahya as so much of the anti-science agenda and falsified science is ruthlessly stolen from fundie Christians.

I will require you a 2nd time never to mention the infidel's name in the same sentence referencing me.

And by the way...

where did you go to college?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Oh you poor Harun Yahya groupie. Proof of the gods would negate any requirement for religious faith.

As there is no proof for any gods, you're left with belief in the supermagical.

Go figure. You missed the comparison as well.

There was nothing to figure. Your silly attempts at comparison are typically connected to supernatural entities.

Look Hollie, I hold a degree in science. Can someone who holds a degree in science look at evidence and infer design verses your invisible creator through naturalism ? if i can't please provide an answer as to why ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

You and the other fundie both claim an understanding of the subject but the fact is, neither of you can offer anything more that cutting and pasting from creationist websites.

You have already stated that creationism is stealth religion. It's quite obvious the "science" that oozes from creationist ministries is nothing more than attacks on scienceintended to further religion.

Where does your information come from? Oh that's right. You never actually provide any!!!!

You have already identified that your "information" comes from sources that are religious based. What information are you going to cut and paste from fundie websites that anyone needs to be bother refuting?

Holie some information has come from people actually holding degrees in science. The people holding the same degrees that believe in naturalism how are they superior in grey matter ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

You and the other fundie both claim an understanding of the subject but the fact is, neither of you can offer anything more that cutting and pasting from creationist websites.

You have already stated that creationism is stealth religion. It's quite obvious the "science" that oozes from creationist ministries is nothing more than attacks on science intended to further religion.

Hollie, when are you gonna open the discussion on mutation fixation ?

I think you are giving him way too much credit.

Yep,apparently so and the other fundie only wants to talk about one issue not all 9 that was raised.

 

[LOki]

The "God thing" you refer to has been explained to you numerous times in the past 600 pages.

I do not dispute this. I think I was very clear that, I have been exposed to literally hundreds of self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts of some "God."

Even though you refuse to acknowledge this verifiable fact of reality, it remains certainly true; does it not?

Of course it does.

If you don't understand the concept that has been explained to you numerous times by now, then you will probably never be able to grasp the religious and philosophical notions of the Creator.

You'll just have to excuse me for giving you the benefit of the doubt that you might have an account for this "Creator" you posit, that is NOT a self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance account.

You do recognize that such fundamentally flawed notions are impossible to accept as intellectually valid? You don't actually expect me to consider any of those self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts to be worth considering as accounts of a real thing, by any intellectually rigorous standard, do you?

I wouldn't think so if you considered yourself a rational human being. If I am to assume that you are a rational human being, I cannot assume that you would accept such accounts so fundamentally flawed that they lack logical validity. So again, excuse me for giving you the benefit of the doubt.

If you have an account for this "Creator" you posit, that is NOT a self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance account, please share it.

Because I cannot imagine any reason consistent with integrity of intellectual honesty that you would refuse to do so.

Your lack of understanding also brings to light your failure to grasp your OWN Darwinian religious beliefs as well.

Spoken like a true Hovindist.

Let's look at your quote, "How the %^&$ should I know? Besides, the Theory of Evolution is not a theory on the identity of the common ancestor of all life."

From Wiki:
"In evolutionary biology, a group of organisms share common descent if they have a common ancestor. There is strong quantitative support for the theory that all living organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor.[1][2]"

Three things are thus far made apparent from your source:

1. "trong quantitative support for the theory that all living organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor" strongly refutes the notion that such position has any corresponding relationship with religion (in the belief in supernatural agencies, and "ritual observance of faith" sense).[*] That the notion "that all living organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor" is not quite a "just so story" in quite the manner of so many accounts of a "Creator" who created an existence that is "just so" precisely the way the believers of their "Creator" say it is.[*] There's nothing that would lead one to the conclusion that the Theory of Evolution is a theory of the identity of the common ancestor of all life. I accept the possibility that your source might later support a different conclusion.

From Wiki:
"The last universal ancestor (LUA) (also called the last universal common ancestor, LUCA), that is, the most recent common ancestor of all currently living organisms,[1] is believed to have appeared about 3.9 billion years ago."

This appears to be consistent with the evidence. However, I fail to see that the Theory of Evolution is a theory of the identity of the common ancestor of all life.

From Wiki:
"Considering what we know of the offspring groups (see phylogenetic bracketing), the LUA was a small, single-cell organism. It would have had a cell wall and a ring-shaped coil of DNA floating freely within the cell, like modern bacteria."

Yes. This description appears to be a sensible conclusion drawn from the available data, but its not an implication that the Theory of Evolution is a theory of the identity of the common ancestor of all life.

From Wiki:
"Charles Darwin proposed the theory of universal common descent through an evolutionary process in his book On the Origin of Species, saying, "Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed."

I don't think that anyone would dispute that Darwin is not presenting the Theory of Evolution as a theory of the identity of the common ancestor of all life.

It is no wonder you struggle with the religious concept of God when you have so blatantly demonstrated your total lack of understanding of the very metaphysical beliefs on origins you espouse.

"Metaphysical" is an awfully big word to be used by someone who struggled with difference between what constitutes a definition, what constitutes a theory, and what constitutes an argument.

The fact that I do not accept the dopey notions you assign to me; the fact that my metaphysical beliefs are entirely alien to your superstitious metaphysics; is no indication at all that I have any lack of understanding of the metaphysical beliefs on origins that I actually espouse.

Let me remind you that where you have imposed upon yourself an ontological barrier preventing you from concluding that a Christian Creator is not necessary for the existence of everything you observe, no such barrier prevents me from concluding that a creator is responsible for the existence of everything I observe if applying valid logic to the verifiable evidence points to that conclusion.

Digging deeper into the LUA, we come across the concept of horizontal gene transfer. If there was ever an example of evolutionary biologists making up "just so" stories to force the evidence to fit their theory, this is it.

Seriously? "Just so story"?

I'm not at all certain you know what you're talking about. I am pretty certain that you're misusing the term though.

Horizontal gene transfer cannot be a "Just-So story considering that the mechanisms for it seem pretty well understood--you know, in precisely the way the "Creator" of most typical accounts is not.

Your denial of the presupposition of the Darwinian party line when it comes to evidence just demonstrates your blind faith in the concept.

You're just making this shit up--just like a true Hovindist. Seriously. It's the precise made-up bullshit from you I have been exposing this whole time. The same made-up bullshit that you wish us all to believe is some kind of heady "sarcasm" that is lost on the "mental midgets" that surround you.

Having already presumed the absolute certainty of the existence of this invented Creator of yours, you simply dismiss any verifiable evidence that contradicts your baseless preconceptions, SOLEY on the basis that such evidence does not support your baseless conclusions.

Having placed yourself on a pedestal with your absolute certainty, you simply refuse to accept that others refuse to conform to your bullshit intellectual paradigm; that others are capable of refusing to conform to your bullshit intellectual paradigm.

Evolutionary biologists presuppose Darwinism is true and force fit the evidence to the theory.

I will remind you again UltimateReality (CHRIST! Your nick is prima-facie evidence of your sanctimonious hubris), that where you have imposed upon yourself an ontological barrier preventing you from concluding that a Christian Creator is not necessary for the existence of everything you observe, no such barrier prevents me from concluding that a creator is responsible for the existence of everything I observe if applying valid logic to the verifiable evidence points to that conclusion.

Their response when genetic evidence didn't add up??? Evolution has to be true so the genes must have transferred. What an absolute joke!!! And you call this science? Yeah, whatever.

This is how you wish to go about this? You're just going to deny the verifiable reality of horizontal gene transfer, and then use that denial as a rationalization to assign to your opponents assertions that they simply do not make, and then you're going to accuse them of sumitting "Just-So" stories as evidence? Really?

Considering your brilliant and uncompromising track record, I really thought I could no longer be surprised by your intellectual dishonesty--HOLY FUCK WAS I WRONG!

I suppose I can try and explain God to you one more time.

(FINALLY!) Please do!

If we just assume for a second all the made up BS about evolution is true, ID theory's hypothesis could easily be applied to Darwin's statement above as the intelligent agent (lower case) responsible for "breathing life" into the so called LUA.

I REFUSE to dispute this. Seriously. You CANNOT from this point forward EVER claim I "... presuppose Darwinism (you Hovindist retard) is true and force fit the evidence to the theory."

However, ID goes farther because there is evidence that the same intelligent agent returned to earth several times since it's formation to "seed" new life forms.

Oh!

AWESOME! I can't wait! For you SURELY are about to present this evidence. Yes?

I have been hoping one of you guys would finally come through, and UltimateReality ... you're really going to do it! Right?

And considering your complaint regarding how "Evolutionary biologists presuppose Darwinism is true and force fit the evidence to the theory", I can expect that the evidence you will shortly provide will no no way require me to presuppose this "intelligent agent" you posit is real in order for me to conclude that said "evidence" is actually "... evidence that [an] intelligent agent returned to earth several times since it's formation to "seed" new life forms."

Just for the record ... is there a secret number of times someone must ask? I just can't figure why you guys have been holding back for so long!

ID makes no references to the intelligent agent's identity, only hypothesizes that there is ample evidence that he/she/it predates the universe.

Whoa! WHOA WHOA! Pal!

First, there is NO FUCKING DOUBT that Intelligent Design identifies the "intelligent agent's" identity.

"Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialistic world view, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."​

Who cares? Right? Because you're about to lay on us that evidence!

Except that you don't. :frownyface: WTF?

You just claim that ID ... WHAT? "... hypothesizes that there is ample evidence that he/she/it predates the universe."

Do you mean to tell me that all every time you asshats went on about how "there is evidence" to support your claims, you were just presenting some fucking HYPOTHESIS that there is such evidence? NOT that there IS evidence, but that you've got some really good reason to assert there is evidence; and perhaps you predict you're going to find some? REALLY?!?!?

MY religious belief is that the intelligent agent is the Intelligent Agent (upper case) described in the collection of 66 books known as the Bible. This Agent as identified as the God Jehovah or Yahweh.

Aren't you just lucky then that your Intelligent Agent (upper case) is the same intelligent agent identified when Intelligent Design expresses it's goal to "... replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."

Finally, trying to detract from the concept of God by continually referring to him as invisible just demonstrates your mental midgetry.

Why do you say that? Are you claiming your "God" thing is visible? Based on claims made about Him, I fail to understand why he can't make some time so He can be visible to me, and put this whole thing to rest.

Also, I assert that the concept of your personal "God" thing is objectively real--just as the concept of leprechauns is also objectively real. Your task (which I am certain you will refuse to accept) is to demonstrate in what way leprechauns are verifiably less real than any "God" thing you might posit.

Gravity is invisible.

And it's effect is quantifiable. It's properties are describable in a meaningful, verifiable, and useful manner. It has so many things in common with other objectively real things.

So is the wind.

And it's effect is quantifiable. It's properties are describable in a meaningful, verifiable, and useful manner. It has so many things in common with other objectively real things.

Your ignorant use of the adjective infers that just because something is invisible to the human eye, it doesn't exist.

You'll just have to excuse me for not creating a comprehensive inventory of all the properties of verifiable real things that every "God" thing I have been exposed to fails to exhibit, and all the properties those "Gods" share with verifiable imaginary things.

Yet we know that the wind and gravity are real.

And we have evidence that these various and sundry "God" things--including yours--is not.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Oh good!

You reference this "God" thing. I have no idea what you're talking about. You've brought up this "God" thing of yours, but have yet to explain what it is.

Now, I have been exposed to literally hundreds of self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts of some "God."

Those clearly don't count, right? Those "God" things are obviously fraudulent. So help me out here, and explain this "God" thing you reference.

Mental midget.

Agreed.

So what's your problem now? Why do you refuse to explain this "God" thing of yours? Is it because I'm a mental midget? Is that it?

So I admit that I have no idea what you're talking about. You've brought up this "God" thing of yours, but have yet to explain what it is.

Now, I have been exposed--presumably by intellects of such small stature that they are dwarfed by mental midgets--to literally hundreds of self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts of some "God."

Even a mental midget can see that those clearly don't count, right? Even a mental midget can see that those "God" things are obviously fraudulent. So help me out here, and explain this "God" thing you reference in terms that even a mental midget can understand.

Loki explain how life sprang into existence through this invisible method of naturalism ? if you can't explain it how is this not faith to believe something you can't see or verify and in the process explain it to us ?

Why do you knock someone who believes life was designed ? The bible explains our creator pick it up and read it sometime if you want to know God.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Agreed.

So what's your problem now? Why do you refuse to explain this "God" thing of yours? Is it because I'm a mental midget? Is that it?

So I admit that I have no idea what you're talking about. You've brought up this "God" thing of yours, but have yet to explain what it is.

Now, I have been exposed--presumably by intellects of such small stature that they are dwarfed by mental midgets--to literally hundreds of self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts of some "God."

Even a mental midget can see that those clearly don't count, right? Even a mental midget can see that those "God" things are obviously fraudulent. ...

No, YOU cannot. The man that subscribes to only naturalism, like yourself, is darkened in his understanding. The concept of God is foolishness to you. Unfortunately for you, for now, you don't have the ability to comprehend such things. Perhaps this is why you continue with your intellectual dishonesty above:

1 Corinthians 2:14

14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Romans 1:20-22(NIV)

20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made [Creation], so that people are without excuse.

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools.

I'm afraid that assaulting people by thumping them with your bible is a failed tactic.

The juvenile tactic of posting verses is meaningless when when what you're posting is confused, convoluted, contradictory and incorrect.

ON SEEING GOD
"... I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." -- Genesis 32:30

"No man hath seen God at any time..."-- John 1:18

ON THE POWER OF GOD
"... with God all things are possible." -- Matthew 19:26

"...The LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron." -- Judges 1:19 Note: not "would not" but could not.

ON MAKING GRAVEN IMAGES
"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven...earth...water". (Lev. 26:1)

"[And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying...] And thou shalt make two cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them." (Exodus 25:18)

ON PUNISHING CRIME
"The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father..." -- Ezekiel 18:20

"I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation..." -- Exodus 20:5

ON TEMPTATION
"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." -- James 1:13

"And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham..." -- Genesis 22:1

ON FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS
"Honor thy father and thy mother..."-- Exodus 20:12

"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. " -- Luke 14:26

ON RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD
"...he that goeth down to the grave shall come up no more. " -- Job 7:9

"...the hour is coming, in which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth...." -- John 5:28-29

OOPS!

Hollie you should be thankful he came and poured out his blood for all so he no longer has to use those methods.

 

[Youwerecreated]

How strange that you would make reference to logic and reasoning. You and the other fundie had insisted that creation "science" was a viable method to counter evolution, the biological sciences and the physical sciences. You both recently abandoned that strategy altogether and finally admitted that creation science is simply lies, deceit and falsehood as mere attempts to assign credibility to what amounts to fear and superstition.

Your intellectual dishonesty is appalling. Seriously, Hollie, you and Loki think if you repeat something enough times it will be true. I have never claimed Creationism is anything but religion. Please produce a link or cease and desist with your LIES.

So, you admit that Creationism is religion, correct? And Intelligent-Design theory is demonstrably (and has been demonstrated both in this forum and in court of law) Creationism dressed in the vocabulary of science, correct? And you maintain that Intelligent-Design theory is science, correct?

Hence, ...

Look all three of our views can be inferred through science. Some are better supported by science.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Your intellectual dishonesty is appalling. Seriously, Hollie, you and Loki think if you repeat something enough times it will be true. I have never claimed Creationism is anything but religion. Please produce a link or cease and desist with your LIES.

So, you admit that Creationism is religion, correct? And Intelligent-Design theory is demonstrably (and has been demonstrated both in this forum and in court of law) Creationism dressed in the vocabulary of science, correct? And you maintain that Intelligent-Design theory is science, correct?

Hence, ...

You are correct. Courts of law cannot be depended on to make declarations about science philosophy. To keep quoting Dover is REALY, REALLY pathetic on evo-fundies part.... REALLY PATHETIC. Why don't you and your Rugged buddy use that mush sloshing around in your head to come up with something better than "the court said so!"??? The court also says it is okay to murder unborn babies but this is a large part of the population that believes this is the worst type of genocide, and extremely EVIL.

"But people [who aren't totally blinded by their metaphysical materialism] understand the difference between the truth standards of knowledge and the truth standards of power."

"First, the new trend in science toward enlisting the political and judicial system to help one side to prevail in a scientific dispute is highly injurious to the health of science itself, to say nothing of the polity, and it must be stopped. If a scientific consensus is so insecure that it has to have its claims imposed on the public by court order—as happened in the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover decision in Pennsylvania with respect to the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution—it can scarcely expect to command the respect of that public, and it forfeits whatever intellectual authority it might otherwise be entitled to. Similar efforts are now afoot to impose an artificial consensus on the subject of climate change. They are equally to be deplored."

"A judge could rule that Einstein is right and the faster-than-light neutrinos are wrong. Or that you can’t teach about them in school. Or whatever. That then becomes the official “truth.”"

When "Our Best Science" Is Not Good Enough

This is really funny, a lawyer making decisions concerning science

 

[Youwerecreated]

Belief in god = psycosis

Your statement might carry a bit more weight if you spelled psychosis right.

Because spelling is all you can fault his statement for?

Can you prove it's an accurate statement ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

For what?

Identify the strawman.

Here you go...

Good.

That was a response to this:

So if man is no more fit than E coli, how did we ever get from a microbe to a man?

This question is founded upon a number of fatuously bullshit premises that the reader is implicitly required identify and refute, or accept--premises that the theory of evolution by natural selection does not assert. Such fatuously bullshit premises would include:

• Humans were descended from E. Coli.
• If E. coli is an ancestor to humans, then E. coli should be extinct.
• E. Coli and humans directly compete for the same survival resources.
• The single-celled ancestors of human beings directly competed with E. coli for the same survival resources.
• E. coli does not share any common ancestry with humans.
• In order for E. coli and humans to have common ancestry, one must cause the extinction of the other.
• If E. coli is more fit for it's environment than humans, then humans should be extinct.
• If humans are more fit for their environment than E. coli, then E. coli should be extinct.

This list of possible bullshit premises just doesn't end. And there are no valid premises to your question, because there is nothing about the fitness of either E. coli or humans that calls into question human evolution, or the notion of a single-celled common ancestor for both E. coli and humans.

So, the patently presumptive assertion of ANY of the bullshit premises, that your question is necessarily founded upon, as being an actual assertion made by the theory of evolution by natural selection would be what? What would you call your ignoring actual assertions of the theory of evolution by natural selection and substituting your own distorted, exaggerated, misrepresented, and demonstrably bullshit versions of it's assertions?

Talk about a fundie

 

[Youwerecreated]

Loki, this planet is literally covered with bacterium if what you are suggesting there should be new life forms popping all over this planet definitely things we have never laid eyes on.

 

[LOki]

Mental midget.

Agreed.

So what's your problem now? Why do you refuse to explain this "God" thing of yours? Is it because I'm a mental midget? Is that it?

So I admit that I have no idea what you're talking about. You've brought up this "God" thing of yours, but have yet to explain what it is.

Now, I have been exposed--presumably by intellects of such small stature that they are dwarfed by mental midgets--to literally hundreds of self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts of some "God."

Even a mental midget can see that those clearly don't count, right? Even a mental midget can see that those "God" things are obviously fraudulent. So help me out here, and explain this "God" thing you reference in terms that even a mental midget can understand.

Loki explain how life sprang into existence through this invisible method of naturalism ?

"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions.--Francis Crick (Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature, 1981, p. 88)​

I think I'll go with that. A "perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions."

What the "exact" sequence is, is something I honestly don't know--I don't have or believe in postcognition. However, I KNOW you have been presented with several hypotheses which offer the details I'm sure you demand as "proof." I see no reason why I should be required to reprise them just because you find them inadequate as "proof."

Particularly in light of the fact that you required no evidence--let alone proof--of the validity of your creation story to believe it is valid with an absolute conviction of certainty.

if you can't explain it how is this not faith to believe something you can't see or verify and in the process explain it to us ?

Because it can be explained. Because there is evidence that supports those explanations.

The evidence is so overwhelming that life consists of, propagates by, and sustains itself through, "perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions," that there is no reason to exclude the hypothesis that life originated from similar chemical reactions.

Regardless of how incomplete and uncertain such explanations might prove to be, explanations founded upon, and validated with, verifiable evidence and/or valid logic are certainly better explanations for the origin of life than this quite obviously imaginary "God" of yours.

Why do you knock someone who believes life was designed ?

Because it's a vacuous assertion. It's literally a fairy tale--complete with a central fairy, which was (unimaginatively) declared omnipotent, and (conveniently) not subject to any kind of verification.

The bible explains our creator pick it up and read it sometime if you want to know God.

I've read the Bible. It demonstrates nothing. The Eddas explain our creator. Pick it up and read it sometime if you want to know Odin.

What makes your God and your creation story in the Bible objectively more real and valid than Odin and the creation story in the Eddas?

Besides, I asked for an account that was NOT some self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance account of "God."

 

[LOki]

Your intellectual dishonesty is appalling. Seriously, Hollie, you and Loki think if you repeat something enough times it will be true. I have never claimed Creationism is anything but religion. Please produce a link or cease and desist with your LIES.

So, you admit that Creationism is religion, correct? And Intelligent-Design theory is demonstrably (and has been demonstrated both in this forum and in court of law) Creationism dressed in the vocabulary of science, correct? And you maintain that Intelligent-Design theory is science, correct?

Hence, ...

You are correct. Courts of law cannot be depended on to make declarations about science philosophy. To keep quoting Dover is REALY, REALLY pathetic on evo-fundies part.... REALLY PATHETIC. Why don't you and your Rugged buddy use that mush sloshing around in your head to come up with something better than "the court said so!"??? The court also says it is okay to murder unborn babies but this is a large part of the population that believes this is the worst type of genocide, and extremely EVIL.

"But people [who aren't totally blinded by their metaphysical materialism] understand the difference between the truth standards of knowledge and the truth standards of power."

"First, the new trend in science toward enlisting the political and judicial system to help one side to prevail in a scientific dispute is highly injurious to the health of science itself, to say nothing of the polity, and it must be stopped. If a scientific consensus is so insecure that it has to have its claims imposed on the public by court order—as happened in the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover decision in Pennsylvania with respect to the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution—it can scarcely expect to command the respect of that public, and it forfeits whatever intellectual authority it might otherwise be entitled to. Similar efforts are now afoot to impose an artificial consensus on the subject of climate change. They are equally to be deplored."

"A judge could rule that Einstein is right and the faster-than-light neutrinos are wrong. Or that you can’t teach about them in school. Or whatever. That then becomes the official “truth.”"

When "Our Best Science" Is Not Good Enough

"Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory."--William Dembski (Touchstone Magazine. Volume 12, Issue4: July/August, 1999)​

Is this clear enough? Not only is Intelligent Design just creationism dressed in the vocabulary of science, it is really apparent that Intelligent Design is specifically Christian Creationism dressed up in the vocabulary of science.

 

[LOki]

Loki, this planet is literally covered with bacterium if what you are suggesting there should be new life forms popping all over this planet definitely things we have never laid eyes on.

If you mean new life spontaneously arising, you have no idea what you are talking about Mr. Peanutbutter-Jar.

If you are talking about changes in existing populations, then yeah, that's happening all the time.

 

[ima]

Your statement might carry a bit more weight if you spelled psychosis right.

Because spelling is all you can fault his statement for?

Can you prove it's an accurate statement ?

You're the one who could only find fault in the spelling of his statement, not in the actual statement.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Agreed.

So what's your problem now? Why do you refuse to explain this "God" thing of yours? Is it because I'm a mental midget? Is that it?

So I admit that I have no idea what you're talking about. You've brought up this "God" thing of yours, but have yet to explain what it is.

Now, I have been exposed--presumably by intellects of such small stature that they are dwarfed by mental midgets--to literally hundreds of self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts of some "God."

Even a mental midget can see that those clearly don't count, right? Even a mental midget can see that those "God" things are obviously fraudulent. So help me out here, and explain this "God" thing you reference in terms that even a mental midget can understand.

Loki explain how life sprang into existence through this invisible method of naturalism ?

"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions.--Francis Crick (Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature, 1981, p. 88)​

I think I'll go with that. A "perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions."

What the "exact" sequence is, is something I honestly don't know--I don't have or believe in postcognition. However, I KNOW you have been presented with several hypotheses which offer the details I'm sure you demand as "proof." I see no reason why I should be required to reprise them just because you find them inadequate as "proof."

Particularly in light of the fact that you required no evidence--let alone proof--of the validity of your creation story to believe it is valid with an absolute conviction of certainty.

Because it can be explained. Because there is evidence that supports those explanations.

The evidence is so overwhelming that life consists of, propagates by, and sustains itself through, "perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions," that there is no reason to exclude the hypothesis that life originated from similar chemical reactions.

Regardless of how incomplete and uncertain such explanations might prove to be, explanations founded upon, and validated with, verifiable evidence and/or valid logic are certainly better explanations for the origin of life than this quite obviously imaginary "God" of yours.

Why do you knock someone who believes life was designed ?

Because it's a vacuous assertion. It's literally a fairy tale--complete with a central fairy, which was (unimaginatively) declared omnipotent, and (conveniently) not subject to any kind of verification.

The bible explains our creator pick it up and read it sometime if you want to know God.

I've read the Bible. It demonstrates nothing. The Eddas explain our creator. Pick it up and read it sometime if you want to know Odin.

What makes your God and your creation story in the Bible objectively more real and valid than Odin and the creation story in the Eddas?

Besides, I asked for an account that was NOT some self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance account of "God."

You can't prove that chemicals came together undirected and produced life can you ?

Science can only show these chemicals are needed for life.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Loki, this planet is literally covered with bacterium if what you are suggesting there should be new life forms popping all over this planet definitely things we have never laid eyes on.

If you mean new life spontaneously arising, you have no idea what you are talking about Mr. Peanutbutter-Jar.

If you are talking about changes in existing populations, then yeah, that's happening all the time.

Nonsense loki.

Great you turn to a theory that has no data backing the theory once again.