Creationists

[Hollie]

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 ?

Firstly, I have no reason to believe that you hold a science degree. Secondly, you “infer” design as a result of your religious belief which is nothing more than mere assertion of supernatural agents. As we see with regularity, your best attempt at proving your gods amounts to flaccid attempts to vilify science. You offer no support for evidence of your supernatural gods and we have every reason to accept that your gods are nothing more than re-telling of earlier tales and fables with adjustments to those earlier superstitious tales.

You make really ignorant statements such as “… verses (versus -ed.) your invisible creator through naturalism”. That’s just ridiculous. You reject the vast and overwhelming evidence for evolution because evolution makes yours gods superfluous and unnecessary. Anyone can gainsay an argument. Facts to support an argument are something different. Can you supply any facts to support the argument for your gods? No. That was a rhetorical question because your gods are currently configured conceptions of earlier gods emanating from earlier superstitious tales and fables.

At the core of the arguments separating science, technology, biology and reason from superstition, fear and ignorance lies objective interpretation of physical evidence, and objective facts drawn from genetic and taxonomic evidence. It is a simple matter to resolve and to dismiss the non-objectivity, grandiose claims and explicit superstitions surrounding creationist “holy text” literalism. There are literally hundreds of claims to superstitions and fears of supernatural realms similar to yours, all without a single piece of hard evidence to support them.

 

[Hollie]

The way this planet is set up and all the necessary organs and blood so on and so on yes I believe there is plenty of evidence of a designer.

I don't believe in miracles that are caused by naturalism. I believe all miracles are the result of a life force. Chance does not pass the smell test.

But you believe in miracles performed by some guy you can't see and don't know where he is?

So your designer designed gay people? Who designed your designer?

They are miracles to man not God. Design is not accomplished with miracles it is done through knowledge.

Gay people are gay because they choose to be there is no science that can show it's a genetic effect. If it is a genetic effect perfection was lost with adam and eve.

No one, he has always existed.

Only through a miraculous appeal to fear and ignorance could anyone accept your baseless claims.

It’s a common tactic taken by flat-earthers’ to make outrageous claims, totally unsupported and expect others to accept their partisan claims to one or more gods. When that tactic fails, flat-earthers’ do an intellectual drop ten and punt, and demand that others “prove it isn’t”.

Science is not a process of disproving the existence of supernatural gods. Flat-earthers’ do that quite well by offering no supportable evidence of their claims.

Everyone in this thread has read the preposterous and outrageous positions regarding creationism and ID which as you and the other fundie have acknowledged are nothing more than appeals to one, partisan conception of god(s). I’m in no real position to take seriously those nonsensical appeals to fear and superstition simply because the conclusion is predicated on an irrational assumption… and the irrational assumption is used to support the…irrational conclusion….which is used to bolster appeals to fear and superstition because the conclusion is predicated on an irrational assumption… and the irrational assumption is used to support the…irrational conclusion.

Some arguments are circular but little more than silly and naïve. Arguments such as those presented by flat-earthers' are viciously and hopelessly circular.

 

[Hollie]

Nonsense loki.

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

This statement from you is entirely meaningless. You simply have no basis for making this statement. You have chosen to disqualify yourself from being a valid judge of what constitutes the data and evidence that supports the theory.

Loki there is no evidence supporting the thought of abiogenesis, zero, none. The evidence is so weak abiogenesis should even be considered a theory.

If the evidence is overwhelming for abiogenesis then you should be able to provide some and explain it.

Not surprisingly, your bellicose, unfounded claim is wrong.

The Origin of Life

This is the problem that the flat-earth types are confronted with. Science relentlessly discovers, probes, asks questions and even self-corrects. Even if we assume (incorrectly), that one or more gods actually did spark the first cell, evolution is still confirmed as the best supported and most clearly delineated path for life to develop, adapt and thrive.

For all those endless demands by flat-earthers that science prove “a nothing doesn't exist”, it is only this-- that God(s) are a senseless mass of contradictory nonsense that can establish any sort of "proof". A senseless mass of contradictory nonsense is indistinguishable from "nothingness".

 

[UltimateReality]

Does ID mean that god created gay people and animals?

No.

So who did?

ID Theory doesn't mean that God created anyone. It is not a religious belief.

 

[UltimateReality]

Without the bible to tell you so, you wouldn't even know that a god exists.

That's not what the Founding Fathers thought. They believed in the Natural Law, that is, that God's law is written on every man's heart. Many cultures around the world that don't have a Holy Book believe in a god.

It’s more than just a little presumptuous for you to assign your fundie religious beliefs to the FF’s. Not all the FF’s were Christian and we have no reason to believe that you speak authoritatively on their behalf. Your nonsense claim that “God's law is written on every man's heart”, is obviously false. It’s a common theme of fundies to attempt to force their religious beliefs on others but we have historical fact to refute your hysterical claims.

Certainly many cultures didn't have a Holy Book and those cultures often believed in many gods but certainly not your gods. Many cultures have invented gods to perform the function that was served by the Judeo-Christian gods: to provide answers to natural phenomenon not understood at the time. That is precisely why your currently configured gods are fading in terms of importance and relevance. That is why the fundie creationists find it impossible to construct a theoretical model that would test the integrity of the creation hypothesis. It would clearly be shown to be a hoax, as creationism has repeatedly shown itself to be.

That is why creationists sidestep the problem altogether by stating, without any evidence offered in support, that some creator gawd(s) made the stars, galaxies and all of existence appearing in it’s present configuration. All this was done, we’re to believe, to give the appearance of a very old and vast universe, and to therefore mislead scientists and the rest of the rational world to the false conclusion of a big bang that happened about 15 billion years ago.

Kind of a strange thing to do for a God who is "a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he." (Deut. 32:4) Also, Numbers 23:19- "God is not a man, that he should lie..." Also it is said that "Every word of God is flawless." Proverbs 30:5. Are His actions not like His words?
Those gods – they’re such kidders.

Oh well. I guess I know the peanut gallery couldn't stay away for long.

 

[UltimateReality]

Re: proving the existence of ... by consensus on meaning
I should clarify that "presenting evidence" is not the pr'oof in itself.
I find most proof ... works by eliminating the objections or conflicts
preventing agreement on what we are talking about and
what we "mean" ... (It is almost like presenting
the conclusion, and then working backwards to eliminate
anything to the contrary.

Congratulations! You've just described the Theory of Evolution!! Don't forget enlisting the courts to enforce your scientific opinions.

 

[UltimateReality]

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 ?

Firstly, I have no reason to believe that you hold a science degree. Secondly, you “infer” design as a result of your religious belief which is nothing more than mere assertion of supernatural agents. As we see with regularity, your best attempt at proving your gods amounts to flaccid attempts to vilify science. You offer no support for evidence of your supernatural gods and we have every reason to accept that your gods are nothing more than re-telling of earlier tales and fables with adjustments to those earlier superstitious tales.

You make really ignorant statements such as “… verses (versus -ed.) your invisible creator through naturalism”. That’s just ridiculous. You reject the vast and overwhelming evidence for evolution because evolution makes yours gods superfluous and unnecessary. Anyone can gainsay an argument. Facts to support an argument are something different. Can you supply any facts to support the argument for your gods? No. That was a rhetorical question because your gods are currently configured conceptions of earlier gods emanating from earlier superstitious tales and fables.

At the core of the arguments separating science, technology, biology and reason from superstition, fear and ignorance lies objective interpretation of physical evidence, and objective facts drawn from genetic and taxonomic evidence. It is a simple matter to resolve and to dismiss the non-objectivity, grandiose claims and explicit superstitions surrounding creationist “holy text” literalism. There are literally hundreds of claims to superstitions and fears of supernatural realms similar to yours, all without a single piece of hard evidence to support them.

Yawn.

 

[UltimateReality]

This statement from you is entirely meaningless. You simply have no basis for making this statement. You have chosen to disqualify yourself from being a valid judge of what constitutes the data and evidence that supports the theory.

Loki there is no evidence supporting the thought of abiogenesis, zero, none. The evidence is so weak abiogenesis should even be considered a theory.

If the evidence is overwhelming for abiogenesis then you should be able to provide some and explain it.

Not surprisingly, your bellicose, unfounded claim is wrong.

The Origin of Life

This is the problem that the flat-earth types are confronted with. Science relentlessly discovers, probes, asks questions and even self-corrects. Even if we assume (incorrectly), that one or more gods actually did spark the first cell, evolution is still confirmed as the best supported and most clearly delineated path for life to develop, adapt and thrive.

For all those endless demands by flat-earthers that science prove “a nothing doesn't exist”, it is only this-- that God(s) are a senseless mass of contradictory nonsense that can establish any sort of "proof". A senseless mass of contradictory nonsense is indistinguishable from "nothingness".

Oh no!!! Hollie found a new nickname and now she is running with it fullbore. Maybe if we ignore it she will forget. Kind of like she forgot where she went to college.

 

[UltimateReality]

Loki has the right to remain silent, especially when he gets totally owned.

Loki, did you think that by moving the goal posts no one would notice that I have shown you to be entirely inept at understanding components of the TOE. And that I have shown without a doubt the claim I made about evolutionary theory's claims are 100% true, and your false assertion of a strawman argument is another example of your utter and total intellectualy dishonesty. When I made the assertion that the TOE claimed man descended from a single cell organism, or an amoeba like organism, you screamed STRAWMAN!! Did you forget the whole reason I posted up this evidence from Wiki??? It has proven your strawman accusation wrong again and exposed your ignorance. Your distraction technique of yelling strawman when you don't have an answer has thus far failed miserably.

loki, yahweh of mischief, speaking of your primal-facial evidence of your sanctimonious hubris, why have you not responded to the question I posed about abiogenesis? If you have theory which includes a bunch of actual processes, why don't you test it by doing an experiment that produces a living cell?? Oh wait, you mean to tell me your "just so" story isn't falsifiable??? Where did the information in DNA come from?

Hollie, feel free to chime in here to. Please produce evidence of an experiment that engages the processes outlined in your "just so" story which produces the micro-machines capable of DNA translation and transcription. If it "could happen" that way, why don't we just test the hypothesis??? After all, the "ordinary chemical reactions" shouldn't be that hard to reproduce. I'll even do you one better. Feel free to have all the outside intelligent input you want. You can use computers and mini motors and whatever you like. All you have to do is take the raw chemicals and produce a working cell. That shouldn't be too hard should it? Especially since we can guide process and it we don't need to wait around for an "accident".

 

[Hollie]

No.

So who did?

ID Theory doesn't mean that God created anyone. It is not a religious belief.

False. It seems you are confused about both religion and science.

 

[Hollie]

Loki there is no evidence supporting the thought of abiogenesis, zero, none. The evidence is so weak abiogenesis should even be considered a theory.

If the evidence is overwhelming for abiogenesis then you should be able to provide some and explain it.

Not surprisingly, your bellicose, unfounded claim is wrong.

The Origin of Life

This is the problem that the flat-earth types are confronted with. Science relentlessly discovers, probes, asks questions and even self-corrects. Even if we assume (incorrectly), that one or more gods actually did spark the first cell, evolution is still confirmed as the best supported and most clearly delineated path for life to develop, adapt and thrive.

For all those endless demands by flat-earthers that science prove “a nothing doesn't exist”, it is only this-- that God(s) are a senseless mass of contradictory nonsense that can establish any sort of "proof". A senseless mass of contradictory nonsense is indistinguishable from "nothingness".

Oh no!!! Hollie found a new nickname and now she is running with it fullbore. Maybe if we ignore it she will forget. Kind of like she forgot where she went to college.

Some of us value the college experience unlike you who has failed.

Angry gods - angry fundies.

 

[Hollie]

Loki has the right to remain silent, especially when he gets totally owned.

Loki, did you think that by moving the goal posts no one would notice that I have shown you to be entirely inept at understanding components of the TOE. And that I have shown without a doubt the claim I made about evolutionary theory's claims are 100% true, and your false assertion of a strawman argument is another example of your utter and total intellectualy dishonesty. When I made the assertion that the TOE claimed man descended from a single cell organism, or an amoeba like organism, you screamed STRAWMAN!! Did you forget the whole reason I posted up this evidence from Wiki??? It has proven your strawman accusation wrong again and exposed your ignorance. Your distraction technique of yelling strawman when you don't have an answer has thus far failed miserably.

loki, yahweh of mischief, speaking of your primal-facial evidence of your sanctimonious hubris, why have you not responded to the question I posed about abiogenesis? If you have theory which includes a bunch of actual processes, why don't you test it by doing an experiment that produces a living cell?? Oh wait, you mean to tell me your "just so" story isn't falsifiable??? Where did the information in DNA come from?

Hollie, feel free to chime in here to. Please produce evidence of an experiment that engages the processes outlined in your "just so" story which produces the micro-machines capable of DNA translation and transcription. If it "could happen" that way, why don't we just test the hypothesis??? After all, the "ordinary chemical reactions" shouldn't be that hard to reproduce. I'll even do you one better. Feel free to have all the outside intelligent input you want. You can use computers and mini motors and whatever you like. All you have to do is take the raw chemicals and produce a working cell. That shouldn't be too hard should it? Especially since we can guide process and it we don't need to wait around for an "accident".

You missed a brilliant opportunity to stay silent and not make a fool of yourself.

 

[ima]

No.

So who did?

ID Theory doesn't mean that God created anyone. It is not a religious belief.

wtf? God didn't make man in his own image? I believe that that's written in the bibble?

 

[Hollie]

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 ?

Firstly, I have no reason to believe that you hold a science degree. Secondly, you “infer” design as a result of your religious belief which is nothing more than mere assertion of supernatural agents. As we see with regularity, your best attempt at proving your gods amounts to flaccid attempts to vilify science. You offer no support for evidence of your supernatural gods and we have every reason to accept that your gods are nothing more than re-telling of earlier tales and fables with adjustments to those earlier superstitious tales.

You make really ignorant statements such as “… verses (versus -ed.) your invisible creator through naturalism”. That’s just ridiculous. You reject the vast and overwhelming evidence for evolution because evolution makes yours gods superfluous and unnecessary. Anyone can gainsay an argument. Facts to support an argument are something different. Can you supply any facts to support the argument for your gods? No. That was a rhetorical question because your gods are currently configured conceptions of earlier gods emanating from earlier superstitious tales and fables.

At the core of the arguments separating science, technology, biology and reason from superstition, fear and ignorance lies objective interpretation of physical evidence, and objective facts drawn from genetic and taxonomic evidence. It is a simple matter to resolve and to dismiss the non-objectivity, grandiose claims and explicit superstitions surrounding creationist “holy text” literalism. There are literally hundreds of claims to superstitions and fears of supernatural realms similar to yours, all without a single piece of hard evidence to support them.

Yawn.

Present a rational argument to flat-earthers' and it sends them running for the exits.

 

[Hollie]

So who did?

ID Theory doesn't mean that God created anyone. It is not a religious belief.

wtf? God didn't make man in his own image? I believe that that's written in the bibble?

I'm afraid for many fundies, christianity has become a confused amalgam of superstition, supernaturalism, magic, specious claims and falsified "quotes".

 

[Hollie]

That's not what the Founding Fathers thought. They believed in the Natural Law, that is, that God's law is written on every man's heart. Many cultures around the world that don't have a Holy Book believe in a god.

It’s more than just a little presumptuous for you to assign your fundie religious beliefs to the FF’s. Not all the FF’s were Christian and we have no reason to believe that you speak authoritatively on their behalf. Your nonsense claim that “God's law is written on every man's heart”, is obviously false. It’s a common theme of fundies to attempt to force their religious beliefs on others but we have historical fact to refute your hysterical claims.

Certainly many cultures didn't have a Holy Book and those cultures often believed in many gods but certainly not your gods. Many cultures have invented gods to perform the function that was served by the Judeo-Christian gods: to provide answers to natural phenomenon not understood at the time. That is precisely why your currently configured gods are fading in terms of importance and relevance. That is why the fundie creationists find it impossible to construct a theoretical model that would test the integrity of the creation hypothesis. It would clearly be shown to be a hoax, as creationism has repeatedly shown itself to be.

That is why creationists sidestep the problem altogether by stating, without any evidence offered in support, that some creator gawd(s) made the stars, galaxies and all of existence appearing in it’s present configuration. All this was done, we’re to believe, to give the appearance of a very old and vast universe, and to therefore mislead scientists and the rest of the rational world to the false conclusion of a big bang that happened about 15 billion years ago.

Kind of a strange thing to do for a God who is "a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he." (Deut. 32:4) Also, Numbers 23:19- "God is not a man, that he should lie..." Also it is said that "Every word of God is flawless." Proverbs 30:5. Are His actions not like His words?
Those gods – they’re such kidders.

Oh well. I guess I know the peanut gallery couldn't stay away for long.

Yep, the flat-earthers own book of tales and fables is as bankrupt as their claims to gods, jinn and other claims to supermagicalism.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Loki there is not enough evidence to suggest a theory for the origins of life.

You are wrong. You simply have no basis for making this statement. You have imposed upon yourself an intellectually dishonest denial of the significant validity of select evidence and logically valid arguments that do not conform to, validate, or support your conclusions; 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; you simply dismiss any verifiable evidence that contradicts your baseless preconceptions, on the basis that such evidence does not support your baseless conclusions.

You have chosen to disqualify yourself from being a valid judge of what constitutes the evidence that supports the theory.

No, I simply made a decision after looking at evidence and the explanations of the evidence.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Does ID mean that god created gay people and animals?

No.

So who did?

The egg of your mother and the sperm of your father.hmm how did nature think to create male and female one producing something the other needed for reproduction.

 

[Youwerecreated]

god is not science. God does not have to test study and observe to understand how things work.

assumption not fact

True.


So is macroevolution.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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 ?

Firstly, I have no reason to believe that you hold a science degree. Secondly, you “infer” design as a result of your religious belief which is nothing more than mere assertion of supernatural agents. As we see with regularity, your best attempt at proving your gods amounts to flaccid attempts to vilify science. You offer no support for evidence of your supernatural gods and we have every reason to accept that your gods are nothing more than re-telling of earlier tales and fables with adjustments to those earlier superstitious tales.

You make really ignorant statements such as “… verses (versus -ed.) your invisible creator through naturalism”. That’s just ridiculous. You reject the vast and overwhelming evidence for evolution because evolution makes yours gods superfluous and unnecessary. Anyone can gainsay an argument. Facts to support an argument are something different. Can you supply any facts to support the argument for your gods? No. That was a rhetorical question because your gods are currently configured conceptions of earlier gods emanating from earlier superstitious tales and fables.

At the core of the arguments separating science, technology, biology and reason from superstition, fear and ignorance lies objective interpretation of physical evidence, and objective facts drawn from genetic and taxonomic evidence. It is a simple matter to resolve and to dismiss the non-objectivity, grandiose claims and explicit superstitions surrounding creationist “holy text” literalism. There are literally hundreds of claims to superstitions and fears of supernatural realms similar to yours, all without a single piece of hard evidence to support them.

Hollie you are in over your head your posts are not worthy of a response, Done wasting my time on a nitwit.