Creationists

[Hollie]

Wait, are you referring to the twisted pseudo-scientific method proposed by Darwinists? The one that has bastardized real science in many other fields?

Yet another display of the dangers inherent in the pursuit of ignorance characterized by Christian creationists.

Pathetic.

Your embracing of ignorance is certainly pathetic.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

You do not understand the scientific method.

You didn't read the article.


BTW you have no idea what I do or do not understand.

I see the problem. You're an ICR groupie. As is often the case with creationists, they tend to get sloppy, creative and dishonest with "quotes".

The "quote" you cut and pasted from the ICR referencing Jeffrey Schwartz is one of hundreds and hundreds falsified by creationist ministries and then cut and pasted by apologists who haven't the first clue regarding evolutionary science.

Quote Mine Project: Contents Sorted by Author

You're problem is your blinded by your own prejudices.

 

[Hollie]

You didn't read the article.


BTW you have no idea what I do or do not understand.

I see the problem. You're an ICR groupie. As is often the case with creationists, they tend to get sloppy, creative and dishonest with "quotes".

The "quote" you cut and pasted from the ICR referencing Jeffrey Schwartz is one of hundreds and hundreds falsified by creationist ministries and then cut and pasted by apologists who haven't the first clue regarding evolutionary science.

Quote Mine Project: Contents Sorted by Author

You're problem is your blinded by your own prejudices.

Actually, no. I've opened my eyes to the dishonest tactics of creationists who falsifying "quotes" and take no issue with that tactic.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I see the problem. You're an ICR groupie. As is often the case with creationists, they tend to get sloppy, creative and dishonest with "quotes".

The "quote" you cut and pasted from the ICR referencing Jeffrey Schwartz is one of hundreds and hundreds falsified by creationist ministries and then cut and pasted by apologists who haven't the first clue regarding evolutionary science.

Quote Mine Project: Contents Sorted by Author

You're problem is your blinded by your own prejudices.

Actually, no. I've opened my eyes to the dishonest tactics of creationists who falsifying "quotes" and take no issue with that tactic.

You haven't shown the quote to be "falsified".

And yes, you are blinded by your own prejudices.

 

[Hollie]

You're problem is your blinded by your own prejudices.

Actually, no. I've opened my eyes to the dishonest tactics of creationists who falsifying "quotes" and take no issue with that tactic.

You haven't shown the quote to be "falsified".

And yes, you are blinded by your own prejudices.

This is the perverse ignorance displayed by fundies. You don't have the first clue as to what you cut and pasted.

Review your posted "quote" and you will see that what you "quoted" was actually commentary by Henry Morris who was offering his slanted commentary on a partial "quote" (allegedly) by Jeffrey Schwartz. This bit of intellectual sloth was familiar and the same dishonest and sloppy "quoting" has been done before.

 

[UltimateReality]

Actually, no. I've opened my eyes to the dishonest tactics of creationists who falsifying "quotes" and take no issue with that tactic.

You haven't shown the quote to be "falsified".

And yes, you are blinded by your own prejudices.

This is the perverse ignorance displayed by fundies. You don't have the first clue as to what you cut and pasted.

Now that's the pot calling the kettle black. The only thing you can do is namecall. You have NEVER posted a thoughtful, logical rebuttal to anything in the time and bandwidth you have wasted here.

 

[Hollie]

You haven't shown the quote to be "falsified".

And yes, you are blinded by your own prejudices.

This is the perverse ignorance displayed by fundies. You don't have the first clue as to what you cut and pasted.

Now that's the pot calling the kettle black. The only thing you can do is namecall. You have NEVER posted a thoughtful, logical rebuttal to anything in the time and bandwidth you have wasted here.

You're having difficulty paying attention. You have failed to offer a response to posts of mine and to posts of others without mindless babble. It is you who mindlessly drones on about magical gods without ever offering anything but juvenile cut and paste.

Have you not looked back through tens of pages and noticed your childish pattern of spamming with gargantuan fonts?

This latest post of spam was yet another desperate plea for my attention. You're a love struck schoolboy with big, weepy doe-eyes looking for attention who has crossed over into creepy stalking.

 

[daws101]

Ah, the self-hating accusation. I can assure that I have a healthy self image and am a contrubuting, functioning member of society. By a strictly materialistic viewpoint, I have every thing the world puts value on... Fat custom house in a gated lake community, sweet car, every iGadget made, and a beautiful wife (all of which came to me by God's blessing for sure). However, the world has proven over and over again how miserable most people are who achieve any semblance of wealth. They run on the hamster wheel towards more and more STUFF and nothing satisfies. Nope, my peace and self-worth come from Christ and his amazing love for me. God's love is lasting, through eternity in fact, and not fleeting like so many things the world offers.

I guess the real point is I was self-hating to some extent, but that was BEFORE I gave my life to Christ. Hollie, it is evident to all you're still stuck there.

the above sales pitch for "what god gave U.R."
is prime example of talking out of both sides of your mouth .
it makes all clams U.R. has made about the evils of materialism void.
I'm positive that he'd go bat shit if any of his toys were lost, just like any other materialist.
what U.R and all other faux Christians forget "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.
35For whoever would save his life will lose it; and whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel's will save it.
36For what does it profit a man, to gain the whole world and forfeit his life? (Mark 8:34-36)

4. The rich will regret their wealth.

btw I've made and spent more money then U.R. EVER WILL

Of course you have.

yes I have, faux Christian

 

[daws101]

Does ID mean that god created gay people and animals?

No.

lie...

 

[daws101]

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'm surprised. Such self-contradicting concepts are just the kind of unprovable bullshit folks like you like to trot out as tautological truths.

“A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.” ― Friedrich Nietzsche​

Chance does not pass the smell test.

Nor do miracles, leprechauns, the Easter Bunny, or your God.

I have physically seen the easter bunny with my own eyes. My daughter took a picture with him.

of course you have

 

[daws101]

yes, other books are, the same cannot be said for the bible.

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.

wrong again.....Although the Declaration of Independence mentioned “Nature’s God” and the “Creator,” the Constitution made no reference to a divine being, Christian or otherwise, and the First Amendment explicitly forbid the establishment of any official church or creed. There is also a story, probably apocryphal, that Benjamin Franklin’s proposal to call in a chaplain to offer a prayer when a particularly controversial issue was being debated in the Constitutional Convention prompted Hamilton to observe that he saw no reason to call in foreign aid. If there is a clear legacy bequeathed by the founders, it is the insistence that religion was a private matter in which the state should not interfere.

In recent decades Christian advocacy groups, prompted by motives that have been questioned by some, have felt a powerful urge to enlist the Founding Fathers in their respective congregations. But recovering the spiritual convictions of the Founders, in all their messy integrity, is not an easy task. Once again, diversity is the dominant pattern. Franklin and Jefferson were deists, Washington harbored a pantheistic sense of providential destiny, John Adams began a Congregationalist and ended a Unitarian, Hamilton was a lukewarm Anglican for most of his life but embraced a more actively Christian posture after his son died in a duel.

One quasi-religious conviction they all shared, however, was a discernible obsession with living on in the memory of posterity. One reason the modern editions of their papers are so monstrously large is that most of the Founders were compulsively fastidious about preserving every scrap of paper they wrote or received, all as part of a desire to leave a written record that would assure their secular immortality in the history books. (When John Adams and Jefferson discussed the possibility of a more conventional immortality, they tended to describe heaven as a place where they could resume their ongoing argument on earth.) Adams, irreverent to the end, declared that, if it could ever be demonstrated conclusively that no future state existed, his advice to every man, woman, and child was to “take opium.” The only afterlife which they considered certain was in the memory of subsequent generations, which is to say us. In that sense, these very blog posts are a testimonial to their everlasting life.

The U.S. Founding Fathers: Their Religious Beliefs | Britannica Blog

 

[daws101]

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, ywc' does have a degree in biology an AA degree (2year) which carries just enough clout to get him a lab assistant job.
in other words he's qualified to clean petri dishes and handle biological waste.
any "theories" he adheres to do not remotely qualify him as a scientist of any kind.

 

[UltimateReality]

This is the perverse ignorance displayed by fundies. You don't have the first clue as to what you cut and pasted.

Now that's the pot calling the kettle black. The only thing you can do is namecall. You have NEVER posted a thoughtful, logical rebuttal to anything in the time and bandwidth you have wasted here.

You're having difficulty paying attention. You have failed to offer a response to posts of mine and to posts of others without mindless babble. It is you who mindlessly drones on about magical gods without ever offering anything but juvenile cut and paste.

Have you not looked back through tens of pages and noticed your childish pattern of spamming with gargantuan fonts?

This latest post of spam was yet another desperate plea for my attention. You're a love struck schoolboy with big, weepy doe-eyes looking for attention who has crossed over into creepy stalking.

You're delusional.

Hollie, is that you???

 

[UltimateReality]

the above sales pitch for "what god gave U.R."
is prime example of talking out of both sides of your mouth .
it makes all clams U.R. has made about the evils of materialism void.
I'm positive that he'd go bat shit if any of his toys were lost, just like any other materialist.
what U.R and all other faux Christians forget "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.
35For whoever would save his life will lose it; and whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel's will save it.
36For what does it profit a man, to gain the whole world and forfeit his life? (Mark 8:34-36)

4. The rich will regret their wealth.

btw I've made and spent more money then U.R. EVER WILL

Of course you have.

yes I have, faux Christian

My dad can beat up your dad.

 

[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.

wrong again.....Although the Declaration of Independence mentioned “Nature’s God” and the “Creator,” the Constitution made no reference to a divine being, Christian or otherwise, and the First Amendment explicitly forbid the establishment of any official church or creed. There is also a story, probably apocryphal, that Benjamin Franklin’s proposal to call in a chaplain to offer a prayer when a particularly controversial issue was being debated in the Constitutional Convention prompted Hamilton to observe that he saw no reason to call in foreign aid. If there is a clear legacy bequeathed by the founders, it is the insistence that religion was a private matter in which the state should not interfere.

In recent decades Christian advocacy groups, prompted by motives that have been questioned by some, have felt a powerful urge to enlist the Founding Fathers in their respective congregations. But recovering the spiritual convictions of the Founders, in all their messy integrity, is not an easy task. Once again, diversity is the dominant pattern. Franklin and Jefferson were deists, Washington harbored a pantheistic sense of providential destiny, John Adams began a Congregationalist and ended a Unitarian, Hamilton was a lukewarm Anglican for most of his life but embraced a more actively Christian posture after his son died in a duel.

One quasi-religious conviction they all shared, however, was a discernible obsession with living on in the memory of posterity. One reason the modern editions of their papers are so monstrously large is that most of the Founders were compulsively fastidious about preserving every scrap of paper they wrote or received, all as part of a desire to leave a written record that would assure their secular immortality in the history books. (When John Adams and Jefferson discussed the possibility of a more conventional immortality, they tended to describe heaven as a place where they could resume their ongoing argument on earth.) Adams, irreverent to the end, declared that, if it could ever be demonstrated conclusively that no future state existed, his advice to every man, woman, and child was to “take opium.” The only afterlife which they considered certain was in the memory of subsequent generations, which is to say us. In that sense, these very blog posts are a testimonial to their everlasting life.

The U.S. Founding Fathers: Their Religious Beliefs | Britannica Blog

Daws, have you been following Strawman Loki's example??? I said nothing about the Constitution. So nice teardown of your made up argument for me.

 

[Hollie]

Now that's the pot calling the kettle black. The only thing you can do is namecall. You have NEVER posted a thoughtful, logical rebuttal to anything in the time and bandwidth you have wasted here.

You're having difficulty paying attention. You have failed to offer a response to posts of mine and to posts of others without mindless babble. It is you who mindlessly drones on about magical gods without ever offering anything but juvenile cut and paste.

Have you not looked back through tens of pages and noticed your childish pattern of spamming with gargantuan fonts?

This latest post of spam was yet another desperate plea for my attention. You're a love struck schoolboy with big, weepy doe-eyes looking for attention who has crossed over into creepy stalking.

You're delusional.

There's a good Christian. You can feel better about yourself by poking fun at someone with medical issues.

 

[daws101]

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.

bullshit ! the "decision"(if it could be called that) you made was not based on an objective examination of the evidence, it was however based on a lifetime of rabid indoctrination, denial of fact, threats of eternal damnation.
any (lol) "decision" you claim to have made was bias from the start.

 

[daws101]

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.

another false claim nature does not "think" in the way you wish it did.
nature also "thought" of :
As a general rule, animals cannot reproduce asexually. However, there are exceptions.

Amoebas and other single-celled organisms reproduce asexually, being too small to have gender.

Certain larger animals may reproduce asexually through either:

parthenogenesis under certain circumstances (that is, reproduction via self-cloning),
gynogenesis (via the catalyst of a male nearby which does not actually fertilize the eggs).

Greenflies clone themselves once every 20 minutes.
Whiptail lizards, Aphids, some bees wasps and hornets, some fish and water fleas reproduce by parthenogenesis. Komodo Dragons, some sharks, some snails do as well.
Parthenogenesis has been laboratory induced in some species, such as urchins and turkeys, but this does not occur in the wild.

Read more: What are five animals that reproduce asexually

asshat

 

[daws101]

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.

assumption not fact

 

[daws101]

Of course you have.

yes I have, faux Christian

My dad can beat up your dad.

again proving my point