Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
no ,that just makes me laugh as it only relevant WHEN non intellects like yourself and ywc try to con others in to thinking your pseudoscience is science.all of your quotes come from hate every time you do the where did you go to college gag or falsely accuse another poster of anything it comes from hate.Daws, please quit dreaming buddy. Please post up some of my "hate" quotes that caused you to get nauseated. Please post pics of you taking Mylanta.
My statement with the term "require" is just parroting back Hollie's original same demand. Just pointing out Rugged's silliness of thinking she has any chance of forcing the behavior of a complete stranger on an internet forum.
Guess you missed it so I will require you to go back to sleep now.
so there!
So it makes you nauseated when I call someone out for bashing other's education credentials when heshe won't supply any of herhis own?
You said,Which is just hilarious.Just what have I claimed about the code? It contains Shannon information, but not just Shannon information, but information with specificity.
If you say so. I am not certain that 3480397121 does not specify an electronic communication line being opened, but I am certain that there is nothing (neither in information content or specificity) inherently about it that prevents it from resulting in an electronic communication line being opened when entered into a telephone keypad.Here, maybe this example will help you understand: Both the following number sequences contain the same amount of Shannon information, 33.2 bytes: 3480397121 and 602 545 1256. However, the first sequence does not specify anything. The second, however, when entered into a telephone keypad, will result in an electronic communication line being opened.
Well, maybe Intelligent Design Theory doesn't say anything you claim it says, but you insist that ""proteins WERE and ARE the symbols that are transferred within the code," and that "... dna as a molecule is chemically independent from the informational code it carries!!You have presented your strawman argument before about the "abstractness" of the English alphabet to argue against DNA "code", which I'm sure you just read on an atheist rebuttal website and you really had no understanding of what you were arguing. ID does not claim what you keep strawmanning about code.
As plainly demonstrated above, I am NOT the one whose notions result in gibberish.It claims DNA contains complex information or Shannon information, but it also claims information that specifies something, which distinguishes it from the gibberish you want to infer "just happened" in the primordial soup.
You're the joke.Your entire post above is quite the joke.
Whatever you say Mr. "dna as a molecule is chemically independent from the informational code it carries!"Rather than pick up a book like Signature In The Cell and read what claims are being made by ID, you rely on atheist websites for all your information. Your only source of information on the topic is what you have read on the internet. How sad. You will remain hopelessly lost in your ignorance.
dodge! so my statement standsPLEASE SHIT STICK I'M 53 and was 8 in 1967 when CCR first hit the scene.You just revealed your age and immaturity as that joke went right over your head. Creedence Clearwater Revival - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hollie, is that you? Yeah, because talking about masturbation, calling people 12-year-olds, and referring to scientists that don't agree with you as loons is really intellectual.
they were only a band till 1972.
so they had come and gone before you stopped wearing a diaper.
you lying sack of shit.
stop attempting to play it off like you old enough to appreciate them first hand... poser!
Okay Hollie. Because you know me so well. I was born in 1966 and was totally done with diapers in 1969.
Iwill and I will be correct.in some cases it doesn't, yours, since it's not real wealth is an exception.Please explain your flawed logic on how having wealth precludes you from following Christ. Please don't quote mine Bible verses taking them out of context.
you are most likley in debt so deep you'll never get out it.
your so called conversion is an illusion, if it weren't you'd not brag endlessly about how god made it possible, (an illusion in it's self) from my pov all you've done is switch addictions.
Daws, I was not bragging and I will not say anymore about it. Think what you want.
and he thinks you have multiple personalitiesPLEASE SHIT STICK I'M 53 and was 8 in 1967 when CCR first hit the scene.
they were only a band till 1972.
so they had come and gone before you stopped wearing a diaper.
you lying sack of shit.
stop attempting to play it off like you old enough to appreciate them first hand... poser!
Okay Hollie. Because you know me so well. I was born in 1966 and was totally done with diapers in 1969.
Wrong poster. It seems your stalking pathology is causing you to completely lose touch with reality.
Drink the Kool-aid.
How is it quote-mining when I have not in any manner misrepresented what the source intended to say? How is it that the quotes don't apply to ID as a whole when every source you cite--particularly Meyer--endorses the explicit goals expressed? How is that?FACT: "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)MYTH #1: Intelligent Design (ID) is just a fancy name for Creationism.
The true story: Intelligent Design theory is not a form of, nor is it synonymous with “creationism.” Rather, it is an over-arching scientific theory that disputes wholly naturalistic/materialistic accounts of the origin of the universe and the origin of life. As such it is an indispensable ally for those who espouse various creation models. ID makes NO CLAIM about the age of the earth.
FACT: "Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."
FACT: "Governing Goals: To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."
FACT: "Governing Goals: To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."
FACT: This is pretty much a list of FAIL.MYTH #5: ID research has not produced peer-reviewed literature.
The true story: There are more than 50 peer-reviewed papers that have come out of ID research. A list has been compiled HERE. An important article on this topic can be found HERE.
"Unable to convince the scientific establishment of the merits of their views, creationists have long been engaged in the project of constructing a counterestablishment, which mimics — or perhaps the mot juste is “apes” — not only peer-reviewed journals but also professional societies, textbook publishers, media organizations, natural history museums, and graduate programs at accredited universities."--The Latest “Intelligent Design” Journal
I see you are continuing with your intellectual dishonesty with some confirmation bias quote mining. However, these quotes don't apply to ID as a whole.
Why should I do this for you? Considering how you require no "proof" what-so-ever to claim absolute certainty in the validity of your beliefs; and how you demand absolute unqualified "proof" to refute your baseless beliefs; and how you require that others with competing beliefs produce absolute unqualified "proof" to validate their beliefs, why should I even make the attempt?I find it rather hilarious that you wish to change the subject rather than face the fact you've been ... how did you put it? .... Oh yes! OWNED.
Which gene-splicing paper do you wish me to cite? Which denial of the existence of GMOs are you going to trot out as your rebuttal?Please point me to the experiment that uses "ordinary chemical reactions" to produce highly specified molecular machines that not only build proteins, but make incredibly accurate copies of the original information in the information carrying molecule.
How many times must the hypotheses of abiogenesis be presented to you?And while you are at it, please address the enigma of how the very machines that make the copies or build the proteins require the very code they are using to exist in the first place? If there ever was a chicken/egg problem, this is it. I'll be waiting.
How curious. Still no link?? Please, no fairy tales with 43 "must haves", "might haves", and "could haves". I want to see an experiment where they produce a molecular machine that can make copies of information contained in the dna.
"How the fuck should I know?" is a response fully equivalent to "I don't know".Oh really?Quote: Originally Posted by LOki
"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."
Strawman.
So typical of Loki to deny this is a strawman argument. He cannot go back and find any quote where I claimed that the TOE is a theory of the identity of the common ancestor.
How does this grab you?
Really? Let's just replay that last accusation:Oh really?
How does this grab you?
Oh really? Let's just replay that last accusation:Oh really?
How does this grab you?
Oh really? Let's just replay that last accusation:Oh really?
How does this grab you?
Oh really? Let's just replay that last accusation:Oh really?
How does this grab you?
The fact that you knew the answer to he question when you asked it, yet asked it ANYWAY as if failing to identify the specific single-cell organism in question is a failure of evolutionary theory, exposes the exact strawman you deny you made.
Spoken right after I said, "How the fuck should I know?"
It is only appropriate that you should feel as helplessly out-classed by my vocabulary, as you are out-classed by my happy capacity to expose each of your purposefully distracting fallacies--including this latest (and lamest), "He uses big werdz cuz he thinks he's so smart" gambit.
You just get exposed for being the intellectually dishonest superstitious retard that you are. Your surrender is accepted.I will not subject myself to his dishonest games anymore after I complete my responses to his current posts. Arguing with fools will merely give you gray hair and to what outcome?
Loki, I am sorry. But for someone who pretends to be so intelligent, you are probably one of the more ignorant posters I've ever encountered. I am astonished that you would keep repeating the question asking you to identify the single cell organism as if: 1) My question is somehow a statement of fact and 2) in the very same post you are responding to, I explain I already knew the answer to the question and you did too. Your foolish pride just won't let you say "I don't know".
You UNAMBIGUOSLY presented the question as if I made any indication that I should have answer; as if I stated as if my position required an answer to the question; as if failing to answer that question could invalidate my position.No surprise here you follow the brainwashing technique used so much by materialist. Repeating the question 50 times will not make your assertion this was a claim (and not simply a question) any more valid. All it does is make you look like a 3-year-old child having a temper tantrum and is proof positive of your mental midgetry.
What makes people nauseated is your false claim to an education you show no signs of having earned.all of your quotes come from hate every time you do the where did you go to college gag or falsely accuse another poster of anything it comes from hate.
so there!
So it makes you nauseated when I call someone out for bashing other's education credentials when heshe won't supply any of herhis own?
You are confusing the god you worship, Satan, who is responsible for the actions you describe above, with the God of Christianity. You obviously have no concept of dualism or free will.There is nothing rational to infer about supernaturalism or magical gods.assumption not proof.
there is no proof that Adam existed or that god caused entropy!
as to this non sequitur " By the way are people admitting being gay is wrong ?"ywc
god made gay people. if you say otherwise you'd be lying
God made gay people. But did God make people gay????
By making this statement you are inferring that God exists. You are also inferring that God makes people. We can logically deduct that if God makes people, then he designed people. Based on the truth that God designed people, we need to ask ourselves, do males and females appear to be designed to go together? The answer must be overwhelmingly yes. Upon further examination of the human body, we must logically conclude that the large intestine and anus was designed for eliminating waste products from our body. It takes an extreme leap of logic to conclude that God designed your anus for another man to stick his penis into. In fact, we know that our large intestine contains many strains of bateria, such as Ecoli, that are deadly if ingested into the wrong part of our bodies. We also know that the large intestine is fragile enough that diseases such as the AIDS virus are easily introduced there if God's design intent is abandoned. Let the flames begin...
What we can infer about your magical gods (aside from the self-refuting nature of your absurd claims), is an endless hierarchy of gods designed by super gods who in turn were designed by super-super gods who in turn...
We also know that disease such as AIDS must have been (according to your worldview of fear and superstition) designed by one or more of your gods.
Why are your gods so hateful? Wiping most of humanity from the planet, disease, starvation, floods, earthquakes... Your gods are the most prolific serial mass murderers ever imagined. To worship such evil is a prescription for a maladjusted personality. And you have made yourself the posterboy for maladjusted personalities.
in some cases it doesn't, yours, since it's not real wealth is an exception.
you are most likley in debt so deep you'll never get out it.
your so called conversion is an illusion, if it weren't you'd not brag endlessly about how god made it possible, (an illusion in it's self) from my pov all you've done is switch addictions.
Daws, I was not bragging and I will not say anymore about it. Think what you want.
It seems the stalker believes that material gains are a function of belief in gods. Evangelism is rewarded with electronic toys.
It seems that fundies thoroughly cheapen religious faith by demanding material gains from their gods.
The gods serve a purpose not unlike vending machines.
For that matter, why did the gods make apes stronger by comparison than humans?
Good question,why did not the superior traits such as strength,sense of smell,and land speed not get passed on to humans if we are related ?
Because that's how evolution works, some species pick up things that they need and others don't pick up the same traits. Humans have better brains so they needed less strength, speed, ... than other species.
Because that's how evolution works, some species pick up things that they need and others don't pick up the same traits. Humans have better brains so they needed less strength, speed, ... than other species.
Nice try. Modern evolution does not claim this. Catch up!!!
Ok, if you prefer to deny reality, that's cool. I mean, you already believe in an invisible superbeing in another dimension that you pray to to run your life, so what's a little more delusion?
Nice try. Modern evolution does not claim this. Catch up!!!
How ironic that a science hating Christian creationist would seek to lecture anyone regarding "modern evolution". Is there such a thing as "modern evolution"?
Good stuff Hollie. Where do you find these cretins??
wrong, more assumption, the exsitance of god is not logical as logic is based on proof (Definition of LOGICassumption not proof.
there is no proof that Adam existed or that god caused entropy!
as to this non sequitur " By the way are people admitting being gay is wrong ?"ywc
god made gay people. if you say otherwise you'd be lying
God made gay people. But did God make people gay????
By making this statement you are inferring that God exists. You are also inferring that God makes people. We can logically deduct that if God makes people, then he designed people. Based on the truth that God designed people, we need to ask ourselves, do males and females appear to be designed to go together? The answer must be overwhelmingly yes. Upon further examination of the human body, we must logically conclude that the large intestine and anus was designed for eliminating waste products from our body. It takes an extreme leap of logic to conclude that God designed your anus for another man to stick his penis into. In fact, we know that our large intestine contains many strains of bateria, such as Ecoli, that are deadly if ingested into the wrong part of our bodies. We also know that the large intestine is fragile enough that diseases such as the AIDS virus are easily introduced there if God's design intent is abandoned. Let the flames begin...
1a (1) : a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning (2) : a branch or variety of logic <modal logic> <Boolean logic> (3) : a branch of semiotics; especially : syntactics (4) : the formal principles of a branch of knowledge .
also the inference that that homosexuality causes aids and was dreamed up by satan is is again not provable.
your post like all your posts is a steaming pile of specious assumption, hate fear and desperation.
it does however showcase your ignorace of facetiousness.
The fairy story of the end of the neanderthal and arrival of the cro-mag is enough to show they have no clue..its not really science..
Eots. Aren't you the ding bat that still thinks 9/11 was an inside job?? How good could your grip on reality be??
no ,that just makes me laugh as it only relevant WHEN non intellects like yourself and ywc try to con others in to thinking your pseudoscience is science.all of your quotes come from hate every time you do the where did you go to college gag or falsely accuse another poster of anything it comes from hate.
so there!
So it makes you nauseated when I call someone out for bashing other's education credentials when heshe won't supply any of herhis own?
what makes me nauseous is your whole disingenuous braggadocio, paper tiger, faux Christian, short dick, snake oil salesman persona.
As for Darwins discoveries, it would be helpful to remember that Darwin specifically said he didn't know where the original cell or cells came from and he wasn't going to guess. He said the origin of life itself was a hopeless inquiry. In Origin of the Species (and how many here have actually READ that interesting book?) Darwin said that in the beginning it was the Creator (with a capital c) who breathed life into the first single cell or several single cells, and it would be far in the future before the answer would be made clear. I wonder if he could have invisioned DNA?
Now notice, if you will, Darwin probably did more than any other person to extinguish religious faith among educated people and yet he was NOT an athiest. He bows to the Creator.
He probabaly couldn't even concieve of being an atheist. In his day not even the most daring, rationalistic philosophers, not even David Hume professed to be athiests. It's not until the end of the 19th century we are met with the first athiest of any prominence :Nietzche. I suspect Darwin figured that since nobody had the foggiest idea as to what created life in the first place, why not just lay it off on the Creator and let it go at that?
Keep in mind, the origin of the species and the origins of life are two entirely different concepts.
Darwin was not a neuro-scientist. His knowledge of the human brain was primitive at best. He knew nothing of genetics even though they were discovered by a contemporary of his, an Austrian monk named Gregor Johann Mendel- whose work strengthens the case for evolution tremendously. But Darwin did something more fundamental. He obliterated the cardinal distinction between Man and the beasts of the field. It had always been a truism that Man was a rational being and the beasts operated on 'instinct'. But what is instinct? It's what we now know to be the genetic code an animal is born with.
If man is an animal to what extent does his genetic code govern his life? Here we get into the realm of spiirtualism---or perhaps a little help from a higher life form, possibly from outside this universe (Pan Spermia?)
The ancient Sumerians plainly state in their texts that the 'Gods' bred us, as we are today--more or less, so we could function as slaves for those higher beings.
Strange stuff but it does answer a few basic questions and I don't think any discussion on this subject can go very far without considering our 'true' origins.
And this doesn't go against the concept of God at all. It merely makes Him bigger. No matter, if you will, who created US, SOMEBODY created THEM.
I think UR and hollie should rent a room , get naked, and slobber all over each other for a night.
Whatever Hollie. Are you talking about the point where you blatantly misrepresented two very important historical facts in order to prove it? Or the fact that your ad hominem attack against me says nothing about how your statements about Darwin and origins are totally made up?
I'm afraid my stalker is descending even further into his lurid fantasy world.
If you really want to piss off a stalker you ignore him. As far as I'm concerned Ultimate Embarassment adds nothing to any conversation and is easily relegated to the dust bin. AND as an extra added bonus it cleans up the thread rather nicely.
