Creationists

[UltimateReality]

Just what have I claimed about the code? It contains Shannon information, but not just Shannon information, but information with specificity.

You said,

"the information and instructions contained in code form in dna are independent of the dna molecule used to transfer the instructions."​

Which is just hilarious.

Your stupidity on the topic would be hilarious if it wasn't so tragic. I'm not sure what you find so amusing since you never actually provide a logical rebuttal or information to back up you silly claims.

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.

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.

As a matter of fact, it could be arranged such that 3480397121 results in opening the electronic communication line opened by 602 545 1256, and the sequence 602 545 1256 not specify anything. This is because they are symbols, and symbols have only the information we assign to them.

This is illustrated more clearly by erasing the numbers from your telephone keypad, and replacing them with letters such that 1234567890 become ABCDEFGHIJ. Then punching in FJB EDE ABEF would result in THE EXACT SAME electronic communication line being opened.

This is because altering symbols CANNOT alter the real things they represent. The reason for this is that the actual nature of things symbolized is independent of the symbols that represent them. This is the point I made that you deny is valid; that you are yet rather insistent upon asserting is valid as you demand that "the information and instructions contained in code form in dna are independent of the dna molecule used to transfer the instructions."

This is demonstrably NOT the case for the "information and instructions" for protiens that are "coded" for in DNA.

I'm not sure what you are arguing here and I'm not sure you know what you are arguing either. What are you arguing? Your information diatribe above sounds like the ramblings of a mad man. So what is your point? Are you saying dna does not contain code? Are you saying dna doesn't contain Shannon information? Are you saying dna doesn't contain Shannon information that imparts a function? Please do tell.

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 are rather emphatic on this point, and it seems rather consistent with the pertinent literature you post from the Intelligent Design sources you cite as definitive. Hence, I am at a loss as to why you insist that I have in any manner constructed a strawman of the notion of "code" utilized by Intelligent Design theorists.

The actual fact of reality is that proteins are not symbols, and the information and instructions contained in "code" form in DNA is chemically indissociable from the DNA molecule.

Please tell me you are joking. This is about the dumbest thing you've said in a week, and boy have you said some stupid crap. As usual you miss the point. So you are saying that if I shake up the molecule and shift all the nucleotides around, the dna will still contain functional information. Not!!! Please clarify this is not what you are inferring before you become the laughing stock of this entire 638 pages!!

If proteins were symbols as you say,

Once again I drew a comparison, which you have proven totally inept at grasping.

then polysaccharides could be functionally indistinguishable from polypeptides, as you would be simply exchanging one symbol (peptide) for another (sugar).

If the "the information and instructions contained in code form in dna are independent of the dna molecule used to transfer the instructions" as you say, you could substitute nucleic acids (provided you did so systematically) and the information transferred (being "chemically independent" from the DNA molecule) would result in the same protein the unaltered DNA molecule coded for.

I'm really not sure why you keep repeating this strawman, but you just did it again for the 5th time. Is it making you feel better?

In fact, if such chemical independence was actually the case, you could systematically replace adenine with say ... a methyl group; you could then replace cytosine with an acetyl group; you could replace guanine with an alcohol; and you could replace thymine with an ester. Being merely symbols, all of these molecules would be chemically independent of the "the information and instructions" they represent. The resulting molecule would be in every sense "code" for the same protein that the DNA molecule was--with necessarily the exact same "information" content and specificity, since we are only exchanging symbols. Then we would expect that this new molecule would function just like a strand of DNA.

This of course, is just ludicrous.

It most certainly is. And a strawman argument entirely of your imagination and not at all what ID is claiming. The information in dna is carried by the dna. It is a code and that information is independent of the medium carrying it just as as the chemistry of the magnetic tape is independent of the zero's and one's contained on it.

The reason for this is that DNA IS NOT A "CODE" in the manner you say it is!

Are you talking about the manner which is a figment of your strawman imagination???

Such substitutions cannot be made in DNA if the product of its function is to remain consistent. If DNA actually has it's very own discrete, specific, necessary, and self-defining function in the production of proteins (I think it does), then it's not actually a symbol for proteins--DNA then is not "code" that means proteins, because DNA doesn't actually function (in the genetics of organisms) that way.

It sure is nice of you to share information we are already aware of. Once again, I am left trying to remember what point it is that you are making??? You trail off into your delusions of Strawman. Is Toto there with you? Let's see if you agree with these statements: in computer science, a specific sequence of zero's and one's can be used to code for the symbol 'A".(T/F) In computer science, a combination of blocks of these specific sequences of zero's and ones, placed in a specific order, can be used to code for the string of symbols 'D-E-L-U-S-I-O-N-A-L' (T/F). A specific sequence of G's, T's, C's and A's can be used to code for a specific amino acid. (T/F) A combination of blocks of these specific sequences of G's, T's, C's and A's, placed in a specific order, can be used to code a string of amino acids that result in the protein, say, collagen or keratin (T/F).

As plainly demonstrated above, I am NOT the one whose notions result in gibberish.

Of course you aren't. Pay no mind to the nice gentlemen in white coats.

Your entire post above is quite the joke.

You're the joke.

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.

Whatever you say Mr. "dna as a molecule is chemically independent from the informational code it carries!"

You are hopelessly lost and I won't repeat the same thing over and over again which you can't seem to understand. The information bearing properties of dna are independent of the molecule. Jumble the G's, T's, C's and A's around and dna will not produce specific and functional proteins, nor will it make copies of itself. Without the specific arrangement of the nucleotides, functional information is not present, not even by chance. Without the specific arrangement of the nucleotides, which, when translated, impart a function, there would be shannon information but not information with specificity. The information in dna, while being expressed chemically, is merely carried by the molecule. The information is chemically independent from the chemistry just like words on a newspaper are independent from the chemistry of the ink, pulp, and other chemical ingredients that make up the information transfer medium known as newspaper. I can't understand why you are unable to grasp this. That is the last time I will explain it for you.

From Wiki:

"Deoxyribonucleic acid (Listeni/diˌɒksiˌraɪbɵ.njuːˌkleɪ.ɨk ˈæsɪd/; DNA) molecules are informational molecules encoding the genetic instructions used in the development and functioning of all known living organisms and many viruses. Along with RNA and proteins, DNA is one of the three major macromolecules that are essential for all known forms of life. Genetic information is encoded as a sequence of nucleotides, recorded using the letters G, A, T, and C. Most DNA molecules are double-stranded helices, consisting of two long polymers of simple units called nucleotides, with backbones made of alternating sugars (deoxyribose) and phosphate groups, with the nucleobases (G, A, T, C) attached to the sugars. DNA is well-suited for biological information storage, since the DNA backbone is resistant to cleavage and the double-stranded structure provides the molecule with a built-in duplicate of the encoded information."

"It is the sequence of these four nucleobases along the backbone that encodes information. This information is read using the genetic code, which specifies the sequence of the amino acids within proteins. The code is read by copying stretches of DNA into the related nucleic acid RNA in a process called transcription."

So Loki, what is with all the teleological verbiage from Wiki on this subject????? I'm not really sure why you refuse to accept it is code. You keep strawmanning about a false claim of what type of code you believe ID to be proposing. Nice waste of bandwidth above tearing down your strawman you built, pumpkin. DNA is digital code, regardless of whether you can fit that in your worldview or not.

 

[UltimateReality]

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.

and he thinks you have multiple personalities

Calling you Hollie was purposeful. Guess it went right over both your heads.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Where ever did you get that idea? I am a christian and know the bible fairly well and I can tell you now the earth is far, far older than 6,000 years. Who told you that? I am new to your board. Look forward to discussing this with you. - Moldth6

How old is the earth? and what do you base the age on ?

 

[UltimateReality]

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)

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.

"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.

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?

Please provide a link to a quote from Meyer supporting any one of your strawman quote mines above. Still waiting for your origins experiment link.

 

[UltimateReality]

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?

How many times must the hypotheses of abiogenesis be presented to you?

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.

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?

Because it doesn't exist. Go ahead. Say it. No such experiment exists because the fairy tales you propose are not testable and not falsifiable.

 

[UltimateReality]

Oh really?

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.

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".

"How the fuck should I know?" is a response fully equivalent to "I don't know".

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.

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.

And then you went on to C/P wikipedia as if evolution WAS a theory of the identity of the common ancestor of all life; as if your effort in any way was a means to establish you did not get caught attempting to misrepresent your opposition.

You sir, are the intellectually dishonest dickweed here. Embrace the fact you've been outed (again) and move on.

You got totally owned and you just can't admit it. Your strawman accusation was a lie and you were caught red handed in it. We both knew the answer to the question was that modern evolutionary biology has no clue what specific single cell organism was the common ancestor. They can't prove it or falsify it but that doesn't stop them from saying all life on the planet came from one, muffin.

 

[LOki]

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.

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?

Please provide a link to a quote from Meyer supporting any one of your strawman quote mines above.

Meyer is the Director of the organization that claims as one of its "governing goals: To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."

Still waiting for your origins experiment link.

"The emergence of life from iron monosulphide bubbles at a submarine hydrothermal redox and pH front"--M. J. RUSSELL & A. J. HALL

 

[LOki]

Just what have I claimed about the code? It contains Shannon information, but not just Shannon information, but information with specificity.

You said,

"the information and instructions contained in code form in dna are independent of the dna molecule used to transfer the instructions."​

Which is just hilarious.

Your stupidity on the topic would be hilarious if it wasn't so tragic. I'm not sure what you find so amusing since you never actually provide a logical rebuttal or information to back up you silly claims. I'm not sure what you are arguing here and I'm not sure you know what you are arguing either. What are you arguing? Your information diatribe above sounds like the ramblings of a mad man. So what is your point? Are you saying dna does not contain code? Are you saying dna doesn't contain Shannon information? Are you saying dna doesn't contain Shannon information that imparts a function? Please do tell.
Please tell me you are joking. This is about the dumbest thing you've said in a week, and boy have you said some stupid crap. As usual you miss the point. So you are saying that if I shake up the molecule and shift all the nucleotides around, the dna will still contain functional information. Not!!! Please clarify this is not what you are inferring before you become the laughing stock of this entire 638 pages!!
Once again I drew a comparison, which you have proven totally inept at grasping. I'm really not sure why you keep repeating this strawman, but you just did it again for the 5th time. Is it making you feel better? It most certainly is. And a strawman argument entirely of your imagination and not at all what ID is claiming. The information in dna is carried by the dna. It is a code and that information is independent of the medium carrying it just as as the chemistry of the magnetic tape is independent of the zero's and one's contained on it. Are you talking about the manner which is a figment of your strawman imagination??? It sure is nice of you to share information we are already aware of. Once again, I am left trying to remember what point it is that you are making??? You trail off into your delusions of Strawman. Is Toto there with you? Let's see if you agree with these statements: in computer science, a specific sequence of zero's and one's can be used to code for the symbol 'A".(T/F) In computer science, a combination of blocks of these specific sequences of zero's and ones, placed in a specific order, can be used to code for the string of symbols 'D-E-L-U-S-I-O-N-A-L' (T/F). A specific sequence of G's, T's, C's and A's can be used to code for a specific amino acid. (T/F) A combination of blocks of these specific sequences of G's, T's, C's and A's, placed in a specific order, can be used to code a string of amino acids that result in the protein, say, collagen or keratin (T/F).
Of course you aren't. Pay no mind to the nice gentlemen in white coats.

You're the joke.

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.

Whatever you say Mr. "dna as a molecule is chemically independent from the informational code it carries!"

You are hopelessly lost and I won't repeat the same thing over and over again which you can't seem to understand. The information bearing properties of dna are independent of the molecule. Jumble the G's, T's, C's and A's around and dna will not produce specific and functional proteins, nor will it make copies of itself. Without the specific arrangement of the nucleotides, functional information is not present, not even by chance. Without the specific arrangement of the nucleotides, which, when translated, impart a function, there would be shannon information but not information with specificity. The information in dna, while being expressed chemically, is merely carried by the molecule. The information is chemically independent from the chemistry just like words on a newspaper are independent from the chemistry of the ink, pulp, and other chemical ingredients that make up the information transfer medium known as newspaper. I can't understand why you are unable to grasp this. That is the last time I will explain it for you.

From Wiki:

"Deoxyribonucleic acid (Listeni/diˌɒksiˌraɪbɵ.njuːˌkleɪ.ɨk ˈæsɪd/; DNA) molecules are informational molecules encoding the genetic instructions used in the development and functioning of all known living organisms and many viruses. Along with RNA and proteins, DNA is one of the three major macromolecules that are essential for all known forms of life. Genetic information is encoded as a sequence of nucleotides, recorded using the letters G, A, T, and C. Most DNA molecules are double-stranded helices, consisting of two long polymers of simple units called nucleotides, with backbones made of alternating sugars (deoxyribose) and phosphate groups, with the nucleobases (G, A, T, C) attached to the sugars. DNA is well-suited for biological information storage, since the DNA backbone is resistant to cleavage and the double-stranded structure provides the molecule with a built-in duplicate of the encoded information."

"It is the sequence of these four nucleobases along the backbone that encodes information. This information is read using the genetic code, which specifies the sequence of the amino acids within proteins. The code is read by copying stretches of DNA into the related nucleic acid RNA in a process called transcription."

So Loki, what is with all the teleological verbiage from Wiki on this subject????? I'm not really sure why you refuse to accept it is code. You keep strawmanning about a false claim of what type of code you believe ID to be proposing. Nice waste of bandwidth above tearing down your strawman you built, pumpkin. DNA is digital code, regardless of whether you can fit that in your worldview or not.

Your denialism is just hilarious. This self-contradicting statement illustrates the point I'm making about your retarded notions: "The information bearing properties of dna are independent of the molecule. Jumble the G's, T's, C's and A's around and dna will not produce specific and functional proteins, nor will it make copies of itself. Without the specific arrangement of the nucleotides, functional information is not present, not even by chance."

 

[Hollie]

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.

Hollie, the only thing she or he ignores are facts.

Let's try and be honest here. Your "facts" are not facts at all. Let's try and be honest and maybe you can admit that you have cut and pasted falsified "quotes" on more than one occasion even after the "quotes" were exposed as frauds.

This type of dishonesty is rampant among Flat-.Earthers. So yes, not only do I ignore creationist lies as "facts", I call out these lies just as I exposed you as a liar.

 

[Hollie]

Wrong poster. It seems your stalking pathology is causing you to completely lose touch with reality.

Drink the Kool-aid.

and he thinks you have multiple personalities

Calling you Hollie was purposeful. Guess it went right over both your heads.

You're simply confused as to who you are stalking.

 

[Hollie]

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.

Origins is a dirty word for evolutionist

Predictably clueless. Origins, (the origin of life), is not a subject relevant to the TOE. This is an issue that typically causes confusion among Flat-Earthers'.

 

[LOki]

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".

"How the fuck should I know?" is a response fully equivalent to "I don't know".

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.

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.

And then you went on to C/P wikipedia as if evolution WAS a theory of the identity of the common ancestor of all life; as if your effort in any way was a means to establish you did not get caught attempting to misrepresent your opposition.

You sir, are the intellectually dishonest dickweed here. Embrace the fact you've been outed (again) and move on.

You got totally owned and you just can't admit it.

The evidence--rather than your belief--leads to an entirely different conclusion.

Your strawman accusation was a lie and you were caught red handed in it.

Baseless accusation, as demonstrated.

We both knew the answer to the question was that modern evolutionary biology has no clue what specific single cell organism was the common ancestor.

This fact of reality is the very fact of reality that validates my point, and indicts you.

They can't prove it or falsify it but that doesn't stop them from saying all life on the planet came from one, muffin.

Ah, the turd who requires no "proof" what-so-ever to claim absolute certainty in the validity of his beliefs; who demands absolute unqualified "proof" to refute his baseless beliefs; and who requires that others with competing beliefs produce absolute unqualified "proof" to validate their beliefs, demands "proof" again.

The fact of reality is that valid logic applied to the current verifiable evidence requires the conclusion that all life had a common ancestor.

 

[daws101]

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 people nauseated is your false claim to an education you show no signs of having earned.

I think I'm going to throw up.

non sequitur/dodge

 

[daws101]

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...

There is nothing rational to infer about supernaturalism or magical gods.

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.

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.

Let's see.... as I understand it, dualism is a concept where in the case of an imagined god, that god is good and evil at the same time.
that would mean that Satan is god behaving badly.
also since they are one in the same, god is just as responsible for what Satan does as Satan is responsible for what god does .
since there is no proof that god or Satan exist together or as separate entities,then logic would dictate that other than natural catastrophes ,WE humans are responsible for our own actions for good or evil!

 

[daws101]

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...

wrong, more assumption, the exsitance of god is not logical as logic is based on proof (Definition of LOGIC
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.

Not surprising you totally missed the point. An atheist posed the question: "Does God make gay people?" My comments refer to this specific question and that is clearly stated in my post. The question infers God exists, Einstein.

Regarding AIDS, Satan didn't have to invent it. When you go against the Designer's intent, bad juju is always a possibility. You wouldn't use a chainsaw to cut someone's hair would you? As a rational human being (giving you a lot of credit here Daws) you can logically deduce that a chainsaw is not designed for that purpose. You should also be able to infer you shouldn't stick your penis in another man's poop shoot or you could get a disease. I'm just saying.

again you are wrong, I ask no such question(I made a facetious and sarcastic statement that you intentionally misinterpreted to make a meaningless point) therefore your unnecessary answer to an unasked question is total hubris.
btw you beliving you're a good judge of what and who is rational is an ironic gut buster!

 

[daws101]

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?

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.
what makes me nauseous is your whole disingenuous braggadocio, paper tiger, faux Christian, short dick, snake oil salesman persona.

You're projecting again.

ahh no...

 

[daws101]

Wrong poster. It seems your stalking pathology is causing you to completely lose touch with reality.

Drink the Kool-aid.

and he thinks you have multiple personalities

Calling you Hollie was purposeful. Guess it went right over both your heads.

wrong! it was amateurish, Immature.
there was nothing to go over our heads,
your answer in this post " Calling you Hollie was purposeful"- U.R. ....Proves that

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

Hollie, the only thing she or he ignores are facts.

Let's try and be honest here. Your "facts" are not facts at all. Let's try and be honest and maybe you can admit that you have cut and pasted falsified "quotes" on more than one occasion even after the "quotes" were exposed as frauds.

This type of dishonesty is rampant among Flat-.Earthers. So yes, not only do I ignore creationist lies as "facts", I call out these lies just as I exposed you as a liar.

Ok let's try this again shall we.

Your theory calls for natural selection allowing organisms with better traits over time passing on these traits that aid in the survival of the species. If humans are related to some of these creatures evolutionist claim,why are none of these superior traits found in the human Genepool ?. Examples of superior traits our relatives possessed and did not pass on to modern day humans.

1. superior eye sight
2. superior land speed
3. superior strength
4. superior sense of smell

This is a tuffy I know but it is a questing that needs a rational explanation if your theory be true and then evidence to back your claim not conjecture as your answer once again.

Are we gonna get a baseless answer like we get when asking about how did life spontaneously start,with zero evidence backing your copy and paste jobs ?

 

[daws101]

and he thinks you have multiple personalities

Calling you Hollie was purposeful. Guess it went right over both your heads.

You're simply confused as to who you are stalking.

U.R. is the evangelical equivalent of a totally talentless and unfunny comic ,who hasn't the wit or the brians to realize that when you have to explain a joke or in this case a " you're to dumb to get it razz" that it has missed it's mark , is not because the intended audience didn't "get it" but because the "comic" is not near as smart or funny as he believes he is.

 

[daws101]

Hollie, the only thing she or he ignores are facts.

Let's try and be honest here. Your "facts" are not facts at all. Let's try and be honest and maybe you can admit that you have cut and pasted falsified "quotes" on more than one occasion even after the "quotes" were exposed as frauds.

This type of dishonesty is rampant among Flat-.Earthers. So yes, not only do I ignore creationist lies as "facts", I call out these lies just as I exposed you as a liar.

Ok let's try this again shall we.

Your theory calls for natural selection allowing organisms with better traits over time passing on these traits that aid in the survival of the species. If humans are related to some of these creatures evolutionist claim,why are none of these superior traits found in the human Genepool ?. Examples of superior traits our relatives possessed and did not pass on to modern day humans.

1. superior eye sight
2. superior land speed
3. superior strength
4. superior sense of smell

This is a tuffy I know but it is a questing that needs a rational explanation if your theory be true and then evidence to back your claim not conjecture as your answer once again.

Are we gonna get a baseless answer like we get when asking about how did life spontaneously start,with zero evidence backing your copy and paste jobs ?

1. humans have the best developed eye for all around use of any creature on earth.
making you first statement false.
2. since humans are bipedal and our feet were first evolved for climbing not running at high speed and then re adapted for long distance walking. as a species we and our ape relatives did not evolve high running speed because none was necessary for survival. you are comparing apples to screwdrivers!
3. we are the strongest of our species
your's is a false comparison.
4. again a false comparison, our olfactory system is no less developed then our ape cousins.


"if your theory be true and then evidence to back your claim not conjecture as your answer once again." YWC..

I'll ask you TO back youR conjecture with evidence also. not UNPROVABLE BIBLICAL QUOTES OR CREATION PSEUDOSCIENCE OR SUBJECTIVE BELIEFS YOU FALSELY CALL EVIDENCE.