Creationists

[Youwerecreated]

Yes. At least far better than UltimateReality does.

It happens because the sequences of nucleotides are not symbols for proteins--nucleotides CANNOT be substituted with other "symbols." The information contained in DNA is DEPENDENT upon the DNA molecule used to transfer the instructions--the information and instructions contained in DNA is INDISSOCIABLE from the chemistry of the DNA molecule. You CANNOT alter the chemistry of the molecule (systematically or otherwise) and expect the protein thus "coded" for.

Dependent, does that not suggest a necessity,do you believe chance produces a necessity ?

There is no answer to this nonsense question. Do you believe blue adds up to 27?

So what happens if a mutation happens ?

Nothing, IF DNA is a symbol for proteins whose information is independent of the chemistry of the DNA molecule, as the disingenuous retard you defend so enthusiastically demands.

OTOH if I am correct, and DNA is a NOT symbol for proteins, but a molecule whose information is dependent on... no, MORE than just dependent on... INHERENT in its chemistry; if, as I have clearly stated, you CANNOT alter the chemistry of the molecule (systematically or otherwise) and then expect no alteration of the initial protein coded for, then there will be a change expressed in the product (i.e. the protein in this case) of the altered information that constitutes the mutation.

You have something transcribing the information then if an error happens you have another mechanism to try and correct that mistake and you think that just happened through chance ?

While this is going on you have the diversity of livinging organisms with only a four letter alphabet.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I've had sufficient formal education to disabuse myself of the superstitious notion that the DNA in living things must be an informed molecule based upon the premise that DNA is a symbol for proteins whose information is independent of the chemistry of the DNA molecule.

Where did the code come from ? what happens if the instructions are not followed in most cases ?

In the grown-up world, we use terms such as evolution and cell mutation?

Where did your gods come from? Define for us the hierarchy of gods who zapped into existence the subordinate gods who in turn zapped into existence the lower order of subordinate gods until we eventually got the lowest order of subordinate gods, ie., your gods.

What happens to your gods if they don't follow the orders of the gods they are junior to?

My one and only God has always existed. There is only one God you must be trying to confuse my beliefs with someone else.

 

[Youwerecreated]

No, he just doesn't get it. Lack of a formal education has left him to attempt understanding by what he reads on the internet without external guidance to put it into context.

He is somewhat on the right track but I am trying to let make his own case for purposeful design.

Any case to be made for purposeful design is incumbent on those who assert a "designer".

To date, nothing has been submitted to suggest a designer of any sort. We have only seen failed attacks on science as alleged proof of a designer. This is a common tactic of the Christian anti-science ministries. No evidence of any "designer" gods is available so the creationist cabal attempts attacks on science to deflect criticism of their failings to offer positive evidence.

The same can be said about evolutionist but do they ?

This is not an attack on science,it's an attack on Ideologues to provide evidence that life spontaneously produced mechanisms within a cell for a purpose and are a neccessity,that you once denied existed.

 

[Youwerecreated]

If Noah had lions and tigers, which eat meat, did he have extra chickens and goats and stuff? Or did god give him a magic bowl of dog food that never ran dry?

According to the scriptures all organisms were vegetarians except humans,that did not change until after the boat ride.

In the grown-up world of education and knowledge, we know that there are animals we rationally define as "carnivores". You can look for the definition of this term and take the first step toward being a grown-up.

So.... after Noah's cruise (the "cruise to nowhere"), which the serial mass murderer gods acted as travel agents for so they could wipe humanity from the planet, what did the carnivorous animals eat?

How do you prove the diet of creatures human eye's never saw ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

I've had sufficient formal education to disabuse myself of the superstitious notion that the DNA in living things must be an informed molecule based upon the premise that DNA is a symbol for proteins whose information is independent of the chemistry of the DNA molecule.

Where did the code come from ?

If by "code" you mean;

• "A system of words, letters, figures, or other symbols used to represent others, esp. for the purposes of secrecy";
• "a system for communication by telegraph, heliograph, etc., in which long and short sounds, light flashes, etc., are used to symbolize the content of a message";
• "a system used for brevity or secrecy of communication, in which arbitrarily chosen words, letters, or symbols are assigned definite meanings."
• "A system of signals used to represent letters or numbers in transmitting messages."
• "A system of symbols, letters, or words given certain arbitrary meanings, used for transmitting messages requiring secrecy or brevity."
• "A system of symbols and rules used to represent instructions to a computer;"
• "a system of letters or symbols, and rules for their association by means of which information can be represented or communicated for reasons of secrecy, brevity, etc.;"
• "a system of letters or digits used for identification or selection purposes;"
• "a system of words, letters, figures, or symbols used to represent others, especially for the purposes of secrecy;"
• "a phrase or concept used to represent another in an indirect way;"
• "a series of letters, numbers, or symbols assigned to something for the purposes of classification or identification;"
• "Computing program instructions;"

then I have no idea what you're talking about, because DNA isn't a symbol for proteins in living things; it is just the sequence of nucleotides in DNA or RNA that determines the specific amino acid sequence in the synthesis of proteins.

what happens if the instructions are not followed in most cases ?

If by "instructions" you mean;

• "a direction calling for compliance;"
• "an outline or manual of technical procedure;"
• "a code that tells a computer to perform a particular operation;"
• "the act of furnishing with authoritative directions;"
• "orders or directions;"
• "commands given to a computer to carry out a particular operation;"
• "the process or act of imparting knowledge;"
• "a part of a program consisting of a coded command to the computer to perform a specified function;"

then I have no idea what you're talking about, because DNA is just a molecule whose effect on the ordinary reactions of protein synthesis promotes specific amino acid sequences in proteins.

I am certain that if there was less room for equivocating in your usage of the terms, I could give you better answers. But then the answers then given wouldn't be consistent with your faith, or subject to typical and predictable red-herring refutations.

It is a form of communication, there is no form of communication that was the product absent of intelligence. So you assert that this biological code is a product of natural processes abent of intelligence.

You don't see this as a contradiction ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Where did the code come from ?

If by "code" you mean;

• "A system of words, letters, figures, or other symbols used to represent others, esp. for the purposes of secrecy";
• "a system for communication by telegraph, heliograph, etc., in which long and short sounds, light flashes, etc., are used to symbolize the content of a message";
• "a system used for brevity or secrecy of communication, in which arbitrarily chosen words, letters, or symbols are assigned definite meanings."
• "A system of signals used to represent letters or numbers in transmitting messages."
• "A system of symbols, letters, or words given certain arbitrary meanings, used for transmitting messages requiring secrecy or brevity."
• "A system of symbols and rules used to represent instructions to a computer;"
• "a system of letters or symbols, and rules for their association by means of which information can be represented or communicated for reasons of secrecy, brevity, etc.;"
• "a system of letters or digits used for identification or selection purposes;" But of course, the digits identify the correct amino acid for the molecular machine provide information on which order they should be selected in.
• "a system of words, letters, figures, or symbols used to represent others, especially for the purposes of secrecy;"
• "a phrase or concept used to represent another in an indirect way;"
• "a series of letters, numbers, or symbols assigned to something for the purposes of classification or identification;" Yes, the specific arrangement of nucleotides identifies which amino acid will be selected for a particular machine.
• "Computing program instructions;"

then I have no idea what you're talking about, because DNA isn't a symbol for proteins [You are correct. But comparing dna to binary code in a computer, just like the letter 'A' is a symbol that can be transmitted by a particular order of 0's and 1's, so too can the instructions to build a protein be transmitted by G's, T's, C's, and A's.] so is the protein of symboin living things; it is just the sequence of nucleotides in DNA or RNA that determines the specific amino acid sequence in the synthesis of proteins.

what happens if the instructions are not followed in most cases ?

If by "instructions" you mean;

• "a direction calling for compliance;"
• "an outline or manual of technical procedure;"
• "a code that tells a computer to perform a particular operation;"
• "the act of furnishing with authoritative directions;"
• "orders or directions;"
• "commands given to a computer to carry out a particular operation;"
• "the process or act of imparting knowledge;"
• "a part of a program consisting of a coded command to the computer to perform a specified function;"

then I have no idea what you're talking about, because DNA is just a molecule whose effect on the ordinary reactions* of protein synthesis promotes specific amino acid sequences in proteins. *Assumptive language and pathetic attempt at subtle brainwashing. This is the type of stuff poor dear Hollie falls for.

I am certain that if there was less room for equivocating in your usage of the terms, I could give you better answers. But then the answers then given wouldn't be consistent with your faith, or subject to typical and predictable red-herring refutations.

Bingo Twix. All of the bolded above can be implied. DNA carries instructions, by way of quaternary code, that tell a molecular machine what specific ingredients it needs in what specific order to assemble a component for another molecular machine.

The "ordinary reactions" that Sweetart refers to above assemble complex proteins like this one:

"While the pretty pictures published on book covers and journals are indeed accurate, they only tell part of the story. These images don't represent every possible form of the molecule, or perhaps even the most biologically interesting ones. Rather these are the most stable or crystallizable states, what North Carolina State University physicist Keith Weninger calls “landmarks in a conformational landscape.”

And that's just in vitro; what a protein looks like in vivo may differ even more. “Living cells are amazing things,” Weninger says. “They maintain non-equilibrium conditions; the system keeps gradients that shouldn't exist, and very non-equilibrium flows, and those are hard to reproduce outside of a cell. Those conditions can affect biology, which is why people want to develop high-resolution methods to look at protein structure in cells.”

The Photosystem membrane protein complex, deduced using femtosecond X-ray protein nanocrystallography

You are doing a very good job in explaining the facts.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Let's just review the record:Where's the stawman now?

NOBODY is disputing that DNA CAN be used to code in the manner you use the term.

And when you percieve an opportunity to declare my rebuttal to your position a strawman, NOBODY disputes my point that sequences of nucleotides are not symbols for proteins--nucleotides CANNOT be substituted with other "symbols." The information contained in DNA is DEPENDENT upon the DNA molecule used to transfer the instructions--the information and instructions contained in DNA is INDISSOCIABLE from the chemistry of the DNA molecule. You CANNOT alter the chemistry of the molecule (systematically or otherwise) and expect the protein thus "coded" for.

Strawman assertion #17. This is not the claim but your typical semantics twist of what is being claimed. For the 10th time, I'm not saying the nucleotides can be substituted.

You most certainly are.
See? You indeed are saying that any systematic substitution of nucleotides will impart the same function; no need to use DNA at all to carry the information because, "the information dna carries is independent of the mere chemistry of the molecule."

The information in DNA is either so specific that it is not a symbol for proteins and is not independent of the chemistry of the molecule--OR--any systematic substitution of nucleotides (with other nucleotides or other chemical groups) will impart the same function because "the information dna carries is independent of the mere chemistry of the molecule."

Then you indeed are saying that any systematic substitution of nucleotides will impart the same function; no need to use DNA at all to carry the information because, "the information dna carries is independent of the mere chemistry of the molecule."

There is overwhelming evidence it didn't get there randomly, ...

Not in dispute. Everyone but you seems to understand that this is because the information DNA carries is inherent in the chemistry of the molecule.

... but the required informational sequences were programmed in. How many times can I say the same thing and you still assert I am saying something different. Guess we will find out when you say the same thing again, Snickers.

As predicted hundreds of posts ago, all you bring is some self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance account of some "God."

Oh boy

 

[Youwerecreated]

But just keep telling yourself it wasn't designed... it wasn't designed.

Here we have the entirety of the creationist rebuttal to science and knowledge: "its complicated, therefore we knew with certainty that the gods did it".

It's the classical argument from ignorance that defines the creationist agenda.

You both are in denial of the facts and can't see it.

 

[Hollie]

Where did the code come from ? what happens if the instructions are not followed in most cases ?

In the grown-up world, we use terms such as evolution and cell mutation?

Where did your gods come from? Define for us the hierarchy of gods who zapped into existence the subordinate gods who in turn zapped into existence the lower order of subordinate gods until we eventually got the lowest order of subordinate gods, ie., your gods.

What happens to your gods if they don't follow the orders of the gods they are junior to?

My one and only God has always existed. There is only one God you must be trying to confuse my beliefs with someone else.

Yours, of course, is the mindless prattle used by creationists to justify their beliefs: "the bible is true because I was told the bible is true and because I believe the bible is true it is therefore true". It's a mindless and intellectually dishonest way to come to conclusions about reality but the reality challenged don't have a great need for intellectual honesty.

Creationist dogma will never increase our understanding or knowledge of the physical world because knowledge is antithetical to the creationist. What is not already written in the bible is relegated to the unknowable hand of God moving in his creation. Fear and superstition has caused the Genesis story to be repeated for three thousand years and we know no more of existence now than when that tale was first written by the hand of man. In the last two hundred years of taking a scientific approach to studying the natural world, we have learned most of what we know about how living things work. This seeking of knowledge is what infuriates creationists such as the two fundies in thus thread.

Similarly, to try and find ways to make the Genesis fable fit the natural world is to miss the point of Genesis entirely. There is no reason why angry, jealous gods would need any of the physical processes we know and understand to womp up the universe. All the reinvention and equivocation required by creationists to explain the errors and inaccuracies of biblical tales does nothing to further clarify the absurdities of creationism.

The only legitimate challenge to evolutionary fact and theory would be a competing theory that legitimately fits the criteria for how we define a theory. If such a competing theory existed and provided a better account of the demonstrable facts related to evolution than the current facts and theory, that would be worthy of investigation. Creationism fits no such derinition. Ask a creationist on what basis the creation story could supplant the fact of evolutionary science and we're met with silly demands that the creation story is true because it appears in a book (written by superstitious men), that is true in its entirety "because I was told it was true".

Creationism / ID are neither science nor theory. They do not meet the criteria of science and cannot resolve their internal contradictions. The falsified "quotes" from creationist crackpots and the reliance on lies, deceit and falsehoods to buttress creationist dogma relegates creationism to mythology.

 

[Hollie]

But just keep telling yourself it wasn't designed... it wasn't designed.

Here we have the entirety of the creationist rebuttal to science and knowledge: "its complicated, therefore we knew with certainty that the gods did it".

It's the classical argument from ignorance that defines the creationist agenda.

You both are in denial of the facts and can't see it.

You and the other creationist have presented no facts. Has it missed you entirely that you present no evidence of your gods? Your entire argument is the tired and silly "god of the gaps", claim. You and the other creationist rely on attacks aimed at science as somehow proving your gods.

Yours is a silly and pointless argument but absent a workable theory and evidence to support the theory, you're relegated to attacking what terrifies creationists: scientific knowledge.

 

[Youwerecreated]

In the grown-up world, we use terms such as evolution and cell mutation?

Where did your gods come from? Define for us the hierarchy of gods who zapped into existence the subordinate gods who in turn zapped into existence the lower order of subordinate gods until we eventually got the lowest order of subordinate gods, ie., your gods.

What happens to your gods if they don't follow the orders of the gods they are junior to?

My one and only God has always existed. There is only one God you must be trying to confuse my beliefs with someone else.

Yours, of course, is the mindless prattle used by creationists to justify their beliefs: "the bible is true because I was told the bible is true and because I believe the bible is true it is therefore true". It's a mindless and intellectually dishonest way to come to conclusions about reality but the reality challenged don't have a great need for intellectual honesty.

Creationist dogma will never increase our understanding or knowledge of the physical world because knowledge is antithetical to the creationist. What is not already written in the bible is relegated to the unknowable hand of God moving in his creation. Fear and superstition has caused the Genesis story to be repeated for three thousand years and we know no more of existence now than when that tale was first written by the hand of man. In the last two hundred years of taking a scientific approach to studying the natural world, we have learned most of what we know about how living things work. This seeking of knowledge is what infuriates creationists such as the two fundies in thus thread.

Similarly, to try and find ways to make the Genesis fable fit the natural world is to miss the point of Genesis entirely. There is no reason why angry, jealous gods would need any of the physical processes we know and understand to womp up the universe. All the reinvention and equivocation required by creationists to explain the errors and inaccuracies of biblical tales does nothing to further clarify the absurdities of creationism.

The only legitimate challenge to evolutionary fact and theory would be a competing theory that legitimately fits the criteria for how we define a theory. If such a competing theory existed and provided a better account of the demonstrable facts related to evolution than the current facts and theory, that would be worthy of investigation. Creationism fits no such derinition. Ask a creationist on what basis the creation story could supplant the fact of evolutionary science and we're met with silly demands that the creation story is true because it appears in a book (written by superstitious men), that is true in its entirety "because I was told it was true".

Creationism / ID are neither science nor theory. They do not meet the criteria of science and cannot resolve their internal contradictions. The falsified "quotes" from creationist crackpots and the reliance on lies, deceit and falsehoods to buttress creationist dogma relegates creationism to mythology.

Ok I have been asking what scientific method have been used to add credibility to the theory you cling to ? What evidence convinced you that life spontaneously came into existence ? If you can't provide answers to these questions what you are doing is no different from a creationist except that we don't believe life could have come in to existence without a directed process.

It is pretty simple really,a car,a computer did not come into existence by chance it was designed and built. Why do you draw the line with much more complex biological organisms ? you need to believe a whole lot of could haves and maybes to believe what you do.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Here we have the entirety of the creationist rebuttal to science and knowledge: "its complicated, therefore we knew with certainty that the gods did it".

It's the classical argument from ignorance that defines the creationist agenda.

You both are in denial of the facts and can't see it.

You and the other creationist have presented no facts. Has it missed you entirely that you present no evidence of your gods? Your entire argument is the tired and silly "god of the gaps", claim. You and the other creationist rely on attacks aimed at science as somehow proving your gods.

Yours is a silly and pointless argument but absent a workable theory and evidence to support the theory, you're relegated to attacking what terrifies creationists: scientific knowledge.

I can't help it you can't see all the necessary functions within a living organism that was needed for life. Let's face facts,evolutionists believe in chance,coincidence and miracles but just are not willing to admit it.

 

[UltimateReality]

But just keep telling yourself it wasn't designed... it wasn't designed.

Here we have the entirety of the creationist rebuttal to science and knowledge: "its complicated, therefore we knew with certainty that the gods did it".

It's the classical argument from ignorance that defines the creationist agenda.

Not just complicated, but the odds it happened by chance are so small we can say with 100% certainty it didn't happen by chance.

 

[UltimateReality]

In the grown-up world, we use terms such as evolution and cell mutation?

Where did your gods come from? Define for us the hierarchy of gods who zapped into existence the subordinate gods who in turn zapped into existence the lower order of subordinate gods until we eventually got the lowest order of subordinate gods, ie., your gods.

What happens to your gods if they don't follow the orders of the gods they are junior to?

My one and only God has always existed. There is only one God you must be trying to confuse my beliefs with someone else.

Yours, of course, is the mindless prattle used by creationists to justify their beliefs: "the bible is true because I was told the bible is true and because I believe the bible is true it is therefore true". It's a mindless and intellectually dishonest way to come to conclusions about reality but the reality challenged don't have a great need for intellectual honesty.

Creationist dogma will never increase our understanding or knowledge of the physical world because knowledge is antithetical to the creationist. What is not already written in the bible is relegated to the unknowable hand of God moving in his creation. Fear and superstition has caused the Genesis story to be repeated for three thousand years and we know no more of existence now than when that tale was first written by the hand of man. In the last two hundred years of taking a scientific approach to studying the natural world, we have learned most of what we know about how living things work. This seeking of knowledge is what infuriates creationists such as the two fundies in thus thread.

Similarly, to try and find ways to make the Genesis fable fit the natural world is to miss the point of Genesis entirely. There is no reason why angry, jealous gods would need any of the physical processes we know and understand to womp up the universe. All the reinvention and equivocation required by creationists to explain the errors and inaccuracies of biblical tales does nothing to further clarify the absurdities of creationism.

The only legitimate challenge to evolutionary fact and theory would be a competing theory that legitimately fits the criteria for how we define a theory. If such a competing theory existed and provided a better account of the demonstrable facts related to evolution than the current facts and theory, that would be worthy of investigation. Creationism fits no such derinition. Ask a creationist on what basis the creation story could supplant the fact of evolutionary science and we're met with silly demands that the creation story is true because it appears in a book (written by superstitious men), that is true in its entirety "because I was told it was true".

Creationism / ID are neither science nor theory. They do not meet the criteria of science and cannot resolve their internal contradictions. The falsified "quotes" from creationist crackpots and the reliance on lies, deceit and falsehoods to buttress creationist dogma relegates creationism to mythology.

Hollie has been schooled on this numerous times. She continues to borrow parts and pieces of Christian Theology for her fallacious arguments but ignores the pertinent parts of Biblical teaching that God has always existed and pre-dates the Big Bang in order to make her argument appear sound. Only by using some doctrines and not others is she able to make her fallacious, logic-lacking "turtles all the way down" argument and then she keeps repeating it over and over in these pages as if doing so will somehow eventually make the argument valid. Doh! Of course her next post will say nothing to rebut my comments but will trail off into some Ad Hominem attack that involves the terms ICR and Haran Yahya. PATHETIC!!!

And, like an ignorant retard, she will continue to use the term "gods" when referencing a monotheistic religion like Judaism. This is her repeated attempt at a dig against Christians but after being called out about it over 100 times she continues to look more and more like the village idiot because she just can't grasp that it childish and moronic.

 

[UltimateReality]

Great Big Bang Info!!!

The Universe & Big Bang Theory | Universe History, Age & Structure, Space Exploration | Space.com

WMAP Big Bang Concepts

 

[Hollie]

You both are in denial of the facts and can't see it.

You and the other creationist have presented no facts. Has it missed you entirely that you present no evidence of your gods? Your entire argument is the tired and silly "god of the gaps", claim. You and the other creationist rely on attacks aimed at science as somehow proving your gods.

Yours is a silly and pointless argument but absent a workable theory and evidence to support the theory, you're relegated to attacking what terrifies creationists: scientific knowledge.

I can't help it you can't see all the necessary functions within a living organism that was needed for life. Let's face facts,evolutionists believe in chance,coincidence and miracles but just are not willing to admit it.

As expected, you have a need to denigrate science, somehow thinking that adds credibility to creationist takes and fables. What you don't acknowledge is that science is built on a foundation of hypothesis, testing and examination. None of those processes are available as a means for testing the supermagical realm of Christian creationism.

 

[Hollie]

My one and only God has always existed. There is only one God you must be trying to confuse my beliefs with someone else.

Yours, of course, is the mindless prattle used by creationists to justify their beliefs: "the bible is true because I was told the bible is true and because I believe the bible is true it is therefore true". It's a mindless and intellectually dishonest way to come to conclusions about reality but the reality challenged don't have a great need for intellectual honesty.

Creationist dogma will never increase our understanding or knowledge of the physical world because knowledge is antithetical to the creationist. What is not already written in the bible is relegated to the unknowable hand of God moving in his creation. Fear and superstition has caused the Genesis story to be repeated for three thousand years and we know no more of existence now than when that tale was first written by the hand of man. In the last two hundred years of taking a scientific approach to studying the natural world, we have learned most of what we know about how living things work. This seeking of knowledge is what infuriates creationists such as the two fundies in thus thread.

Similarly, to try and find ways to make the Genesis fable fit the natural world is to miss the point of Genesis entirely. There is no reason why angry, jealous gods would need any of the physical processes we know and understand to womp up the universe. All the reinvention and equivocation required by creationists to explain the errors and inaccuracies of biblical tales does nothing to further clarify the absurdities of creationism.

The only legitimate challenge to evolutionary fact and theory would be a competing theory that legitimately fits the criteria for how we define a theory. If such a competing theory existed and provided a better account of the demonstrable facts related to evolution than the current facts and theory, that would be worthy of investigation. Creationism fits no such derinition. Ask a creationist on what basis the creation story could supplant the fact of evolutionary science and we're met with silly demands that the creation story is true because it appears in a book (written by superstitious men), that is true in its entirety "because I was told it was true".

Creationism / ID are neither science nor theory. They do not meet the criteria of science and cannot resolve their internal contradictions. The falsified "quotes" from creationist crackpots and the reliance on lies, deceit and falsehoods to buttress creationist dogma relegates creationism to mythology.

Hollie has been schooled on this numerous times. She continues to borrow parts and pieces of Christian Theology for her fallacious arguments but ignores the pertinent parts of Biblical teaching that God has always existed and pre-dates the Big Bang in order to make her argument appear sound. Only by using some doctrines and not others is she able to make her fallacious, logic-lacking "turtles all the way down" argument and then she keeps repeating it over and over in these pages as if doing so will somehow eventually make the argument valid. Doh! Of course her next post will say nothing to rebut my comments but will trail off into some Ad Hominem attack that involves the terms ICR and Haran Yahya. PATHETIC!!!

And, like an ignorant retard, she will continue to use the term "gods" when referencing a monotheistic religion like Judaism. This is her repeated attempt at a dig against Christians but after being called out about it over 100 times she continues to look more and more like the village idiot because she just can't grasp that it childish and moronic.

Christian creationists will recoil in defensive postures when their sacred cows are challenged. They get defensive when their falsified "quotes" are exposed as frauds and when their gods are identified as serial mass murderers. Christuan creationists get defensive when their cutting and pasting from creationist ministries and Harun Yahya is exposed as fraudulent.

Why do Christian creationist complain about their frauds being exposed?

 

[Hollie]

But just keep telling yourself it wasn't designed... it wasn't designed.

Here we have the entirety of the creationist rebuttal to science and knowledge: "its complicated, therefore we knew with certainty that the gods did it".

It's the classical argument from ignorance that defines the creationist agenda.

Not just complicated, but the odds it happened by chance are so small we can say with 100% certainty it didn't happen by chance.

We can say with certainty that your silly statement is ridiculous. As I already identified, yours is just more of the fraudulent "god of the gaps" nonsense.

We know with 100% certainty that claims to supernatural Christian gods and the designers of your supernatural gods are utterly absent verification.

 

[Hollie]

My one and only God has always existed. There is only one God you must be trying to confuse my beliefs with someone else.

Yours, of course, is the mindless prattle used by creationists to justify their beliefs: "the bible is true because I was told the bible is true and because I believe the bible is true it is therefore true". It's a mindless and intellectually dishonest way to come to conclusions about reality but the reality challenged don't have a great need for intellectual honesty.

Creationist dogma will never increase our understanding or knowledge of the physical world because knowledge is antithetical to the creationist. What is not already written in the bible is relegated to the unknowable hand of God moving in his creation. Fear and superstition has caused the Genesis story to be repeated for three thousand years and we know no more of existence now than when that tale was first written by the hand of man. In the last two hundred years of taking a scientific approach to studying the natural world, we have learned most of what we know about how living things work. This seeking of knowledge is what infuriates creationists such as the two fundies in thus thread.

Similarly, to try and find ways to make the Genesis fable fit the natural world is to miss the point of Genesis entirely. There is no reason why angry, jealous gods would need any of the physical processes we know and understand to womp up the universe. All the reinvention and equivocation required by creationists to explain the errors and inaccuracies of biblical tales does nothing to further clarify the absurdities of creationism.

The only legitimate challenge to evolutionary fact and theory would be a competing theory that legitimately fits the criteria for how we define a theory. If such a competing theory existed and provided a better account of the demonstrable facts related to evolution than the current facts and theory, that would be worthy of investigation. Creationism fits no such derinition. Ask a creationist on what basis the creation story could supplant the fact of evolutionary science and we're met with silly demands that the creation story is true because it appears in a book (written by superstitious men), that is true in its entirety "because I was told it was true".

Creationism / ID are neither science nor theory. They do not meet the criteria of science and cannot resolve their internal contradictions. The falsified "quotes" from creationist crackpots and the reliance on lies, deceit and falsehoods to buttress creationist dogma relegates creationism to mythology.

Ok I have been asking what scientific method have been used to add credibility to the theory you cling to ? What evidence convinced you that life spontaneously came into existence ? If you can't provide answers to these questions what you are doing is no different from a creationist except that we don't believe life could have come in to existence without a directed process.

It is pretty simple really,a car,a computer did not come into existence by chance it was designed and built. Why do you draw the line with much more complex biological organisms ? you need to believe a whole lot of could haves and maybes to believe what you do.

Firstly, it has been explained to you both repeatedly and tediously that the Theory of Evolution does not address the beginning of life. You continue to suffer real confusion as to that distinction. Not having the barest understanding of a science vocabulary does make zsuch distinctions difficult but try paying attention to what is addressed to you and when you're confused, ask appropriate questions.

There is no reason to believe that your gods had anything to do with the beginning of life. Even if there was evidence of that (which there is not), so what? Biological evolution is still the mechanism that is responsible for the diversity of life on the planet. As a biblical literalist, you will deny evolution, an ancient earth and solar system and the ability of science to reveal those mechanisms but that is your need to embrace fear and superstition, not an inability of science to explore and discover.

Secondly, your goofy "analogy" of cars, computers and biological mechanisms is a boilerplate claim repeated on all the creation ministry websites. It's pointless, silly and absurd. If only serves to reinforce the stereotype of a fundie clone whose profound ignorance of science makes him a danger to himself and others.

If you were able to identify the genetic code of a GMC Suburban, its possible you might be able to make sense of such absurd and meaningless analogy. But since automobiles and computers don't procreate and pass on variations through a genetic mechanism, we are left to dismiss your "analogy" as so much creationist babble and consider your technical and intellectual naivete as a sad commentary on Christian zealots.

As you continue to insist that a "designer" is required to explain existence, you continue to evade the question of the necessary hierarchy of designer gods who designed your gods.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

I occasionally drop in an view this ongoing thread, usually with fascination over the sheer level of animosity that borders on hatred.

It is sad the schism between science and religious thought. Today is a far cry from Thomas Aquinas and days of scholasticism. I actually have no problem with religion or spiritual education in public schools, I just don't see how creationism has any business in a science class. There is really nothing to be gained by it.

Instead, it makes much more sense to include such contemplations for the philosophical realm of metaphysics, where it properly belongs, and in which more appropriate and productive exchanges can take place. However, unfortunately, the mainstream world of philosophy has condensed metaphysics, and particularly spiritual aspects of it, to a minor role in philosophy. That is a shame, because spiritual considerations belong in education to some extent.

Take morality for example. Morality, in an intellectual context, belongs firmly in the realm of philosophy. Moral questions have been considered as philosophical since the ancient Greeks, and they included spiritual considerations within that paradigm. And why not? Nobody can prove the existence of morality, or good or evil from a scientific approach. It simply cannot be done. However, one can qualitatively define good/evil/right/wrong, and other moral considerations through philosophy, and since metaphysics is a perfectly accepted branch of philosophy, spiritual considerations of the same are right at home.

It's not my fault that philosophy is as absent as it is in American high school curriculum. I think that is a shame. Philosophy, whether spiritually driven or otherwise, is a valuable tool in helping our adolescents develop their moral compasses. I am not a Christian, but if Christians wanted to campaign to have their spiritual considerations included in the classroom, I would be the first to support the idea of advancing philosophy education at the high school level (it was once upon a time), and to support the inclusion of theological aspects. I still can't see anything to be gained from shoehorning creationism into science classes, for anybody, including Christians.