Creationists

[Youwerecreated]

I'm afraid my stalker is simply cutting and pasting from Stephen Meyer and propaganda taken from creationist ministries with his silly cliches' and slogans that follow the creationist politburo party line: "the cell is complicated, therefore it must have been designed". Throughout the thread, that is the crestionist agenda: to "prove" their gods with the "god of the gaps", fallacy. One would think that evidence and facts as used by science to support knowledge would be the mechanism to support the proposal for gods but as we see with consistency, evidence for supernaturalism is not in the creationist agenda.

That truly is the reality of the Christian creationist agenda. It's just a shame that creationists don't understand that employing the science they despise in intellectually dishonest attempts to refute science only further weakens their arguments. For all the false analogies, ridiculous comparisons and logical errors: "the only known sources of information with specificity we presently observe has an intelligent agent as it source"? we're left with fundie Christians using lies and deceit in desperate attempts to press their religious agenda.

What I find interesting about fundies is just how arbitrary their "belief" really is. The two fundies in this thread are are Christian for no reason other than parentage. Let's be honest and conclude that for the overwhelming majority of people, their religious affiliation is nothing more than accepting the religion of their parents or the majority religion. Had the two fundies in this thread been raised in Middle East, they would be muhammud worshippers insisting man was made from clay. That is precisely why (aside from the ridiculous analogies and false assumptions noted above), the boilerplate creationist polemics are cut and pasted from creationist ministries.

If you raise a child in the middle of a remote jungle with no exposure to concepts relating to gods, there's no reason to suspect the child will arbitrarily and spontaneously generate theism. All theistic beliefs are externally brought to human beings. No humans display inherent theism. Has any child ever suddenly generated belief in or knowledge of Amun Ra or allah? If you raise a baby in a Buddhist culture, it will almost certainly embrace Buddhism; if in a Christian home, Christianity. Those religious beliefs are learned behavior.


Here is a portion of an article from a 2009 review about religion published in Science (On the Origion of Religion, Elizabeth Culotta; very interesting by the way):

On the Origin of Religion - Origins


From the article: "Barrett and others see the roots of religion in our sophisticated social cognition. Humans, they say, have a tendency to see signs of "agents" minds like our own at work in the world. "We have a tremendous capacity to imbue even inanimate things with beliefs, desires, emotions, and consciousness, and this is at the core of many religious beliefs," says Yale psychologist Paul Bloom.

Notice the roots of religion: "our sophisticated social cognition". No mention of gods. Further, the comment regarding we humans "imbue even inanimate things with beliefs, desires, emotions, and consciousness...and this is at the core of many religious beliefs". Here again, no mention of gods but rather attaching human-based desires to inanimate objects such as idols, golden icons, plastic effigies and other symbols.

As this thread becomes more and more technical, it just reveals how totally ill equipped you are to keep up with the discussion. You aren't going to be able to play with cut and pastes. You are going to have to put some logical thought into your responses or risk total irrelevancy.

I see you are forced to retreat from offering a cogent response absent cutting and pasting. As the thread becomes more technical, your deficiencies become more glaring. In defense of your gods, you are becoming more strident in your rhetoric, retreating to employing meaningless analogies and being reduced to deeper levels of special pleading.

Yours is basically the last resort of IDiots. As your false claims are stripped way and your arguments crumble before you, you're reduced to frantic "because I say so" argument.

This as he or she takes a left haymaker to the chin

 

[Youwerecreated]

Yours are the claims of a simpleton.

Those traits that are valuable as adaptive to the environment would most likely be passed from generation to generation.

Land speed is valuable to a plains dwelling creature but is much less valuable to a forest dweller.

Even your cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya (which is dumbfounding) is more precise than you left to your own devices.

You just keep repeating the slogans over and over

Emoticons comprise your best responses. It relieves you of the need to scour the web for cut and paste material.

It's just constantly amazing how little knowledge fundies actually possess in connection with material knowledge they hope to refute with little more than "the gods did it".

Hollie look at your responses,enough said.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Contentious premise.

So if the premise is in contention, please provide an example of this presentable observable source of specified information.

Walk outside. Pick up anything you think is not a source of specified information, come back and tell us about it, and realize you are wrong.

Your contentious tautological notions of specific information do not allow for such, based on your purely ontological refusal to accept the absense of an intelligent source of information.

Just another expression of your denialism. It's a symptom of the sanctimonious hubris of your unconditional certainty that you are right, because you can't be proven wrong about your imaginary superfriend.

IF I accept you bullshit premises, then your conclusions certainly follow--I just am not obliged to accept your bullshit premises in order to prove your conclusions wrong.

And I have made it abundantly clear how your premises are bullshit.

If Darwinism doesn't cover origins as Hollie claims, why do you so vehemently attempt to discredit the truth about information in the cell? Why do you deviate from the Darwinism party line?

What you claim via equivocation is "the truth about information in the cell" is a bullshit premise.

Find a presently observable source for information, that when stored, transmitted, translated, and transcribed, performs a specific function, that doesn't come from an intelligent agent and I will renounce by belief in ID Theory.

Your contentious tautological notions of specific information do not allow for such, based on you purely ontological refusal to accept the absense of an intelligent source of information.

Based on your purely ontological refusal to accept the absense of an intelligent source of information, there is no reason anyone should expect you to renounce your belief in Intelligent Design Theory for any rational reason.

That's why I'm not trying to convince you that you're wrong; I wouldn't try if I could.

Ok we can play this game if you like. Everything is made up of matter so where did the matter come from ? before time existed nothing existed not even our universe correct ? This is according to mans theories and laws of physics. Where did the information come from to form matter ? then matter forming all we see ?

To many unanswered questions for you to say there is no evidence of a designer.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Not even an analogy.

...Says the intellectually dishonest poster.

Definition of ANALOGY:

-inference that if two or more things agree with one another in some respects they will probably agree in others

-A comparison between two things, typically on the basis of their structure and for the purpose of explanation or clarification.

-A correspondence or partial similarity.

Please deny that you are comparing the Leprechaun to the Christian God or to the Designer and strawmanning my and YWC's challenge for proof....

I am saying that your Christian God, nor your Designer, is by any means verifiable by valid logic applied to evidence, not a leprechaun ...

and that simple fact of that reality is enough to send the intellectually dishonest into further fits of denial.

LIAR.

I clearly am not.

You are clearly wrong but if you said there is no evidence of natural processes forming all we see you would have been correct. Notice you are trying your best to avoid information is the result of an intelligent agent.

 

[Hollie]

As this thread becomes more and more technical, it just reveals how totally ill equipped you are to keep up with the discussion. You aren't going to be able to play with cut and pastes. You are going to have to put some logical thought into your responses or risk total irrelevancy.

I see you are forced to retreat from offering a cogent response absent cutting and pasting. As the thread becomes more technical, your deficiencies become more glaring. In defense of your gods, you are becoming more strident in your rhetoric, retreating to employing meaningless analogies and being reduced to deeper levels of special pleading.

Yours is basically the last resort of IDiots. As your false claims are stripped way and your arguments crumble before you, you're reduced to frantic "because I say so" argument.

This as he or she takes a left haymaker to the chin

This, as the fundies sit slackjawed and dumbfounded.

 

[Hollie]

...Says the intellectually dishonest poster.

Definition of ANALOGY:

-inference that if two or more things agree with one another in some respects they will probably agree in others

-A comparison between two things, typically on the basis of their structure and for the purpose of explanation or clarification.

-A correspondence or partial similarity.

Please deny that you are comparing the Leprechaun to the Christian God or to the Designer and strawmanning my and YWC's challenge for proof....

I am saying that your Christian God, nor your Designer, is by any means verifiable by valid logic applied to evidence, not a leprechaun ...

and that simple fact of that reality is enough to send the intellectually dishonest into further fits of denial.

LIAR.

I clearly am not.

You are clearly wrong but if you said there is no evidence of natural processes forming all we see you would have been correct. Notice you are trying your best to avoid information is the result of an intelligent agent.

Neither you or the other fundie has made any substantive case for your gods as an intelligent agent.

Why the need to use euphanisms for your gods? You both have previously admitted that your creationist agenda is nothing more than a front for pressing Christianity. Thus, there is no need for deception and lies with references to some "intelligent agent". You're just being deceitful and that's... well... sleazy. But maybe that's the Christian thing to do?

 

[Hollie]

...Says the intellectually dishonest poster.

Definition of ANALOGY:

-inference that if two or more things agree with one another in some respects they will probably agree in others

-A comparison between two things, typically on the basis of their structure and for the purpose of explanation or clarification.

-A correspondence or partial similarity.

Please deny that you are comparing the Leprechaun to the Christian God or to the Designer and strawmanning my and YWC's challenge for proof....

I am saying that your Christian God, nor your Designer, is by any means verifiable by valid logic applied to evidence, not a leprechaun ...

and that simple fact of that reality is enough to send the intellectually dishonest into further fits of denial.

LIAR.

I clearly am not.

You are clearly wrong but if you said there is no evidence of natural processes forming all we see you would have been correct. Notice you are trying your best to avoid information is the result of an intelligent agent.

Natural processes are the only processes we have knowledge of. What supernatural (or un-natural) processes are you aware of? Can you demonstrate these un-natural processes?

 

[LOki]

So if the premise is in contention, please provide an example of this presentable observable source of specified information.

Walk outside. Pick up anything you think is not a source of specified information, come back and tell us about it, and realize you are wrong.

Your contentious tautological notions of specific information do not allow for such, based on your purely ontological refusal to accept the absense of an intelligent source of information.

Just another expression of your denialism. It's a symptom of the sanctimonious hubris of your unconditional certainty that you are right, because you can't be proven wrong about your imaginary superfriend.

IF I accept you bullshit premises, then your conclusions certainly follow--I just am not obliged to accept your bullshit premises in order to prove your conclusions wrong.

And I have made it abundantly clear how your premises are bullshit.

What you claim via equivocation is "the truth about information in the cell" is a bullshit premise.

Find a presently observable source for information, that when stored, transmitted, translated, and transcribed, performs a specific function, that doesn't come from an intelligent agent and I will renounce by belief in ID Theory.

Your contentious tautological notions of specific information do not allow for such, based on you purely ontological refusal to accept the absense of an intelligent source of information.

Based on your purely ontological refusal to accept the absense of an intelligent source of information, there is no reason anyone should expect you to renounce your belief in Intelligent Design Theory for any rational reason.

That's why I'm not trying to convince you that you're wrong; I wouldn't try if I could.

Ok we can play this game if you like.

loooooooooooooooooooooooool!

Everything is made up of matter so where did the matter come from ?

How the fuck should I know?

That said, I see no reason to make up an explanationless leprechaun to serve as an explanation for where matter came from.

before time existed nothing existed not even our universe correct ?

How the fuck should I know?

That said, I can be pretty sure that existence is not subject to this notion you posit regarding time.

Regardless of what I am sure of and what I'm not sure of, nothing about it is a reason to make up an explanationless leprechaun to serve as an explanation for where everything came from.

This is according to mans theories and laws of physics.

I have only heard such accounts of "mans theories and laws of physics" from the likes of superstitious retards; I don't listen to those idiots ... neither should you.

Where did the information come from to form matter ?

How the fuck should I know?

That said, I see no reason to make up an explanationless leprechaun to serve as an explanation for where the information to form matter came from.

then matter forming all we see ?

There seems to be some pretty good explanations for matter forming that is based upon empirical evidence.

To many unanswered questions for you to say there is no evidence of a designer.

Regardless of how incomplete and uncertain the explanations provided by our current state of scientific endeavor might prove to be, such explanations founded upon, and validated with, verifiable evidence and/or valid logic are certainly better explanations for the existence and function of all intelligence, information, matter, energy, time, and life, than this obviously imaginary "Designer" of you insist upon positing as the question-begging premise that validates your evidence.

 

[LOki]

...Says the intellectually dishonest poster.

Definition of ANALOGY:

-inference that if two or more things agree with one another in some respects they will probably agree in others

-A comparison between two things, typically on the basis of their structure and for the purpose of explanation or clarification.

-A correspondence or partial similarity.

Please deny that you are comparing the Leprechaun to the Christian God or to the Designer and strawmanning my and YWC's challenge for proof....

I am saying that your Christian God, nor your Designer, is by any means verifiable by valid logic applied to evidence, not a leprechaun ...

and that simple fact of that reality is enough to send the intellectually dishonest into further fits of denial.

LIAR.

I clearly am not.

You are clearly wrong but if you said there is no evidence of natural processes forming all we see you would have been correct.

Since there is ONLY evidence of natural processes forming all we see, it follows that I am correct by the standard of evidence.

Notice you are trying your best to avoid information is the result of an intelligent agent.

No. I am avoiding making-up an explanationless "intelligent agent" as an explanation for information.

Why don't you give that a try?

 

[UltimateReality]

Contentious premise.

So if the premise is in contention, please provide an example of this presentable observable source of specified information.

Walk outside. Pick up anything you think is not a source of specified information, come back and tell us about it, and realize you are wrong.

Ha!!! Finally you say uncle!!! Your intellectually dishonesty cannot conceal your failure to respond to the question. I accept your surrender.

Your contentious tautological notions of specific information do not allow for such, based on your purely ontological refusal to accept the absense of an intelligent source of information.

Just another expression of your denialism. It's a symptom of the sanctimonious hubris of your unconditional certainty that you are right, because you can't be proven wrong about your imaginary superfriend.

IF I accept you bullshit premises, then your conclusions certainly follow--I just am not obliged to accept your bullshit premises in order to prove your conclusions wrong.

And I have made it abundantly clear how your premises are bullshit.

Hmmm. Would you be referring to your epic failure above telling me I can find specifiable information? How silly of you. Again, why don't YOU give me an example of some presently observable specified information that has a source other than an intelligent agent? I will tell you why. Because you can't!

If Darwinism doesn't cover origins as Hollie claims, why do you so vehemently attempt to discredit the truth about information in the cell? Why do you deviate from the Darwinism party line?

What you claim via equivocation is "the truth about information in the cell" is a bullshit premise.

Fail!!! You have not even come close to showing it is a bs premise. Try again, homeslice.

Find a presently observable source for information, that when stored, transmitted, translated, and transcribed, performs a specific function, that doesn't come from an intelligent agent and I will renounce by belief in ID Theory.

Your contentious tautological notions of specific information do not allow for such, based on you purely ontological refusal to accept the absense of an intelligent source of information.

Based on your purely ontological refusal to accept the absense of an intelligent source of information, there is no reason anyone should expect you to renounce your belief in Intelligent Design Theory for any rational reason.

Oh, Loki you poor dear. Always with the intellectual dishonesty and lies. There is nothing about my argument that is ontological. We see specifiable information all around us that has an intelligent agent as its source and you claim this is a metaphysical premise??? Maybe in your twisted view of reality. The logic and argument are sound and you've been beat my friend. It is made even more blatantly obvious by you ignoring relevant questions for clarifications requested of you.

Here, I have bolded it and increased the type size since maybe you didn't see it. I have asked for you to clarify your claim of equivocation but you have so far ignored requests.

For your claims to have any merit, you need to list the specific ways the genetic code in a cell differs in execution from the binary code in a computer, because you are really arguing they shouldn't be compared to each other. How do the systems of dna storage and retrieval functional differ from a machine language and binary code when it comes to information storage and retrieval, error correction, translation, and transcription?

 

[UltimateReality]

I am saying that your Christian God, nor your Designer, is by any means verifiable by valid logic applied to evidence, not a leprechaun ...

and that simple fact of that reality is enough to send the intellectually dishonest into further fits of denial.

I clearly am not.

You are clearly wrong but if you said there is no evidence of natural processes forming all we see you would have been correct.

Since there is ONLY evidence of natural processes forming all we see IN NATURE with the exception of DNA and living organisms, it follows that I am correct by the standard of evidence.

Here Loki, I helped you out there so your statement wouldn't be a foolish lie. However, your argument is fallacious because that is not the claim of the argument. You just need to open your eyes. I see the results of an intelligent agent all around me in my office and specifically I see words forming on my Binary Code using computer right now.

Notice you are trying your best to avoid information is the result of an intelligent agent.

No. I am avoiding making-up an explanationless "intelligent agent" as an explanation for information.

Why don't you give that a try?

I think it is about time for you to tuck and run isn't it.

 

[UltimateReality]

I'm afraid my stalker is simply cutting and pasting from Stephen Meyer and propaganda taken from creationist ministries with his silly cliches' and slogans that follow the creationist politburo party line: "the cell is complicated, therefore it must have been designed". Throughout the thread, that is the crestionist agenda: to "prove" their gods with the "god of the gaps", fallacy. One would think that evidence and facts as used by science to support knowledge would be the mechanism to support the proposal for gods but as we see with consistency, evidence for supernaturalism is not in the creationist agenda.

That truly is the reality of the Christian creationist agenda. It's just a shame that creationists don't understand that employing the science they despise in intellectually dishonest attempts to refute science only further weakens their arguments. For all the false analogies, ridiculous comparisons and logical errors: "the only known sources of information with specificity we presently observe has an intelligent agent as it source"? we're left with fundie Christians using lies and deceit in desperate attempts to press their religious agenda.

What I find interesting about fundies is just how arbitrary their "belief" really is. The two fundies in this thread are are Christian for no reason other than parentage. Let's be honest and conclude that for the overwhelming majority of people, their religious affiliation is nothing more than accepting the religion of their parents or the majority religion. Had the two fundies in this thread been raised in Middle East, they would be muhammud worshippers insisting man was made from clay. That is precisely why (aside from the ridiculous analogies and false assumptions noted above), the boilerplate creationist polemics are cut and pasted from creationist ministries.

If you raise a child in the middle of a remote jungle with no exposure to concepts relating to gods, there's no reason to suspect the child will arbitrarily and spontaneously generate theism. All theistic beliefs are externally brought to human beings. No humans display inherent theism. Has any child ever suddenly generated belief in or knowledge of Amun Ra or allah? If you raise a baby in a Buddhist culture, it will almost certainly embrace Buddhism; if in a Christian home, Christianity. Those religious beliefs are learned behavior.


Here is a portion of an article from a 2009 review about religion published in Science (On the Origion of Religion, Elizabeth Culotta; very interesting by the way):

On the Origin of Religion - Origins


From the article: "Barrett and others see the roots of religion in our sophisticated social cognition. Humans, they say, have a tendency to see signs of "agents" minds like our own at work in the world. "We have a tremendous capacity to imbue even inanimate things with beliefs, desires, emotions, and consciousness, and this is at the core of many religious beliefs," says Yale psychologist Paul Bloom.

Notice the roots of religion: "our sophisticated social cognition". No mention of gods. Further, the comment regarding we humans "imbue even inanimate things with beliefs, desires, emotions, and consciousness...and this is at the core of many religious beliefs". Here again, no mention of gods but rather attaching human-based desires to inanimate objects such as idols, golden icons, plastic effigies and other symbols.

As this thread becomes more and more technical, it just reveals how totally ill equipped you are to keep up with the discussion. You aren't going to be able to play with cut and pastes. You are going to have to put some logical thought into your responses or risk total irrelevancy.

I see you are forced to retreat from offering a cogent response absent cutting and pasting. As the thread becomes more technical, your deficiencies become more glaring. In defense of your gods, you are becoming more strident in your rhetoric, retreating to employing meaningless analogies and being reduced to deeper levels of special pleading.

Yours is basically the last resort of IDiots. As your false claims are stripped way and your arguments crumble before you, you're reduced to frantic "because I say so" argument.

You just keep repeating the slogans over and over

 

[UltimateReality]

Not even an analogy.

...Says the intellectually dishonest poster.

Definition of ANALOGY:

-inference that if two or more things agree with one another in some respects they will probably agree in others

-A comparison between two things, typically on the basis of their structure and for the purpose of explanation or clarification.

-A correspondence or partial similarity.

Please deny that you are comparing the Leprechaun to the Christian God or to the Designer and strawmanning my and YWC's challenge for proof....

I am saying that your Christian God, nor your Designer, is by any means verifiable by valid logic applied to evidence, not a leprechaun ...

and that simple fact of that reality is enough to send the intellectually dishonest into further fits of denial.

LIAR.

I clearly am not.

You're claim was that your reference to the Leprechaun was...

Not even an analogy.

It most certainly was, liar, as you have proven in this very post.

 

[UltimateReality]

What "observable source" is the result of your gods, ie: this " agent" you are unable to define?

What we've been talking about for the last 50 pages. DNA stupid.

You have presented nothing that would lead anyone to be convinced that there are designer gods. You therefore compound a logical fallacy by presuming there are designer gods who have designed DNA.

Why would you expect anyone not sharing your preconceptions and biases favoring christianity to accept your foolish assumptions?

Stupid assumptions on your part are shared only by those with your preconceptions and biases.

You just keep repeating the slogans over and over

 

[UltimateReality]

I am saying that your Christian God, nor your Designer, is by any means verifiable by valid logic applied to evidence, not a leprechaun ...

and that simple fact of that reality is enough to send the intellectually dishonest into further fits of denial.

I clearly am not.

You are clearly wrong but if you said there is no evidence of natural processes forming all we see you would have been correct. Notice you are trying your best to avoid information is the result of an intelligent agent.

Neither you or the other fundie has made any substantive case for your gods as an intelligent agent.

Why the need to use euphanisms for your gods? You both have previously admitted that your creationist agenda is nothing more than a front for pressing Christianity. Thus, there is no need for deception and lies with references to some "intelligent agent". You're just being deceitful and that's... well... sleazy. But maybe that's the Christian thing to do?

For the sake of argument, go ahead and assume the i.a. is an alien race that evolved quickly in the first 5 billion years of the universe and then had another 4 billion years to think about their designs before the earth formed. This will eliminate any perceived religious implications that are blinding you from the argument at hand and allow you to remove your metaphysical materialistic prejudices long enough for you to consider the VALID logical argument that: all presently observable specified information on earth has an intelligent agent as its source.

 

[UltimateReality]

I am saying that your Christian God, nor your Designer, is by any means verifiable by valid logic applied to evidence, not a leprechaun ...

and that simple fact of that reality is enough to send the intellectually dishonest into further fits of denial.

I clearly am not.

You are clearly wrong but if you said there is no evidence of natural processes forming all we see you would have been correct. Notice you are trying your best to avoid information is the result of an intelligent agent.

Natural processes are the only processes we have knowledge of. What supernatural (or un-natural) processes are you aware of? Can you demonstrate these un-natural processes?

Nice dodge. But not applicable to the argument at hand genomesplice.

 

[LOki]

So if the premise is in contention, please provide an example of this presentable observable source of specified information.

Walk outside. Pick up anything you think is not a source of specified information, come back and tell us about it, and realize you are wrong.

Ha!!! Finally you say uncle!!! Your intellectually dishonesty cannot conceal your failure to respond to the question. I accept your surrender.

Your failure to bring ANYTHING you think is not a source of specified information is proof of logically invalid premise.

Thanks for playing.

Hmmm. Would you be referring to your epic failure above telling me I can find specifiable information? How silly of you. Again, why don't YOU give me an example of some presently observable specified information that has a source other than an intelligent agent? I will tell you why. Because you can't!

Your contentious tautological notions of specific information do not allow for such, based on your purely ontological refusal to accept the absense of an intelligent source of information.

Fail!!! You have not even come close to showing it is a bs premise. Try again, homeslice.

YOU have revealed your premise to be bullshit. And nicely done too!

Find a presently observable source for information, that when stored, transmitted, translated, and transcribed, performs a specific function, that doesn't come from an intelligent agent and I will renounce by belief in ID Theory.

Your contentious tautological notions of specific information do not allow for such, based on you purely ontological refusal to accept the absense of an intelligent source of information.

Based on your purely ontological refusal to accept the absense of an intelligent source of information, there is no reason anyone should expect you to renounce your belief in Intelligent Design Theory for any rational reason.

Oh, Loki you poor dear. Always with the intellectual dishonesty and lies. There is nothing about my argument that is ontological. We see specifiable information all around us that has an intelligent agent as its source and you claim this is a metaphysical premise??? Maybe in your twisted view of reality. The logic and argument are sound and you've been beat my friend. It is made even more blatantly obvious by you ignoring relevant questions for clarifications requested of you.

Here, I have bolded it and increased the type size since maybe you didn't see it. I have asked for you to clarify your claim of equivocation but you have so far ignored requests.

For your claims to have any merit, you need to list the specific ways the genetic code in a cell differs in execution from the binary code in a computer, because you are really arguing they shouldn't be compared to each other. How do the systems of dna storage and retrieval functional differ from a machine language and binary code when it comes to information storage and retrieval, error correction, translation, and transcription?

IF I accept you bullshit premises, then your conclusions certainly follow--I just am not obliged to accept your bullshit premises in order to prove your conclusions wrong.

And I have made it abundantly clear (with your own help. Thanks!) how your premises are bullshit. your premises are bullshit.

 

[LOki]

You are clearly wrong but if you said there is no evidence of natural processes forming all we see you would have been correct.

Since there is ONLY evidence of natural processes forming all we see IN NATURE with the exception of DNA and living organisms, it follows that I am correct by the standard of evidence.

Here Loki, I helped you out there so your statement wouldn't be a foolish lie. However, your argument is fallacious because that is not the claim of the argument.

Thank you for exposing your bullshit premises for everyone to see!

You just need to open your eyes. I see the results of an intelligent agent all around me in my office and specifically I see words forming on my Binary Code using computer right now.

Yes. We all know this. You and every other delusional sees what they believe.

The rational believe what they see, and your intelligent designer is suspiciously absent.

Notice you are trying your best to avoid information is the result of an intelligent agent.

No. I am avoiding making-up an explanationless "intelligent agent" as an explanation for information.

Why don't you give that a try?

I think it is about time for you to tuck and run isn't it.

I think it's time for you to admit that you have been making-up an explanationless "intelligent agent" as an explanation for everything.

 

[LOki]

...Says the intellectually dishonest poster.

Definition of ANALOGY:

-inference that if two or more things agree with one another in some respects they will probably agree in others

-A comparison between two things, typically on the basis of their structure and for the purpose of explanation or clarification.

-A correspondence or partial similarity.

Please deny that you are comparing the Leprechaun to the Christian God or to the Designer and strawmanning my and YWC's challenge for proof....

I am saying that your Christian God, nor your Designer, is by any means verifiable by valid logic applied to evidence, not a leprechaun ...

and that simple fact of that reality is enough to send the intellectually dishonest into further fits of denial.

I clearly am not.

You're claim was that your reference to the Leprechaun was...

Not even an analogy.

It most certainly was, liar, as you have proven in this very post.

Clearly not.

Sorry about you retarded luck.

 

[ima]

Creationists don't need science, they live in a fantasy world where unexplained phenomena are attributed to invisible superbeings in another dimension that no one has ever been to. I wonder if their world is still flat?