Creationists

[Hollie]

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. 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.

Yours is a juvenile appeal to ignorance. Unanswered questions does not imply a designer.

Or, are you willing to acknowledge that unanswered questions regarding cures for Aids, cancer, etc., implies a designer of illness and disease.

 

[Hollie]

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. 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.

Using your premise that everything is made of matter, where did your gods come from?

We understand your intention is to excuse your gods from the very standard of existence you insist must be applied to all of existence but unfortunately, you've come across those who will not blindly accept your need to embrace ignorance and magic as rational answers.

 

[Hollie]

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.

No dodge at all. I wrote out in clearly delineated terms that even a Flat-Earther such as yourself could understand. I see no supernatural or "un-natural" processes anywhere in our existence. I made the simple request (keeping it simple for the Flat-Earth contingent), that your claims to supernaturalism, or "un-naturalism", are needlessly absent evidence.

Here's your chance to prove all of those dirty, heathen, atheist, evilutionist scientists wrong while proving your gods are true and extant.

I'll make this simple for the simpletons with a simple fill in the blank exercise.

"My gods are true as exampled by the supernatural / un-natural event of ________________" which is testable by peer reviewed experimentation."

 

[Youwerecreated]

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?

Yes you have evidence of natural processes that perform fucntions but you ignore the fact that these natural processes had to be designed to perform their functions continually. What you ignore as weell is what put these natural processes in motion.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

Then maybe you should be more careful of your comments.

 

[Hollie]

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?

Yes you have evidence of natural processes that perform fucntions but you ignore the fact that these natural processes had to be designed to perform their functions continually. What you ignore as weell is what put these natural processes in motion.

Words thrown carelessly around can lose all association to their intrinsic meaning. You use the term "fact" in connection with claims to your gods when no such facts exist.

Why do you purposely require others to accept your baseless claims when you have been told repeatedly that your claims to supernaturalism are groundless.

Please review my fill-in-the-blank exercise for fundies.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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?

Evolutionists don't need science, they live in a fantasy world where unexplained phenomena are attributed to complete chance,luck,miracles, and natural processes coming into existence on their own to which they have no evidence for this giant assumption that came from vivid imaginations.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

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.

Yours is a juvenile appeal to ignorance. Unanswered questions does not imply a designer.

Or, are you willing to acknowledge that unanswered questions regarding cures for Aids, cancer, etc., implies a designer of illness and disease.

You admit to not having no answers to questions but turn and answer questions with explanations that lack evidence to back it up.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

No dodge at all. I wrote out in clearly delineated terms that even a Flat-Earther such as yourself could understand. I see no supernatural or "un-natural" processes anywhere in our existence. I made the simple request (keeping it simple for the Flat-Earth contingent), that your claims to supernaturalism, or "un-naturalism", are needlessly absent evidence.

Here's your chance to prove all of those dirty, heathen, atheist, evilutionist scientists wrong while proving your gods are true and extant.

I'll make this simple for the simpletons with a simple fill in the blank exercise.

"My gods are true as exampled by the supernatural / un-natural event of ________________" which is testable by peer reviewed experimentation."

It would have taken Unnatural processes to produce natural processes to work and produce all that we see over and over again.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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?

Yes you have evidence of natural processes that perform fucntions but you ignore the fact that these natural processes had to be designed to perform their functions continually. What you ignore as weell is what put these natural processes in motion.

Words thrown carelessly around can lose all association to their intrinsic meaning. You use the term "fact" in connection with claims to your gods when no such facts exist.

Why do you purposely require others to accept your baseless claims when you have been told repeatedly that your claims to supernaturalism are groundless.

Please review my fill-in-the-blank exercise for fundies.

Inanimate objects and living organisms show signs of design who or what is the designer hollie ?

 

[LOki]

Ok we can play this game if you like.

loooooooooooooooooooooooool!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Then maybe you should be more careful of your comments.

In what way, exactly?

 

[Hollie]

Yes you have evidence of natural processes that perform fucntions but you ignore the fact that these natural processes had to be designed to perform their functions continually. What you ignore as weell is what put these natural processes in motion.

Words thrown carelessly around can lose all association to their intrinsic meaning. You use the term "fact" in connection with claims to your gods when no such facts exist.

Why do you purposely require others to accept your baseless claims when you have been told repeatedly that your claims to supernaturalism are groundless.

Please review my fill-in-the-blank exercise for fundies.

Inanimate objects and living organisms show signs of design who or what is the designer hollie ?

You require your gods to be "designers" when "designers" are not in evidence.

In what way do living organisms show design? Do you necessarily then see design in the living organism that causes leukemia?

Other than to provide your gods with busy work other than paper shuffling, why do you think living organisms require your "designer" as opposed to a different designer or no designer at all?

 

[Youwerecreated]

loooooooooooooooooooooooool!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Then maybe you should be more careful of your comments.

In what way, exactly?

My questions came from your comment that only raised more questions. Then when asked for an answer to a question your comment raised you say how the F-U-C-K am i suppose to know. So your response shows your answer lacked credibility. If you can't see why my question needed to be asked that is not my problem but your problem.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Words thrown carelessly around can lose all association to their intrinsic meaning. You use the term "fact" in connection with claims to your gods when no such facts exist.

Why do you purposely require others to accept your baseless claims when you have been told repeatedly that your claims to supernaturalism are groundless.

Please review my fill-in-the-blank exercise for fundies.

Inanimate objects and living organisms show signs of design who or what is the designer hollie ?

You require your gods to be "designers" when "designers" are not in evidence.

In what way do living organisms show design? Do you necessarily then see design in the living organism that causes leukemia?

Other than to provide your gods with busy work other than paper shuffling, why do you think living organisms require your "designer" as opposed to a different designer or no designer at all?

Answer the question this comment raises that I keep asking you ? Why do you reject evidence of purposeful design and rely on chance,luck,and miracles for it to come in to existence absent of an intelligent agent ?

 

[Hollie]

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

No dodge at all. I wrote out in clearly delineated terms that even a Flat-Earther such as yourself could understand. I see no supernatural or "un-natural" processes anywhere in our existence. I made the simple request (keeping it simple for the Flat-Earth contingent), that your claims to supernaturalism, or "un-naturalism", are needlessly absent evidence.

Here's your chance to prove all of those dirty, heathen, atheist, evilutionist scientists wrong while proving your gods are true and extant.

I'll make this simple for the simpletons with a simple fill in the blank exercise.

"My gods are true as exampled by the supernatural / un-natural event of ________________" which is testable by peer reviewed experimentation."

It would have taken Unnatural processes to produce natural processes to work and produce all that we see over and over again.

Your "because I say so" argument is pointless.

Example for us something in the natural world that shows evidence of supermagic design.

There must be something you can point to and exclaim with authority "see that ________"(<--- put your supernatural object de art here). That is supernatural and was designed by the gods"

Easy, right?

I'm tingling with excitement, waiting for you to identify for us your supernatural object.

 

[Hollie]

Inanimate objects and living organisms show signs of design who or what is the designer hollie ?

You require your gods to be "designers" when "designers" are not in evidence.

In what way do living organisms show design? Do you necessarily then see design in the living organism that causes leukemia?

Other than to provide your gods with busy work other than paper shuffling, why do you think living organisms require your "designer" as opposed to a different designer or no designer at all?

Answer the question this comment raises that I keep asking you ? Why do you reject evidence of purposeful design and rely on chance,luck,and miracles for it to come in to existence absent of an intelligent agent ?

This is the problem people like you are forced to confront when you understand so little of science and christianity.

"Miracles" are a component of many religions are little more than hearsay tales of legend building or tales meant to explain events not understood by earlier, less knowledgeable people. Has it occurred to you that as mankind has become better educated and more knowledgeable that the claims to "miracles" have dwindled? When was the last time a dead man rose from the grave? When was the last time shrubbery spontaneously erupted in flames or spoke in a deep, booming voice?

 

[UltimateReality]

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.

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.

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

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.

Whatever Loki. "Because I say so" responses won't get you out of this one. You FAIL.

You claimed comparing DNA to computer binary code was not a good analogy. You screamed that I was changing definitions on you to make my argument. Surely you can back up your argument and tell us your reasons for why it isn't a good analogy. Oh wait, your the guy that lies about analogies... nevermind.

 

[UltimateReality]

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!

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.

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.

You have obviously checked out of the argument. Go ahead and run along now.

 

[UltimateReality]

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?

Hollie, is that you?

 

[UltimateReality]

Then maybe you should be more careful of your comments.

In what way, exactly?

My questions came from your comment that only raised more questions. Then when asked for an answer to a question your comment raised you say how the F-U-C-K am i suppose to know. So your response shows your answer lacked credibility. If you can't see why my question needed to be asked that is not my problem but your problem.

Typical bait and switch Loki intellectual dishonesty.