Creationists

[Gadawg73]

If we were created by an intelligent being, why did it make our shit so stinky?

So you wouldn't think it was food and eat it.

God must have thought man were dumb asses then.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

If we were created by an intelligent being, why did it make our shit so stinky?

So you wouldn't think it was food and eat it.

God must have thought man were dumb asses then.

My comment was sarcasm directed at the dumbasses in this forum. You were the first to take the bait.

 

[Gadawg73]

So you wouldn't think it was food and eat it.

God must have thought man were dumb asses then.

My comment was sarcasm directed at the dumbasses in this forum. You were the first to take the bait.

Those that did not pick up that my comment was also sarcasm are dumbasses.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

God must have thought man were dumb asses then.

My comment was sarcasm directed at the dumbasses in this forum. You were the first to take the bait.

Those that did not pick up that my comment was also sarcasm are dumbasses.

No yours was not sarcasm.

But nice try.

 

[Gadawg73]

My comment was sarcasm directed at the dumbasses in this forum. You were the first to take the bait.

Those that did not pick up that my comment was also sarcasm are dumbasses.

No yours was not sarcasm.

But nice try.

Your was not either.
Na na na na, na na.

 

[Gadawg73]

Old stick in the mud Lone Star once again.
Master of wit in his own mind.

 

[ima]

If we were created by an intelligent being, why did it make our shit so stinky?

So you wouldn't think it was food and eat it.

Lots of animals eat other animals poo, let alone that a lot of food smells pretty poo-ish.

Please try again.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

If we were created by an intelligent being, why did it make our shit so stinky?

So you wouldn't think it was food and eat it.

Lots of animals eat other animals poo, let alone that a lot of food smells pretty poo-ish.

Please try again.

So your comparing irrational animal behavior to rational behavoir of man?

Do you beleive the two to be homogenous?

 

[UltimateReality]

ME smells some more of ur's rationalizing....

UR, this is an argument from ignorance.

You claim that the explanation for our morals is god, and because this hasn't been disproven, it must be correct. There are other explanations for our moralistic senses, ones which do not involve god.

The argument from ignorance seems to define so much of the creationist argument. They are forced to attack Charles Darwin specifically not understanding that his theory and subsequent testing over the last century have borne out the fact of evolution.

It is the stereotypical appeals to ignorance and the promotion of misinformation that characterizes the creationist agenda.

How did my question you haven't answered become an "argument"?

 

[UltimateReality]

If we were created by an intelligent being, why did it make our shit so stinky?

So you wouldn't think it was food and eat it.

Lots of animals eat other animals poo, let alone that a lot of food smells pretty poo-ish.

Please try again.

Humans aren't animals. They are created in the image of God.

 

[UltimateReality]

So you wouldn't think it was food and eat it.

Lots of animals eat other animals poo, let alone that a lot of food smells pretty poo-ish.

Please try again.

So your comparing irrational animal behavior to rational behavoir of man?

Do you beleive the two to be homogenous?

Apparently so. Ima, when you see a good looking chick at the mall, do you immediately commence with humping her leg? Or maybe you just sniff her butt.

 

[UltimateReality]

More from the link I posted above...

"The reader might ask: “How does all this relate to arguments for God’s existence?” It’s important, because our world contains molecules essential to life – proteins and RNA molecules, but at the same time, it can be demonstrated mathematically that all the unguided natural processes we know of are utterly unable to generate these molecules (barring a statistical miracle) in the time available. The only process which is known to be capable of generating these molecules in the time available is intelligent agency. Here, at last, we have the smoking gun: an effect which points unambiguously to an intelligent cause, and can be shown to do so using the tools of science and mathematics, rather than philosophy. The only way to evade the full force of this argument is to take refuge in unknown forces of Nature that might have produced life – which is really an appeal to ignorance, and a lame one at that."

Hollie's "“Who made the Designer?” objection loses force, however, once we get to a Being outside the multiverse altogether. Since such a Being would not be subject to physical laws of any kind, it would be meaningless to apply the terms “simple” and “complex” to such a Being. Hence Professor Richard Dawkins’ Ultimate 747 gambit never gets off the ground."

 

[UltimateReality]

More:

"What I’d like to suggest in this post is that Libby Anne’s belief in evolutionary naturalism springs from a faulty epistemology on her part, which leads her (and many other people with similar tendencies) to gullibly accept scientific “answers” to problems, which should be treated with skepticism. Specifically, Libby Anne fails to heed the following five maxims:

1. Scientific plausibility isn’t the same thing as scientific possibility. In order for a proposed explanation of an empirical phenomenon to be regarded as scientifically possible, it has to not only appeal to processes which are plausible, but also show that these processes are either sufficient to generate the phenomenon, or at least reasonably likely to do so, within the time available. The term “reasonably likely” means that the probability of success must exceed some minimum threshold.

2. Scientific inferences are adductive. When trying to account for an event, scientists look for the best possible explanation of that event.

3. Science is an open endeavor. There should be no restrictions at the outset on what kinds of explanations scientists are allowed to posit, when formulating hypotheses about the world. [Faulty Assumption that Naturalism can be the only possibility]

4. Speculative proposals require mathematical models to back them up. No process should be judged capable of generating an empirical phenomenon E, without either concrete evidence of P actually producing E, or (at least) a mathematical model showing that P is reasonably likely to generate E under ideal or simplified conditions. [Loki and Hollie continue to gullibly fall for explanations that posit this faulty epistemology regarding naturalistic origins]

5. Empirical evidence comes first. Psychological speculation isn’t evidence. Arguments based on empirical evidence should always trump hypothetical arguments based on psychological reasoning, when you’re doing science."

 

[Hollie]

More from the link I posted above...

"The reader might ask: “How does all this relate to arguments for God’s existence?” It’s important, because our world contains molecules essential to life – proteins and RNA molecules, but at the same time, it can be demonstrated mathematically that all the unguided natural processes we know of are utterly unable to generate these molecules (barring a statistical miracle) in the time available. The only process which is known to be capable of generating these molecules in the time available is intelligent agency. Here, at last, we have the smoking gun: an effect which points unambiguously to an intelligent cause, and can be shown to do so using the tools of science and mathematics, rather than philosophy. The only way to evade the full force of this argument is to take refuge in unknown forces of Nature that might have produced life – which is really an appeal to ignorance, and a lame one at that."

Hollie's "“Who made the Designer?” objection loses force, however, once we get to a Being outside the multiverse altogether. Since such a Being would not be subject to physical laws of any kind, it would be meaningless to apply the terms “simple” and “complex” to such a Being. Hence Professor Richard Dawkins’ Ultimate 747 gambit never gets off the ground."

I'm afraid this is just more creationist babble. It's a failed tactic of creationists to exempt their gods from the very standard of existence they apply to all of existence.

We still have no accounting from Christian creationists as to the hierarchy of gods required for the creation of their partisan gods.

 

[Hollie]

More:

"What I’d like to suggest in this post is that Libby Anne’s belief in evolutionary naturalism springs from a faulty epistemology on her part, which leads her (and many other people with similar tendencies) to gullibly accept scientific “answers” to problems, which should be treated with skepticism. Specifically, Libby Anne fails to heed the following five maxims:

1. Scientific plausibility isn’t the same thing as scientific possibility. In order for a proposed explanation of an empirical phenomenon to be regarded as scientifically possible, it has to not only appeal to processes which are plausible, but also show that these processes are either sufficient to generate the phenomenon, or at least reasonably likely to do so, within the time available. The term “reasonably likely” means that the probability of success must exceed some minimum threshold.

2. Scientific inferences are adductive. When trying to account for an event, scientists look for the best possible explanation of that event.

3. Science is an open endeavor. There should be no restrictions at the outset on what kinds of explanations scientists are allowed to posit, when formulating hypotheses about the world. [Faulty Assumption that Naturalism can be the only possibility]

4. Speculative proposals require mathematical models to back them up. No process should be judged capable of generating an empirical phenomenon E, without either concrete evidence of P actually producing E, or (at least) a mathematical model showing that P is reasonably likely to generate E under ideal or simplified conditions. [Loki and Hollie continue to gullibly fall for explanations that posit this faulty epistemology regarding naturalistic origins]

5. Empirical evidence comes first. Psychological speculation isn’t evidence. Arguments based on empirical evidence should always trump hypothetical arguments based on psychological reasoning, when you’re doing science."

And yet the Flat-earther destroys her own argument by posting item #5.

The best case for refuting the arguments of the YEC'ers is to allow them to cut and paste from fundie websites and they will eventualiy refute themselves.

 

[Hollie]

When did evolution begin if not at the beginning of life?

It begins with you taking time to educate yourself about that which you argue against with no understanding of the subject matter.

In other words. you don't know.

I'm sorry the question proved too difficult for you.

In other words, you're intellectually lazy and "the gods for it", answers questions regarding your embrace of fear and ignorance.

 

[Hollie]

So you are saying this quote was taken out of context?? I am confused:

"In the sixth chapter I enumerated the chief objections which might be justly urged against the views maintained in this volume. Most of them have now been discussed. One, namely the distinctness of specific forms, and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious difficulty. I assigned reasons why such links do not commonly occur at the present day, under the circumstances apparently most favourable for their presence, namely on an extensive and continuous area with graduated physical conditions. I endeavoured to show, that the life of each species depends in a more important manner on the presence of other already defined organic forms, than on climate; and, therefore, that the really governing conditions of life do not graduate away quite insensibly like heat or moisture. I endeavoured, also, to show that intermediate varieties, from existing in lesser numbers than the forms which they connect, will generally be beaten out and exterminated during the course of further modification and improvement. The main cause, however, of innumerable intermediate links not now occurring everywhere throughout nature depends on the very process of natural selection, through which new varieties continually take the places of and exterminate their parent-forms. But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.

[...]

He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory. For he may ask in vain where are the numberless transitional links which must formerly have connected the closely allied or representative species, found in the several stages of the same great formation. He may disbelieve in the enormous intervals of time which have elapsed between our consecutive formations; he may overlook how important a part migration must have played, when the formations of any one great region alone, as that of Europe, are considered; he may urge the apparent, but often falsely apparent, sudden coming in of whole groups of species. He may ask where are the remains of those infinitely numerous organisms which must have existed long before the first bed of the Silurian system was deposited: I can answer this latter question only hypothetically, by saying that as far as we can see, where our oceans now extend they have for an enormous period extended, and where our oscillating continents now stand they have stood ever since the Silurian epoch; but that long before that period, the world may have presented a wholly different aspect; and that the older continents, formed of formations older than any known to us, may now all be in a metamorphosed condition, or may lie buried under the ocean." Charles Darwin

This chapter actually reminds me of a police detective, who, while investigating a murder scene, implies any physical evidence left behind is some type of trickery. "While the knife sticking out of the victim's chest with bloody finger prints on it that are not the victim's looks like someone else did it, really the victim must have fallen on the knife himself and the bloody fingerprints were on the knife before he fell. The shattered glass window was probably from some boys playing baseball and I'm sure the victim's wallet is just missing because he lost it last week. Darwin sounds like Crick... even though there is absolutely no evidence of gradual change, here are all the reasons why what we see isn't really what is plainly apparent. You just can't see the magic but here are a thousands reasons why. You can read the whole pathetic fairy tale supportive argument here:

The Origin of Species: Chapter 9

Yes, this quote was taken out of context. You just put it in context, so thank you.

This common quote mine is irrelevant, even if Darwin meant it in the way that creationists wish he did. This would constitute an argument from authority. It doesn't matter that it was Darwin's own theory. If he expressed doubt about it, it doesn't hurt the theory. Theory stands or falls under the weight of its own evidence. It has been standing strong for 150 years. Darwin could have turned around and denounced his entire theory and screamed at the top of his lungs how his own theory was false. It would have been too late.

But, this doesn't even matter, because Darwin was not doubting his entire theory. He was just expressing problems with the theory he saw at the time. He was just being honest. To Creationists, they see this as self-defeat on his part. It's a mischaracterization of why he was saying what he did.

If he has doubts about the gaps in his own theory. It does hurt his theory.

The theory is standing strong because evolutionist will not accept the fact that they cannot prove evolution no matter how hard they try.

Yes he was honestly saying he has doubts about a big aspect of his theory.

Evolution has been proven. You have demonstrated true ignorance regarding evolutionary theory and science so your nonsensical comment is not surprising.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

It begins with you taking time to educate yourself about that which you argue against with no understanding of the subject matter.

In other words. you don't know.

I'm sorry the question proved too difficult for you.

In other words, you're intellectually lazy and "the gods for it", answers questions regarding your embrace of fear and ignorance.

Thank you for admitting you cannot answer the question.

Your concession is duly noted.

BTW this link answered the question that you could not.

The evolution from the beginning

 

[Hollie]

So you wouldn't think it was food and eat it.

Lots of animals eat other animals poo, let alone that a lot of food smells pretty poo-ish.

Please try again.

Humans aren't animals. They are created in the image of God.

False.

The Christian gods actually bear the likeness of a WASP'y Anglo.

Christians have created gods in their own image. Just more of the invention that surrounds christianity.

 

[Hollie]

In other words. you don't know.

I'm sorry the question proved too difficult for you.

In other words, you're intellectually lazy and "the gods for it", answers questions regarding your embrace of fear and ignorance.

Thank you for admitting you cannot answer the question.

Your concession is duly noted.

BTW this link answered the question that you could not.

The evolution from the beginning

On the contrary, evolution is firmly supported.

Thank you for admitting the failure of creationists to offer even the most basic of proofs for their gods.