Creationists

[Hollie]

I studied Mechanical Engineering at the University of Arizona and did quite well. See? That wasn't so hard was it? Well, that is....


If you actually went to college!!!

yeah.... but did you graduate and what degree do you have...?

You and Hollie tell me where you went to college and I will gladly answer your question.

I'll require to practice using more user-friendly monosyllables. The gargantuan fonts and bright colors are required as that will tend to increase the attention span of folks with your educational challenges.

 

[newpolitics]

FYI accepting evolution and respecting science is NOT a sin or any sort of damnable offense. You can still believe in God and that God has His hand in all of it.

No one is denying this. If God wanted to use evolution to create all the species on the planet, I wouldn't have a problem with this. The problem is when you start to peel back the layers of evolutionary theory you find it is a myth, mass brainwashing, and a scientific fairy tale. Let's just assume there isn't a God for a second. You are still going to have to come up with a better origins theory than evolution. An actual scientific theory based on sound reason and the actual evidence would be a good start. Most of Darwins theory has been replaced anyway. Google Neo Darwinism, genetic evidence for tree of life, punctuated equilibrium, and then check out the stupid icons of evolution. Ha! Really? This is the best they can come up with as proof? Bird beaks and moth wings... total nutjobs!!!

Actually, you wouldn't need any new theory if you assume there is no god. Funny that no one else thinks this accept creationists.

 

[newpolitics]

Scientist believe that. It is not a fact and it could change.

no it a fact, proven mathematically... but you are right it could change science changes with evidence unlike religion.btw that change would most likely date the earth to be older not younger.

Wow that sounds intelligent. So it's a fact until new evidence comes to light. Doh!!!

Funny that you should laugh. You have a better method of determining events that happened over 4 billion years ago? Let's see it. How utterly obnoxious can you be?? You sit back and reap all of the benefits of science, from health care to transportation, yet you mock science because it can't deliver a specific or accurate enough date for the inception of the earth? I can't tell you how ridiculous that is, especially when you have nothing better.

 

[newpolitics]

You still fail to be able to provide a viable explanation that a totally random unintelligent process would provide such structures that are needed. A designer would think of such structures.

really funny since you have no proof of a "thinking" designer.
ahh "the process" is far from random

This is the biggest farce of all of evolutiondom. Natural selection doesn't make it not random. Random mutations are required or the whole thing false apart. Don't be so gullible. You obviously buy everything you read at the atheist websites without giving it a thought or questioning anything on your own. You're a sheep.

Natural selection does make it non-random. It is right there in the word "selection," next to the word which describes the mechanism doing the selecting: "nature". It's not called "random selection." Mutations may be random, but they still have to pass the selection process. So, random mutations are entirely beholden to the natural selection process. Evolution does not equal "random mutations". If anything, evolution is more equivalent to natural selection. Random mutations just help bump it along sometimes.

To sum it up, just because a part of evolution is random, doesn't mean evolution is random.

 

[newpolitics]

No you are just to ignorant to reason on the evidence. Hmm a sponge connected to the brain that holds enough blood to prevent the giraffe from passing out when he quickly raises his head and a valve to prevent all the blood rushing to his head and blowing his brains out. Oh and don't forget just the right size heart to pump that blood up that neck.

You live in fanatasy land.

It really is strange that you're still carrying on about the silly creationist Giraffe Conspiracy™ when the creationist attempts to babble on as you have were long ago dismissed as mere creationist inventions.

You still fail to be able to provide a viable explanation that a totally random unintelligent process would provide such structures that are needed. A designer would think of such structures.

Evolution is. not. totally. random.

It's not even random.

It's not even close to random.

It is guided by natural selection. How do you not know this by now???? What has this whole thread been for? Are you trying to take in ANY information presented to you or are you simply denying everything that is written about evolution?

If so, what is the point in us being here? You might as well live in your solipsistic little world and spare us the effort of all this.

 

[newpolitics]

Oh that's right. You're the only one allowed to deny evidence.

You make absolutely no sense. I embrace the fact of evolution because evidence supports the theory. Denial of that reality is, almost exclusively, a fundie Christian syndrome. There does not exist outside of christianity such a frantic, anti- science and anti-knowledge agenda. It is exclusively fundie Christians who drive the anti-science creationist ministries.

Evolution is not a science. Your first mistake is in thinking it is. "Science" means "to study". How can you study something that doesn't exist?

Evolution CANNOT be repeated, CANNOT be tested, CANNOT be observed, Cannot be studied...it is NOT science.

One of the dumbest things I've ever heard.

Ever heard of speciation being demonstrated in a laboratory?

Ever heard of genetics studies used to verify common ancestry?

Ever heard of viruses mutating over time?

Ever heard of fossil evidence which clearly shows a linear progression in the anatomy of species over time?

Hmm... yeah. Every one of you're claims about evolution is utterly false. Stick to what you know.

 

[newpolitics]

No. I believe that age is what they estimate how long ago man was created.

The earth's age in unknown and will always be so.

When God made creation it took seven days. But one can only guess how long a day is. Since time is a man-made concept a day to God could have been millions of years or the blink of an eye. IMO

That's convenient, of course. It allows you an exclusion from meeting any standard of proof or definition. You can just make it up as you go along.

I've witnessed proof.

Really?! What proof was this?!!!

 

[Youwerecreated]

It really is strange that you're still carrying on about the silly creationist Giraffe Conspiracy™ when the creationist attempts to babble on as you have were long ago dismissed as mere creationist inventions.

You still fail to be able to provide a viable explanation that a totally random unintelligent process would provide such structures that are needed. A designer would think of such structures.

Evolution is. not. totally. random.

It's not even random.

It's not even close to random.

It is guided by natural selection. How do you not know this by now???? What has this whole thread been for? Are you trying to take in ANY information presented to you or are you simply denying everything that is written about evolution?

If so, what is the point in us being here? You might as well live in your solipsistic little world and spare us the effort of all this.

So what is guiding natural selection ? Surely it takes intelligence to lead or guide no ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

You make absolutely no sense. I embrace the fact of evolution because evidence supports the theory. Denial of that reality is, almost exclusively, a fundie Christian syndrome. There does not exist outside of christianity such a frantic, anti- science and anti-knowledge agenda. It is exclusively fundie Christians who drive the anti-science creationist ministries.

Evolution is not a science. Your first mistake is in thinking it is. "Science" means "to study". How can you study something that doesn't exist?

Evolution CANNOT be repeated, CANNOT be tested, CANNOT be observed, Cannot be studied...it is NOT science.

One of the dumbest things I've ever heard.

Ever heard of speciation being demonstrated in a laboratory?

Ever heard of genetics studies used to verify common ancestry?

Ever heard of viruses mutating over time?

Ever heard of fossil evidence which clearly shows a linear progression in the anatomy of species over time?

Hmm... yeah. Every one of you're claims about evolution is utterly false. Stick to what you know.

You let us know when this speciation leads to macroevolution.

Have you ever heard that many things have genes similar to humans but they are not related to humans how can that be by your reasoning ?

Again you let us know when mutating viruses are no longer a virus.

Please stop with this nonsense of transitional fossils, good grief.

Everything you claimed are faulty assumptions of the evidence.

 

[UltimateReality]

yeah.... but did you graduate and what degree do you have...?

You and Hollie tell me where you went to college and I will gladly answer your question.

I'll require to practice using more user-friendly monosyllables. The gargantuan fonts and bright colors are required as that will tend to increase the attention span of folks with your educational challenges.

Dodge!

 

[UltimateReality]

FYI accepting evolution and respecting science is NOT a sin or any sort of damnable offense. You can still believe in God and that God has His hand in all of it.

No one is denying this. If God wanted to use evolution to create all the species on the planet, I wouldn't have a problem with this. The problem is when you start to peel back the layers of evolutionary theory you find it is a myth, mass brainwashing, and a scientific fairy tale. Let's just assume there isn't a God for a second. You are still going to have to come up with a better origins theory than evolution. An actual scientific theory based on sound reason and the actual evidence would be a good start. Most of Darwins theory has been replaced anyway. Google Neo Darwinism, genetic evidence for tree of life, punctuated equilibrium, and then check out the stupid icons of evolution. Ha! Really? This is the best they can come up with as proof? Bird beaks and moth wings... total nutjobs!!!

Actually, you wouldn't need any new theory if you assume there is no god. Funny that no one else thinks this accept creationists.

Is that because there isn't a shred of the old theory left with the discovery of dna?

 

[UltimateReality]

no it a fact, proven mathematically... but you are right it could change science changes with evidence unlike religion.btw that change would most likely date the earth to be older not younger.

Wow that sounds intelligent. So it's a fact until new evidence comes to light. Doh!!!

Funny that you should laugh. You have a better method of determining events that happened over 4 billion years ago? Let's see it. How utterly obnoxious can you be?? You sit back and reap all of the benefits of science, from health care to transportation, yet you mock science because it can't deliver a specific or accurate enough date for the inception of the earth? I can't tell you how ridiculous that is, especially when you have nothing better.

I can't tell you how ignorant and inept your response to this comment is. I am not denying the science or the age of the earth, but there is not enough evidence to call it a "fact". Even REAL scientists say they "believe" the earth is 4 billion years old. Heck, I believe it is too, but it is far from a fact my friend. Comprende?

Look Daws, you whiney little girl, I bolded your original post. But I didn't violate forum rules because although I was tempted, I didn't correct your baby talk. No, it a fact mommy. It a fact.

 

[UltimateReality]

really funny since you have no proof of a "thinking" designer.
ahh "the process" is far from random

This is the biggest farce of all of evolutiondom. Natural selection doesn't make it not random. Random mutations are required or the whole thing false apart. Don't be so gullible. You obviously buy everything you read at the atheist websites without giving it a thought or questioning anything on your own. You're a sheep.

Natural selection does make it non-random. It is right there in the word "selection," next to the word which describes the mechanism doing the selecting: "nature". It's not called "random selection." Mutations may be random, but they still have to pass the selection process. So, random mutations are entirely beholden to the natural selection process. Evolution does not equal "random mutations". If anything, evolution is more equivalent to natural selection. Random mutations just help bump it along sometimes.

To sum it up, just because a part of evolution is random, doesn't mean evolution is random.

Omigosh!! You would fall for this semantics nonsense. When you look up gullible in the dictionary, is your picture there?

 

[UltimateReality]

It really is strange that you're still carrying on about the silly creationist Giraffe Conspiracy™ when the creationist attempts to babble on as you have were long ago dismissed as mere creationist inventions.

You still fail to be able to provide a viable explanation that a totally random unintelligent process would provide such structures that are needed. A designer would think of such structures.

Evolution is. not. totally. random.

It's not even random.

It's not even close to random.

It is guided by natural selection...

per·son·i·fi·ca·tion (pr-sn-f-kshn)
n.
1. The act of personifying.
2. A person or thing typifying a certain quality or idea; an embodiment or exemplification: "He's invisible, a walking personification of the Negative" (Ralph Ellison).
3. A figure of speech in which inanimate objects or abstractions are endowed with human qualities or are represented as possessing human form, as in Hunger sat shivering on the road or Flowers danced about the lawn. Also called prosopopeia.
4. Artistic representation of an abstract quality or idea as a person.

 

[newpolitics]

No one is denying this. If God wanted to use evolution to create all the species on the planet, I wouldn't have a problem with this. The problem is when you start to peel back the layers of evolutionary theory you find it is a myth, mass brainwashing, and a scientific fairy tale. Let's just assume there isn't a God for a second. You are still going to have to come up with a better origins theory than evolution. An actual scientific theory based on sound reason and the actual evidence would be a good start. Most of Darwins theory has been replaced anyway. Google Neo Darwinism, genetic evidence for tree of life, punctuated equilibrium, and then check out the stupid icons of evolution. Ha! Really? This is the best they can come up with as proof? Bird beaks and moth wings... total nutjobs!!!

Actually, you wouldn't need any new theory if you assume there is no god. Funny that no one else thinks this accept creationists.

Is that because there isn't a shred of the old theory left with the discovery of dna?

I can do nothing but smile after reading your question. It's funny, but hey, its your choice to be as stubborn as you are.

I'll let someone else do the talking. A christian theist, in fact, who argues for theistic evolution:

"Nothing in Biology makes sense except in light of Evolution."- Theodosius Dobzhansky.

Remember him? Yeah, I posted this one before. Stop thinking you know the truth smart guy. You don't.

 

[newpolitics]

You still fail to be able to provide a viable explanation that a totally random unintelligent process would provide such structures that are needed. A designer would think of such structures.

Evolution is. not. totally. random.

It's not even random.

It's not even close to random.

It is guided by natural selection...

per·son·i·fi·ca·tion (pr-sn-f-kshn)
n.
1. The act of personifying.
2. A person or thing typifying a certain quality or idea; an embodiment or exemplification: "He's invisible, a walking personification of the Negative" (Ralph Ellison).
3. A figure of speech in which inanimate objects or abstractions are endowed with human qualities or are represented as possessing human form, as in Hunger sat shivering on the road or Flowers danced about the lawn. Also called prosopopeia.
4. Artistic representation of an abstract quality or idea as a person.

ummm... okay. thanks for the definition. I'm not sure what that has to do with me. I did no such thing. It is only your misconception. Maybe you should put on your glasses.

 

[newpolitics]

This is the biggest farce of all of evolutiondom. Natural selection doesn't make it not random. Random mutations are required or the whole thing false apart. Don't be so gullible. You obviously buy everything you read at the atheist websites without giving it a thought or questioning anything on your own. You're a sheep.

Natural selection does make it non-random. It is right there in the word "selection," next to the word which describes the mechanism doing the selecting: "nature". It's not called "random selection." Mutations may be random, but they still have to pass the selection process. So, random mutations are entirely beholden to the natural selection process. Evolution does not equal "random mutations". If anything, evolution is more equivalent to natural selection. Random mutations just help bump it along sometimes.

To sum it up, just because a part of evolution is random, doesn't mean evolution is random.

Omigosh!! You would fall for this semantics nonsense. When you look up gullible in the dictionary, is your picture there?

Are you able to actually respond to anything without an appeal to ridicule? You are weak sauce tonight!

Btw, that was a terrible joke. The last time I heard it, I think I was in fifth grade.

 

[newpolitics]

Wow that sounds intelligent. So it's a fact until new evidence comes to light. Doh!!!

Funny that you should laugh. You have a better method of determining events that happened over 4 billion years ago? Let's see it. How utterly obnoxious can you be?? You sit back and reap all of the benefits of science, from health care to transportation, yet you mock science because it can't deliver a specific or accurate enough date for the inception of the earth? I can't tell you how ridiculous that is, especially when you have nothing better.

I can't tell you how ignorant and inept your response to this comment is. I am not denying the science or the age of the earth, but there is not enough evidence to call it a "fact". Even REAL scientists say they "believe" the earth is 4 billion years old. Heck, I believe it is too, but it is far from a fact my friend. Comprende?

Look Daws, you whiney little girl, I bolded your original post. But I didn't violate forum rules because although I was tempted, I didn't correct your baby talk. No, it a fact mommy. It a fact.

I can't tell you how annoying it is that you continually copt syntactic style as a means to try and belittle those you are responding to. Grow up!

By the way, the fact that you don't like my post doesn't make it ignorant, until you demonstrate how it is ignorant. What is considered a fact has to do with our current epistemology, which in this case, is involved with science. So, considering science is our best and only current method at ascertaining objective reality, we have no other choice but to call it "fact" because belief would simply not be accurate. You're attempt at demoting scientific claims really shows you're bias against science.

 

[Hollie]

You still fail to be able to provide a viable explanation that a totally random unintelligent process would provide such structures that are needed. A designer would think of such structures.

Evolution is. not. totally. random.

It's not even random.

It's not even close to random.

It is guided by natural selection. How do you not know this by now???? What has this whole thread been for? Are you trying to take in ANY information presented to you or are you simply denying everything that is written about evolution?

If so, what is the point in us being here? You might as well live in your solipsistic little world and spare us the effort of all this.

So what is guiding natural selection ? Surely it takes intelligence to lead or guide no ?

No. As with most of your uneducated comments, your lack of education in science coupled with your religious affliction leaves you unable to make rational choices.

Your comment make no sense with regard to the process of evolution. If you are referring to gods with your comment: "Surely it takes intelligence to lead or guide no?", that leaves you in the precarious position of defending your gods who can only be described as incompetent and inept as intelligent leaders.

Why would you worship incompetence and ineptitude other than you just mindlessly accepted the religious beliefs of your fundie parents.

 

[Hollie]

You still fail to be able to provide a viable explanation that a totally random unintelligent process would provide such structures that are needed. A designer would think of such structures.

Evolution is. not. totally. random.

It's not even random.

It's not even close to random.

It is guided by natural selection...

per·son·i·fi·ca·tion (pr-sn-f-kshn)
n.
1. The act of personifying.
2. A person or thing typifying a certain quality or idea; an embodiment or exemplification: "He's invisible, a walking personification of the Negative" (Ralph Ellison).
3. A figure of speech in which inanimate objects or abstractions are endowed with human qualities or are represented as possessing human form, as in Hunger sat shivering on the road or Flowers danced about the lawn. Also called prosopopeia.
4. Artistic representation of an abstract quality or idea as a person.

This definition would apply to the human attributes that fundies attach to their gods. It is ironic that fundies apply human qualities such as emotions to their gods. I suppose it is understandable in view of the fact that gods are little more than extensions of the human desire to find answers to phenomenon that they don't fully understand.