Creationists

[Lonestar_logic]

You proved the dangers of religious bigotry in dramatic fashion.

You're pathetic. You can't even come up with an original argument.

The "angry fundie", persona is getting old.

Your arguments are not arguments at all but juvenile tactics to defend your claims to supernaturalism. Cutting and pasting from creationist ministries really defines a total departure from an original argument as creationist arguments require a predefined conclusion.

I understand your frustration at being unable to present a defendable argument for your gawds, but your anger needs to be directed elsewhere.

Stop projecting.

 

[Gadawg73]

All you have are insults and marginalizing what you don't understand.

I'll pray for you.

What you object to is an uncompromising assessment of creationist claims. As to my understanding, I understand very well creationist appeals to supernaturalism and ignorance. I just see no reason to believe those things are advancing of humanity.

I'll offer hope for you.

You are fabulous at attacking the religious aspects of Creationism, which you and I both know will not be proven by science. However, you continue to ignore the valid scientific points of ID Theory, which you have proven you don't have a real understanding of. I would buy the book for you and send it to you if you have an alias and a friends address you would like to supply me in a PM.

ID has never been a theory. It is a belief. In dozens of court cases all over the country, most all with conservative Republican appointed or elected judges, ID has been proven over and over and over again as re-packaged creationism. They were made damn fools of and liars in open court in the Dover v. Kitzmiller case.
If the case for ID is so strong why do they have to lie in court?
I was glad to see that they were not charged with perjury though. The school board members admitted their lies as they were coached into doing so by the national ID movement that was there for the trial.
Liars, frauds, repackaging the frauds, hiding behind the lies is all part of their game plan.
Wake the hell up folks. Admit it and move on.

 

[Hollie]

You're pathetic. You can't even come up with an original argument.

The "angry fundie", persona is getting old.

Your arguments are not arguments at all but juvenile tactics to defend your claims to supernaturalism. Cutting and pasting from creationist ministries really defines a total departure from an original argument as creationist arguments require a predefined conclusion.

I understand your frustration at being unable to present a defendable argument for your gawds, but your anger needs to be directed elsewhere.

Stop projecting.

Stop whining.

I have no reason to "project". The science truths are defendable without recourse to supernatural causes. Scientific investigation might be described as a progressive layering of evidence built around a competition for repeatable test results. Where are the religious ones? There aren't any!

What I find remarkable is how consistent the religious /creationist / IDiot, “the gods did it” arguments really are. They are not just similar, they are identical. And since so many of them are identically false, it is almost inconceivable that creationists continue to make the false claim that creationism is science or is in any way supportable.

There is a reason why the process of science deserves so much credibility in comparison to the claimed but factually absent “absolute truths” of creationism. Science, to include chemistry and biology etc., provides evidence that entitles them to qualifications for rational testing. There is a reason why science has proven to be a positively impactful and influential of human endeavor. That is because science formally recognizes the fluid nature of all our human knowledge and will flex and adjust as new knowledge is gained. That stands in stark contrast to the never changing, unalterable "twoofs" of gods and magic.

Asserting supernaturalism as the core if existence means there are questions we can never hope to attain true knowledge about, and that means true understanding of the universe is hopelessly and forever beyond us. This creates a hopeless point of view, and creationists don't connect the dots to this inescapable conclusion. The Dead End remains forever in place-- "The Gods did it, and that's that."

 

[daws101]

Sure you were. You have no knowledge of my upbringing or what trials I may or may not have had in my life.

Nice try but a major fail on your part.

wrong again it's not assuming, simply because your individual tale of woe falls into well worn patterns of behavior.
you're not nearly as seperate as you wish you were.

Sorry to dissappoint you but your assumption is still incorrect.

I have no tales of woe.

if that's the case then you've been lying and have always been a creationist slapdick...

 

[daws101]

No, it means you made the claim. Now it's up to you to support it with some documentation.

The onus is own you to prove your claim. Otherwise I have no choice but to think you are lying.

your ignorance prevents you from doing anything else.
like finding out for yourself

So you admit there is no such information available.

Duly noted.

another willfully ignorant answer ...it's out there but you're too much of a coward to search it out.

 

[daws101]

I've witnessed lives that were changed immediatly after accepting Jesus as their Savior. Mine included. I would not be where I'm at now if not for the grace of God.

how did I know you'd say that...people changing their behavior is no proof that Jesus had any thing to do with it.

it has far more to do with with early indoctrination to a belief system and the individual personality of the "acceptor".
studies have shown that nearly all "the saved" are undereducated and highly sugestable.
there are also the conditions called suspension of disbelief and crowd psychology

Hi Daws: don't mean to bust the stereotype on this, but I can cite at least 2-3 neurosurgeons that changed their minds when they saw proof, even incorporating healing prayer into their practice. One doctor found it so much more effective, he no longer practices neurosurgery as he did for over 12 years before discovering that spiritual healing was real (see Dr. Phillip Goldfedder, Healing Is Yours). Another well known psychiatrist and author Dr. Scott Peck wrote a book about "how he changed his mind" about exorcism and deliverance methods of diagnosis and treatment, after he observed this process himself with a team that work with two "incureable" schizophrenic patients and saw them regain their minds and wills back from being hijacked by demonic obsessions beyond their control. So this is a growing field, and you will see more scientists and medical research backing up what Christians have been saying about the power of forgiveness prayer and therapy on healing the mind and body.

Sources: "Healing" by Dr. Francis MacNutt Christian Healing Ministries
"Glimpses of the Devil" by Dr. Scott M. Peck
Dr. Phillip Goldfedder Healing Is Yours
My friend Olivia Reiner who works with children and families in the MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, TX, and has 30 years of successful testimonies and cases 713-829-0899

This can be proven by science, so there is no need to judge anyone by IQ or education level.
It's as natural as the laws of gravity, once you understand how spiritual healing works, then people can work with these methods ALONG WITH science and medicine to heal the whole person, body mind and spirit, instead of leaving out steps where healing is obstructed. The point of spiritual healing is to identify and remove issues or conflicts of "unforgiveness" keeping people stuck and blocking their minds and bodies from healing by natural design.

you've busted nothing the results you are yammering about are at best temporary..
the power of payer has zero to do with a god.
a more accurate description is :it's not the thing believed in but the action of belief itself that causes chemical changes in the brain that heal ,no supernatural entity needed.
the Chinese call it chi..

 

[daws101]

Manipulitive post aimed at baiting the other poster into an educational credentials discussion. Please try to keep your posts on topic. Thanks.

You poor, dear.

Can you entertain us with your relentless stalking and posting of gargantuan fonts?

Try to follow the discussion and entertain us with more bible thumping.

The term "Bible thumping" should be considered an offensive and bigoted remark. Please stick to the discussion.

hey guys UR has introduced his new line of bullshit I call it the sticking to the rules ploy.. guess the angry thumper act was bombing...

 

[daws101]

Mechanical Engineering at the University of Arizona (7 words)

I've posted my educational background several times...no needed to post it again. (13 words)

Wouldn't it have been easier just to post it again?

no.. why? funny that you would get all anal about the number of words as you've used ten of thousands to describe A steaming pile of shit (5) words.

Wow. That went right over your head. It only took me 7 words to post my educational background. I was commenting that instead of dodging the question with 13 words, wouldn't have been easier just to post up what you studied and where you went to school?

as stated before you know where I WENT TO SCHOOL AND MY DEGREES.
AND, NO NOTHING YOU POST "GOES OVER MY HEAD" Beneath notice ,not worthy of an answer, yes. but goes over my head? never!
it just another one of your masturbatory fantasies..
besides for my to list just my degrees would be 7 letters.

 

[daws101]

I've answered your questions. And I haven't bailed out on or dodged any of them with the exception of the strawmen arguments you created. Those are not worth my time.

You haven't challenged any prophecies for me to have to defend. Oh but that's just yet another strawman of your creation.

Supermagicalism isn't even a word. Just another creation of your own delusional thinking.

I think to be fair, what you have answered was more a matter of posting creationist boilerplate.

I think that only zealots and/or the foolish would make the claim that they're partisan religious beliefs alone possess some ultimate "truth" that derives from belief in the supernatural. When someone has 100% conviction in a belief system supported by 0% facts, we have very valid reasons to suspect fraud. Blind and unthinking devotion to ancient myths may be acceptable when it's internal but as we’re aware, such unquestioning and literal acceptances of ancient myths can too often be used as a bloody truncheon to force that belief on others. ...

Please clarify. Are you describing the Darwin Myth and the fact that atheist use it to force their beliefs on others?

bahahahahaha! that's a fucking lie, even it it were true.
it would not comparable to the horrors that Christianity has performed for the last 2000 years.
Christianity makes the romans look like pussies

 

[Hollie]

I think to be fair, what you have answered was more a matter of posting creationist boilerplate.

I think that only zealots and/or the foolish would make the claim that they're partisan religious beliefs alone possess some ultimate "truth" that derives from belief in the supernatural. When someone has 100% conviction in a belief system supported by 0% facts, we have very valid reasons to suspect fraud. Blind and unthinking devotion to ancient myths may be acceptable when it's internal but as we’re aware, such unquestioning and literal acceptances of ancient myths can too often be used as a bloody truncheon to force that belief on others. ...

Please clarify. Are you describing the Darwin Myth and the fact that atheist use it to force their beliefs on others?

bahahahahaha! that's a fucking lie, even it it were true.
it would not comparable to the horrors that Christianity has performed for the last 2000 years.
Christianity makes the romans look like pussies

I think the panic-stricken fundie is having issues resolving several simple observations.

First, evolutionary theory has only been better supported since it was published by Charles Darwin. The theory meets the rigorous testing of the scientific method, completely unlike dogmatic Christian creationism.

Secondly, evolutionary theiory is not "ancient" as misrepresented by the fundie zealot.

Lastly, Darwinian theory which includes and is complimented by related sciences such as biology, chemistry, paleontology, etc. is not forced on anyone but is included as part of a relevant education in the sciences. While Christian zealots would hope to force their religious beliefs into the public school system, we are fortunate enough to have a legal system that upholds the constitution as it relates to disallowing religion to be taught in public schools.

 

[daws101]

Please clarify. Are you describing the Darwin Myth and the fact that atheist use it to force their beliefs on others?

bahahahahaha! that's a fucking lie, even it it were true.
it would not comparable to the horrors that Christianity has performed for the last 2000 years.
Christianity makes the romans look like pussies

I think the panic-stricken fundie is having issues resolving several simple observations.

First, evolutionary theory has only been better supported since it was published by Charles Darwin. The theory meets the rigorous testing of the scientific method, completely unlike dogmatic Christian creationism.

Secondly, evolutionary theiory is not "ancient" as misrepresented by the fundie zealot.

Lastly, Darwinian theory which includes and is complimented by related sciences such as biology, chemistry, paleontology, etc. is not forced on anyone but is included as part of a relevant education in the sciences. While Christian zealots would hope to force their religious beliefs into the public school system, we are fortunate enough to have a legal system that upholds the constitution as it relates to disallowing religion to be taught in public schools.

 

[pjnlsn]

Ignorant poster #2. You obviously haven't read the book based on both your completely false, bolded comments above, so your claims are just as preposterous and ignorant as NP's. Instead of surfing atheist websites for your misinformation, if you really want to speak intelligently on the topic, you need to have read it. If you are truly interested in the truth, which I seriously doubt you are, then take a cue from the author Meyer, who rigorously investigated all the opposing viewpoints and weighs in on each one. The fact he has examined the current materialistic thinking on origins lends just that much more credibility to his argument when he finally presents the argument for intelligent agent as the best possible explanation for the source of dna. His scientific theory has yet to be falsified, and provides the "best explanation" for dna since it is directly related to observable phenomena we see today, not some as of yet not proven 43 step magical process proposed by materialists. The book absolutely makes a case for an intelligent agent being responsible for the digital code in dna. It refutes both the chance and necessity arguments for the origins of dna.

Perhaps you don't quite understand. The first cell containing replicating code originated some 3 to 4 billion years ago. This was an event of tremendous significance and occurred in the distant past. It no longer occurs today. We do not see life spontaneously arising in "warm little ponds". What we do find is intelligent agent after intelligent agent producing digital code. So falsifiability is fairly simple. Find a specifiable, functional digital code originating spontaneously somewhere, anywhere, on earth right now, that does not have an intelligent agent as its source. You buddy Dawkins has tried and failed with his little computer code that knows the outcome before it begins but so far no one has even come close. Deny all you want, but the theory posited by Meyer is a legitimate, testable and falsifiable scientific theory, and if you are to remain intellectually honest, you must absolutely admit it as so. Scientists even continue to bolster the theory and provide more evidence, not less, of the similarity of dna to flash memory and binary information storage. In fact, Harvard students have effectively used dna as a digital storage medium.

Go actually read the book and then get back to me with your thoughtful rebuttals.

Barring differences in how terms are defined between writer and reader, none of the above rebuts what was written by NP and me, despite your apparent attitude towards it:

the book does not [establish] that there is an intelligent designer, and to say so is not to contradict the chronological succession of facts contained in the book, even if, as you apparently make reference to, these are facts gathered by scientific means.

And so the following qualifies as a tangent. But if any of your post was intended to be, at most, a rebuttal, then, and with elaboration similar to before:

Perhaps you don't quite understand. The first cell containing replicating code originated some 3 to 4 billion years ago. This was an event of tremendous significance and occurred in the distant past. It no longer occurs today. We do not see life spontaneously arising in "warm little ponds". What we do find is intelligent agent after intelligent agent producing digital code. So falsifiability is fairly simple. Find a specifiable, functional digital code originating spontaneously somewhere, anywhere, on earth right now, that does not have an intelligent agent as its source.

Literally, all or most of these statements you've made do not strictly lead to any conclusion which contradicts what was written by me (or an extrapolation of it). However, if I know what you were thinking when you wrote these in particular, the following will be relevant to your thought process: DNA does not bear any markings of having been designed or made by humans, who are of course, the only known example of an intelligent agent as you speak of it, "anywhere on earth right now," or in the past. And certainly not of any significant similarity to digital curcuitry, of storage devices or otherwise. No doubt you were using the word as a form of embellishment, but as it's written....

Also, as a general comment, what is required for DNA to exist at all is merely a process of sufficient orderliness and predictability, one of the possible forms of which is, of course, by definition (and by the definition I think you would give it), an intelligent agent. But this is only one possibility.

More may follow.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Actually, all of my examples demonstrate the fact of evolution, by definition. You can deny it all day. That's your choice.

There are no "shoulds" when it comes to the earth and what it "should" produce "for us" so that we can feel better about ourselves. What it has given us, in terms of fossils, is what we get. The fossil record shouldn't give us anything. The fact that it has is nice. DNA evidence alone confirms common ancestry, so we don't even need fossils, technically, to prove evolution to be true.

Why you would expect a mutating virus to become anything other than a virus is simply beyond me. What's more hilarious is that you think its lack of ability to turn into something else, is a point against evolution. You're blatant misapprehension of the concepts within evolution are what you give you the ability to apparently deny it. In other words, once again, you argue against a straw man of evolution, not evolution.

You really sealed the deal with your scientific ignorance when you stated how "evolutionists" believe life came from non-life. Life from non-life has nothing to do with evolution. Many christians believe fully in evolution, because abiogenesis is a different event from evolution.

You really live up to your name: lonestar logic.

Common ancestry does not prove evolution. And the fossil record does not show any evidence of evolution. Evolutionist take what they see and GUESS based on their preconceived ideas.

The entire premise behind evolution is one species evolving into another. A virus mutating is still a virus.

The theory of evolution seeks to explain the origin of life on Earth and the origin of different species. Despite the fact that most of the scientific community has regarded it as fact for more than a century, a large number of people still dispute the theory of evolution, and various public controversies have resulted from this disagreement.

According to evolutionary theory, life began billions of years ago, when a group of chemicals inadvertently organized themselves into a self-replicating molecule. This tiny molecule gave rise to everything that has ever lived on the planet. Different and more complex organisms grew from this simple beginning through mutation of DNA and natural selection.

Yours are the standard cut and paste misrepresentations from creationist ministries.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1


Because fundie Christians continue to be confused and/or choose to lie about evolution, its important to teach them that evolution and the beginning of life are separate issues.

Do all Christian fundies avoid knowledge and an education in science?

The old Douglas Theobald argument for macrevolution. I was wondering when you would copy and paste nonsense from your religous site talk origins like this nonsense. On one hand evolutionist claim the reason macroevolution can't be observed or has never been observed is becasue it takes to long for it to happen on the other hand they turn to micro adaptations as their evidence for macroevolution how cute.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Common ancestry does not prove evolution. And the fossil record does not show any evidence of evolution. Evolutionist take what they see and GUESS based on their preconceived ideas.

The entire premise behind evolution is one species evolving into another. A virus mutating is still a virus.

Yours are the standard cut and paste misrepresentations from creationist ministries.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1


Because fundie Christians continue to be confused and/or choose to lie about evolution, its important to teach them that evolution and the beginning of life are separate issues.

Do all Christian fundies avoid knowledge and an education in science?

Actually it was from the Discovery Channel.

Tell me when did evolution begin if not at the origin of life?

Funny, the first cell didn't evolve they have no answer for it their copout is origins had nothing to do with evolution.

 

[Youwerecreated]

As noted, yours is a common misrepresentation of Christian ministries. Have you ever studied science at an accredited school?

Answer my question please.

Post a legitimate question. Do you think selectively cutting and pasting from the discovery channel is a legitimate source for a science vocabulary?

Uh oh is someone once again stuck between a rock and a hard spot again.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Referring to the Christian religion as a cult is a manipulative, baiting technique. Please try to refrain from these types of posts and stick to the topics at hand.

Using your religion as a means to denigrate science and promote hate is a manipulative, baiting technique.

This is not the forum for evangelizing, proselytizing or thumping people with your bibles.

Your continued use of derogatory comments adds nothing to the thread. Please try to stick to talking about Evolution and Creationism. Thanks.

He/she does not know enough on either subject.

 

[Youwerecreated]

It is a legitimate question.

Now please answer it.

I take your non-answer as a concession.

I can only take your inability to post a legitimate question as an admission regarding the failure of your argument.

Your lack of study and knowledge regarding science is not made less bankrupt by failed attempts at defending a sectarian religious viewpoint.

It's pretty easy you simpleton,how did the first living cell form if it was not by evolution ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

I can only take your inability to post a legitimate question as an admission regarding the failure of your argument.

Your lack of study and knowledge regarding science is not made less bankrupt by failed attempts at defending a sectarian religious viewpoint.

When did evolution begin?

According to the Christian creationists in this thread - never. They believe in a worldwide conspiracy involving all of the accredited universities, the vast majority of scientists and all of those yet un-named conspirators who planted the fossil evidence under cover of darkness.

So.... what did the carnivorous animals eat when Noah docked his Ark?

Hollie another Dodge !

 

[Youwerecreated]

These morons also believe that the people in the bible lived to be 800 years old too.

Can you prove otherwise ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

How can a 2000 year old dead guy that might not even have existed save you today? That makes no sense.

I believe we are living the final act to which you will get your answer.

what you believe is not relevant..it's also a non answer.

Oh but it is an answer and a warning.