Creationists

[konradv]

Boooooooooooring!

 

[jtw4796]

Some Christians believe that you can believe both evolution and the bible because they say we do not know how long a day was in the Genesis. Other will tell you 2 peter 3:5 says people today will be ignorant of the fact that water once covered the earth and what it could have caused. I have always thought until evolution could be 100% proven than both creation and evolution should be taught. If I understand right the Jehovah's Witnesses believe in old earth.

 

[Hollie]

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 ?

My goodness, all through the pages of this thread, you have been given an education in the definition of evolution and you still are clueless.

 

[Hollie]

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.

Oh my. The angry fundie promoting his angry gawds.

 

[Hollie]

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

Can you prove otherwise ?

Sure. Already proven otherwise. Can you prove otherwise?

 

[Hollie]

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.

Not at all, angry fundie. I have tried to offer you knowledge and insight into the processes of the natural world. You seem unable to shed the bonds of your cult indoctrination.

 

[UltimateReality]

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.

You have the false impression that creationism is anything but a thin veneer covering your religious belief. Religion is not science and to suggest that science can illuminate the supernatural is nonsense. Similarly, there are no valid scientific points of IDiocy (relabeled Christian fundamentalism). You have proven that you don't have an understanding of science theory or the scientific method which is why you continue to represent your religious belief as meeting the standards of peer reviewed science, which it does not.

Hollie, sometimes I wonder about you. I just got through saying religion isn't science and you repeated my phrase over like it was a rebuttal. Are you actually reading the posts?

I have no intention of giving someone like you names or addresses for myself or anyone I know.

Of course you wouldn't accept a free book!! Then you would have no excuse for you inability to present a logical rebuttal!!

Again, you apparently didn't read the post. Do you know what an alias is?? Have you ever heard of general delivery?

 

[UltimateReality]

Jesus was probably gay: he only hung around with guys, wore a dress, only banged a girl once to see if he'd like it (he didn't), looks effeminite in all the drawings or paintings, and he rode that gay pride symbol, the donkey!

You think you are being funny and offending Christians here but you are just fulfilling prophecy and you don't even realize it.

Just FYI, I am not offended. I just feel quite sorry for you. You could spit in Jesus' face in person and he would still stretch out his arms and die for you. In fact, Jesus carried the sin of the whole world to the Cross. Can you imagine the horror of that? Carrying the images of the acts of people like Jeffrey Dahmer or the atheist nazi's running the death camps? But yes, Jesus died for everyone's sins, past and future.

Atheist Nazi's?

The confused fundie should learn history and will realize that Hitler was Christian. ...

Hollie, thanks for the comic relief. I've read the atheist propaganda websites making this revisionist claim. It figures you would fall for it.

 

[ima]

You think you are being funny and offending Christians here but you are just fulfilling prophecy and you don't even realize it.

Just FYI, I am not offended. I just feel quite sorry for you. You could spit in Jesus' face in person and he would still stretch out his arms and die for you. In fact, Jesus carried the sin of the whole world to the Cross. Can you imagine the horror of that? Carrying the images of the acts of people like Jeffrey Dahmer or the atheist nazi's running the death camps? But yes, Jesus died for everyone's sins, past and future.

Atheist Nazi's?

The confused fundie should learn history and will realize that Hitler was Christian. ...

Hollie, thanks for the comic relief. I've read the atheist propaganda websites making this revisionist claim. It figures you would fall for it.

I don't say that if Jesus existed, he likely would have been gay just to piss people off, I say it because of the evidence, even though the last one about the donkey is funny, real men rode horses back them, usually it was only the women and children who rode donkeys.

As for Hitler being Christian, he was. He was brought up catholic and developed an admiration for Martin Luther.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler

 

[UltimateReality]

If I may step in here and venture to guess: it is probably because there is no evidence for the ID hypothesis. It is not a theory. It is an argument from ignorance.

That is your opinion, but it comes from a denial of the science involved. The only ignorance is your unfamiliarity with the merits of the arguments. Please read Signature in the Cell and then get back to me. You will see your ignorant statement above totally exposed for the lie which you've obviously bought hook line and sinker from the atheist websites you frequent. Only a truly ignorant person would attempt to discredit something they have never actually read.

ID is itself, a denial of science. My unfamiliarity of the arguments? You mean the ones that say:

1.) DNA is a binary code
2.) Binary Code is designed
3.) DNA is designed

DNA is not binary code as we know it, it is a bunch of chemicals, and you can't use inductive reasoning here to conclude that because we have made binary code, and DNA resembles a binary code, DNA must also have been designed. Sorry. That's a logical fallacy.

Omigosh, your second post is even more ignorant than your first. First, let's just clear this up. DNA is not a binary code. It is a quaternary code. Second, your description of the argument above is not accurate. Darwin and Lyell both believed the present is the key to the past. We can observe the present and make predictions or theories about events occurring in the past. The only source for digital code in the present is an intelligent agent. DNA contains digital code that no naturalistic methodology can explain. The best explanation for its origin, based on presently observable processes, is that it had an intelligent agent as it source. However, the argument presented in the book goes much deeper than that.

From your favorite source:

Genetics

Parallels can be drawn between quaternary numerals and the way genetic code is represented by DNA. The four DNA nucleotides in alphabetical order, abbreviated A, C, G and T, can be taken to represent the quaternary digits in numerical order 0, 1, 2, and 3. With this encoding, the complementary digit pairs 0↔3, and 1↔2 (binary 00↔11 and 01↔10) match the complementation of the base pairs: A↔T and C↔G and can be stored as data in DNA sequence.[2]

For example, the nucleotide sequence GATTACA can be represented by the quaternary number 2033010 (= decimal 9156).

Quaternary numeral system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Capabilities

DNA computing is fundamentally similar to parallel computing in that it takes advantage of the many different molecules of DNA to try many different possibilities at once.[8] For certain specialized problems, DNA computers are faster and smaller than any other computer built so far. Furthermore, particular mathematical computations have been demonstrated to work on a DNA computer. As an example, Aran Nayebi[9] has provided a general implementation of Strassen's matrix multiplication algorithm on a DNA computer, although there are problems with scaling. In addition, Caltech researchers have created a circuit made from 130 unique DNA strands, which is able to calculate the square root of numbers up to 15.[10]

DNA computing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Harvard cracks DNA storage, crams 700 terabytes of data into a single gram | ExtremeTech

 

[UltimateReality]

No thanks on your little reading list. I'm not going to waste my time. I've seen enough of the ID arguments and they all fail to be science.

Of course not. You are not interested in the truth. You just rather make up stuff about what you "think" the book says. This is a common personality trait among evolutionists.

 

[UltimateReality]

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.

Where have you been? You think the courts can determine the legitimacy of science?? And please tell me the specific person and what they specifically said that was a lie. I've heard this atheistic propaganda over and over and no one can ever back it up.

Meyer's theory is most certainly a valid, scientific theory. Saying it isn't over and over won't make it come true. Wake the heck up and actually get out of the house more often. You might actually want to read some literary works that are part of your atheistic propaganda websites.

 

[UltimateReality]

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."

Tangent. Please stick the the discussion at hand and refrain from reposting the same thing over and over again.

 

[UltimateReality]

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.

I thought I told you to run along you little whiney girl. What are you still doing here?

 

[ima]

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.

Where have you been? You think the courts can determine the legitimacy of science?? And please tell me the specific person and what they specifically said that was a lie. I've heard this atheistic propaganda over and over and no one can ever back it up.

Meyer's theory is most certainly a valid, scientific theory. Saying it isn't over and over won't make it come true. Wake the heck up and actually get out of the house more often. You might actually want to read some literary works that are part of your atheistic propaganda websites.

If the courts can't determine the legitimacy of science, then why did the courts not let ID into science class?

 

[UltimateReality]

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...

Notice you didn't respond to my embolded post of yours. Guess you were WRONG.

 

[UltimateReality]

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.

You have never posted up where you went to school or your degrees. Nice try.

So you are not only incredibly wealthy, but you have 7 degrees? Isn't the internet great??? You can say or be anything you want and no one can prove you wrong. I will say that for someone with 7 degrees it is a curious thing that your writing style is that of a 3rd grader.

 

[UltimateReality]

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.

Thanks for the trip down fantasy lane. Now please come back to reality.

 

[UltimateReality]

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.

Maybe you should get out of the house more often:

"Scientists have been eyeing up DNA as a potential storage medium for a long time, for three very good reasons: It’s incredibly dense (you can store one bit per base, and a base is only a few atoms large); it’s volumetric (beaker) rather than planar (hard disk); and it’s incredibly stable — where other bleeding-edge storage mediums need to be kept in sub-zero vacuums, DNA can survive for hundreds of thousands of years in a box in your garage.

It is only with recent advances in microfluidics and labs-on-a-chip that synthesizing and sequencing DNA has become an everyday task, though. While it took years for the original Human Genome Project to analyze a single human genome (some 3 billion DNA base pairs), modern lab equipment with microfluidic chips can do it in hours. Now this isn’t to say that Church and Kosuri’s DNA storage is fast — but it’s fast enough for very-long-term archival.

Just think about it for a moment: One gram of DNA can store 700 terabytes of data. That’s 14,000 50-gigabyte Blu-ray discs… in a droplet of DNA that would fit on the tip of your pinky. To store the same kind of data on hard drives — the densest storage medium in use today — you’d need 233 3TB drives, weighing a total of 151 kilos. In Church and Kosuri’s case, they have successfully stored around 700 kilobytes of data in DNA — Church’s latest book, in fact — and proceeded to make 70 billion copies (which they claim, jokingly, makes it the best-selling book of all time!) totaling 44 petabytes of data stored."

Harvard cracks DNA storage, crams 700 terabytes of data into a single gram | ExtremeTech

 

[UltimateReality]

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.

Not at all, angry fundie. I have tried to offer you knowledge and insight into the processes of the natural world. You seem unable to shed the bonds of your cult indoctrination.

Are you referring to your rabid cutting and pasting from atheistic propaganda websites? I'd hardly consider this offering knowledge.