Creationists

[pjnlsn]

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.

If I know what significance you place on this, then: That the particulars of the beginning of process which proceeds forward in time is not known does not mean that the particulars of the output of the process cannot be known over a period of time between the beginning and the present, to a particular degree of accuracy, and in a particular scope.

If what you were thinking when you wrote it had nothing to do with that, then nevermind. But regardless of how much you dislike it, if I know the comments you are referencing, they are meant in the sense of what is described in the preceding sentence, and in that sense the origin, while obviously not having nothing to do with what comes after, is not required to know of more recent events.

 

[pjnlsn]

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 ?

If the question asks for details of the change between when there was no cellular matter and when there was, this, to the degree of accuracy one assumes you wish it to be, is not known.

 

[pjnlsn]

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

Reference to phrase; As before:

Whatever you call it, barring differences in what the term is referencing or is defined, and how words in descriptions of it are defined; Whether you say it's a myth, [...] it is, at the very, very least, likely. Assuming you're talking about 'Biological History' as I've written of before.

Repeating the same phrase over and over won't make it come true. It is NOT very, very, very likely and while it makes for a nice story, there is not a single modern example of natural selection acting on a POSITIVE or ADDITIVE mutation to bring about a change in a particular species phenotype. And there certainly isn't a shred of evidence to support that new species result from such a process. Before you quote the Ecoli experiments, you should know that the citrate digestion mutation came from a reduction in genetic information, not an additive one.

The second sentence literally contradicts the post it follows, but none of the rest leads to it.

Again:

Whatever you call it, barring differences in what the term is referencing or is defined, and how words in descriptions of it are defined; Whether you say it's a myth, [...] it is, at the very, very least, likely. Assuming you're talking about 'Biological History' as I've written of before.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

If I know what significance you place on this, then: That the particulars of the beginning of process which proceeds forward in time is not known does not mean that the particulars of the output of the process cannot be known over a period of time between the beginning and the present, to a particular degree of accuracy, and in a particular scope.

If what you were thinking when you wrote it had nothing to do with that, then nevermind. But regardless of how much you dislike it, if I know the comments you are referencing, they are meant in the sense of what is described in the preceding sentence, and in that sense the origin, while obviously not having nothing to do with what comes after, is not required to know of more recent events.

I think it is very easy to accept the belief of a designer when you look at the precision is nature. How can a rational person believe that life came from an undirected process that produced complex organic molecules from simpler inorganic molecules through chemical reactions with an undirected process.

To believe an undirected process took an enviornment filled with chaos and produced the precision in nature we can now see is a stretch of the imagination.

Thank you for admitting though that there is no known process concerning the origins of life because a few of the simpletons here easily accepted abiogenesis as a fact.

 

[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.

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

If the question asks for details of the change between when there was no cellular matter and when there was, this, to the degree of accuracy one assumes you wish it to be, is not known.

I know but this question can help in the reasoning of the evidence to draw an adequate conclusion.

 

[UltimateReality]

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

Are you talking about the same court system that advocates the murder of unborn babies? Or the one that wants to strip us of our First and Second Amendment rights? Maybe you are talking about the court system that let's criminals who are injured during the commission of a crime sue the victim. I think you can figure that out.

Actually, we're talking about the courts that uphold the constitution in regard to disallowing religion to be taught in public schools.

You, of course would prefer an exception to the law when it suits your desire to force your religious beliefs on others. However, the courts have ruled consistently that Christian creationism or the falsely labeled ID nonsense is nothing more than a guise for religion.

Peddle your religion by thumping on street corners if you wish but your religion is not allowed in schools.

News flash: Religion was taught in public schools for the first 100 years in our nations history. You are the worst kind of rabid revisionist.

 

[UltimateReality]

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.

Meyers' propaganda is nothing more than a re-packaging of Behe's silly slogans which resolve to nothing more than "...it's complicated, therefore the gods did it".

So clueless about the book. Only a total ignoramus would make false claims about printed book which are so easily refuted. Pathetic!

 

[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.

This is the core of the creationist argument: "all of science is a conspiracy".

Revisionist claim.

 

[UltimateReality]

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.

Ur again proves just how powerful obsession is...
never said I was incredibility wealthy (you created that)
never said I had seven degrees (I have three) , I have on more then one occasion ,posted my educational background.
your obsessive complusive insistence that I have not is just another ploy in your ongoing saga of dumbfuckery and chicken shit character assassination.

this statement :"Isn't the internet great??? You can say or be anything you want and no one can prove you wrong." -UR
JUST SCREAMS HUBRIS..
IT'S THE BASIS OF EVERY LIE, SPIN, INTENTIONALY IGNORANT STEAMING PILE YOU POST.

And still no education info. Typical wordy DODGE!

 

[UltimateReality]

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.Adolf Hitler - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Religious views of Adolf Hitler - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Daws was brought up Catholic but that doesn't make him a Christian. You logic is completely flawed. This is a historical revisionistic atheist claim in response to the fact that millions of people were slaughtered in the 20th century by atheistic regimes, nothing more.

another lie from UR ... I was not brought up catholic TRY TO HAVE THE BALLS TO POST ME DIRECTLY IF YOU'RE LIE ABOUT ME...
ANYTHING ELSE IS COWARDICE..... OOPS THAT'S STATING THE OBVIOUS!

Would you be referring to the cowardice of your Internet bullying and your whiney little girl threats to tattle to the mods about something you FALSELY claimed was against forum rules?

 

[UltimateReality]

The book absolutely makes a case for an intelligent agent being responsible for the digital code in dna.

And certainly not [does DNA have] 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

None of the this contradicts the above. Regardless of it's potential uses, it bears no significant similarity to (e.g.) networks of copper/iron alloyed pathways etched in silicon, be they part of, say, a flash memory device, or any particular example of digital circuitry.

But again, you appeared to be using the word merely for embellishment, anyway.

Nice try. But you just got owned.

 

[newpolitics]

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.

I am aware of the claims of creationists. Don't presume to know what I know about these arguments and they are not anywhere near truth. I have spent quite a bit of time assessing them, and they all fail. If you wish to make a case that you think I haven't heard, go ahead, otherwise, don't get pissy when I don't choose to follow your every suggestion on a book. You're asking me to spend money and a large time commitment, and when I don't, you accuse me of being this or that. Have some integrity. If you wish to convince of something, just state what it says in the book, and I'm sure I can find it online. No, this would be too much work for you. Instead, you want me to spend my money to learn this bullshit.

 

[newpolitics]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpeHrkbx9LU&feature=g-all-c]How could creationism not be dishonest? - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Hollie]

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.

Meyers' propaganda is nothing more than a re-packaging of Behe's silly slogans which resolve to nothing more than "...it's complicated, therefore the gods did it".

So clueless about the book. Only a total ignoramus would make false claims about printed book which are so easily refuted. Pathetic!

You refuted nothing. The point is, Meyer makes the same nonsensical claim that Behe makes: the chances for spontaneous life are too remote to allow that life to develop.

Find yourself a street corner and thump there, rather than here.

 

[UltimateReality]

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.

If I know what significance you place on this, then: That the particulars of the beginning of process which proceeds forward in time is not known does not mean that the particulars of the output of the process cannot be known over a period of time between the beginning and the present, to a particular degree of accuracy, and in a particular scope.

If what you were thinking when you wrote it had nothing to do with that, then nevermind. But regardless of how much you dislike it, if I know the comments you are referencing, they are meant in the sense of what is described in the preceding sentence, and in that sense the origin, while obviously not having nothing to do with what comes after, is not required to know of more recent events.

You can pretend this, but Darwinists avoidance of Origins discussions goes deeper to the core of their religious beliefs. The origin of life cannot be explained by a purely naturalistic process and this calls into question the central dogma of the Darwinistic materialist religion. So instead, Darwinists just ignore it, thinking if they don't look at it it will go away.

 

[newpolitics]

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

If I know what significance you place on this, then: That the particulars of the beginning of process which proceeds forward in time is not known does not mean that the particulars of the output of the process cannot be known over a period of time between the beginning and the present, to a particular degree of accuracy, and in a particular scope.

If what you were thinking when you wrote it had nothing to do with that, then nevermind. But regardless of how much you dislike it, if I know the comments you are referencing, they are meant in the sense of what is described in the preceding sentence, and in that sense the origin, while obviously not having nothing to do with what comes after, is not required to know of more recent events.

You can pretend this, but Darwinists avoidance of Origins discussions goes deeper to the core of their religious beliefs. The origin of life cannot be explained by a purely naturalistic process and this calls into question the central dogma of the Darwinistic materialist religion. So instead, Darwinists just ignore it, thinking if they don't look at it it will go away.

No, its because abiogenesis and evolution are categorically distinct. It's that simple. One has nothing to do with the other ontologically.

 

[Hollie]

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.

This is the core of the creationist argument: "all of science is a conspiracy".

Revisionist claim.

Not so. Science as a conspiracy theory is the tool used by Flat-Earthers to defend their gawds.

 

[Hollie]

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

If I know what significance you place on this, then: That the particulars of the beginning of process which proceeds forward in time is not known does not mean that the particulars of the output of the process cannot be known over a period of time between the beginning and the present, to a particular degree of accuracy, and in a particular scope.

If what you were thinking when you wrote it had nothing to do with that, then nevermind. But regardless of how much you dislike it, if I know the comments you are referencing, they are meant in the sense of what is described in the preceding sentence, and in that sense the origin, while obviously not having nothing to do with what comes after, is not required to know of more recent events.

I think it is very easy to accept the belief of a designer when you look at the precision is nature. How can a rational person believe that life came from an undirected process that produced complex organic molecules from simpler inorganic molecules through chemical reactions with an undirected process.

To believe an undirected process took an enviornment filled with chaos and produced the precision in nature we can now see is a stretch of the imagination.

Thank you for admitting though that there is no known process concerning the origins of life because a few of the simpletons here easily accepted abiogenesis as a fact.

Your silly "precision in nature" theory has been thoroughly debunked previously. You're reduced to dredging up tired, refuted creationist prattle.

 

[Hollie]

Are you talking about the same court system that advocates the murder of unborn babies? Or the one that wants to strip us of our First and Second Amendment rights? Maybe you are talking about the court system that let's criminals who are injured during the commission of a crime sue the victim. I think you can figure that out.

Actually, we're talking about the courts that uphold the constitution in regard to disallowing religion to be taught in public schools.

You, of course would prefer an exception to the law when it suits your desire to force your religious beliefs on others. However, the courts have ruled consistently that Christian creationism or the falsely labeled ID nonsense is nothing more than a guise for religion.

Peddle your religion by thumping on street corners if you wish but your religion is not allowed in schools.

News flash: Religion was taught in public schools for the first 100 years in our nations history. You are the worst kind of rabid revisionist.

Go peddle your thumping elsewhere.

Your religion has no place in public schools. You are the worst kind of religious totalitarian.

 

[Youwerecreated]

If I know what significance you place on this, then: That the particulars of the beginning of process which proceeds forward in time is not known does not mean that the particulars of the output of the process cannot be known over a period of time between the beginning and the present, to a particular degree of accuracy, and in a particular scope.

If what you were thinking when you wrote it had nothing to do with that, then nevermind. But regardless of how much you dislike it, if I know the comments you are referencing, they are meant in the sense of what is described in the preceding sentence, and in that sense the origin, while obviously not having nothing to do with what comes after, is not required to know of more recent events.

You can pretend this, but Darwinists avoidance of Origins discussions goes deeper to the core of their religious beliefs. The origin of life cannot be explained by a purely naturalistic process and this calls into question the central dogma of the Darwinistic materialist religion. So instead, Darwinists just ignore it, thinking if they don't look at it it will go away.

No, its because abiogenesis and evolution are categorically distinct. It's that simple. One has nothing to do with the other ontologically.

You can say and believe this if you wish but you are just wrong. Ever heard of chemical evolution ?