Creationists

[Hollie]

Tell me then briefly the importance ofleft handed and right handed amino acids ? Did you miss my explanation on the subject that did not come from ICR and that other site you are spewing about.

Who are you to complain about any site when you constantly copy and paste from Talkorigins and wiki as your source ? They do not have an agenda right ?

If you an issue with a refutation sourced at talkorigins is incorrect, present your issue.

Secondly, why don't you entertain us with how the interaction of amino acids will lead us to not just any gawds but your particular conception of gawds. You should remember that your laboring through the "amino acids prove gawds" nonsense, cut and pasted from creationist ministry websites lacks the peer review that would allow an unbiased researcher to test and confirm. How convenient! Creation ministries have an announced agenda to promote christianity and invariably find, (manufacture, falsifying, invent), results that they prefer.

None of the data from Christian creation ministries ever leads anyone to evidence for gawds. All of the phony data is presented with the intention of appealing to an audience that is not particularly schooled in science or to denigrate established science which leads away from conclusions of supernaturalism.

Is this where you once again run from the questions put to you ?

I have no desire to endure your continued cutting and pasting from creationist websites that falsify data.

Why are you running from my questions? Your conviction that data you cut and paste from Harun Yahya in connection with amino acids must be developed enough to link to a science publication that could have reviewed the data, right? If you're convinced that the data you have will lead to the gawds, why don't you present that data and then present a logical chain of evidence leading to a narrow and specific conclusion for not just any gawd but your particular gawd.

That would be the simplest way to confirm evidence for your gawds. Where is such a link?

 

[Hollie]

Anyone who has not observed an action they claimed happened and present it as a fact is lying.

Careful there fundie man. Your comment would then apply to every claim of miracles in the bible.

Thus would be an appropriate time to quickly whip up one special exception for your bible tales and fables.

I have told you many times many of my beliefs are based in faith some are not they are based on evidence.

Because you are confused as to the elements which separate faith from science, you are a poor candidate to make distinctions between your belief in supermagicalism and the rational world. It would then follow that your ability to make rational decisions is called into question.

 

[Hollie]

Anyone who has not observed an action they claimed happened and present it as a fact is lying.

That was hardly a comprehensible sentence, but I get it. You didn't answer my question. What is their agenda, specifically? If you understand that wikipedia is made up of many, many different authors, then are you suggesting there is a managing authority telling all authors to slant their posts towards a certain viewpoint? This would require some serious evidence, and you've provided none. The same with talkorigins. You won't find a viewpoint on talk origins that isn't held by evolutionary biologists or any professionals in the pertinent fields. It is a vacuous assertion to say that talkorigins has an agenda. The truth is their only agenda, whilst for creationist/ID website, they DO have an agenda, and that is to promote god.

Their agenda is to promote the idea that eveyrthing in existence is the result of naturalism.

Here again, your only goal is to promote your religious views at the expense of truth.

If you review the site, you will find each article includes extensive references to peer reviewed data.

As opposed to everything in existence being the product of naturalism, what part of existence can you define that was the result of supernaturalism? How does anyone further define that supernaturalism is the result of your gawds and not someone else's gawds?

 

[Hollie]

Tell me then briefly the importance ofleft handed and right handed amino acids ? Did you miss my explanation on the subject that did not come from ICR and that other site you are spewing about.

Who are you to complain about any site when you constantly copy and paste from Talkorigins and wiki as your source ? They do not have an agenda right ?

If you an issue with a refutation sourced at talkorigins is incorrect, present your issue.

Secondly, why don't you entertain us with how the interaction of amino acids will lead us to not just any gawds but your particular conception of gawds. You should remember that your laboring through the "amino acids prove gawds" nonsense, cut and pasted from creationist ministry websites lacks the peer review that would allow an unbiased researcher to test and confirm. How convenient! Creation ministries have an announced agenda to promote christianity and invariably find, (manufacture, falsifying, invent), results that they prefer.

None of the data from Christian creation ministries ever leads anyone to evidence for gawds. All of the phony data is presented with the intention of appealing to an audience that is not particularly schooled in science or to denigrate established science which leads away from conclusions of supernaturalism.

Why don't you entertain us that AN intelligent being was not behind the formation of proteins with just the right amino acids.

I have done that. Why don't you entertain us by proving I haven't?

Do you not understand just how moronic your "prove if isn't" statement is?

It just reeks of amateur and you might as well admit you're hopelessly floundering.

Drink the Kool-Aid.

 

[daws101]

Well Hell's Bells!! Why didn't you just say so?



What a maroon!

what's really funny is ywc besides being totally wrong about the first law of thermodynamics the earth and space are not a closed system.
all his so called info is from creationist sites making them invaild.

Oh the old closed system stupid atheist argument. So where did all the massive chaos go to balance out all the order on earth. Did it leave on a spaceship?

hey slap dick the closed system is a creationist fantasy.
btw chaos never left...... Chaos theory is a field of study in mathematics, with applications in several disciplines including physics, engineering, economics, biology, and philosophy. Chaos theory studies the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions, an effect which is popularly referred to as the butterfly effect. Small differences in initial conditions (such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation) yield widely diverging outcomes for such dynamical systems, rendering long-term prediction impossible in general.[1] This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved.[2] In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable.[3][4] This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos.

Chaotic behavior can be observed in many natural systems, such as weather.[5][6] Explanation of such behavior may be sought through analysis of a chaotic mathematical model, or through analytical techniques such as recurrence plots and Poincaré maps.

 

[daws101]

Well Hell's Bells!! Why didn't you just say so?



What a maroon!

what's really funny is ywc besides being totally wrong about the first law of thermodynamics the earth and space are not a closed system.
all his so called info is from creationist sites making them invaild.

Daws prove space is not a closed system Daws have you been able to see beyond the stars to know it's infinite ?

You guys are so ignorant of the facts you can't see when you contradict yourself.

didn't you just say that you were not speaking to me?
no need to prove anything it's already been explained to you.
besides it up to you to to prove it is a closed system since you made the claim.

 

[daws101]

Well Hell's Bells!! Why didn't you just say so?



What a maroon!

what's really funny is ywc besides being totally wrong about the first law of thermodynamics the earth and space are not a closed system.
all his so called info is from creationist sites making them invaild.

Types of Systems

more reading comp trouble I see .. do italics mean anything to you? " in your link is this part of the first sentence: "as a whole" is printed in italics meaning that there are exceptions to that statement .
here's the full answer : Is earth an open or closed system?.:.Answer
both. For everything except energy, it's closed.
For energy (i.e. the sun's input, radiation into space at night) it's open.




which means that you are as always misrepresenting fact to bolster you lack of proof..

 

[UltimateReality]

NP, I am really tired of arguing with you. Yes, in the past I have put you down after you attacked me. However, the more I read your posts the more I have compassion for you and how lost you really are. If you are truly interested in this subject matter, I would suggest you take a class on it. It is obvious from your posts you have cobbled information together from websites you have read and you lack formal training. The Miller-Urey experiments proved that under specific conditions, amino acids could form. Now, even admittedly in your own post, this has been disproven by the fact the early atmosphere was nothing like the one in their experiments. And you missed my point entirely. I was talking about proteins, which are made from amino acids and have to be specifically ordered in order to function. There is no possibility they "floated" together or hooked up in the precise order it takes for them to function. Chance and Necessity have been thrown out as a possible explanation for the first proteins.

You hit it out of the park the same people who run to the miller urey exercise as an answer turn to abiogenesis as ann answer while the science community dismisses them both. There is a reason the science community claim ignorance on the origins question.

The science community does not possess the data regarding "origins" that would stand to peer review.

Admittedly, the Christian creationist ministries are held to no such academic or professional standards. As we see with the Christian creationists in this thread, such standards as proof and ethical behavior is secondary to pounding the message of their religious dogma.

There is a reason why Christian creationists demand an exception from the standards of proof, peer review and ethical behavior they demand of science. Simply, the religious/ creationist arguments are arguments from ignorance and by their nature, require an abandonment of ethical standards of proof that is maintained by science.

Why do you continue to remain silent on you lies about me?

 

[daws101]

I notice you people when hit with questions you have no answer for you hide behind your rhetoric and pretend the one that calls you out are ignorant and stupid

What does that statement calling my post "rhetoric" have to do with me having visited and gotten to know the scam artists you morons follow blindly. Your post is stupid has nothing to do with anything I provided about The Discovery Institute.

You morons just lap up their propaganga like mothers milk with no question..wheras I have actually been at meetings with the brothers that run the Discovery Institute. AKA I know what I am talking about and you duped creationist idiots not so much.

Sir, I was educated at the University of Arizona you are just to ignorant to believe scientists don't all agree on the theories that you slurp up as fact.

your history at U of A has fuckall to do with anything.
everybodys knows that scientists diagree...
again that fact does not make your "god did it" fantasy any more vaild.

 

[UltimateReality]

Oops...

Stupid. Again you haven't followed the post. We are talking about her lies about me, not YWC. Keep up for Darwin's sake!!!!

You and Hollie are talking about how Hollie is lying? That's a lie right there!

I actually hate accusing people of lying, so that will be it for me, but you are being dishonest right now. Hollie is not talking to you about her own lies, but somebody elses.

You're embarrassing yourself. Hollie has lied about me on numerous occasions and I am sick of her repetitive posts of continually lying just as a put down. I am asking her to back up her accusations with proof or get lost. End of story.

 

[UltimateReality]

Yes. Your cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya requires you do not.

You can work yourself into a lather with the boilerplate "gawds of the gaps" argument and you are free to cut and paste the same "Behe" arguments as you wish.

Nothing about amino acids brings anyone any useful information about your gawds or any other gawds.

Tell me then briefly the importance ofleft handed and right handed amino acids ? Did you miss my explanation on the subject that did not come from ICR and that other site you are spewing about.

Who are you to complain about any site when you constantly copy and paste from Talkorigins and wiki as your source ? They do not have an agenda right ?

If you an issue with a refutation sourced at talkorigins is incorrect, present your issue...

What? Like you've ever done when facts are presented to you?

 

[UltimateReality]

If you an issue with a refutation sourced at talkorigins is incorrect, present your issue.

Secondly, why don't you entertain us with how the interaction of amino acids will lead us to not just any gawds but your particular conception of gawds. You should remember that your laboring through the "amino acids prove gawds" nonsense, cut and pasted from creationist ministry websites lacks the peer review that would allow an unbiased researcher to test and confirm. How convenient! Creation ministries have an announced agenda to promote christianity and invariably find, (manufacture, falsifying, invent), results that they prefer.

None of the data from Christian creation ministries ever leads anyone to evidence for gawds. All of the phony data is presented with the intention of appealing to an audience that is not particularly schooled in science or to denigrate established science which leads away from conclusions of supernaturalism.

Is this where you once again run from the questions put to you ?

I have no desire to endure your continued cutting and pasting from creationist websites that falsify data.

Why are you running from my questions? Your conviction that data you cut and paste from Harun Yahya in connection with amino acids must be developed enough to link to a science publication that could have reviewed the data, right? If you're convinced that the data you have will lead to the gawds, why don't you present that data and then present a logical chain of evidence leading to a narrow and specific conclusion for not just any gawd but your particular gawd.

That would be the simplest way to confirm evidence for your gawds. Where is such a link?

You are running from my question. Have I posted from Harun Yahya? Where is such a link?? Or even ICR for that matter? Prove it or shut the Daws up.

 

[UltimateReality]

That was hardly a comprehensible sentence, but I get it. You didn't answer my question. What is their agenda, specifically? If you understand that wikipedia is made up of many, many different authors, then are you suggesting there is a managing authority telling all authors to slant their posts towards a certain viewpoint? This would require some serious evidence, and you've provided none. The same with talkorigins. You won't find a viewpoint on talk origins that isn't held by evolutionary biologists or any professionals in the pertinent fields. It is a vacuous assertion to say that talkorigins has an agenda. The truth is their only agenda, whilst for creationist/ID website, they DO have an agenda, and that is to promote god.

Their agenda is to promote the idea that eveyrthing in existence is the result of naturalism.

Here again, your only goal is to promote your religious views at the expense of truth.

If you review the site, you will find each article includes extensive references to peer reviewed data.

As opposed to everything in existence being the product of naturalism, what part of existence can you define that was the result of supernaturalism? How does anyone further define that supernaturalism is the result of your gawds and not someone else's gawds?

You were presented with 50, count them, 50 peer reviewed articles from ID and you chose to ignore it. In fact, you just ignore anything that doesn't fit with your world view. You are the worst kind of revisionist, attempting to repeat the same thing over and over again knowing that impressionable youngsters like NP and special needs individuals like Daws will buy it hook, line and stinker.

 

[Hollie]

Tell me then briefly the importance ofleft handed and right handed amino acids ? Did you miss my explanation on the subject that did not come from ICR and that other site you are spewing about.

Who are you to complain about any site when you constantly copy and paste from Talkorigins and wiki as your source ? They do not have an agenda right ?

If you an issue with a refutation sourced at talkorigins is incorrect, present your issue...

What? Like you've ever done when facts are presented to you?

You poor stalker. Desperate for attention.

You're incensed that your creepy advances have all been rejected. Your behavior mirrors the behavior of stalkers we read about in the news.

 

[UltimateReality]

what's really funny is ywc besides being totally wrong about the first law of thermodynamics the earth and space are not a closed system.
all his so called info is from creationist sites making them invaild.

Oh the old closed system stupid atheist argument. So where did all the massive chaos go to balance out all the order on earth. Did it leave on a spaceship?

hey slap dick the closed system is a creationist fantasy.
btw chaos never left...... Chaos theory is a field of study in mathematics, with applications in several disciplines including physics, engineering, economics, biology, and philosophy. Chaos theory studies the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions, an effect which is popularly referred to as the butterfly effect. Small differences in initial conditions (such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation) yield widely diverging outcomes for such dynamical systems, rendering long-term prediction impossible in general.[1] This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved.[2] In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable.[3][4] This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos.

Chaotic behavior can be observed in many natural systems, such as weather.[5][6] Explanation of such behavior may be sought through analysis of a chaotic mathematical model, or through analytical techniques such as recurrence plots and Poincaré maps.

Hey SlapHollie, your post is totally irrelevant. If the TOTAL entropy can only stay the same or increase for a closed system, then there has to be a chaos yin to all the order we see yang. Where is the chaos on the earth that offsets the massive order?

 

[UltimateReality]

If you an issue with a refutation sourced at talkorigins is incorrect, present your issue...

What? Like you've ever done when facts are presented to you?

You poor stalker. Desperate for attention.

You're incensed that your creepy advances have all been rejected. Your behavior mirrors the behavior of stalkers we read about in the news.

Your silence is proof of your lies.

 

[UltimateReality]

NP, I am still awaiting your comments on the origin of life probability arguments presented by Meyer in the video.

 

[Hollie]

Their agenda is to promote the idea that eveyrthing in existence is the result of naturalism.

Here again, your only goal is to promote your religious views at the expense of truth.

If you review the site, you will find each article includes extensive references to peer reviewed data.

As opposed to everything in existence being the product of naturalism, what part of existence can you define that was the result of supernaturalism? How does anyone further define that supernaturalism is the result of your gawds and not someone else's gawds?

You were presented with 50, count them, 50 peer reviewed articles from ID and you chose to ignore it. In fact, you just ignore anything that doesn't fit with your world view. You are the worst kind of revisionist, attempting to repeat the same thing over and over again knowing that impressionable youngsters like NP and special needs individuals like Daws will buy it hook, line and stinker.

Are you referring to 50, count them, 50 peer reviewed articles, peer reviewed by, count them, peer Christian creationist ministries?

Your sweaty, saliva-stinging tirade can be quenched with a refreshing jolt of Kool-Aid.

 

[Youwerecreated]

If you an issue with a refutation sourced at talkorigins is incorrect, present your issue.

Secondly, why don't you entertain us with how the interaction of amino acids will lead us to not just any gawds but your particular conception of gawds. You should remember that your laboring through the "amino acids prove gawds" nonsense, cut and pasted from creationist ministry websites lacks the peer review that would allow an unbiased researcher to test and confirm. How convenient! Creation ministries have an announced agenda to promote christianity and invariably find, (manufacture, falsifying, invent), results that they prefer.

None of the data from Christian creation ministries ever leads anyone to evidence for gawds. All of the phony data is presented with the intention of appealing to an audience that is not particularly schooled in science or to denigrate established science which leads away from conclusions of supernaturalism.

Is this where you once again run from the questions put to you ?

I have no desire to endure your continued cutting and pasting from creationist websites that falsify data.

Why are you running from my questions? Your conviction that data you cut and paste from Harun Yahya in connection with amino acids must be developed enough to link to a science publication that could have reviewed the data, right? If you're convinced that the data you have will lead to the gawds, why don't you present that data and then present a logical chain of evidence leading to a narrow and specific conclusion for not just any gawd but your particular gawd.

That would be the simplest way to confirm evidence for your gawds. Where is such a link?

Dodge !

 

[Hollie]

What? Like you've ever done when facts are presented to you?

You poor stalker. Desperate for attention.

You're incensed that your creepy advances have all been rejected. Your behavior mirrors the behavior of stalkers we read about in the news.

Your silence is proof of your lies.

Your stalking is proof of your pathology.