Creationists

[newpolitics]

Cheesy put down. What you and Hollie are in denial about is that most of the scientific knowledge we have came from scientists who believed in God. Not only that, but there are thousands or millions of Christians still doing research in very techie or science related fields. You like to talk about ignorance? This view is just downright ign'ant.

Wow. That is one big genetic fallacy. Might want to look that one up. Where the knowledge we possess today came from has no bearing on the knowledge itself. Because a scientists was christian, doesn't mean the knowledge he/she uncovered is "Christian." Yet, this is what you are implying. If you are not, then there is no need for you to mention such an unimportant and widely understood point, and one which I have no reason to deny. Don't put words in my mouth. The modern scientific method was influenced heavily by Muslim thinkers almost a thousand years ago. I don't see how this has any bearing on the scientific method itself. We don't give credence to allah for this. Likewise, the fact that scientists of the past have been christian, doesn't vindicate the christian faith one iota. All it indicates is that the european populations until very recently, were heavily christian, because science had not yet uncovered so much. As science uncovers more and more, atheism becomes more viable, because god is no longer needed to explain anything.

Your inability to connect the dots in a debate shows your lack of maturity on such topics. You asserted that Creationists believe science is one big conspiracy theory. My post counters your extremely bigoted and small minded view. My point was that many Christians, and a few Muslims, are responsible for many advancements in science. Creationists embrace science. They just don't embrace your religious pseudoscience. And by the way, you are catching Hawly's disease. For the record for the upteenth time, I am NOT a Creationist.

Evolutionary Theory is a historical science. And most of it is based on un-provable and untestable claims. Your atheism has blinded you to the truth.

You demonstrated this yourself when you objected to my use of light-year measurements, effectively claiming that science is not reliable in this field. You challenge science on a more fundamental level than you wish to let on, or, you simply challenge science whenever it is convenient for you in order to discredit an argument, in which case, this is dishonesty. Don't back down from your own assertions and tell me I simply think all creationists believe science is one big conspiracy theory. I said "only creationists do," which does not mean ALL creationists. I should have been more specific given your proclivity for drawing erroneous conclusions.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

The "soup thing" is from berkeley. So you're saying that you know better than researchers at berkeley? Where did you go to college, Redneck U?
And how's that slave flag thing working out for you southern pig fuckers?

I"m saying that your insults show your limited intelligence and debating skills.

Class dismissed.

But how is the slave flag thing working for you? Do you know your side lost the war and you can't have slaves anymore?

At least you're not dense enough to say that the people at berkeley are full of shit. That's a start.

You can pretend the Northern States didn't have slaves. But it doesn't make it so.

And you can pretend that only white people were slave owners, but that doesn't make it so either.

You should read a history book and not rely on the revisionist history you were taught at school.

 

[ima]

I"m saying that your insults show your limited intelligence and debating skills.

Class dismissed.

But how is the slave flag thing working for you? Do you know your side lost the war and you can't have slaves anymore?

At least you're not dense enough to say that the people at berkeley are full of shit. That's a start.

You can pretend the Northern States didn't have slaves. But it doesn't make it so.

And you can pretend that only white people were slave owners, but that doesn't make it so either.

You should read a history book and not rely on the revisionist history you were taught at school.

I never claimed what you say I "pretend". But I do know that your flag is a loser flag, and now you have to dig your own outhouse.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

But how is the slave flag thing working for you? Do you know your side lost the war and you can't have slaves anymore?

At least you're not dense enough to say that the people at berkeley are full of shit. That's a start.

You can pretend the Northern States didn't have slaves. But it doesn't make it so.

And you can pretend that only white people were slave owners, but that doesn't make it so either.

You should read a history book and not rely on the revisionist history you were taught at school.

I never claimed what you say I "pretend". But I do know that your flag is a loser flag, and now you have to dig your own outhouse.

Why does it bother you so much?

 

[Youwerecreated]

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?

lalalalalala

YWC are you a poe?

Define what you meant.

 

[Youwerecreated]

No, they do not have an agenda. What agenda does wikipedia have???

Talkorigins I can understand, even though I wholeheartedly disagree that they have an agenda, aside from debunking creationist/ID claims and establishing science.

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

so that must mean that every thing you post from creationist sites is a lie
as they have no proof that anything mentioned in the bible was observed first hand by the writers of the scriptures.

How bout my words that I post that you and a few others run from ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

that's because everthing is...you have no proof otherwise ..no matter how hard you bitch...

Daws you have no proof to support your claims like the one the one where you said space is not a closed system when we don't have the ability to se far enough. I thought you would have gotten it the first time it was said.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

that's all of your beliefs are based on faith as you have no evidence if you claim you do you're lying.

My observations of mutations and cells are not based on faith nor the bible daws. My views on amino acids forming proteins are not either. Do I need to go on ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

You are stupid daws sorry but when I post why you are wrong and still you continue this tap dance then that is stupidity.

you've yet to prove me wrong. but you can always dream..

 

[newpolitics]

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

You are willing to believe that Wikipedia, which has tons of articles about the christian faith and every other conceivable supernatural-based religion, is trying to promote naturalism?

This is demonstrably false by virtue of what I just said.

The truth with you, is that anything that isn't actively promoting christianity, is deemed "materialistic." This is blind bias.

Your perception of talkorigins originates from the same bias. In actuality, Talkorigins accurately describes the scientific theories that theists so often get wrong. This is not an agenda to promote naturalism, but to promote actual truth about the current state of our collective scientific inquiry on matters of evolution, abiogenesis, and other topics so often misquoted by theists. It is simply an educational tool. The fact that it does not align with your beliefs does not mean it is naturalistic, simply because your beliefs are mired in supernaturalism. Try to be a little less self-centered when assessing these things.

 

[Youwerecreated]

"A curious aspect of Earth's life forms is that they contain (with few exceptions) only left-handed amino acids. In contrast, when scientists synthesize amino acids from nonchiral precursors, the result is always a "racemic" mixture - equal numbers of right- and left-handed forms. Scientists have been unable to perform any experiment that, when starting with conditions believed to emulate those of early Earth, results in a near-total dominance of left-handed amino acids, says George Cody, a geochemist at the Carnegie Institute of Washington."

"But chemical studies of these meteorites have often been challenged as unreliable by scientists claiming that contamination has occurred through exposure, storage, or handling. Over time, says Jeff Bada, of the Scripps Institute of Oceanography, even carefully stored meteorites gradually become contaminated.

If organic compounds such as amino acids from Earth's biosphere have penetrated meteorite samples, they would no longer be representative of early solar system chemistry, nor could they provide evidence of an extraterrestrial source for the components of Earth's first life. But figuring out whether or not a meteorite has been contaminated has proven to be a thorny problem."

"The investigators found that the stable isotope ratios were identical for the left-handed and right-handed forms. This, says Engel, indicates, that they had to have come from the same source - that is, not from Earth. If, he argues, a portion of the left-handed forms were from terrestrial organics, these forms would have exhibited a different isotopic signature than the right-handed forms. They would have contained more light carbon and nitrogen.

Kvenvolden and Bada aren't convinced. The new stable-isotope evidence notwithstanding, says Kvenvolden, a left-handed excess like that found in previous research by Engel and Macko, "is inconsistent with the observations of Cronin, Pizzarello and myself for protein amino acids in the meteorite." Kvenvolden firmly believes Engel and Macko were seeing contamination."


Murchison's Amino Acids: Tainted Evidence?

All of this means NOTHING in proving a designer. I don't care about chirality and how much more improbable that makes anything. All you are doing is trying to discredit abiogenesis, with NO POSITIVE EVIDENCE for a designer. Your argument from induction in using humans and digital code, is not positive evidence. It is inductive reasoning, which would allow inferences, at best. You are left with nothing to show for your designer. This attempt at science is utterly pathetic.

I don't feel the need anymore to defend a single facet of abiogenesis or evolution, because if both of these were disproven tomorrow, you still would have zero proof for an intelligent designer.

Maybe you should if you are concerned with the truth and whether a designer does exist or not.

 

[newpolitics]

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

that's all of your beliefs are based on faith as you have no evidence if you claim you do you're lying.

My observations of mutations and cells are not based on faith nor the bible daws. My views on amino acids forming proteins are not either. Do I need to go on ?

Your views on amino acids are formed by really simple mathematical probability calculations. These is not an apt description of reality we know little about, so can not account for it in the math. You can not demonstrate that something is impossible by trying to show how unlikely it is with these simple calculations. There is not enough data to make those calculations descriptive of anything resembling what would have actually taken place. So, another argument from ignorance.

 

[Youwerecreated]

God, that looks like us, sits on a gold throne and creates everything.
If there was anything that ever qualified as "flawed" scientifically the above claim would be.
That one is #1 flawed argument.

The Bible says God is Spirit. If he exists outside of matter, space, time and energy, what would ever make you think that he "looks" like anything you know or that he can "sit" anywhere. Have you been listening to Red Neck Theologians?

The bibble was written by men, not a god. So basically, your invisible dude is made up.

Your textbooks are to.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Evolution started in earth's early primordial soup, as it were.

Evolution 101: From Soup to Cells - the Origin of Life

As for radioactive decay Radioactive decay - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hopefully, it's not too complicated for you.

Fact, just because you don't know ALL the answers doesn't mean that some invisible dude made it.

Wikipedia is bullshit. May as well cite Dr. Sueus.

Those that have been supporters of evolution in this thread has stated that evolution did not begin at the beginning of life. You contradict their sentiment.

Just because you think you have the answers doesn't mean God wasn't involved.

The "soup thing" is from berkeley. So you're saying that you know better than researchers at berkeley? Where did you go to college, Redneck U?
And how's that slave flag thing working out for you southern pig fuckers?

Berkley now that is a fair and balanced source.

 

[newpolitics]

"A curious aspect of Earth's life forms is that they contain (with few exceptions) only left-handed amino acids. In contrast, when scientists synthesize amino acids from nonchiral precursors, the result is always a "racemic" mixture - equal numbers of right- and left-handed forms. Scientists have been unable to perform any experiment that, when starting with conditions believed to emulate those of early Earth, results in a near-total dominance of left-handed amino acids, says George Cody, a geochemist at the Carnegie Institute of Washington."

"But chemical studies of these meteorites have often been challenged as unreliable by scientists claiming that contamination has occurred through exposure, storage, or handling. Over time, says Jeff Bada, of the Scripps Institute of Oceanography, even carefully stored meteorites gradually become contaminated.

If organic compounds such as amino acids from Earth's biosphere have penetrated meteorite samples, they would no longer be representative of early solar system chemistry, nor could they provide evidence of an extraterrestrial source for the components of Earth's first life. But figuring out whether or not a meteorite has been contaminated has proven to be a thorny problem."

"The investigators found that the stable isotope ratios were identical for the left-handed and right-handed forms. This, says Engel, indicates, that they had to have come from the same source - that is, not from Earth. If, he argues, a portion of the left-handed forms were from terrestrial organics, these forms would have exhibited a different isotopic signature than the right-handed forms. They would have contained more light carbon and nitrogen.

Kvenvolden and Bada aren't convinced. The new stable-isotope evidence notwithstanding, says Kvenvolden, a left-handed excess like that found in previous research by Engel and Macko, "is inconsistent with the observations of Cronin, Pizzarello and myself for protein amino acids in the meteorite." Kvenvolden firmly believes Engel and Macko were seeing contamination."


Murchison's Amino Acids: Tainted Evidence?

All of this means NOTHING in proving a designer. I don't care about chirality and how much more improbable that makes anything. All you are doing is trying to discredit abiogenesis, with NO POSITIVE EVIDENCE for a designer. Your argument from induction in using humans and digital code, is not positive evidence. It is inductive reasoning, which would allow inferences, at best. You are left with nothing to show for your designer. This attempt at science is utterly pathetic.

I don't feel the need anymore to defend a single facet of abiogenesis or evolution, because if both of these were disproven tomorrow, you still would have zero proof for an intelligent designer.

Maybe you should if you are concerned with the truth and whether a designer does exist or not.

You must demonstrate that something is true. You can not and have not. I know all about Stephen Meyer's probability calculations with respect to amino acid coupling combinations in forming viable proteins. This is not useful information in describing what happened. It is vastly simplistic and relies on ignorance to the actual conditions during abiogenesis. Nor is an inductive argument to try and show that DNA must have a designer simply because digital code has a designer. This is using the availability heuristic. Intelligent Design is so far from science that it is laughable. The more I learn about it, the more I realize that it is simply faith-based. Nobody actually searching for scientific truth could ever rely on this kind of flawed methodology. It is simply unscientific, and even Meyer admits this when he says this is a "semantics question" (paraphrased).

 

[Youwerecreated]

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

You are willing to believe that Wikipedia, which has tons of articles about the christian faith and every other conceivable supernatural-based religion, is trying to promote naturalism?

This is demonstrably false by virtue of what I just said.

The truth with you, is that anything that isn't actively promoting christianity, is deemed "materialistic." This is blind bias.

Your perception of talkorigins originates from the same bias. In actuality, Talkorigins accurately describes the scientific theories that theists so often get wrong. This is not an agenda to promote naturalism, but to promote actual truth about the current state of our collective scientific inquiry on matters of evolution, abiogenesis, and other topics so often misquoted by theists. It is simply an educational tool. The fact that it does not align with your beliefs does not mean it is naturalistic, simply because your beliefs are mired in supernaturalism. Try to be a little less self-centered when assessing these things.

I can now admit I am biased for the truth not vivid imaginations.

 

[Youwerecreated]

that's all of your beliefs are based on faith as you have no evidence if you claim you do you're lying.

My observations of mutations and cells are not based on faith nor the bible daws. My views on amino acids forming proteins are not either. Do I need to go on ?

Your views on amino acids are formed by really simple mathematical probability calculations. These is not an apt description of reality we know little about, so can not account for it in the math. You can not demonstrate that something is impossible by trying to show how unlikely it is with these simple calculations. There is not enough data to make those calculations descriptive of anything resembling what would have actually taken place. So, another argument from ignorance.

I can reach my views through reasoning of the evidence.

 

[newpolitics]

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

You are willing to believe that Wikipedia, which has tons of articles about the christian faith and every other conceivable supernatural-based religion, is trying to promote naturalism?

This is demonstrably false by virtue of what I just said.

The truth with you, is that anything that isn't actively promoting christianity, is deemed "materialistic." This is blind bias.

Your perception of talkorigins originates from the same bias. In actuality, Talkorigins accurately describes the scientific theories that theists so often get wrong. This is not an agenda to promote naturalism, but to promote actual truth about the current state of our collective scientific inquiry on matters of evolution, abiogenesis, and other topics so often misquoted by theists. It is simply an educational tool. The fact that it does not align with your beliefs does not mean it is naturalistic, simply because your beliefs are mired in supernaturalism. Try to be a little less self-centered when assessing these things.

I can now admit I am biased for the truth not vivid imaginations.

This is a completely subjective statement, and therefore meaningless as far as this discussion goes. Until you can demonstrate something, you don't have truth.

 

[newpolitics]

My observations of mutations and cells are not based on faith nor the bible daws. My views on amino acids forming proteins are not either. Do I need to go on ?

Your views on amino acids are formed by really simple mathematical probability calculations. These is not an apt description of reality we know little about, so can not account for it in the math. You can not demonstrate that something is impossible by trying to show how unlikely it is with these simple calculations. There is not enough data to make those calculations descriptive of anything resembling what would have actually taken place. So, another argument from ignorance.

I can reach my views through reasoning of the evidence.

No, you can't. You have reached your views by fallacious reasoning, namely attempting to probabilistically rule out the competing theory, and then fallaciously trying to build-up your own theory using a non-deductive method. There is no valid reasoning here that allows anyone to demonstrable these "truths."

 

[Youwerecreated]

All of this means NOTHING in proving a designer. I don't care about chirality and how much more improbable that makes anything. All you are doing is trying to discredit abiogenesis, with NO POSITIVE EVIDENCE for a designer. Your argument from induction in using humans and digital code, is not positive evidence. It is inductive reasoning, which would allow inferences, at best. You are left with nothing to show for your designer. This attempt at science is utterly pathetic.

I don't feel the need anymore to defend a single facet of abiogenesis or evolution, because if both of these were disproven tomorrow, you still would have zero proof for an intelligent designer.

Maybe you should if you are concerned with the truth and whether a designer does exist or not.

You must demonstrate that something is true. You can not and have not. I know all about Stephen Meyer's probability calculations with respect to amino acid coupling combinations in forming viable proteins. This is not useful information in describing what happened. It is vastly simplistic and relies on ignorance to the actual conditions during abiogenesis. Nor is an inductive argument to try and show that DNA must have a designer simply because digital code has a designer. This is using the availability heuristic. Intelligent Design is so far from science that it is laughable. The more I learn about it, the more I realize that it is simply faith-based. Nobody actually searching for scientific truth could ever rely on this kind of flawed methodology. It is simply unscientific, and even Meyer admits this when he says this is a "semantics question" (paraphrased).

I can't think of one thing in nature that chaos has produced through order. They are opposites.