Creationists

[daws101]

I won't use profanity so Daws seemed like an appropriate substitution.

and always you'd be showcasing your immaturity.

taking God’s name in vain means throwing around reckless promises, oaths, and pledges using the Christian God as your witness.

if that's why you don't use profanity then you're far more dense than I expected.

So I can't take Daws name in vain??? I don't use profanity because it is trailer trashy.

an even worse rationalization! based on a false perception of superiority ....
since you own a penis envy truck shoot guns and most likely drink a light Pilsner beer, wear a ball cap (backward) then I'd say you're already 98% trailer trash.

 

[UltimateReality]

Arbiter:

1. (Law) a person empowered to judge in a dispute; referee; arbitrator
2. a person having complete control of something

thefreedictinary.com

Hey Hawly, watch this!!! I will do something totally foreign to you...

NP, I was not familiar with that word. My bad.

Wow. That was impressive UR. Thank you, and no worries.

I must confess. I did get this word from Halo, and had no idea what it actually meant until five minutes ago when I looked it up.

Nice!

 

[daws101]

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.

and you do? not fucking likely.

 

[UltimateReality]

That may be true in the alternate reality of creationist ministries but oddly, the natural physical forces across the universe apply in this solar system as they do elsewhere.

In defence of Christianity, it should be noted that the Vatican has accepted the undeniable evidence for evolution, just as it came to accept a heliocentric solar system and other demonstrable phenomena formerly condemned as heretical. Most main-stream Protestant sects concur, although there is a sizable lunatic christian fringe... who foul this board.

Appeal to the masses.

that would be a appealing to....but since the Catholic church out numbers all other Christan sects it already had the masses on it's side ,making your quip a non sequitur.
or like most fundies you suffer from the delusion of believing that you have been blessed with special knowledge or a higher intellect

It's not a delusion.

 

[UltimateReality]

and always you'd be showcasing your immaturity.

taking God’s name in vain means throwing around reckless promises, oaths, and pledges using the Christian God as your witness.

if that's why you don't use profanity then you're far more dense than I expected.

So I can't take Daws name in vain??? I don't use profanity because it is trailer trashy.

an even worse rationalization! based on a false perception of superiority ....
since you own a penis envy truck shoot guns and most likely drink a light Pilsner beer, wear a ball cap (backward) then I'd say you're already 98% trailer trash.

Wow, how do you know so much about me?

 

[daws101]

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 ?

really! what are they based on ? obviously not a working knowledge of biology.

 

[daws101]

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.

you're right they are but unlike your bible and pseudo scientific text ,when an error is found they are edited and reissued with corrections

 

[daws101]

Appeal to the masses.

that would be a appealing to....but since the Catholic church out numbers all other Christan sects it already had the masses on it's side ,making your quip a non sequitur.
or like most fundies you suffer from the delusion of believing that you have been blessed with special knowledge or a higher intellect

It's not a delusion.

claiming it's not, is a major part of the delusion.
kinda like saying you not an alcoholic when you down a twelve pack with dinner everynight.

 

[daws101]

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.

you would also have to admit that what you just posted is a lie.

 

[daws101]

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.

 

[daws101]

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.

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa (cue buzzer) that is incorrect they are parts of the same whole..
like god and de old debil you can't have one without the other.

 

[daws101]

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.

You didn't know that? Pot and evolutionary made up stories go hand and hand.

funny in my toking days being high was the only time bible stories almost made sense..almost.

 

[daws101]

Did you mean arbitrator? If so, then you would make a really lousy one, because you are incredibly biased to one side.

UR
this might have been a good time to to stfu.

Definition of ARBITER
1: a person with power to decide a dispute : judge
2: a person or agency whose judgment or opinion is considered authoritative <arbiters of taste>

Definition of ARBITRATOR
: one that arbitrates : arbiter
another failed attempt to get over on another poster.

Arbiter is a fictional ceremonial, religious, and political rank bestowed upon alien Covenant Elites in the Halo science fiction universe.

NP must be a theatre boy too!!! Maybe you guys could compare tights.

guess you had to look that up too...
you get your ass in a crack for faking intellectuality..... and the best you can do is make Jr high gay slurs....tosspot.

 

[daws101]

Arbiter:

1. (Law) a person empowered to judge in a dispute; referee; arbitrator
2. a person having complete control of something

thefreedictinary.com

Hey Hawly, watch this!!! I will do something totally foreign to you...

NP, I was not familiar with that word. My bad.

it's the i'm sorry ploy....

 

[newpolitics]

That's for you to decide. I am saying there are many things in space that don't follow the laws here on earth. We can use earthly laws to make estimates of astronomical distances but in the end, they are just educated guesses, because we truly have no way of verifying them.

Earthly laws? As if this region of space is fundamentally different than another region of space, excluding regions near black holes? What is it with creationists and trying to posit that the four fundamental forces of nature are ever-changing? You would need to back this is up with something . Anything, pointing to this possibility.

You are, in fact, implying that astronomy is unreliable with regards to astronomical measurements of distance. Therefore, you need to prove this. Go ahead.

This shows your total ignorance to current cosmological science. When was the last time you measured the effects of dark matter and dark energy here on earth? When?

That's a smelly red-herring you have there. Mind telling me why you are dragging that across the path of this discussion?


If you can demonstrate how dark energy or dark matter would interfere with distance measurements, then maybe you can vindicate yourself. As it is, you are simply throwing shit against the wall and seeing what sticks.

 

[newpolitics]

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.

Okay, please demonstrate a modern day example of Natural Selection acting on a random mutation and producing a trait that increases fitness.

The AIDS virus, which literally relies on constant mutation in order to evade our immune system, which is what makes it so deadly. In doing so, it is constantly increasing its fitness. Or, any virus that has ever existed that we have studied and witness mutate to become more powerful, such as a virus going airborne.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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 ?

your words? nobody runs from your words!
besides you base your words on creationist sites and the bible thus making your words specious speculation based on a false premise.
do you buy that hubris by the bottle?

You have yet to have a rebuttal to the earth being a closed system nor provide one for our universe (Space) as you called it being an open system. How do you know when we can't see far enough out in to space ?

You have not had any kind of rebuttal that was not based in conjecture for the origins of life or the left and right handed amino acids bonding to for proteins ?

Why don't you start by showing I am or could be wrong. The science community know these problems but yet you blame it on creationist Paranoia will destroy you.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

and you do? not fucking likely.

See the post before this one, now your turn.

 

[newpolitics]

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

your words? nobody runs from your words!
besides you base your words on creationist sites and the bible thus making your words specious speculation based on a false premise.
do you buy that hubris by the bottle?

You have yet to have a rebuttal to the earth being a closed system nor provide one for our universe (Space) as you called it being an open system. How do you know when we can't see far enough out in to space ?

You have not had any kind of rebuttal that was not based in conjecture for the origins of life or the left and right handed amino acids bonding to for proteins ?

Why don't you start by showing I am or could be wrong. The science community know these problems but yet you blame it on creationist Paranoia will destroy you.

We receive constant input (energy) from the sun. Therefore, the earth is not a closed system, and you should not expect entropy to be expressed here as if it were a closed system. Our entire ecosystem is based on energy from sunlight, hence the use of the term trophic levels to denote degrees of separation away from this energy source.

 

[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 ?

really! what are they based on ? obviously not a working knowledge of biology.

Mr. Theatre man I actually worked in the field for 11 years