Creationists

[Hollie]

Enough of this drivel about evolution being a historical science and therefore having a fundamentally different burden of proof, or a different methodology.

I hope this post will enlighten you to how even what appears on the surface as a sound article is really very agenda driven. It does not find its source in truth, but more so to silence the attacks of evolution as a legitimate science. I am not sure who opened it, but the debate was ushered in hard core when a fundie evolutionists attempted to compare evolution with the law of gravity. We may never know who the originator of this fallacious argument was but they unleashed a barrage of misinformation to cloud the issue on what category the study of evolution, or creation for that matter, really falls into and what we can expect when it comes to "proofs".

NP, you are allowing Hawly's constant propaganda barage to cloud your judgement of me. While I do subscribe to many of the Discovery Institute Articles, more than 3/4 of knowledge on science comes from unbiased sources and I have never visited the ICR website or Harun Yahya, unless it was by accidentally clicking on one of Hawly's links. (FYI, my spelling of Hawly's name is a dig against her spelling "gawd". Classic.)

And once again, the creepy stalker (even after being humiliated for his obsession with me), continues to stalk me through his posts.

How really creepy theses religious zealots.

 

[Hollie]

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.

That is not what I am saying. I am saying we have the law of gravity here on earth that is based on millions of measurements that have confirmed its validity. Then we observe the movement of Galaxies and they don't follow our earthly law of gravity. So we invent mysterious forces like dark matter and dark energy and then spend billions of dollars on a machine that makes us think we may have found a new particle but the level of certainty required makes us not so sure we have found it. That doesn't stop us from holding news conferences to say we've almost found it to keep us from looking like total asses for wasting billions of research dollars on something so supernatural that it is called the God particle. All that make sense?

Logic would at least have us use caution in taking all the laws we know about light here on earth and then applying them to astronomical distances. This is akin to YWC objections to carbon or radiometric dating. We are looking at an inch of data on a mile long timeline and doing some serious extrapolation!!!

You still side-step and waffle when pressed to explain your proposal that natural laws are somehow magically different near this planet vs. elsewhere in the universe.

Have you been drinking the Christian creationist Kool-Aid?

 

[Hollie]

Wrong again.

"Earth itself is a system. It is a sphere of matter with distinct boundaries. Earth
has been an essentially closed system since the end of the heavy meteorite bombardment
some 4 billion years ago. Since then, no significant new material has entered
the system (except meteorites and space dust), and, just as important, significant
quantities have not left the system. Since the planet formed,"

http://earthds.info/pdfs/EDS_02.PDF

This definition conveniently leaves out the fact that a closed system allows energy transfer, such as heat.

Read my above post. I was wrong, but so are you in your conclusion about entropy and the earth.

A closed system is defined as that which allows energy transfer, but not matter transfer. This type of system does not tends towards higher entropy. Only an isolated system would tend towards higher entropy (no matter or energy exchange), and this type of system is what is stated in the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics as tending towards higher entropy. Not a closed system.

Why do we have so many natural disasters ? why do all things lead to disorder and eventually death ? What happens to structures over time ?

You can believe as you wish but I disagree.

Natural disasters, disorder, etc., are all a product of the gawds. It's a convenient tactic of fundies to arbitrarily reassign circumstances and events that are attributed to their currently configured gawds. But to do so immediately puts you on yet another slippery slope because you are now making decisions about the motives and intent of your gawds that you have no ability to do.

 

[Hollie]

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.

Is a virus really alive? Sometimes it is. Sometimes it isn't. Does it qualify as an organism?

If a virus is not really alive, then it must not really be alive only sorta' alive or maybe partly dead but not really dead. Sometimes it isn't but sometimes it really isnt, only sorta' isn't.

It only qualifies as an organism if its not really an organism but sorta' an organism.

And the above, ladies and gentlemen is what is being churned out of the Christian madrassahs'.

Dear gawds, what the hell have you done?

 

[Hollie]

Enough of this drivel about evolution being a historical science and therefore having a fundamentally different burden of proof, or a different methodology.

I hope this post will enlighten you to how even what appears on the surface as a sound article is really very agenda driven. It does not find its source in truth, but more so to silence the attacks of evolution as a legitimate science. I am not sure who opened it, but the debate was ushered in hard core when a fundie evolutionists attempted to compare evolution with the law of gravity. We may never know who the originator of this fallacious argument was but they unleashed a barrage of misinformation to cloud the issue on what category the study of evolution, or creation for that matter, really falls into and what we can expect when it comes to "proofs".

NP, you are allowing Hawly's constant propaganda barage to cloud your judgement of me. While I do subscribe to many of the Discovery Institute Articles, more than 3/4 of knowledge on science comes from unbiased sources and I have never visited the ICR website or Harun Yahya, unless it was by accidentally clicking on one of Hawly's links. (FYI, my spelling of Hawly's name is a dig against her spelling "gawd". Classic.)

I would appreciate it if you try and do the same when posting articles for reference to an argument you have presented if possible. Sometimes in the case of ID theory, it is not possible. Your Atheist websites, just like some Creationists websites, are many times clouded by their agenda, which gives them a slant. Your article above would have you believe Historical Science is on the same level as Emprical Science. It is not. Neither evolution nor ID theory will ever live up to the same burden of proof that the empirical sciences can and most Historical Scientists would protest if you held them to the same level of proof. I thought it fitting to quote this article from Berkley, since it is obviously as Lib as colleges come, and no one can say I am using biased sources.

"B. Formal Sciences
1. Logic and mathematics
2. Both define their own universe.
3. Because they do, they can initially speak of absolute "true" versus "false."
a. 2 + 2 = 4. Why? Because we all agree upon it.
4. This sounds like belief knowledge. However, it differs in one critical element — once you establish an initial premise (which must have rigor), you have to follow the research protocol to investigate its effect and validity.
5. These disciplines are often seen as the epitome of science — an exact, fully logical, brick by brick process.

C. Empirical Sciences
1. Deal with objects and observations
a. Takes the world as it is and tries to understand it.
b. Here there can be NO truth, no right or wrong, only observations and hypotheses about the natural system.
2. Empirical Science may be roughly divided into two camps:
a. The Experimental Sciences: e.g., Chemistry, Physics and allied subjects.
(1) Here the subject allows the creation of controlled experiments in the laboratory.
(2) The objects under observation (e.g., atoms, molecules) are assumed to all be the same and to lack individuality.
b. The Historical Sciences: e.g., most of Biology, Geology.
(1) Here the objects under observation increasingly possess individual characteristics, such as single historical events or the individuals in a species. Optimal controls and laboratory experiments become increasingly difficult.
(2) Paleontology exhibits the "worst" of this in that it concerns organisms (which have individuality) in historical circumstances (where the coincidence of factors at any one time may NEVER be repeated) and all of this occurring in the distant past.
3. This distinction between Experimental and Historical Sciences sets up a false debate in public. Paleontologists are often compared with physicists and then faulted for not producing scientific data as measured by the standards of physics. We paleontologists simply cannot!
4. As we progress from experimental to historical sciences, we pass into a realm of the critical establishment of probability. "Good Science" becomes a matter of eliminating as many variables — while entertaining as many alternate interpretations of the observations — as possible."

What Is Science?

I believe this explanation to be spot on. I'm sure you could cite many experiments you have done in a chemistry or physics class that could be repeated over and over and achieve the same result as long as rigorous controls were in place. This can never be the case with predictions or hypotheses about events that occurred in the distant past. We can never know with 100% certainty that what believe about events in the past are absolutely true. We can only eliminate as many variables as possible. This is what you miss in Meyer's argument and you would note if you read his book. He attempts to eliminate as many competing hypothesis about the origin of information in dna as possible by arguing against some of the more prominent hypotheses put forth on the subject. This too is what you may miss in evolutionary biology. Darwin's tree of life has been shredded by genetic evidence, so new hypotheses have been introduced, like lateral gene transfer, to deal with the new evidence. When these types of discoveries net different results than what Darwin originally predicted, the IDers and Creationists have a field day, and rightfully so.

And that leads us to why I chose the screen name I did. The ultimate goal of science is to describe ultimate reality. Scientists are always trying to determine what is REALLY REAL. Even without my Theistic views, I would have a very hard time believing that evolution, not adaptation, is true based on the evidence. Once you learn to see many of the manipulations for what they are I liken it to the point in the matrix when Neo starts to see the code, instead of the simulation. I am not trying to put you down when I say you are not yeet attune to it. There is SOOOOO much misinformation out there now with the proliferation of the internet. I wouldn't call it the information age. I would call it the misinformation age. Even when I did a google search for articles about the empirical sciences versus the historical sciences I was inundated with articles obviously written by evolution supporters to discredit the discrediting being done by the Theists. I can see the code now and I am not fooled by it.

Has anyone told the fundie that "Neo" and the Matrix were the product of a Hollywood movie and were...you know.... not real?

 

[Youwerecreated]

This definition conveniently leaves out the fact that a closed system allows energy transfer, such as heat.

Read my above post. I was wrong, but so are you in your conclusion about entropy and the earth.

A closed system is defined as that which allows energy transfer, but not matter transfer. This type of system does not tends towards higher entropy. Only an isolated system would tend towards higher entropy (no matter or energy exchange), and this type of system is what is stated in the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics as tending towards higher entropy. Not a closed system.

Why do we have so many natural disasters ? why do all things lead to disorder and eventually death ? What happens to structures over time ?

You can believe as you wish but I disagree.

Natural disasters, disorder, etc., are all a product of the gawds. It's a convenient tactic of fundies to arbitrarily reassign circumstances and events that are attributed to their currently configured gawds. But to do so immediately puts you on yet another slippery slope because you are now making decisions about the motives and intent of your gawds that you have no ability to do.

You are correct,once perfection was lost for mankind it was lost for all of nature. You are finally catching on.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

Is a virus really alive? Sometimes it is. Sometimes it isn't. Does it qualify as an organism?

If a virus is not really alive, then it must not really be alive only sorta' alive or maybe partly dead but not really dead. Sometimes it isn't but sometimes it really isnt, only sorta' isn't.

It only qualifies as an organism if its not really an organism but sorta' an organism.

And the above, ladies and gentlemen is what is being churned out of the Christian madrassahs'.

Dear gawds, what the hell have you done?

Viruses are not living organisms.I guess i should give the reason why a virus is not a living organism.

A virus is not a living organism Because a virus cannot replicate on its own without another host organism, viruses do not meet the criteria to be considered living organisms.

 

[UltimateReality]

Enough of this drivel about evolution being a historical science and therefore having a fundamentally different burden of proof, or a different methodology.

I hope this post will enlighten you to how even what appears on the surface as a sound article is really very agenda driven. It does not find its source in truth, but more so to silence the attacks of evolution as a legitimate science. I am not sure who opened it, but the debate was ushered in hard core when a fundie evolutionists attempted to compare evolution with the law of gravity. We may never know who the originator of this fallacious argument was but they unleashed a barrage of misinformation to cloud the issue on what category the study of evolution, or creation for that matter, really falls into and what we can expect when it comes to "proofs".

NP, you are allowing Hawly's constant propaganda barage to cloud your judgement of me. While I do subscribe to many of the Discovery Institute Articles, more than 3/4 of knowledge on science comes from unbiased sources and I have never visited the ICR website or Harun Yahya, unless it was by accidentally clicking on one of Hawly's links. (FYI, my spelling of Hawly's name is a dig against her spelling "gawd". Classic.)

And once again, the creepy stalker (even after being humiliated for his obsession with me), continues to stalk me through his posts.

How really creepy theses religious zealots.

You really are at a loss to add anything of substance to this thread.

 

[Hollie]

I hope this post will enlighten you to how even what appears on the surface as a sound article is really very agenda driven. It does not find its source in truth, but more so to silence the attacks of evolution as a legitimate science. I am not sure who opened it, but the debate was ushered in hard core when a fundie evolutionists attempted to compare evolution with the law of gravity. We may never know who the originator of this fallacious argument was but they unleashed a barrage of misinformation to cloud the issue on what category the study of evolution, or creation for that matter, really falls into and what we can expect when it comes to "proofs".

NP, you are allowing Hawly's constant propaganda barage to cloud your judgement of me. While I do subscribe to many of the Discovery Institute Articles, more than 3/4 of knowledge on science comes from unbiased sources and I have never visited the ICR website or Harun Yahya, unless it was by accidentally clicking on one of Hawly's links. (FYI, my spelling of Hawly's name is a dig against her spelling "gawd". Classic.)

And once again, the creepy stalker (even after being humiliated for his obsession with me), continues to stalk me through his posts.

How really creepy theses religious zealots.

You really are at a loss to add anything of substance to this thread.

Actually, your rabid cutting and pasting is what contributes nothing to the thread.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I hope this post will enlighten you to how even what appears on the surface as a sound article is really very agenda driven. It does not find its source in truth, but more so to silence the attacks of evolution as a legitimate science. I am not sure who opened it, but the debate was ushered in hard core when a fundie evolutionists attempted to compare evolution with the law of gravity. We may never know who the originator of this fallacious argument was but they unleashed a barrage of misinformation to cloud the issue on what category the study of evolution, or creation for that matter, really falls into and what we can expect when it comes to "proofs".

NP, you are allowing Hawly's constant propaganda barage to cloud your judgement of me. While I do subscribe to many of the Discovery Institute Articles, more than 3/4 of knowledge on science comes from unbiased sources and I have never visited the ICR website or Harun Yahya, unless it was by accidentally clicking on one of Hawly's links. (FYI, my spelling of Hawly's name is a dig against her spelling "gawd". Classic.)

And once again, the creepy stalker (even after being humiliated for his obsession with me), continues to stalk me through his posts.

How really creepy theses religious zealots.

You really are at a loss to add anything of substance to this thread.

This is the honest truth.

 

[Hollie]

Why do we have so many natural disasters ? why do all things lead to disorder and eventually death ? What happens to structures over time ?

You can believe as you wish but I disagree.

Natural disasters, disorder, etc., are all a product of the gawds. It's a convenient tactic of fundies to arbitrarily reassign circumstances and events that are attributed to their currently configured gawds. But to do so immediately puts you on yet another slippery slope because you are now making decisions about the motives and intent of your gawds that you have no ability to do.

You are correct,once perfection was lost for mankind it was lost for all of nature. You are finally catching on.

That makes no sense for many reasons. "Perfection" is a human defined attribute attached to your gawds. It's meaningless in practical terms because it is entirely subjective. Similarly, defining a "perfect" nature is entirely subjective and assumes either an intent within nature or human defined gawds who are asserted to have "poofed" all of existence surrounding us by some magical snap of their eternal digits. Of course, your gawds are in direct competition with other competing tales and fables of gawds. You have made no case for your gawds that is any more compelling than conceptions of earlier gawds which your more recent gawds have replaced.

 

[Hollie]

Dbl. strike.

 

[Hollie]

And once again, the creepy stalker (even after being humiliated for his obsession with me), continues to stalk me through his posts.

How really creepy theses religious zealots.

You really are at a loss to add anything of substance to this thread.

This is the honest truth.

As we have seen repeatedly, your truths are purposely skewed and falsified so as to support a predefined conclusion.

I always watch in astonishment at the hate your religious convictions engender.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You really are at a loss to add anything of substance to this thread.

This is the honest truth.

As we have seen repeatedly, your truths are purposely skewed and falsified so as to support a predefined conclusion.

I always watch in astonishment at the hate your religious convictions engender.

Speak for your own theory hollie, It's clear you don't know mine nor your theory very well.

 

[UltimateReality]

You really are at a loss to add anything of substance to this thread.

This is the honest truth.

As we have seen repeatedly, your truths are purposely skewed and falsified so as to support a predefined conclusion.

I always watch in astonishment at the hate your religious convictions engender.

Hate is your bigoted, Christian bashing agenda. I think you are confused.

 

[daws101]

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.

that where you are wrong as always I've answerd these and many more of your non questions.
you will not accept the answers .
Paranoia? that's your problem not mine

 

[Hollie]

This is the honest truth.

As we have seen repeatedly, your truths are purposely skewed and falsified so as to support a predefined conclusion.

I always watch in astonishment at the hate your religious convictions engender.

Hate is your bigoted, Christian bashing agenda. I think you are confused.

As noted, I can only watch in astonishment as the hateful Christian zealots spew their vitriol.

 

[Hollie]

This is the honest truth.

As we have seen repeatedly, your truths are purposely skewed and falsified so as to support a predefined conclusion.

I always watch in astonishment at the hate your religious convictions engender.

Speak for your own theory hollie, It's clear you don't know mine nor your theory very well.

What's clear is that you remain utterly confused. I understand very well most of the natural processes that derive existence. Those processes are largely well defined, well supported by theory abd and are corroborated by repeatable tests. That stands in rather stark contrast to your spirit realms wherein the most absurd claims are dogmatically accepted with unthinking allegiance. It's really beyond absurd that you seek to define for your gawds their wants, desires and proscription for humanity while at the same time admitting that the gawds are ultimately unknowable in any human context. How strange then that you attach human qualities to these gawds. The other point is that the natural world operates within parameters that exhibit no connections to supernatural events.

What is known is that the classical laws of science seem to function to a split second before the Big Bang is proposed to have happened. Whatever laws of physics existed prior to that event is one of the most intriguing questions we as humans seek to resolve. However, we do have solid evidence for natural causes and natural events which are understandable and testable. For example, the speed of light can be measured. We can measure the distance to distant stars - immense distances - by using that speed as a constant. Simple, explainable, understandable.

As to the notion of a “gawds”? Ok, let's see the preponderance of evidence, and let's apply critical thinking to it and see if it withstands scrutiny. As a matter of course, everything that you delineate in your reply here we must also (in order to be fair and impartial) hold supernaturalism against by way of standard.

 

[daws101]

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.

why? it does not strengthen your case for a creator.
what you don't comprehend is I and other non creationist slap dicks like you, don't have to be right all the time ,you on the other hand are required to be 100% correct all the time, as you claim there are no errors in your source material, but as everyone with more than one live brain cell knows you source's contain more erroneous speculation then fact.


BTW to be accurate the earth is a partially closed because energy passes in and out it.
also comets asteroids and meteors rain down on us at fairly regular intervals.
so your assumption is bias and wrong.
the universe is considered a closed system not for any god did it horse shit but for the simply undeniable fact that "the universe encompasses everything."
there is no evidence at all of a supernatural cause for the state universe .

Stuart Clarke - What in all creation? | New Humanist

Life's beginnings
The origin of life itself is another obvious flash point. It is particularly vulnerable to attack because science has yet to show the sequence of events in great detail. In my opinion, that does not mean science is incapable of the task, it just means it is a difficult problem that requires more work to solve it. This does give the creationists a good starting point.

The origin of life they claim is impossible for science to understand because it contravenes the second law of thermodynamics. This is the one that culminates in the fact that in a closed system (more of which soon), order can only become disorder, never the other way around. So an uncorked bottle of perfume diffuses into a room but never regroups inside someone's wine glass.

By leaving out that challenging caveat about a closed system, the creationists simply quote that order cannot spring from disorder. Then they state that a bunch of disparate molecules coming together to form a living cell contravenes this law of nature, therefore a supernatural hand is required in the process.

To explore this to its logical conclusion, every time you pull your bath plug you see spontaneous order emerge in the way water spirals down the plughole, instead of simply plunging in an every-molecule-for-itself fashion. Does God stick his hand into our dirty bath water and set that vortex in motion? That is what the creationists' argument suggests you should believe.

Closed systems are simply things that cannot receive or transmit matter or energy. In the case of the spiral pattern in the bath, it is an open system because water is travelling through the structure. With living things, chemical energy in our food is passing through, allowing our bodies to maintain their orderly state of affairs. Only when we transform into closed systems upon death does the flow of matter and energy stop and we begin to decay.

This new, so-called scientific creationism is itself a non sequitur. They cannot possibly use science to prove creationism because the whole point about creationism is that it cannot be understood by science. That's why they need God's intervention.

By all means teach creationism in the context of religious education and, if an individual wants to believe, fine. But please do not wrap up a religious belief in scientific clothing to hoodwink people. If creationism is to be taught alongside evolution in science lessons, then it seems only right and fair that evolution is re-taught during religious education periods, along with the creation myths.

 

[daws101]

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

that a very long time to be a lab assistant !
so in 11 years how many dead rats and flys did you put in the dumpster?
did you publish any papers ?if so can you post a link?