Creationists

[Hollie]

Wait, let me guess. Are you talking about your rugged man hands stimulating the mutant known as Daws?

Good gawd what an angry creationist. I suppose that when you arguments have failed (as have your creepy advances), you have nothing left but schoolboy taunts.

That was a yes or no question.

Then yes, because your arguments have failed (as have your creepy advances), you have nothing left but schoolboy taunts.

 

[UltimateReality]

You seem to forget that your "debating" amounts to nothing more than cutting and pasting from Christian creationist websites.

What I found early on is that you have a propensity for "quote-mining" and that you are not at all discriminating in what you cut and paste, nor do you care to verify your sources. Do I need to remind you of the many instances where your "quotes" were exposed as fraudulent?

The most frustrating part of dealing with such dishonesty is that it requires not an insignificant amount of time to research every link you post and to search for every "quote" as invariably, the links are to Christian creationist websites and "quotes" are discovered to be fraudulently parsed, altered or taken out of context so as to change the author's intent.

What you don't seem to comprehend is that none of your "amino acid" cutting and pasting delineates a path to any gawds. Yours is just the boilerplate creationist argument that is found on every Christian creationist website. None of the fundie creationists are performing actual science. None of them perform any research. Without exception, all of the Christian creationist websites have predefined conclusions leading to a partisan gawd. They're not seeking truth or knowledge, they're promoting dogma.

That's as bias a position as I can imagine.

Wow, a bunch of paragraphs to dodge the question. Typical. You're a fool.

My, you're angry. Your creepy stalking has left you lonely and self-hating.

You posts typically leave you void of the ability to answer any questions, like they one you still haven't answered and are dodging with many tangents. Maybe if you post a few more responses, you can trick us into forgetting how inept you are at actually responding to questions posed of you.

 

[Hollie]

Funny coming from the trembling little boy who won't reveal even the slightest hint about their sordid past, dysfunctional childhood, sexual orientation or educational background. You are scared to death of complete strangers on the internet!!!!

These are all the same creepy advances you have tried and failed at. Don't let those childhood issues you described above ruin your life beyond what your religion has already done.

Why are you so afraid? Why do you live your life in fear and trembling?

I don't live in fear and trembling of creepy stalkers such as yourself because there's safety in keeping personal data from people like you.

 

[UltimateReality]

Good gawd what an angry creationist. I suppose that when you arguments have failed (as have your creepy advances), you have nothing left but schoolboy taunts.

That was a yes or no question.

Then yes, because your arguments have failed (as have your creepy advances), you have nothing left but schoolboy taunts.

Now this is funny!!! In your frantic ploy to cover up your frightening lack of knowledge, you haven't followed the responses carefully enough in the last several posts. You basically just answered yes to the question "were talking about your rugged man hands stimulating the mutant Daws"!!!

 

[Hollie]

Wow, a bunch of paragraphs to dodge the question. Typical. You're a fool.

My, you're angry. Your creepy stalking has left you lonely and self-hating.

You posts typically leave you void of the ability to answer any questions, like they one you still haven't answered and are dodging with many tangents. Maybe if you post a few more responses, you can trick us into forgetting how inept you are at actually responding to questions posed of you.

Actually, no. Your ineptitude is enough to keep you floundering on your own.

Like your cohort cut and paster, you really have no opinions of your own, just the mindless prattle you peddle under the guise of IDiosy.

 

[Hollie]

That was a yes or no question.

Then yes, because your arguments have failed (as have your creepy advances), you have nothing left but schoolboy taunts.

Now this is funny!!! In your frantic ploy to cover up your frightening lack of knowledge, you haven't followed the responses carefully enough in the last several posts. You basically just answered yes to the question "were talking about your rugged man hands stimulating the mutant Daws"!!!

In your creepy attempt at stalking, you just refuted your own argument.

 

[UltimateReality]

My, you're angry. Your creepy stalking has left you lonely and self-hating.

You posts typically leave you void of the ability to answer any questions, like they one you still haven't answered and are dodging with many tangents. Maybe if you post a few more responses, you can trick us into forgetting how inept you are at actually responding to questions posed of you.

Actually, no. Your ineptitude is enough to keep you floundering on your own.

Like your cohort cut and paster, you really have no opinions of your own, just the mindless prattle you peddle under the guise of IDiosy.

Well, actually it is your ineptitude that attempts a cover-up barrage of nonsense when you don't know the answer. So here is the question you keep avoiding just in case you have made yourself forget with all your crazy tangents. And I quote YWC:

"Still waiting on an answer for this Hollie.

Why would a cell lose it's function if you are correct ?"

 

[Hollie]

You posts typically leave you void of the ability to answer any questions, like they one you still haven't answered and are dodging with many tangents. Maybe if you post a few more responses, you can trick us into forgetting how inept you are at actually responding to questions posed of you.

Actually, no. Your ineptitude is enough to keep you floundering on your own.

Like your cohort cut and paster, you really have no opinions of your own, just the mindless prattle you peddle under the guise of IDiosy.

Well, actually it is your ineptitude that attempts a cover-up barrage of nonsense when you don't know the answer. So here is the question you keep avoiding just in case you have made yourself forget with all your crazy tangents. And I quote YWC:

"Still waiting on an answer for this Hollie.

Why would a cell lose it's function if you are correct ?"

Already addressed. You're having real issues paying attention. It's your obsession with me that causes you to make a fool of yourself with your desperate pleas for my attention.

Do they have Kool-Aid at your Christian creationist madrassah?

 

[newpolitics]

FYI:

Conservative Christian Superhero Pat Robertson doesn't believe in Young Earth Creationism.

Christianity is a philosophy not a religion and I am not of the same religion as robertson.

Apparently words have no meaning anymore

 

[newpolitics]

There is evidence all around you. You just choose blindness.

Hebrews 11(NIV)

1 Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. 2 This is what the ancients were commended for.

3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

Romans 1(NIV)

19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.

This is circular reasoning.

You can't use the bible to prove the bible's claims about god.

I didn't, so wrong. The Bible says we can know God exists based on the things he has made. You can't see it because your thinking is futile and your heart is darkened.

How is this not circular? The bible lists the things god has made, and then tells you to look at them, to find evidence of him. That is circular.

 

[newpolitics]

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 yet 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.

All I see here, again, is an attempt to discredit a competing theory so that your hypothesis will have more of the stage. You attempt this from every angle imaginable, including, attacking the fundamental validity of evolutionary biology, on the grounds that it is "only a historical science."

Wow, you obviously missed the entire point, which had nothing to do with ID, but shows that evolutionary science will never be on the same level as physics or chemistry, ever. And it uses induction for many of its competing hypothesis. Strawman. I have not claimed this. I have only claimed that evolution and ID are equally legitimate historical sciences based on Darwin's and Lyell's methodology. Well, I should say, equally legitimate with the exception of evolutionary theory that proposes made up narrative explanations which are not based on any past or presently observable phenomena.
I dismissed it with what could be the most non-biased article I could find, written by a historical scientist studying evolution. Wrong. Your real world example has atheist fundamentalism written all over it.
Strawman. Your bias infers this claim. I wholeheartedly agree. Now we are getting somewhere! Yes, and they apply equally to ID and Evolution, but not the empirical sciences. I totally agree!!
Wrong again!! Any science that attempts to describe events that occurred in the distant past, whether they be the theories on the origin of male and female, cosmological arguments about the solar system, or postulates on the origin of the digital code in DNA, is a historical science. Wrong again. What evidence from the past do you have for how abiogenesis occurred?

I believe this is the pitfall of ID. Therefore, you are constrained to evidence we have today, and the only thing you have is, the language of another mind: digital code. Therefore, you must make an inductive argument to reach your conclusions: DNA is a complex, specifiable code. Digital code is the same. Digital code is made by intelligent minds. Therefore, so is DNA. There is no evidence for this conclusion, other than looking at another code, and assuming it was formed in the same way. This is pure inductive reasoning. There is no direct evidence for DNA being created by an intelligent designer, because that would require looking to the past, but you have blocked off that avenue for yourself. It seems that IDers have trapped themselves logically.

Everything you just said in the last 10 or so sentences is totally fallacious. See my comments prior to all these incorrect assertions. What Meyer has done is no different that what Darwin did. Your claim that ID doesn't refer to past evidence is fallacious. We can rightfully assert that at some point in the distant past, based on fossil evidence, that the information in DNA originated long ago. Just like Darwin asserted that different species arose long ago. Darwin can't point back to evidence to actually show natural selection in action in the distant past. He attempted to use "causes now in operation", like finch beaks, to make predictions about what happened long ago. I'm not sure why you keep missing the similarities. Confirmation bias I guess.

If this is really the only argument or "evidence" you have for ID, then it is really hard for me to understand why you think this is convincing, at all. The only reason it is, is because you already believe that there was an intelligent force behind creation. The "science" of ID is not otherwise convincing to anyone else. ID is simply a contemporary version of the teleological argument. It is nothing new, and nothing special.

Wrong again. What you keep strawmanning and what you think you know, is that ID claims the intelligent designer was the Judeo-Christian God. As far as ID goes, the intelligent agent that originated the digital dna code could have been an alien race. It is a religious belief by some ID Theorist, not a scientific one, that the intelligent agent is God. However, ID theory never identifies who the intelligent agent is, because that would be impossible to do in light of current evidence. It only draws the logical conclusion that intelligence is responsible, because of the cause now in operation producing digital code.

You are being either dishonest and imperceptive in so many of these responses. I am not straw-manning you half the time you say I am, if ever. You simply don't like the characterization I give ID because that is not how you are used to perceiving it. All I hear from Meyer is a two-step process:

1.) Try and falsify abiogenesis as much as possible with pure mathematical probabilities and zero evidence

2.) Try to build up the ID Hypothesis with an inductive argument, bereft of any deductively-reached conclusions.

This is ID in a nutshell. It is one big sales pitch to people of faith so thy can feel like their theories garnered from the bible have some scientific credibility. You try and distance yourself from god in the theory, but I don't believe this is genuine.

You try to claim that evolutionary biology utilizes induction as well. This is laughable. It uses just as much as any other type of science, and it is NEVER used to reach conclusions. NEVER will you find in science a well-established fact that does not have actual evidence for it. Induction is inherent only in methodologies which are time-dependant, so nearly all of them, because they must rely on the assumption that tomorrow to be like today. Without this assumption, measurements and science, would be meaningless. This type of induction is not the same type of fallacious inductive argument IDers are committing as the very basis of their claim about the intelligent designer. That is the difference.

 

[Youwerecreated]

FYI:

Conservative Christian Superhero Pat Robertson doesn't believe in Young Earth Creationism.

Christianity is a philosophy not a religion and I am not of the same religion as robertson.

Apparently words have no meaning anymore

What do you mean ? Robertson is from a different religion why would I care what he thinks,as a Christian I care what happens to him and all men but his views are his views. If he believe as you claim so be it. I have never claimed to know how long this earth has existed I gave my opinions and nothing more.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You posts typically leave you void of the ability to answer any questions, like they one you still haven't answered and are dodging with many tangents. Maybe if you post a few more responses, you can trick us into forgetting how inept you are at actually responding to questions posed of you.

Actually, no. Your ineptitude is enough to keep you floundering on your own.

Like your cohort cut and paster, you really have no opinions of your own, just the mindless prattle you peddle under the guise of IDiosy.

Well, actually it is your ineptitude that attempts a cover-up barrage of nonsense when you don't know the answer. So here is the question you keep avoiding just in case you have made yourself forget with all your crazy tangents. And I quote YWC:

"Still waiting on an answer for this Hollie.

Why would a cell lose it's function if you are correct ?"

UR this is one dense person. I gave he-she the answer and he-she still can't answer it. This person claiming to know science is just rediculous.

 

[newpolitics]

Christianity is a philosophy not a religion and I am not of the same religion as robertson.

Apparently words have no meaning anymore

What do you mean ? Robertson is from a different religion why would I care what he thinks,as a Christian I care what happens to him and all men but his views are his views. If he believe as you so be it. I have never claimed to know how long this earth has existed I gave my opinions and nothing more.

Christianity, by any definition of religion, is a religion. That is what I mean. To call is a philosophy instead, is inaccurate! Robertson may come from a different religion, but no matter which denomination of christianity you belong you, it is still a religion.

If Christianity isn't a religion, then the word "religion" has lost its meaning, and has no purpose to exist.

I am not even trying to be polemical here. I have heard this claim before from Christians, and I find it to be simply inaccurate.

 

[newpolitics]

I'm just curious YWC, what evidence do you have that beneficial mutations are impossible? Logically, this makes no sense.

 

[UltimateReality]

This is circular reasoning.

You can't use the bible to prove the bible's claims about god.

I didn't, so wrong. The Bible says we can know God exists based on the things he has made. You can't see it because your thinking is futile and your heart is darkened.

How is this not circular? The bible lists the things god has made, and then tells you to look at them, to find evidence of him. That is circular.

That doesn't even make sense. I think you have totally lost it now.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Apparently words have no meaning anymore

What do you mean ? Robertson is from a different religion why would I care what he thinks,as a Christian I care what happens to him and all men but his views are his views. If he believe as you so be it. I have never claimed to know how long this earth has existed I gave my opinions and nothing more.

Christianity, by any definition of religion, is a religion. That is what I mean. To call is a philosophy instead, is inaccurate! Robertson may come from a different religion, but no matter which denomination of christianity you belong you, it is still a religion.

If Christianity isn't a religion, then the word "religion" has lost its meaning, and has no purpose to exist.

I am not even trying to be polemical here. I have heard this claim before from Christians, and I find it to be simply inaccurate.

A religion is based on one set of doctrines. Christianity contains over 41,000 different religions. Now can you see why it is a philosophy more then a religion ? God did not give approval to just one of these religions. We can all claim to be Christian but it is based on philosophy not religion. We all believe in Christ but have different beliefs. If we all followed one set of doctrines then it would be a religion.

 

[newpolitics]

I didn't, so wrong. The Bible says we can know God exists based on the things he has made. You can't see it because your thinking is futile and your heart is darkened.

How is this not circular? The bible lists the things god has made, and then tells you to look at them, to find evidence of him. That is circular.

That doesn't even make sense. I think you have totally lost it now.

You are trying to get around circularity by claiming that the bible asks you to look at the "evidence" of him in the universe, and not just in the bible itself. Yet, the bible is what indicates what in the universe should be seen as evidence, and then ask you to attribute those things to god. Hence, circularity, just with a little detour.

 

[Hollie]

Actually, no. Your ineptitude is enough to keep you floundering on your own.

Like your cohort cut and paster, you really have no opinions of your own, just the mindless prattle you peddle under the guise of IDiosy.

Well, actually it is your ineptitude that attempts a cover-up barrage of nonsense when you don't know the answer. So here is the question you keep avoiding just in case you have made yourself forget with all your crazy tangents. And I quote YWC:

"Still waiting on an answer for this Hollie.

Why would a cell lose it's function if you are correct ?"

UR this is one dense person. I gave he-she the answer and he-she still can't answer it. This person claiming to know science is just rediculous.

It seems your failed ploy to link biology to the Christian creationist "molecular machine" nonsense has left you bereft an argument. Your false characterization has failed before which is why you shouldn't have expected it to yield different results this time.

As is typical, you didn't answer anything. What you hoped to do was introduce Christian dogma into the realm of science and as we've seen before, that strategy fails.

 

[newpolitics]

What do you mean ? Robertson is from a different religion why would I care what he thinks,as a Christian I care what happens to him and all men but his views are his views. If he believe as you so be it. I have never claimed to know how long this earth has existed I gave my opinions and nothing more.

Christianity, by any definition of religion, is a religion. That is what I mean. To call is a philosophy instead, is inaccurate! Robertson may come from a different religion, but no matter which denomination of christianity you belong you, it is still a religion.

If Christianity isn't a religion, then the word "religion" has lost its meaning, and has no purpose to exist.

I am not even trying to be polemical here. I have heard this claim before from Christians, and I find it to be simply inaccurate.

A religion is based on one set of doctrines. Christianity contains over 41,000 different religions. Now can you see why it is a philosophy more then a religion ? God did not give approval to just one of these religions. We can all claim to be Christian but it is based on philosophy not religion. We all believe in Christ but have different beliefs. If we all followed one set of doctrines then it would be a religion.

No! You are making up your own semantical rules here! This is why we have the word "denomination" to delineate the different groups within the religion of christianity. You must presuppose the existence of god in order to make such a statement. In a world where the burden of proof exists, you do not get to simply call Christianity a philosophy, until you can prove that the Christian god exists. If you could, faith would no longer be necessary to believe, and you would then be justified in called Christianity a philosophy. Until then, it is a religion, no matter how spliced up.