Creationists

[Youwerecreated]

Not one of you have taken any classes in molecular biology nor in genetics if you did you would have known what I was discussing. Move a long losers to a subject you can handle.

 

[mjollnir]

You are under the false assumption that it is all about you. God knew when he created the earth that man would sin. But in his wisdom he also knew the glory that would come from the sacrifice of his Son to pay they debt for man's sin.

Nah, can't be.

I just spoke to God, and he said what you're claiming is bullshit.

You may have spoken to a god but not the God.

Newp. It was THE God. Showed me ID and everything.

Said he doesn't know you. Something about spitting out the lukewarm.

Oh, and he says he sees what you do with those cucumbers late at night at night when you're alone. You're not fooling anyone but yourself.

 

[daws101]

What did you do start a church out in the woods no major denomination would touch you without a degree poser.

I did nothing. who is this you you're talking about?
"no major denomination?" the post proves you wrong.
why the fuck would I start a church anywhere?
you do know WHAT a atheist is ..right?
making statements that showcase your stupidty are not funny..so keep your day job whatever that might be.

Unless you were quoting someone else you claimed to be a pastor. If you were quoting someone else then I am sorry for the mistake, If not my accusation stands.

your ignorance shines ..there's a link at the bottom of the text. for anyone else that would be enough to clue them in.
also when have I ever claimed to be anything but what I am..

apology not accepted...learn to read !

 

[Youwerecreated]

Nah, can't be.

I just spoke to God, and he said what you're claiming is bullshit.

You may have spoken to a god but not the God.

Newp. It was THE God. Showed me ID and everything.

Said he doesn't know you. Something about spitting out the lukewarm.

Oh, and he says he sees what you do with those cucumbers late at night at night when you're alone. You're not fooling anyone but yourself.

So now the phoney one turns to perversion as his defense,Daws is that you ?

 

[daws101]

You have two choices naturalism or intelligence which is better supported by the evidence.

wrong again! you have no evidence for creationism or Id. saying it's supported by evidence is false.

Care to explain who programmed the enzymes to identify copying errors during DNA replication and then repair them ?

no need to as there is no "who" involved..
it's another one of your famous ,"I have no evidence but I'll toss this at the wall and see if sticks declarative statements.

 

[mjollnir]

You may have spoken to a god but not the God.

Newp. It was THE God. Showed me ID and everything.

Said he doesn't know you. Something about spitting out the lukewarm.

Oh, and he says he sees what you do with those cucumbers late at night at night when you're alone. You're not fooling anyone but yourself.

So now the phoney one turns to perversion as his defense,Daws is that you ?

^^^

 

[daws101]

You may have spoken to a god but not the God.

Newp. It was THE God. Showed me ID and everything.

Said he doesn't know you. Something about spitting out the lukewarm.

Oh, and he says he sees what you do with those cucumbers late at night at night when you're alone. You're not fooling anyone but yourself.

So now the phoney one turns to perversion as his defense,Daws is that you ?

another mature statement by YWC, besides everybody know you're a KY AND BUTT PLUG KINDA GUY...
remember you asked for it.

 

[daws101]

That is your specialty daws.

that is also a lie.

All one has to do is look at your last 100 posts in this thread and they would see who the liar is.

that would be you as you've very neatly demostrated your denial of fact.
that is the worst lie there is.

 

[daws101]

What degree do you hold daws to be a pastor ?

I know where you're going with this, so I'll spare you the embarrassment of making an even larger anal aperture of yourself

Although degrees are very nice to have, God does not require an individual to have degrees to lead his church. However, God does have requirements. To lead God's church, one must first have accepted Christ as their personal saviour.

Wrong. This is what some of the religions of Christianity teach but this is not mentioned anywhere in the Bible.

One must be honourable and trustworthy, respected, not easily given to sin, have the ability to lead, be receptive to the leading of the Holy Spirit, be a good manager or Stewart of God's business, have goals and the additional requirements as emphasized in the Bible.

Now, some denominations may have degree requirements for their pastors. Some may require you to get formal theological training leading to the M.Div (Master of Divinity) or the M.Min (Master of Ministry) degree. There are also academic degrees leading to the Master of Systematic Theology or the Master of Sacred Theology. Some may require a Bachelor of Theology. If you belong to a denomination that holds such requirements, you may not be able to be a Pastor unless you have fulfilled this requirement. In any case, degree or no degree, the above requirements that meet the standards of holiness must be met.
What degree is required to be a Pastor of a church

I'd have answerd in my own words but you guys have a built in bias when it come to theological matters when us evil atheists provide them.

You said it. Not me.

I love it! your obsession is so powerful that you answer rhetorical posts
and needlessly embolden them.
then you say something truly asinine: " Wrong. This is what some of the religions of Christianity teach but this is not mentioned anywhere in the Bible." UR.
of course it's not in the bible, tosspot, higher education as we understand it did not exist.
so it not being in the bible is meaningless
btw there are no "religions of Christianity" but there are different sects or denominations .
it's all the same religion!
you truly are a hubris laden....tosspot.

 

[Hollie]

How many times can you scream "argument from ignorance" fallaciously? You aren't fooling anyone.

I'm not trying to fool anyone... just calling out the fallacies as I see 'em.

YWC is positing that there must be a programmer because of what appears to him, something that must have been programmed. He don't actually have any evidence of this claim, but rests on the facts that there is no evidence either way. We are in ignorance to this. Therefore, any postulations about this are an argument from ignorance, necessarily, until there is evidence.

As I am sure are you just dying to point out the hypocrisy in this, let me stop you from thinking too hard. Scientists haven't made any specific claims about abiogenesis other than it is plausible, given actual evidence of what we know about the abundance of amino acids on the proto-earth, the environmental and atmospheric conditions, and demonstrations such as the Miller-Urey Experiment and subsequent improvement experiments that yielded even better results. Scientists have not claimed they know exactly how it happened, because there simply is not enough evidence. This puts us in a state of ignorance. However, IDers are claiming, despite this ignorance, that they know what happened. Hence, an argument from ignorance.

Any other "fallacious" arguments from ignorance you think I have accused you of? Let me know, and I'll gladly demonstrate.

Open mouth insert foot time to close the trap. Did you not know that we can alter the functions of Enzymes to carry out tasks ? in other words program them. Speaking of ignorance thank you for walking through the door of ignorance along with all your buddies I think I took you all down at once.

Oh my. Why would we want to alter the function of enzymes? If, as you believe, they are programmed by the gawds, that would be a contravention of their will.

 

[newpolitics]

Then tell me how many beneficial mutations you can point to that was fixated in our population ? Right now the harmful mutations have resulted into over 6,000 genetic disorders.

I can think of two. Sicklemia for those in certain environments where it is beneficial (african americans in environments containing malaria). Although this one is a double edged sword, as it poses the potential for sickle cell anemia, it does confer an advantage in fending off the disease in that environment. Don't try and tell me this isn't at all adaptive. It may not be the best example, but it does demonstrate that which you asked about. Within that environment, this would be an advantage and lead to greater survivability. Out of that environment, it is simply a burden.

A better example is the mutation that europeans underwent at around 5,000 B.C. which allowed to them digest lactase past infancy and into adulthood, and which many of us possess today. This was a result of having had domesticated animals the last 6,000 years before that (since 11,000 BC), which is the only reason we were drinking mammalian baby food from another species. As hunter-gathers, before animal domestication and the advent of agriculture (the two things which allowed us to settle down in one place and start civilization), this simply would not have happened. It is not natural for us or any species to drink what is essentially baby-food past the time when we are babies. Being "lactose intolerant" is actually the normal state for most mammals as adults. It is this mutation that allows those of european decent to metabolize lactase without issue. Therefore, it could be argued, that they could glean a larger amount of nutrients from their diet throughout their lifespan, and added another food source for them, which they could control through domestication. This would have conferred a great survival advantage, allowed them to lead longer, healthier lives, and to feed more people, creating more chance for procreation, thus passing on the mutation, which we now experience as the ability to digest lactose.

(Being a vegan, I am vehemently opposed to dairy consumption, because of the unethical nature inherent in the production process of factory farming (check out Earthlings.com | A Film by Nation Earth for the inside scoop). I ask anyone open to learning about where there food comes from to go to that website and watch the movie. Please!)

So you would deny evolution?? You body is made for meat consumption.

Yes, I would deny evolution. Evolution isn't a mind. I am not offending evolution. My reasons are purely ethical, and the claim that "my body is made for meat consumption" is not entirely accurate. We are omnivores, only after being herbivores long before. Earlier species of hominid were herbivorous, such as Lucy (Australopithecus). We came into meat at some point, and evolved to be able to eat it. Therefore, primarily, we are herbivorous. However, marketing would have you believe you need to be eating meat at every meal, which is probably the biggest cause of cancer in the modern world, especially with the amount of growth hormones and antibiotics present in animal flesh, as well as fecal matter. Try watching the movie Earthlings, if you are interested in learning the awful truth about how we treat other sentient, living beings. I realize your bible instructs you to not care about them, but you could have a little humanity. The only thing I would be dependent on meat for is B12, which I supplement. Problem solved. Go vegan.

 

[daws101]

How rare are they? I will let you decide. We have over 6,000 genetic disorders due to mutations and your side can only point to a handfull of beneficial mutations. Beneficial mutations they say can be added to the genepool because they are less likely to be noticed and eliminated. Why is that when we can only point to a few beneficial mutations that has been added to the genepool but we can point to many more harmful mutations that have been added to the genepool.

Wow... If we thought like you did throughout history, we wouldn't have gotten very far. No offense. It's intellectual laziness on your part. To get to the point, you are not able to show that the chances are too small for a beneficial mutation to occur. In fact, its ridiculous to rule this out, and you are committing a logical fallacy, once again: "proof by assertion." If you have no evidence for something, you don't get to simply assert it as fact. Again, intuition does not count as evidence.


The answer to your question is quite simple. it is more probable that a mutation is either neutral or harmful, simply because what constitutes fitness for any given animal is a narrow set of features. Relative to the possible mutations, only a narrow set of mutations would actually increase the chances for an organism to survive. Therefore, it is statistically improbable that a random change in the alleles will produce anything desirable. Occasionally, we do see people with beneficial mutations, but we might not even notice it. They may simply be the "prodigies" we all admire. By definition, any mutation we see, wouldn't be a huge mutation, because that's not really possible, or highly unlikely. It would be a small mutation, something we might not even notice, like greater intelligence, or a greater proclivity to understand math or music, english, etc... who knows. You seem to be expecting someone with wings or something ridiculous, I am guessing.

I did a post on mutation fixation a while back and the conditions that need to be met for a mutation to become fixated in the population and the problems for this to happen. You have enzymes also working against fixation . I am not gonna search for that post but here read this article and you will see one of your own explaining the conditions that have to be met for fixation to take place plus the enzymes working to correct these copying errors and the chances are impossible no matter how many years you give it.

Mutation Fixation: A Dead End for Macro-evolution

by E. Calvin Beisner, M.A.

EDITED FOR WALL OF TEXT VIOLATION............AND PSEUDOSCIENCE CONTENT!


The Institute for Creation Research

 

[newpolitics]

How many times can you scream "argument from ignorance" fallaciously? You aren't fooling anyone.

I'm not trying to fool anyone... just calling out the fallacies as I see 'em.

YWC is positing that there must be a programmer because of what appears to him, something that must have been programmed. He don't actually have any evidence of this claim, but rests on the facts that there is no evidence either way. We are in ignorance to this. Therefore, any postulations about this are an argument from ignorance, necessarily, until there is evidence.

As I am sure are you just dying to point out the hypocrisy in this, let me stop you from thinking too hard. Scientists haven't made any specific claims about abiogenesis other than it is plausible, given actual evidence of what we know about the abundance of amino acids on the proto-earth, the environmental and atmospheric conditions, and demonstrations such as the Miller-Urey Experiment and subsequent improvement experiments that yielded even better results. Scientists have not claimed they know exactly how it happened, because there simply is not enough evidence. This puts us in a state of ignorance. However, IDers are claiming, despite this ignorance, that they know what happened. Hence, an argument from ignorance.

Any other "fallacious" arguments from ignorance you think I have accused you of? Let me know, and I'll gladly demonstrate.

Open mouth insert foot time to close the trap. Did you not know that we can alter the functions of Enzymes to carry out tasks ? in other words program them. Speaking of ignorance thank you for walking through the door of ignorance along with all your buddies I think I took you all down at once.

Did you try and convey an idea here? Try typing a little slower, maybe?

 

[daws101]

who is the us anyway? Usually it's the mouse squeaking in someones pocket. All sides need to stop the religious hatred and start supporting the constitution that makes our republic work.

since god is not mentioned in the constitution i think you're on the wrong thread.

hollowhead tried arguing this and got totally owned. God is absolutely mentioned in the constitution. Now maybe not in the context to which you are referring, but he is definitely mentioned.

sorry shit head god is not....the word "creator" is in pre amble and it's intentionally ambiguous.
So your insistence that god is, is subjective.

 

[daws101]

even creepier he thanks himself for his own posts.
it's a kind of masturbation.

And thats different than you laughing at your own jokes how?

I never laugh at my own jokes..when I post this or this I'm laugh at a you.
if you can't tell the difference between masturbation and laughter then you are stupid.

 

[newpolitics]

Already have,you really don't understand how these enzymes are programmed to spot errors and fix them can you give a rational rebuttal to this.

Its like parts of your computer they are programmed to perform duties but they were programmed that is what you are not grasping.

this is an argument from ignorance, again. You can't imagine how something like this system would arise, so... god or aliens did it. Breathtaking... really, it is.

That is all YOU can do is imagine. Because their is no modern occurrence of this happening anywhere in nature and no evidence of it randomly occurring in the past.

Why would there be another modern occurrence of abiogenesis? Mind, explaining this to me? You seem to think, fallaciously, that because we don't witness this, it means it never happened. Well, excuse, but that is simply stupid. The fact that there are microbes on every habitable inch of this earth, utilizing whatever organic material is around them- including amino acids and proteins, precludes the very possibility that another abiogenetic event would occur, simply because the materials needed to produce such an even would be sought after, competitively, by existing microbes. Not only are organic elements competitively sought after, but any new entrants into an ecosystem, whether foreign or abiogenetically spawned, would be seen as outsiders, and if unable to defend themselves, would be "used" by the already existing life. Most certainly, an abiogenetically spawned organism would have no ability to defend itself. Further, if such a modern event did happen, how would we be able to distinguish this from the existing life there. Perhaps it would appear to us only to be a "new species"? Life doesn't come with a timestamp on it.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I'm not trying to fool anyone... just calling out the fallacies as I see 'em.

YWC is positing that there must be a programmer because of what appears to him, something that must have been programmed. He don't actually have any evidence of this claim, but rests on the facts that there is no evidence either way. We are in ignorance to this. Therefore, any postulations about this are an argument from ignorance, necessarily, until there is evidence.

As I am sure are you just dying to point out the hypocrisy in this, let me stop you from thinking too hard. Scientists haven't made any specific claims about abiogenesis other than it is plausible, given actual evidence of what we know about the abundance of amino acids on the proto-earth, the environmental and atmospheric conditions, and demonstrations such as the Miller-Urey Experiment and subsequent improvement experiments that yielded even better results. Scientists have not claimed they know exactly how it happened, because there simply is not enough evidence. This puts us in a state of ignorance. However, IDers are claiming, despite this ignorance, that they know what happened. Hence, an argument from ignorance.

Any other "fallacious" arguments from ignorance you think I have accused you of? Let me know, and I'll gladly demonstrate.

Open mouth insert foot time to close the trap. Did you not know that we can alter the functions of Enzymes to carry out tasks ? in other words program them. Speaking of ignorance thank you for walking through the door of ignorance along with all your buddies I think I took you all down at once.

Did you try and convey an idea here? Try typing a little slower, maybe?

I really need to explain this to you,really ? I just gave you that evidence that Enzymes can and were programmed to perform functions.

Now who programmed them in the beginning ?

You have zero evidence that they evolved these abilities and we have evidence they can and were programmed so who is the programmer ?

You wanted evidence of the programmer you have it.

 

[newpolitics]

Open mouth insert foot time to close the trap. Did you not know that we can alter the functions of Enzymes to carry out tasks ? in other words program them. Speaking of ignorance thank you for walking through the door of ignorance along with all your buddies I think I took you all down at once.

Did you try and convey an idea here? Try typing a little slower, maybe?

I really need to explain this to you,really ? I just gave you that evidence that Enzymes can and were programmed to perform functions.

Now who programmed them in the beginning ?

You have zero evidence that they evolved these abilities and we have evidence they can and were programmed so who is the programmer ?

You wanted evidence of the programmer you have it.

What is your evidence? Oh yeah... That it seems too amazing to you that they could be "programmed" by purely natural means. Blow me down and call me willy! That is some evidence!

 

[daws101]

How rare are they? I will let you decide. We have over 6,000 genetic disorders due to mutations and your side can only point to a handfull of beneficial mutations. Beneficial mutations they say can be added to the genepool because they are less likely to be noticed and eliminated. Why is that when we can only point to a few beneficial mutations that has been added to the genepool but we can point to many more harmful mutations that have been added to the genepool.

Wow... If we thought like you did throughout history, we wouldn't have gotten very far. No offense. It's intellectual laziness on your part. To get to the point, you are not able to show that the chances are too small for a beneficial mutation to occur. In fact, its ridiculous to rule this out, and you are committing a logical fallacy, once again: "proof by assertion." If you have no evidence for something, you don't get to simply assert it as fact. Again, intuition does not count as evidence. It may be unlikely, but given how much time has passed since the earths beginning, and how many times animals have mated or divided, it becomes more and more likely.

The answer to your question is quite simple. it is more probable that a mutation is either neutral or harmful, simply because what constitutes fitness for any given animal is a narrow set of features. Relative to the possible mutations, only a narrow set of mutations would actually increase the chances for an organism to survive. Therefore, it is more statistically improbable that a random change in the alleles will produce anything desirable, than something undesirable. Occasionally, we do see people with beneficial mutations, but we might not even notice it. They may simply be the "prodigies" we all admire. By definition, any mutation we see, wouldn't be a huge mutation, because that's not really possible, or highly unlikely. It would be a small mutation, something we might not even notice, like greater intelligence, or a greater proclivity to understand math or music, english, etc... who knows. You seem to be expecting someone with wings or something ridiculous, I am guessing. Of course we are going to notice the harmful mutations, while any beneficial mutations might not be noteworthy. They may simply be a very successful person who don't even realize they have a beneficial mutation. So, you have no way of tracking how many beneficial mutations there are, because of confirmation bias with respect to the evidence.

By the way who is we do you have a mouse in your pocket ? Do you hold a degree in science ? and have you done research work ?

really? you use the word "WE" ALL THE TIME when speaking without permission for all Christianity.
btw np's use of WE is the correct one.
it's a descriptor for all of us including you... asshat.

 

[Hollie]

Open mouth insert foot time to close the trap. Did you not know that we can alter the functions of Enzymes to carry out tasks ? in other words program them. Speaking of ignorance thank you for walking through the door of ignorance along with all your buddies I think I took you all down at once.

Did you try and convey an idea here? Try typing a little slower, maybe?

I really need to explain this to you,really ? I just gave you that evidence that Enzymes can and were programmed to perform functions.

Now who programmed them in the beginning ?

You have zero evidence that they evolved these abilities and we have evidence they can and were programmed so who is the programmer ?

You wanted evidence of the programmer you have it.

What evidence do you have of a "designer programmer". What evidence do you have that your "designer programmer" programmed anything?