Creationists

[daws101]

The question is premature. You can not start asking "Who?" until you establish "that" a programmer exists. You have not done so, so the question is non-sensical.

he's been told that countless times but like the true willfully ignorant, zealot, nut job ,slapdick he is ,denying it is all he can do.

Why would a rational person conclude knowing that Enzymes can and are engineered conclude a naturalistic process must have done it ? How bout a little logic and reality daws.

since you've proven you are not rational and have no clue what reality is. any so called "logic" you spew is by a truly rational and logical person known to be a product of your delusional state.

 

[Hollie]

Yet you would have us believe in supermagicalism of darwinism? Complex micro machines spontaneously generating. You know, Hawly, scientist once believed in spontaneous generation until Pasteur and his colleagues proved what was going on at the microscopic level. It is quite ignorant that you still believe in spontaneous generation. It must come from your hatred of real science.

Ah yes, the Christian creationist need to use "Darwinism" in feverish attempts to denigrate science in favor of supermagical designer gawds.

Your rhetoric cannot conceal your viscous anger and self hatred. Is it your own self-loathing that contributes to hatred of science as well?

That's so silly as I fully support the methodology of science and the expansion of knowledge of the natural world that science provides.

 

[daws101]

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.

Blah, blah, blah. Enough cut and pasting from Panda's Thumb. So if read your post right, you are saying that abiogenesis was a miracle.

Absolutely what he is inferring

ur inferred nothing.. what were you saying about going back to high school.?

 

[HUGGY]

Ah yes, the Christian creationist need to use "Darwinism" in feverish attempts to denigrate science in favor of supermagical designer gawds.

Your rhetoric cannot conceal your viscous anger and self hatred. Is it your own self-loathing that contributes to hatred of science as well?

That's so silly as I fully support the methodology of science and the expansion of knowledge of the natural world that science provides.

How is that possible when you are so full of the self hatred?

 

[daws101]

Wrong this evidence was provided by the science community. You and your side are just suffering from faulty assumptions.

That's simply false. Science has never provided evidence of supermagical designer gawds who "programmed " anything. Further, science has never confirmed any biological programming.

It hasn't gone unnoticed that you make this specious claim completely absent suppport.

Don't have to provide evidence for God to infer design. You're truly clueless and anyone else that makes a similar claim.

wrong fuck stick god's existence is the basis of your entire arugument.
you've not proven god exists by an scientific or evidence based proofs.
the only argument you have is hearsay and it's not proof so any inference made on it is false.
is it just my or is infer or inference YWC'S lastest attempt at faking intellectual prowess?

 

[daws101]

I think it is very easy to accept the belief of a designer when you look at the precision is nature. How can a rational person believe that life came from an undirected process that produced complex organic molecules from simpler inorganic molecules through chemical reactions with an undirected process.

To believe an undirected process took an enviornment filled with chaos and produced the precision in nature we can now see is a stretch of the imagination.

Thank you for admitting though that there is no known process concerning the origins of life because a few of the simpletons here easily accepted abiogenesis as a fact.

It is easy to accept, sure (If I know what you mean, and if I do, that something is easy to accept doesn't mean it's rational, or even likely. For example: Starting from nothing, i.e. if you think of a group of people who have no existing societal/familial influences, it's very easy to believe that the spirits of the dead live on in nature. But this is not rational or likely). But you can call it rational or not, and while as I'm sure everyone who's participated in this threat for very long is aware, and as you appear to reference indirectly, there are some milestone experiments done on the subject, but I daresay that what you would like is something along the lines of complete certainty, and according to that standard, it isn't known, this change between when there was no cellular matter and when there was.

But this certainly doesn't lead to any (unspecified) designer-being.

Secondly, there's nothing about the group of solutions, so to speak, which do not involve god-like beings, which would require them to be only imagined, if that's what you mean.

Thirdly, you would appear to be one who wouldn't think much of an idea if it isn't already (completely) known. But even several decades ago the infinite space of solutions to the problem had been narrowed down considerably, for it was found that all of the complex molecules that allow for life could be produced from elemental (or near enough) substances, when said substances were put under electric current. Incidentally, those elemental substances were likely the composition of the early earth's oceans.

Your last paragraph is far from the truth. Please provide a supporting cut and paste and link. The elemental substance argument is fallacious, as many designed things are made from elemental substances including rocket ships and computers.

(snicker) just not by god.
using you spun logic, why didn't god just shazaam all the necessary parts for those things in to existence.
your self assembly bullshit fails every time.

 

[daws101]

Only a person in complete denial would believe as you do.

Not at all, which is why your posts are framed in terms of questions and statements that presume the answer you prefer. It's a common tactic of the Christian creationist ministries

Yours are the common tactics of hate-spewing, bigoted, atheist, militant homosexuals.

no gay slurs there ....no sirree BOB!

 

[Youwerecreated]

It's going quite well, thank you. The natural world serves quite nicely as an example of rationalism and naturalism. We have no examples or evidence of how your alleged supermagical gawds have had any connection with the natural world.

Why is it that you cannot demonstrate a single example of supermagicalism?

Yet you would have us believe in supermagicalism of darwinism? Complex micro machines spontaneously generating. You know, Hawly, scientist once believed in spontaneous generation until Pasteur and his colleagues proved what was going on at the microscopic level. It is quite ignorant that you still believe in spontaneous generation. It must come from your hatred of real science.

Christian creationism is not science. That is what you are unable to come to terms with. Your claims to miracles, supermagical designer gawds, etc. are, by definition, irrational.

After all the pages in this thread wherein you insist in cutting and pasting from Christian creationist ministries, you have failed at every effort to present a single, testable example of "the gawds did it". Instead, you have made every effort vilify science, even floating outrageously silly conspiracies in favor of your creationist fantasies.

Hollie, you wouldn't know real science if it came up behind you and bit you in the butt,you have demonstrated this on many occasions.

 

[Youwerecreated]

It's going quite well, thank you. The natural world serves quite nicely as an example of rationalism and naturalism. We have no examples or evidence of how your alleged supermagical gawds have had any connection with the natural world.

Why is it that you cannot demonstrate a single example of supermagicalism?

Yet you would have us believe in supermagicalism of darwinism? Complex micro machines spontaneously generating. You know, Hawly, scientist once believed in spontaneous generation until Pasteur and his colleagues proved what was going on at the microscopic level. It is quite ignorant that you still believe in spontaneous generation. It must come from your hatred of real science.

Ah yes, the Christian creationist need to use "Darwinism" in feverish attempts to denigrate science in favor of supermagical designer gawds.

Hollie would not naturalism be a form of a supermagical process ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Not at all, which is why your posts are framed in terms of questions and statements that presume the answer you prefer. It's a common tactic of the Christian creationist ministries

Yours are the common tactics of hate-spewing, bigoted, atheist, militant homosexuals.

Oh my, you angry, frustrated stalker. Yours is textbook behavior for a stalker who has been rejected and slips into a pathology of hate / self-hate.

Don't flatter yourself twinkle toes.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Is very simple - we believe by faith that the Bible is the Word of God. When the Bible says God created the earth in 6 days(and yes the hebrew is literal word for day) and then we take the very detailed geneolgies of the Bible from Adam to Abraham and then from Abraham to Christ you come up with about 6000 years.

So then we have the question raised by even some Christians who choose not to take the Bible so literally(like the Catholic Church) - but why does the Universe and the earth appear to be older? The reason is that God is perfectly capable of creating something fully matured - he did it with Adam and Eve - they were not created as children, but as full adults.

So yes some of us choose to believe the Bible at face value - if you want to impune that or make fun of it - go right ahead.

Not making fun at all since I am a Christian ID Theorists. I just believe that many stories in the Bible are not to be taken literally, and the Jewish people knew this at the time they were written. Do your really believe that you take the whole Bible at face value? Jesus commanded you to gouge your eye out if it caused you to stumble so grab a fork.

If you were capable of being honest, you would acknowledge your Christian fundamentalist beliefs and begin the process of resolving the hate and self-hate that causes you such anger issues.

If you were honest you would acknowledge you were presented with evidence of design yesterday.

 

[Youwerecreated]

"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."

That's an irrational statement.

Pointing out that that is, indeed, an irrational statement, isn't being a 'bigot'. That, and there is no "ID theory".

Please try and refrain from attempting to reference or use words you clearly don't know.

Why don't you come back when you can actually add a logical thought to the discussion. Thanks for playing.

logical from Ur = irony.

You are a fine one to speak

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

You really do have a twisted view of the truth. It is also obvious you subscribe to liberal logic 101. I'm guessing you are pro killing of the unborn but anti fur?

neither of which have any relevance to this discussion, it's just another failed attempt character assassination.

Hmm, UR was right again.

 

[daws101]

Yet you would have us believe in supermagicalism of darwinism? Complex micro machines spontaneously generating. You know, Hawly, scientist once believed in spontaneous generation until Pasteur and his colleagues proved what was going on at the microscopic level. It is quite ignorant that you still believe in spontaneous generation. It must come from your hatred of real science.

Christian creationism is not science. That is what you are unable to come to terms with. Your claims to miracles, supermagical designer gawds, etc. are, by definition, irrational.

After all the pages in this thread wherein you insist in cutting and pasting from Christian creationist ministries, you have failed at every effort to present a single, testable example of "the gawds did it". Instead, you have made every effort vilify science, even floating outrageously silly conspiracies in favor of your creationist fantasies.

Hollie, you wouldn't know real science if it came up behind you and bit you in the butt,you have demonstrated this on many occasions.

really? if you think (and I use the word loosely) that unprovable ravings you use as examples of real science are science then why don't you make a trip to the national science foundation and present your "theory" to them ?
if you're extremely lucky ,you might get to 1 or two of your foreknowledge bits before they escort you to the waiting police car....that is of course is after they stop laughing hysterically..
just a thought.

 

[daws101]

Why don't you come back when you can actually add a logical thought to the discussion. Thanks for playing.

logical from Ur = irony.

You are a fine one to speak

yes I am.

 

[Youwerecreated]

The question is premature. You can not start asking "Who?" until you establish "that" a programmer exists. You have not done so, so the question is non-sensical.

You can ask what engineered enzymes in the beginning, like most other questions evolutionist ask, but once again no answer will come by evidence only by a vivid imagination.

My question still stands since we know that Enzymes can and were programmed with functions.

no it's does not but you keep dreamin'!

Dreamin what ? it's a fact.

 

[daws101]

You really do have a twisted view of the truth. It is also obvious you subscribe to liberal logic 101. I'm guessing you are pro killing of the unborn but anti fur?

neither of which have any relevance to this discussion, it's just another failed attempt character assassination.

Hmm, UR was right again.

about what? it reads like all slack jawed ranting.
it says far more about the poster then the addresse.
your willful ignorance keeps you from seeing that.

 

[Youwerecreated]

he's been told that countless times but like the true willfully ignorant, zealot, nut job ,slapdick he is ,denying it is all he can do.

Why would a rational person conclude knowing that Enzymes can and are engineered conclude a naturalistic process must have done it ? How bout a little logic and reality daws.

since you've proven you are not rational and have no clue what reality is. any so called "logic" you spew is by a truly rational and logical person known to be a product of your delusional state.

Let's see who is suffering from delusions. What is your evidence that Enzymes evolved the ability to do what we have discussed ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Blah, blah, blah. Enough cut and pasting from Panda's Thumb. So if read your post right, you are saying that abiogenesis was a miracle.

Absolutely what he is inferring

ur inferred nothing.. what were you saying about going back to high school.?

If you can't keep up take notes.

 

[Youwerecreated]

That's simply false. Science has never provided evidence of supermagical designer gawds who "programmed " anything. Further, science has never confirmed any biological programming.

It hasn't gone unnoticed that you make this specious claim completely absent suppport.

Don't have to provide evidence for God to infer design. You're truly clueless and anyone else that makes a similar claim.

wrong fuck stick god's existence is the basis of your entire arugument.
you've not proven god exists by an scientific or evidence based proofs.
the only argument you have is hearsay and it's not proof so any inference made on it is false.
is it just my or is infer or inference YWC'S lastest attempt at faking intellectual prowess?

Wrong again brown hole, what I was doing was showing evidence of design, by showing design it is rational to infer a designer.