Creationists

[Youwerecreated]

Sidestepping and obfuscation on your part reinforces the hopelessness and confusion that defines blind faith in ancient superstitions.

Hawly want a cracker?

Juvenile and pointless truly typifies the Christian creationist attempts at defending their gawds.

What an idiot still don't understand the difference between a creationist and ID'er.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Evidence would negate the need for blind faith.

You may also have faith in the existence of invisible pink unicorns and aliens. Who cares?

Is lack of evidence in those entities also a reason to worship them? Why don't you pray at the altar of alien spaceships or Bigfoot? Those entities are just as rational as your imaginary gawds.

Stupid post. After all your nonsense, the last thing I would do is depend upon your opinion of what is rational.

You're just uncomfortable that Christian creationism has only achieved the cult status of Bigfoot groupies.

What a vivid imagination no wonder you believe as you do.

 

[Youwerecreated]

as always detective douche bag intentionally misinterprets.. being human is not a rational reason why.

It is if you follow God's law, the law of nature. God's law is written on the hearts of men but sin tends to drown it out. God's law is the bell that goes off right before a pregnant woman contemplates using a coat hanger to end her pregnancy and says in her heart, "This is wrong. I shouldn't do this."

Think I am being flippant? Just ask the women that have had abortions about the years of guilt, shame and suffering they endure for their dead baby. It is only through God's forgiveness that they can heal.

The Jimmy Swaggert wannabe is again bible thumping.

I really do wish you would answer my questions and let's discuss the issues instead of making this personal.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You've run out of cut and paste material?

I have presented evidence for intelligent design. Can you now present evidence for naturalism,mainly on the topic we were discussing. How did a natural process cause Enzymes to evolve the ability to spot and correct errors during DNA replication ?

What is the purpose of this function ?

Either way say I have no evidence or provide the evidence, then we can move on to something else I would like to address.

You have never provided evidence of your gawds. As you are the one claiming your Christian gawds are the "designers" in your ID fantasy, it falls to you to offer some testable support for your gawds. Where is that testable evidence?

Still dodging my questions ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

To respond to your designer enzymes: which gawds produced the first enzyme? Support your claim.

Science has not determined the precise biological mechanism that blossomed the first enzyme. Your default position is that one or more of your designer gawds did so, without providing a shred of evidence.

Your refusal to provide evidence of your claimed designer gawds is predictable. It has been the history of your posting: claims absent any evidence.

How did they happen to have beneficial functions hollie ?

by products-
here's an anology that is also a fact (let's see how fast you deny it!)

Three billion years ago single-celled underwater bacteria used sunlight to convert carbon dioxide and water into tiny oxygen bubbles. Soon plants were turning an atmosphere full of volcanic carbon dioxide into oxygen. As we learn in this video segment from Interactive NOVA: "Earth," photosynthesis created a good home for animals and humans, though not for some primitive organisms. They had to retreat to where oxygen couldn't reach them. Join researchers as they search for these organisms, now considered tiny time capsules from a time before there was oxygen on Earth.
Teachers' Domain: Life Before Oxygen
no super natural help needed.

Now support this with evidence.

 

[Youwerecreated]

A superstitious tale.

How do you know ?

simple! there is no direct or corroborating evidence to prove it. that's how.

There is evidence that Jesus walked this earth and was unjustly put to death.

 

[Youwerecreated]

No, he's actually saying he is clueless as macroevolution has not been disproved.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

The fact of evolution is not disputed by science. Bottom line is that an argument that arbitrarily picks a point on some presumed chain of causality and calls it "Gawds" is not an argument of any value to anybody. It helps no one's sectarian position.

We have vast amounts of hard scientific evidence that demonstrates evolution has actually taken place. For example, we have large collections of transitional fossils that record the evolution of mammals from reptiles, birds from dinosaurs, amphibians from fish, whales from land dwelling four legged artiodactyls, etc. Genetic evidence now allows us to also track such relationships at the biochemical level. Similar evidence comes from geology, anatomy, ecology, population genetics and related fields. That's the outline. But against all that, you counter with "The Gawds Did It". Although no human has lived for millions of years, the processes of evolution leave behind plenty of evidence to be tested. We can compare and contrast the features of living organisms and see that they fall into a nested hierarchy of characteristics. (This was known long before Darwin, by the way.) We can examine the fossil evidence of different ages and see how skeletal structures have changed over time. We now can compare particular DNA sequences and immunology and fetal development in a variety of creatures. We apply what we know about biology, about genetics, about cell development, and so on, to the results.

Dr Douglas Theobald is an Idelogue,he presents micro adaptations as macroevolution. Look the whole science community except for the loons know there has never been a case of macroevolution being observed. Hollie talk origins will decompose your brain.


A Critique of Douglas Theobald’s
“29 Evidences for Macroevolution”
by Ashby Camp
Introduction Part 1

© 2001 Ashby L. Camp. All Rights Reserved.


. . . Earth’s crammed with heaven,
And every common bush afire with God:
But only he who sees, takes off his shoes,
The rest sit round it, and pluck blackberries,
And daub their natural faces unaware
More and more, from the first similitude.

Elizabeth Barrett Browning, Aurora Leigh VII.821-22


NOTE: The paper critiqued in this article was subsequently changed by Mr. Theobald, who also published a criticism of this article—and changed it too, after Mr. Camp responded. Neither this article, nor Mr. Camp’s response to Theobald’s criticism, have been altered to accommodate Mr. Theobold’s on-going adjustments and modifications.

am convinced that various groups of organisms had an independent, nonevolutionary origin. More specifically, I believe the founding members of these groups were created miraculously and separately by God. Douglas Theobald, on the other hand, is convinced that all organisms (except the first) descended from a single, original species.

In “29 Evidences for Macroevolution,” Dr. Theobald sets forth the evidence that he believes proves scientifically that all organisms share the same biological ancestor. In this critique, I argue that his evidence is insufficient to establish that proposition.

Read the rest here. - A Critique of ''29 Evidences for Macroevolution'' - Intro -

invald source.

If you are speaking of Theobald you're correct. Nobody cites his work as being real evidence of macroevolution except the site you copy and paste.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I thought the science link would send the Christian fundies scrambling.

As it turns out, their only option is to link to another Christian fundie. From the fundie link:

"I am convinced that various groups of organisms had an independent, nonevolutionary origin. More specifically, I believe the founding members of these groups were created miraculously and separately by God."

Well sure, "the gawds did it"


Anti-evolutionist Ashby Camp has penned a critique of these "29 Evidences of Macroevolution," which can be found posted at TrueOrigin. Camp's critique is well-written, very thorough, and quite lengthy (the criticism is longer than the original article). Although I intend to address Camp's concerns in totality, currently I can only devote a limited amount of time to this effort. In the meantime, this partial response will suffice. I would like to thank Camp for his congenial criticism. It has given me the impetus to rework and expand the "29 Evidences," and the result is a more comprehensive, clearer, and stronger article.

My response has been two-fold. First, I have incorporated new material into the original essay that specifically addresses many of Camp's points, and thus much of his response is now superfluous. Second, in the following sections I rebut the more egregious errors found in Camp's criticism, especially ones that would interrupt the flow and thrust of the original article if they were included there. In the following response, Camp's words are indented in grey boxes, set apart from mine. Material that Camp has quoted in his criticism is also in the grey boxes, surrounded by quotes, and followed by the pertinent external reference.

Mr. Camp's critique is error-ridden in various ways, and is primarily characterized by:

1. Straw man arguments 2. Red herrings 3. Self-contradictions 4. Equivocation 5. Two wrongs make a right 6. Fallacies of accident and converse accident 7. Ignoratio elenchi 8. Naive theological assumptions 9. Insufficient knowledge of basic biology, molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics 10. Misunderstanding of the scientific method 11. Forwarding of untestable competing "hypotheses" 12. Mischaracterization of evolutionary theory 13. Misleading mis-quotes 14. Fallacies of accent 15. Distortion of scientific controversies 16. Arguments from authority 17. False analogies

The repeated use of these errors and others in Camp's "Critique" will be abundantly clear in the following rebuttal.

Note: Since the time I wrote this reply, Mr. Camp has responded to this in a shorter article entitled "Camp answers Theobald." The elements which I felt deserve some mention are included here enclosed in green boxes.

The most hilarious part of your response is that you believe your link showed REAL science. Your brain is so dumb down from the pseudoscience thinking of evolution it is obvious you can no longer tell the difference.

you just keep believing that detective douche bag.....
your denial of fact is no proof.

your ignorance is entertaining.

 

[Youwerecreated]

gawds? First you need to go back and try passing grade school before making a public fool out of yourself.

Another empty accusation.

HARDLY.... you might have passed but any real learning was lost when you started filling the void with superstion and non sense.

No Daws, I was exposed to reality.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Evidence would negate the need for blind faith.

You may also have faith in the existence of invisible pink unicorns and aliens. Who cares?

Is lack of evidence in those entities also a reason to worship them? Why don't you pray at the altar of alien spaceships or Bigfoot? Those entities are just as rational as your imaginary gawds.

You have yet to offer evidence to back your claims for the questions that was asked of you. Did you think we forgot ?

who the fuck is "we" btw it's "we'd"

Still waiting

 

[newpolitics]

Guess NP and Hawly slithered away.

I have destroyed your ID arguments over and over, on every single point, so, I kind of feel like I am done here. You can't bring up anything new, and your position doesn't stand on its own. Without faith informing a presupposition that an intelligence already exists, the ID hypothesis is simply not tenable as a scientific idea, which I have pointed out, again and again, and so is completely unconvincing. Unless you have anything new, I'm not sure what the point is in hanging around. I enjoyed the debate, but the more I learn about ID, the weaker I realize it is, and the more I realize it is completely dependent on faith in god. As proven during the dover trial, it is creationism in a lab coat. The ID movement just wants to get it into textbooks so they can vindicate their pre-existing faith in an intelligent creator, using our public school system and our children to achieve this. Thank goodness the Dover trial ended the way it did.

No you have not and we do not have to provide proof for the source to prove design. You have yet to provide evidence that the design evidence that has been presented evolved naturally. You're living in a dream world.

Well, yes I have, and you can't prove design. You haven't even gotten close, unless you use logical fallacies. There is a plethora of evidence for evolution, so stop lying!

 

[newpolitics]

How do you know ?

simple! there is no direct or corroborating evidence to prove it. that's how.

There is evidence that Jesus walked this earth and was unjustly put to death.

Not really. There's a few extra-biblical references to someone named "christus" but absolutely no detail beyond that, and this only decades after jesus' supposed death.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I have destroyed your ID arguments over and over, on every single point, so, I kind of feel like I am done here. You can't bring up anything new, and your position doesn't stand on its own. Without faith informing a presupposition that an intelligence already exists, the ID hypothesis is simply not tenable as a scientific idea, which I have pointed out, again and again, and so is completely unconvincing. Unless you have anything new, I'm not sure what the point is in hanging around. I enjoyed the debate, but the more I learn about ID, the weaker I realize it is, and the more I realize it is completely dependent on faith in god. As proven during the dover trial, it is creationism in a lab coat. The ID movement just wants to get it into textbooks so they can vindicate their pre-existing faith in an intelligent creator, using our public school system and our children to achieve this. Thank goodness the Dover trial ended the way it did.

No you have not and we do not have to provide proof for the source to prove design. You have yet to provide evidence that the design evidence that has been presented evolved naturally. You're living in a dream world.

Well, yes I have, and you can't prove design. You haven't even gotten close, unless you use logical fallacies. There is a plethora of evidence for evolution, so stop lying!

I have shown that Enzymes can be egineered By having their functions altered through intelligence and you can't provide evidence that they can get a new function through evolution. Not a fallacy it is a fact.

 

[Hollie]

Dr Douglas Theobald is an Idelogue,he presents micro adaptations as macroevolution. Look the whole science community except for the loons know there has never been a case of macroevolution being observed. Hollie talk origins will decompose your brain.


A Critique of Douglas Theobald’s
“29 Evidences for Macroevolution”
by Ashby Camp
Introduction Part 1

© 2001 Ashby L. Camp. All Rights Reserved.


. . . Earth’s crammed with heaven,
And every common bush afire with God:
But only he who sees, takes off his shoes,
The rest sit round it, and pluck blackberries,
And daub their natural faces unaware
More and more, from the first similitude.

Elizabeth Barrett Browning, Aurora Leigh VII.821-22


NOTE: The paper critiqued in this article was subsequently changed by Mr. Theobald, who also published a criticism of this article—and changed it too, after Mr. Camp responded. Neither this article, nor Mr. Camp’s response to Theobald’s criticism, have been altered to accommodate Mr. Theobold’s on-going adjustments and modifications.

am convinced that various groups of organisms had an independent, nonevolutionary origin. More specifically, I believe the founding members of these groups were created miraculously and separately by God. Douglas Theobald, on the other hand, is convinced that all organisms (except the first) descended from a single, original species.

In “29 Evidences for Macroevolution,” Dr. Theobald sets forth the evidence that he believes proves scientifically that all organisms share the same biological ancestor. In this critique, I argue that his evidence is insufficient to establish that proposition.

Read the rest here. - A Critique of ''29 Evidences for Macroevolution'' - Intro -

invald source.

If you are speaking of Theobald you're correct. Nobody cites his work as being real evidence of macroevolution except the site you copy and paste.

As is the case so often with Christian creationist sputtering, facts contradict their lies.

Do a search, as I did, using the phrase:
"theobald as reference for macroevolution"

You will find many references to his work. Your cult indoctrination doesn't allow you to use the resources of open investigation that is a priority for anyone seeking truth as opposed to serving their masters of fear and superstition.

 

[ima]

How do you know ?

simple! there is no direct or corroborating evidence to prove it. that's how.

There is evidence that Jesus walked this earth and was unjustly put to death.

What evidence?

 

[Youwerecreated]

simple! there is no direct or corroborating evidence to prove it. that's how.

There is evidence that Jesus walked this earth and was unjustly put to death.

Not really. There's a few extra-biblical references to someone named "christus" but absolutely no detail beyond that, and this only decades after jesus' supposed death.

Wrong, Historian Josephus wrote of Jesus,now he was hardly someone that would try to support the idea of Jesus's existence. If you honestly look into it further you will find other evidence to make your claim invalid.

 

[Hollie]

No you have not and we do not have to provide proof for the source to prove design. You have yet to provide evidence that the design evidence that has been presented evolved naturally. You're living in a dream world.

Well, yes I have, and you can't prove design. You haven't even gotten close, unless you use logical fallacies. There is a plethora of evidence for evolution, so stop lying!

I have shown that Enzymes can be egineered By having their functions altered through intellingence and you can't provide evidence that they can get a new function through evolution. Not a fallacy it is a fact.

Lying to protect your Christian creationist fantasies leaves you vulnerable to being exposed as just another cult mouthpiece. You were given documentation of how enzymes adapt and evolve.

 

[ima]

There is evidence that Jesus walked this earth and was unjustly put to death.

Not really. There's a few extra-biblical references to someone named "christus" but absolutely no detail beyond that, and this only decades after jesus' supposed death.

Wrong, Historian Josephus wrote of Jesus,now he was hardly someone that would try to support the idea of Jesus's existence. If you honestly look into it further you will find other evidence to make your claim invalid.

What evidence?

 

[Youwerecreated]

invald source.

If you are speaking of Theobald you're correct. Nobody cites his work as being real evidence of macroevolution except the site you copy and paste.

As is the case so often with Christian creationist sputtering, facts contradict their lies.

Do a search, as I did, using the phrase:
"theobald as reference for macroevolution"

You will find many references to his work. Your cult indoctrination doesn't allow you to use the resources of open investigation that is a priority for anyone seeking truth as opposed to serving their masters of fear and superstition.

I have never seen a well known evolutionist cite his work in a debate as evidence. I also looked at his writings and explained to you he extrapolates from evidence of adaptations to draw his conclusions.

 

[Youwerecreated]

simple! there is no direct or corroborating evidence to prove it. that's how.

There is evidence that Jesus walked this earth and was unjustly put to death.

What evidence?

Follow the thread so I do not have to keep repeating myself.