Creationists

[daws101]

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.

second hand accounts of Jesus are not evidence unless they can be linked to physical evidence...to this day there have been none found.. looks like your shit outa luck on that!

 

[daws101]

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.

it's also not evidence of design..
there functions were not altered by intelligence .....intelligence by itself has no power.
so knock off the bullshit.
you've proven shit ...

 

[daws101]

False. You're just unable and unwilling to consider any facts that conflict with your cult indoctrination. That's not unusual for those who have limited education outside of christian fundamentalist dogma that is used to instill fear and unquestioning allegiance to the authority figures who have left you with traumatic emotional scars.

Our ability to alter enzymes by inhibiting their functioning abilities has resulted in hundreds of life saving drugs. One example is penicillin, a well-known antibiotic that can cure syphilis, pneumonia, and other illnesses. Penicillin works by bonding to the active sites of the disease-causing bacteria’s enzymes, ultimately destroying the bacteria’s ability to survive and reproduce.

What are Enzymes?

Now look at the question asked and the conjecture filled answer he got with no evidence that the enzyme evolved a new function. The only way an enzyme and get a new function is through having their functions altered by an outside source not by naturalism.

Resolved QuestionShow me another »
How do new enzymes evolve?
A few background facts that are true:
1) Enzymes catalyze reactions
2) Enzymes do not necessarily cause a reaction to happen, just make it happen way way faster.
3) So, basically, several processes in a cell would not happen without the appropriate enzyme.

Knowing this, how can an enzyme possibly evolve? Several reactions inside a cell (many that are 100% necessary for the life of the cell to continue) do not occur at a fast enough rate to be of any benefit to the cell, meaning the the enzyme is absolutely required for the reaction.

Current evolutionary theory states that "good" evolutionary changes are the result of very small changes to the genetic code which, over time, eventually add up to a benefit to the cell. The problem with this in respect to enzymes are that enzymes are incredibly expensive (energy-wise) for a cell to make. An ineffective enzyme would drain resources from the cell (this is particularly true for secondary metabolites) without any possible benefit to the cell, leading to negative selection, leading to species extinction.

Please be aware that this question is not about one enzyme evolving into another. This is about de novo enzyme evolution.

How do new enzymes evolve? - Yahoo! Answers

I saw nothing that identified enzymes as being supermagucally "poofed" into existence by one or more of your gawds. I saw nothing at all that suggested the evolution of enzymes was in any way connected with one or more of your gawds or even required supermagical intervention.

It's curious that you're cutting and pasting from "yahoo answers" as opposed to a reliable science journal. Curious, that.

bump!

 

[daws101]

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.

You make the typical dumb mistake of thinking the Bible is one book. It is a collection of letters and the Gospel accounts. They were assembled together 100's of years after they were written so to treat them as one book is just ignorant of the history.

really detective douche bag..?..NP has made that statement many times.
this is the first time you have ...
the bible is a compendium and not complete, none of the accounts are first hand so all the material contained in it is hearsay not fact...

 

[daws101]

On ignore? Not a chance. You made similar, laughable statements about putting me on ignore and you continue to stalk me.

Is Ima now subject to your creepy proclivities?

I admit it. It is just too entertaining to watch you repeatedly embarrass yourself with your lack of knowledge and blind allegiance to Darwin.

See ya. Gotta get back to work. Something you likely know nothing about.

We see the results of you running out of posts to plagiarize. Left to your own devices, you're helpless.

So yes. Get back to work. I'll have fries and a soda with that Mcburger.

funny how "ur" detective douche bag will bring up "Work" when his ass is in a crack...

 

[UltimateReality]

yep, that's rock solid proof that you suck cock


detective Douche bag doth protest too much!

You don't even know what that Shakespeare quote means. You aren't using it in the right context. And you are trying to distract from the fact you just got outed.

I must be right !
two more false assumptions by detective Douche bag!

You would think a theater major would know how to quote Shakespeare in the right context.

 

[UltimateReality]

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.

second hand accounts of Jesus are not evidence unless they can be linked to physical evidence...to this day there have been none found.. looks like your shit outa luck on that!

Prove you exist.

 

[UltimateReality]

I admit it. It is just too entertaining to watch you repeatedly embarrass yourself with your lack of knowledge and blind allegiance to Darwin.

See ya. Gotta get back to work. Something you likely know nothing about.

We see the results of you running out of posts to plagiarize. Left to your own devices, you're helpless.

So yes. Get back to work. I'll have fries and a soda with that Mcburger.

funny how "ur" detective douche bag will bring up "Work" when his ass is in a crack...

Kind of like you are running and ducking for cover now. I'll be lucky if I hear from you in 8 or 10 hours until the shame wears off of you.

 

[newpolitics]

We see the results of you running out of posts to plagiarize. Left to your own devices, you're helpless.

So yes. Get back to work. I'll have fries and a soda with that Mcburger.

funny how "ur" detective douche bag will bring up "Work" when his ass is in a crack...

Kind of like you are running and ducking for cover now. I'll be lucky if I hear from you in 8 or 10 hours until the shame wears off of you.

You are turning into bigger and bigger of a douchebag. I've been reading your "discourse" with Daws. You are a most unpleasant person, UR. I would have thought that the power of christ would have "cured" that. This god of yours must not be all powerful. I can't imagine how he could be intelligent enough to design species.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You flaunt your ignorance as though it was a religious view... which it is.

Darwin's theory is not in question within the science community. Christian fundies reel at the science disciplines supporting evolution because science fact supplants Christian dogma.

You flaunt your ignorance as though it was a religious view... which it is.

Darwin's theory is not in question within the psuedoscience community, but REAL scientists without your materialistic religious views see real problems with it. Evolutionist fundies reel at the science disciplines supporting emprical evidence because science fact supplants darwinist dogma.

Yet another post you plagiarized. It's a shame that christian creationist ministries are forced to abandon all credibility in regard to actually supporting their claims to supermagical gawds and are left only to spew their agenda of hate and derision.

Why don't you address the issues ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

So, we have technology be able to manipulate our own biology. That simply speaks to our technical prowess, not anything intrinsic to our biology that can be determined, such as there being an intelligence. You are not making logical sense here if you think that because we can tinker with our enzymes, this proves a designer. The fallacy is in making this logical leap. I understand that it is a fact that we can do this. Your conclusion is unreachable from your premises.

Yes Enzymes can be programmed that is evidence that suggests in the beginning they were programmed were not a product of naturalism. I don't buy things grow the ability over time to be a benefit to the organism through errors.

 

[Hollie]

You flaunt your ignorance as though it was a religious view... which it is.

Darwin's theory is not in question within the psuedoscience community, but REAL scientists without your materialistic religious views see real problems with it. Evolutionist fundies reel at the science disciplines supporting emprical evidence because science fact supplants darwinist dogma.

Yet another post you plagiarized. It's a shame that christian creationist ministries are forced to abandon all credibility in regard to actually supporting their claims to supermagical gawds and are left only to spew their agenda of hate and derision.

Why don't you address the issues ?

I did address the issues in my post that was plagiarized by your Christian creationist cult member accomplice.

Why don't you address those issues?

 

[Youwerecreated]

I have destroyed your ID arguments over and over...

You're a legend in your own mind. Why are you wasting your time on the internet since you are obviously intellectually superior to all the REAL scientists out there that have no rebuttal for Meyers argument?

So your psychosis is to pretend like you have disproven it so you can be comfortable with your worldview and slither away?

My comfort is in knowing that the methods employed with the ID hypothesis are not scientific or logically valid. It's pretty simple. If the logic and methadology were valid, I would consider ID, and so would REAL scientists. It is your fallacy in supposing that I could not entertain a new idea, because you fallaciously assume that "naturalism" is my religion. It is not. I am only searching for truth. If ID presented a valid way to get to truth, it would be entertained by me and others, but is isn't. It relies on induction, for one, and contains unfalsifiable premises and conclusions. This automatically disqualifies it from being scientific, and scientists can see right through to this.

As far as there being no rebuttal for Meyers argument, ever hear of the dover trial? Every single one of his arguments has been shown to be unscientific, which is why his theory not accepted by science. Don't try and tell me that Meyer's argument is that much different from Behe's. It is not. Behe got embarrassed at the Dover trial, and by extension, so did Meyers, who used the same invalid logic and flawed methodology. ID is not allowed in our biology classrooms and hopefully never will. This hypothesis belongs in a theology class.

Last night Bill O'rielly and John Stossel went at it a little bit. Bill has interviewed just about every well known scientist the ones that believe in a higher power are with the intelligent design movement or creationist. The ones that are athiest go with evolution and they believe evolution explains most things. The Bill said he hits them with two questions that they admit they have no answer for. The questions are where did the Universe come from and how did life start. John said that he would like to be a believer he realluy would but his biggest problem with the thought of al the bad in the world. Bill replied it comes down to God granting free will. John said that those two questions cause him to hold out hope for him to become a believer.

John I believe this weekend is gonna have people from both sides of the argument on and have them help convince him one way or the either.

 

[Youwerecreated]

another not even original failed attempt at character assassination.
BTW it was you, who inferred cock sucking by using the mouth sore reference and your never ending gay innuendo,the only way to gain that much knowledge is by the "hands on" method.
my "theory" stands.
if there were a perversion scale you'd pin the needle.
Definition of PERVERSION
"an aberrant sexual practice or interest especially when habitual"
the sheer number of your posts with slurs and innuendo proves my "theory" correct.
Thanks for giving me your new name fron now on I'll call you: detective Douche bag!

Daws, this is really sad and screams out of your deviant man desires. How did you infer my comment about mouth sores was from performing the sex act you reference? Talk about your own sick, twisted perversions and bias skewing your interpretations!!! By the way, the Herpes virus that causes mouth sores is transferred by kissing and is not the same as the Herpes virus that causes genital lesions, so YOU are the sick, twisted pervert.

yep, that's rock solid proof that you suck cock


detective Douche bag doth protest too much!

Can we move on from this pointless give and take.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

Nice "just so" story, but do you have some real, testable evidence for your fairy tale above? How about some causes presently in operation that would support your story?

no need, it stands on it's own merits .

Pure fantasy here daws it does not stand on merits but one's imagination.

 

[Hollie]

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.

So, we have technology be able to manipulate our own biology. That simply speaks to our technical prowess, not anything intrinsic to our biology that can be determined, such as there being an intelligence. You are not making logical sense here if you think that because we can tinker with our enzymes, this proves a designer. The fallacy is in making this logical leap. I understand that it is a fact that we can do this. Your conclusion is unreachable from your premises.

Yes Enzymes can be programmed that is evidence that suggests in the beginning they were programmed were not a product of naturalism. I don't buy things grow the ability over time to be a benefit to the organism through errors.

Your "suggestion" begs special pleading for supermagical intervention. As always, you presume your conclusion of gawds and then invent convenient scenarios whereby you can insert those gawds.

Why are your hapless gawds so inept that their magical abilities require the mal-formed explanations and angry rhetoric of zealots to explain their magic?

 

[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.

yes you, do since you've proven NEITHER.
YOUR WHOLE ARGUMENT LIVES OR DIES ON AN ASSUMPTION THAT AN "IINTELLIGENCE MUST HAVE DONE IT".
AGAIN wyc "WE" ARE UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO AND HAVE NOT PRESENTED EVIDENCE FOR DESIGN!
DESIGN BY DEFINTION HAS TO HAVE A DESIGNER.
NATURE IS NOT BOUND BY THAT RULE ..SINCE THERE IS NO "WHO" IN NATURE.
PULL YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS!

Nature is the product of the designer. What put everything in to motion daws ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

NO ITSUPPORTS IT'SELF!
any questions? try using the link.

Once again daws you turn to conjecture as an explanation. You are doing what you accuse believers doing.

 

[ima]

Nature is the product of the designer. What put everything in to motion daws ?

This question is unknown. You can think that it's LIKELY done by a god, but it's arrogant to say it for a fact. We simply do not know.

 

[Youwerecreated]

yep, that's rock solid proof that you suck cock


detective Douche bag doth protest too much!

You don't even know what that Shakespeare quote means. You aren't using it in the right context. And you are trying to distract from the fact you just got outed.

I must be right !
two more false assumptions by detective Douche bag!

Let's move on from these pointless posts.