Creationists

[daws101]

No noah's ark would not be considered conjecture daws,it would be a belief from faith.

So you don't undersatnd what conjecture is.

you wish I did not. there is not one thing you have presented that is not conjecture : a : interpretation of omens b : supposition
2a : inference from defective or presumptive evidence b : a conclusion deduced by surmise or guesswork .


please present your version of conjecture.

There is no evidence of the ark so that would be a belief of faith. There is however evidence of design in nature and that is evidence based on conjecture but evidence of a creator.

it good thing I can read gibberish.
another false claim, there is no evidence of a designer in nature ,just as there is no evidence of design
they are both conjecture.
so once again you're replacing facts with delusions.

 

[Youwerecreated]

you wish I did not. there is not one thing you have presented that is not conjecture : a : interpretation of omens b : supposition
2a : inference from defective or presumptive evidence b : a conclusion deduced by surmise or guesswork .


please present your version of conjecture.

There is no evidence of the ark so that would be a belief of faith. There is however evidence of design in nature and that is evidence based on conjecture but evidence of a creator.

it good thing I can read gibberish.
another false claim, there is no evidence of a designer in nature ,just as there is no evidence of design
they are both conjecture.
so once again you're replacing facts with delusions.

Your word means a lot to me, if you say so

 

[daws101]

Daws if a soul exists your side have some explaining to do

only an ignorant asshole would say that.
A soul is just another name for sentience.
as much as you wish a soul means proof of god there is no quanitative or observed action or evidence linking the two..
belife is not evidence.
your so wrong It's funny

Be careful who you call ignorant you babbling fool.

why , what are you going to have a tantrum?
your answer proves me right!

 

[daws101]

My response was honest and straight to the point.

you have no point.
you are trying and failing to endow chemical reaction with a quality it does no process.
enzymes do not have the kind of purpose you wish they did.
by that I mean, you believe but cannot prove that a designer programmed them for that purpose.
you've not shown any credible evidence that that process did not happen naturally.
all you shown is totally subjective denial.

The Enzymes I was mostly referring to help to prevent mutations. The Enzymes just conveniently found their way into the cell and our bodies.

Why are enzymes important?

again not an answer what they do or how they got there is no proof of a designer no matter how many was you attempt to spin it.

 

[UltimateReality]

Funnier still is your unsupported claim. But then again, as a Christian, you have self-proclaimed "higher" morals.

An assertion which you still cannot provide any basis for. Thanks for playing.

And your specious claim which is baseless.

?????? What does that even mean in context? You're drunk!

 

[daws101]

Hmm let me kill two birds with one stone it is fun exposing your ignorance daws and hallow hollie that thanked you for your ignorant post.

From the site that you people seem to quote alot.

Claim CB901:
No case of macroevolution has ever been documented.
Source:

Morris, Henry M., 2000 (Jan.). Strong Delusion. Back to Genesis 133: a.
Brown, Walt, 1995. In the Beginning: Compelling evidence for creation and the Flood. Phoenix, AZ: Center for Scientific Creation, p. 6.

Response:
1. We would not expect to observe large changes directly. Evolution consists mainly of the accumulation of small changes over large periods of time. If we saw something like a fish turning into a frog in just a couple generations, we would have good evidence against evolution.


2. The evidence for evolution does not depend, even a little, on observing macroevolution directly. There is a very great deal of other evidence (Theobald 2004; see also evolution proof).


3. As biologists use the term, macroevolution means evolution at or above the species level. Speciation has been observed and documented.


4. Microevolution has been observed and is taken for granted even by creationists. And because there is no known barrier to large change and because we can expect small changes to accumulate into large changes, microevolution implies macroevolution. Small changes to developmental genes or their regulation can cause relatively large changes in the adult organism (Shapiro et al. 2004).


5. There are many transitional forms that show that macroevolution has occurred.

CB901: No Macroevolution

Notice after they admit it, then they turn to spin to try ration out that macroevolution has happened through circular reasoning and faulty assumptions.

Daws I thought you said their was no difference between macro and micro evolution ?

I did and I'm right.

you as always are wrong: "Notice after they admit it, then they turn to spin to try ration out that macroevolution has happened through circular reasoning and faulty assumptions."YWC

YOUR ANSWER IS ALL THE PROOF I NEED .
EVERY THING YOU SAY IN THE LAST SENTENCE IS CONJECTURE AND TOTALLY SUBJECTIVE, BIAS AND BASED ON A FALSE PREMISE.
SO WHO'S THE IGNORANT ONE
YOU REEK OF DESPERATION...

the distinction between micro- and macroevolution is not a fundamental one – the only difference between them is of time and scale. As Ernst W. Mayr observes, "transspecific evolution is nothing but an extrapolation and magnification of the events that take place within populations and species...it is misleading to make a distinction between the causes of micro- and macroevolution”.[7] However, time is not a necessary distinguishing factor – macroevolution can happen without gradual compounding of small changes; whole-genome duplication can result in speciation occurring over a single generation - this is especially common in plants.[8]

Changes in the genes regulating development have also been proposed as being important in producing speciation through large and relatively sudden changes in animals' morphology.[9][10]

Macroevolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Daws the desperation is not mine wrong,macroevolution are large changes above the species level and micro is change within a family or group below the species level got it ?

put your man pants on and admit you're wrong---got it!

 

[daws101]

ok so i will kill three birds with one post.

just as expected false bravado and a false claim..

daws this is not a fair debate because i know both sides of the argument better then you. You are wasting your time.

You do make it entertaining though.

suuuuure you do!

 

[daws101]

Kinda how they predicted something went extinct several hundred million years ago and we found them alive and doing well ?

false comparison by master of faulty reasoning !
the Tiktaalik was a fresh water speices the cealocanth is obviously not !
once again Ywc is comparing apples and screwdrivers and failing.

Uh oh.

<i>Tiktaalik</i> Blown "Out of the Water" by Earlier Tetrapod Fossil Footprints - Evolution News & Views

INVALID SOURCES.....CREATIONIST DELUSION NOT SCIENCE

IT HAS THE ADDED BONUS OF NOT ANSWERING THE FRESH WATER QUESTION.

 

[Hollie]

Your free to find whatever reasoning you want as to why I believe you're an idiot. Although it's not as complicated as you make it sound. And anger nor resentment has anything to do with it. Sorry.

There are scientific theories regarding the soul but you choose to ignore them. Which is quite odd since you except the theory of evolution. But que sera.

I've come to realize one thing while scanning your rant. You're really not as intelligent as you pretend. Of course that's just my opinion. Not subject to debate.

I pity people like. In a sadistic way I wish I could be there the moment you pass from this world. Just to see the look on your face the moment you realize that there is indeed a God and He is sending you to eternal damnation. I know it's not very Christian of me to wish that. But... oh well.

There's no reason to pity me.

I do, however, feel sorry for you. Your need to use your gawds to threaten people relegates you to being just another angry Christian who is consumed by hate. It's pretty clear that your wish for "him" to send me to eternal damnation is more a reflection of your own self-hate, insecurity and inability to resolve your seething hatred for those who reject your appeals to fear and ignorance. You seem to approach your gawds as they are some type of cosmic arcade fortune telling machine. Do you think that your gawds will hear and oblige your calls to condemn the non-believers? Are you the gawds mafioso enforcers?

Surprisingly, I find it to be very Christian of you to wish eternal damnation on me. Your attitudes are largely in concert with historical christianity and its history of violence and intolerance toward non-Christians.

Yes I believe there is. And I do.

I haven't threatened anyone. If you feel threatened by anything I've written .... well...that's your cross to bear.

My wish isn't for Him to send you anywhere. My wish is to be present when he does. Reading comprehension seems difficult for you.

Furthermore it isn't my call to condemn non-believers to hell, God made that call.

And again, I didn't wish eternal damnation on you and whether you believe it or not... I am not angry.

Oh lovely, the angry Christian fundie is in denial.

I find it curious that when dealing with fundie Christians, there’s always an undercurrent of hate and anger, so much of it self-inflicted / directed and it turns outward.
That’s why it’s not surprising when fundies hope to direct the wrath of their angry gawds onto those who the fundies feel are deserving of their hate.

As to your wish for your angry gawd to condemn me to hell, The only "condemning aspect" of my life is the Christian based idea that as an imperfect being I deserve Hell by default. I'm fairly honest, I work hard, I love my friends and family, etc.-- in short, I'm your average person who lives a quiet life dealing with life's challenges. I cannot imagine rating eternal torment because I don't acquiesce to the Christian defined salvation program. I ask myself:

"Which is more likely: That there's really this angry god out there who would actually behave that way, or it's really in the religion’s interest to establish a social dynamic where the threat of eternal torment is the outcome for not joining in that religion and btw supporting it financially. What's more likely, man needs a savior for being human, or the Church, an entity of sweeping power for more than a thousand years, needs to convince me I need them and only them?"

I think the answer is really obvious and simple. If such a thing is the reality (and of course there's no evidence for such) then I'll have to "account for my actions". But my worst "crime" in this realm is being imperfect and not believing that which I find is not supported. I can do nothing about such an angry, capricious gawd who would condemn me for such a trivial issue.

What a depressing, hopeless, and bleak existence faced by religious zealots. No wonder you folks are so angry and hateful. And there's only a marginal difference between condemning most people who ever existed to an eternity of despair versus everyone being condemned to an eternity of nothingness. It's hopeless because if such a god exists, there is no sense in morality, no true justice, and basically we are nothing but minions created to worship an infinite Ego or be consigned to everlasting torment.

If one takes the time to briefly read their christian history, one will quickly realize that the gawds are a convenience, usually for politically motivated reasons. In ancient times to the present, it is quite simple to whip up a populace into agreeing with a specific idea if you can convince that populace that there is an unseen being that is resolutely on their side. This is an extension of our tribal instincts, wherein we place the mantle of superiority upon a person or persons, providing they can deliver the things we have convinced ourselves we want. No mere mortal can come close to instilling a sense of loyalty and duty that a gawd can, especially as over the millenia the gawd's powers have been enhanced and expanded.

Historical intolerance? You have Christians confused with muslims. I'll concede that during the crusades Christians did kick some butt. But it was caused in the 1st crusade by 3000 Christians being massacred. And the crusades ended around 750 years ago.

Can you cite any recent events that shows Christian intolerance, let's say on the scale of muslim intolerance?

Why limit your review of historical christian intolerance to recent events only? Christianity's history is far more intolerant and violent than "militant" Islam today.

Forced conversion and murder of non-Christians was all too common for millenia.
Christian Europe came up with the concept of their "racial" superiority.

There are anti-Jewish elements present in Christianity, which have been promoted by various Christian theologians, even major Church and Reformationist leaders, to their Christian parishioners for millenia. This provided both the framework and acceptance of Christian antisemitism which reached its culmination in the Holocaust.

Have you hoped to avoid addressing christian intolerance and hatreds that have progressed from the crusades through the Inquisition to WW2? I view as inappropriate and even dangerous, the shirking of the need for Christian self-assessment of their traditional, and potential theological-based, anti-Jewish beliefs that permitted the horrendous acts, or apathy to, the Holocaust.

 

[daws101]

I love it when you keep digging yourself a hole.

another one of your favorite delusions...

You are just to ignorant to admit you were wrong.

ANOTHER FALSE ASSUMPTION!
I unlike yourself, if I were wrong due to ignorance or being proved wrong by actually evidence not religious dogma or pseudoscience, I would gladly admit it.
you on the other hand never could or would.

 

[daws101]

There is no evidence of the ark so that would be a belief of faith. There is however evidence of design in nature and that is evidence based on conjecture but evidence of a creator.

it good thing I can read gibberish.
another false claim, there is no evidence of a designer in nature ,just as there is no evidence of design
they are both conjecture.
so once again you're replacing facts with delusions.

Your word means a lot to me, if you say so

another failed attempt at sarcasm..

 

[daws101]

An assertion which you still cannot provide any basis for. Thanks for playing.

And your specious claim which is baseless.

?????? What does that even mean in context? You're drunk!

no you must be ,or do you always have this much trouble with multisyllabic words?

 

[Hollie]

My scientific arguments are not faith based they are fact based.

you just keep telling yourself that

Don't need to or you would have shown me otherwise with all your knowledge of science.

The posters in this thread have shown your specious claims to supermagical gawds to be a hoax.

The issue you have yet to confront is that your "science" is cut and pasted from Harun Yahya and similar charlatans and snake oil salesmen. There's a reason why christian creationists have been humiliated in the courts and rebuked by the relevant science community: religion is not science.

 

[Hollie]

Do you understand what conjecture is daws ?

yes I do ...you on the other hand believe that noah's ark is fact....do I need to say more.?

No noah's ark would not be considered conjecture daws,it would be a belief from faith.

So you don't undersatnd what conjecture is.

Actually, the Ark nonsense is both conjecture and nonsense. Like so many biblical tales and fables, legend building has allowed stories told, re-told and re-told again and again to be built and modified as the tellers passed on the tale.

 

[Hollie]

You are wrong the earth was described as a circle in the bible. That is only theory that dinosaurs went extinct from a giant meteor. That is not evolution a child forming in the womb and becoming an intelligent thinking adult. That is a natural process that was put into motion and that person runs it's course. If anything it would be devolution because the person reaches a certain point then they eventually wear out and die.

that's true but a circle is not a sphere so the biblical description is inaccurate.
the rest of your post is creationist bullshit .

How do you know what was meant with all the language barriers going from the Hebrew language of 3,500 years ago to modern day english ?

Did you realize that you just condemned every one of your arguments for biblical inerrancy (and basically everything else in the bible), to the trash can?

 

[Hollie]

My response was honest and straight to the point.

you have no point.
you are trying and failing to endow chemical reaction with a quality it does no process.
enzymes do not have the kind of purpose you wish they did.
by that I mean, you believe but cannot prove that a designer programmed them for that purpose.
you've not shown any credible evidence that that process did not happen naturally.
all you shown is totally subjective denial.

The Enzymes I was mostly referring to help to prevent mutations. The Enzymes just conveniently found their way into the cell and our bodies.

Why are enzymes important?

Sheesh, what a simpleton.

 

[Hollie]

Kinda how they predicted something went extinct several hundred million years ago and we found them alive and doing well ?

false comparison by master of faulty reasoning !
the Tiktaalik was a fresh water speices the cealocanth is obviously not !
once again Ywc is comparing apples and screwdrivers and failing.

Uh oh.

<i>Tiktaalik</i> Blown "Out of the Water" by Earlier Tetrapod Fossil Footprints - Evolution News & Views

Uh oh is right. As usual, the fundies are cutting and pasting from fundie websites where the authors are social misfits, non-scientists and just plain christian creationist hacks.

What I find laughable is that the article in the Christian creationist tabloid you cut and pasted from was authored by Casey Luskin.

Encyclopedia of American Loons: Search results for luskin

Casey Luskin, a.k.a. the Baghdad Bob of creationism

Casey Luskin is a lawyer (and not a scientist, although he seems to be a little confused about what such credentials do or don't mean) and one of the primary spokespeople for the Discovery Institute. Mr. Luskin obtained a Bachelor of Science and a Masters Degree in Earth Sciences from the University of California, San Diego, and has as a lawyer published “Intelligent Design Will Survive Kitzmiller v. Dover”, and “Alternative Viewpoints about Biological Origins as Taught in Public Schools” (published in the Journal of Church and State). His work illustrates well the actual goal of the Discovery Institute – to get religion, in the form of intelligent design creationism, into public school curricula (not to do any actual scientific research).

Luskin is by far most notorious for his ability to distort scientific evidence to suggest conclusions completely opposite to what the evidence suggests (and curiously always to fit his preconceived notions of what it ought to show), such as here. An even better example of the distortions and quote mining (to put it mildly) he usually reverts to is perhaps this one (or this one). And if you are feeling particularly sadistic, you can watch Luskin getting completely eviscerated here.

The problem with Luskin and his ilk is that they're ignorant of a topic about which they believe they're experts (see The Dunning-Kruger Effect). Luskin appears to believe he’s an expert with absolute confidence and pride, but to anyone with even a cursory understanding of the fields in question his failings are miserably obvious (see also this). In fact, his misunderstandings of science – and his lack of awareness of his own lack of understanding – often reach epic proportions.

Luskin is also interestingly paranoid, going so far as to claim that published articles on evolution contain “veiled threats” against the creationists and that Nature, for instance, has launched a propaganda war on creationism. Of course, science itself is a threat to creationism; what Luskin fails to grasp is the fact that science is concerned with evidence, not argument and polemics. By failing to see the difference (and furthermore failing to distinguish criticism from personal attacks) he comes to equate scientific evidence against his dogmatic beliefs with personal attacks from the scientists who have discovered the evidence (for more on Luskin’s lack of understanding of how science works, see this).

A good assignment in an introductory critical thinking class is to identify some of the mistakes Luskin makes here (I have used it myself).

Diagnosis: Staggeringly cranky illustration of where Dunning-Kruger, confirmation bias and complete lack of understanding of science can lead you. He is very productive and vociferous, and must be considered rather dangerous to a rationality-based, modern civilization.

 

[Hollie]

What fact am I denying daws ? daws according to you theory macroevolution happens through beneficial mutations,daws mutations are errors. What you said last was just jibberish. Daws do you understand what you're saying because all it shows you are ignorant of the theory you defend.

all of them! or do I need to make a list?
there is no macro evolution.
There is no such thing as micro or macro evolution in a scientific sense. They are both the exact same thing, one is just a matter of greater time. The terms were also manufactured in order to lend a false legitimacy to evolution deniers when it was even beyond their denialism to reject observed and proven instances of evolution happening. So instead of accepting a proven fact, the goalpost was moved.

Hmm let me kill two birds with one stone it is fun exposing your ignorance daws and hallow hollie that thanked you for your ignorant post.

From the site that you people seem to quote alot.

Claim CB901:
No case of macroevolution has ever been documented.
Source:

Morris, Henry M., 2000 (Jan.). Strong Delusion. Back to Genesis 133: a.
Brown, Walt, 1995. In the Beginning: Compelling evidence for creation and the Flood. Phoenix, AZ: Center for Scientific Creation, p. 6.

Response:
1. We would not expect to observe large changes directly. Evolution consists mainly of the accumulation of small changes over large periods of time. If we saw something like a fish turning into a frog in just a couple generations, we would have good evidence against evolution.


2. The evidence for evolution does not depend, even a little, on observing macroevolution directly. There is a very great deal of other evidence (Theobald 2004; see also evolution proof).


3. As biologists use the term, macroevolution means evolution at or above the species level. Speciation has been observed and documented.


4. Microevolution has been observed and is taken for granted even by creationists. And because there is no known barrier to large change and because we can expect small changes to accumulate into large changes, microevolution implies macroevolution. Small changes to developmental genes or their regulation can cause relatively large changes in the adult organism (Shapiro et al. 2004).


5. There are many transitional forms that show that macroevolution has occurred.

CB901: No Macroevolution

Notice after they admit it, then they turn to spin to try ration out that macroevolution has happened through circular reasoning and faulty assumptions.

Daws I thought you said their was no difference between macro and micro evolution ?

I think its hilarious when the fundies get so flustered at the arguments failing before them that they're reduced to name-calling.

Maybe funnier still is the quote-mining from Henry Morris.

Henry M. Morris - RationalWiki

Morris founded such pseudoscientific organizations as the Creation Research Society and the Institute for Creation Research. These institutions suffered major infighting as their various founders duked it out over disputes in theology, rather than just agree to disagree as most proper scientists would have done.

He was also one of the first to attempt modifications to the philosophy of science so as to characterize science as a complete world-view, or religion, which is of course a colossal straw man (see our article on secular religions).

Racism

Morris was a believer in the old racist myth of the Curse of Ham, holding that those people who were not Semitic or "Japhetic" (white European) were Hamitic, and "possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane matters, they have eventually been displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the Semites."[3]

 

[Hollie]

I did and I'm right.

you as always are wrong: "Notice after they admit it, then they turn to spin to try ration out that macroevolution has happened through circular reasoning and faulty assumptions."YWC

YOUR ANSWER IS ALL THE PROOF I NEED .
EVERY THING YOU SAY IN THE LAST SENTENCE IS CONJECTURE AND TOTALLY SUBJECTIVE, BIAS AND BASED ON A FALSE PREMISE.
SO WHO'S THE IGNORANT ONE
YOU REEK OF DESPERATION...

the distinction between micro- and macroevolution is not a fundamental one – the only difference between them is of time and scale. As Ernst W. Mayr observes, "transspecific evolution is nothing but an extrapolation and magnification of the events that take place within populations and species...it is misleading to make a distinction between the causes of micro- and macroevolution”.[7] However, time is not a necessary distinguishing factor – macroevolution can happen without gradual compounding of small changes; whole-genome duplication can result in speciation occurring over a single generation - this is especially common in plants.[8]

Changes in the genes regulating development have also been proposed as being important in producing speciation through large and relatively sudden changes in animals' morphology.[9][10]

Macroevolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Daws the desperation is not mine wrong,macroevolution are large changes above the species level and micro is change within a family or group below the species level got it ?

put your man pants on and admit you're wrong---got it!

For the fundie christians who aren't keeping up to speed with the charlatans at the christian creationist ministries:

Macroevolution: Its definition, Philosophy and History

Creationists often assert that "macroevolution" is not proven, even if "microevolution" is, and by this they seem to mean that whatever evolution is observed is microevolution, but the rest is macroevolution. In making these claims they are misusing authentic scientific terms; that is, they have a non-standard definition, which they use to make science appear to be saying something other than it is. Evolution proponents often say that creationists invented the terms. This is false. Both macroevolution and microevolution are legitimate scientific terms, which have a history of changing meanings that, in any case, fail to underpin creationism.

 

[newpolitics]

Wrong,there has never been any case of observed macroevolution. They are not the same thing micro and macro evolution. Really what has beeen observed was micro adaptations. Microadaptations have been extrapolated from as evidence for macro evolution.

It is unimportant that we haven't observed it directly because we have evidence that it happened, with many, many transitional fossils that were found, and a few that were predicted as a result of evolutionary theory, and found after they were predicted to exist. For example, tiktaalik perfectly demonstrates how evolutionary theory can make a prediction about what we should expect to find in the fossil record, including where exactly in the strata, and it was actually found where it was predicted.

Tiktaalik - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kinda how they predicted something went extinct several hundred million years ago and we found them alive and doing well ?

sorry? was this supposed to be a point of somekind?