Creationists

[daws101]

REAL SCIENCE ALERT.....


Origin of Cells
The appearance of the first cells marked the origin of life on earth. However, before cells could form, the organic molecules must have united with one another to form more complex molecules called polymers. Examples of polymers are polysaccharides and proteins.

In the 1950s, Sidney Fox placed amino acids in primitive earth conditions and showed that amino acids would unite to form polymers called proteinoids. The proteinoids were apparently able to act as enzymes and catalyze organic reactions.

More recent evidence indicates that RNA molecules have the ability to direct the synthesis of new RNA molecules as well as DNA molecules. Because DNA provides the genetic code for protein synthesis, it is conceivable that DNA may have formed in the primitive earth environment as a consequence of RNA activity. Then DNA activity could have led to protein synthesis.

For a cell to come into being, some sort of enclosing membrane is required to hold together the organic materials of the cytoplasm. A generation ago, scientists believed that membranous droplets formed spontaneously. These membranous droplets called protocells were presumed to be the first cell. Modem scientists believe, however, that protocells do not carry any genetic information and lack the internal organization of cells. Thus the protocell theory is not widely accepted. Several groups of scientists are currently investigating the synthesis of polypeptides and short nucleic acids on the surface of clay. The first cells remain a mystery.

ANY OTHER "THEORIES" THAT SPECULATE THAT CELL FORMATION WAS AN INTENTIONAL ACT BY AN INTELLIGENT DESIGNER ARE SPECIOUS CONJECTURE.
THE ACT OF CELL "DESIGN" HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED IN NATURE ...

 

[UltimateReality]

So Hawly, no intelligent response to the top ten problems with evolution, huh?

The problems of evolution??? How about you try and respond to the problems of ID design, like the fact that it uses pure inductive reasoning. NO... you can't do that. So you just attack evolution!! How illogical and completely ineffective.

You have already been proven wrong on the induction argument so why do you dishonestly keep bringing it up??

And you didn't address any of the points as usual.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You're giving yourself credit for subject matter you are hopelessly ignorant of. Meyer did little more than plagiarize what Behe has rattled about. Secondly, your silly claims to gawds, miracles and supermagicalism are absurd, vacant and totally unsupported.

There is no magic about the functioning of cells. I do find it interesting that as more scientific analysis is performed in the discipline of biology, your gawds, miracles and supermagical claims are pushed further and further into obsolescence.

It's no wonder that your Christian creationist ministries don't do research. You know why that is. The phonies and charlatans at creationist ministries have an agenda of preying upon the naive, the gullible and the superstitious.

Focus hollie,address his argument and while you're at it explain to us your argument that supports the cell being a product of a natural process. Why do you copy and paste others work by your judgment of meyer? They agree about the evidence of the cell so you lay an empty accusation agains't meyer.

Why do you avoid my questions hollie ?

Focus, fundie. I can call for support fields of testable science in favor of the cell being purely a byproduct of natural processes.

Focus, fundie. What is supernatural about the cell?

You continually avoid addressing your claim that the cell is somehow supermagical.

Why do you avoid these questions?

Talk is cheap pal.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Naw. That one's a top AND a bottom, trust me. Whatever the traffic will bear.

Is it me or are there a lot of rope suckers in this forum ?

it's you, as nobody but you know what a rope sucker is?

That is what we call a queer in the real west.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Is it me or are there a lot of rope suckers in this forum ?

it's you, as nobody but you know what a rope sucker is?

A rope sucker is someone who sucks the cum out of a priest's balls.

Or the group that was here yesterday.

 

[UltimateReality]

So Hawly, no intelligent response to the top ten problems with evolution, huh?

The problem lies with YEC'ers such as yourself and the various christian creationist ministries which seek out the gulible and the uneducated. Your cut and paste was yet another example of the dangers of cults such as the Disco'tute and Casey Luskin.

Discoveroids’ Top Ten Problems with Evolution


Discoveroids’ Top Ten Problems with Evolution | The Sensuous Curmudgeon

They’re exhibiting either misguided confidence or absolute desperation. Who? You know who — the neo-theocrats at the Discovery Institute‘s creationist public relations and lobbying operation, the Center for Science and Culture (a/k/a the Discoveroids, a/k/a the cdesign proponentsists).

You can decide which it is. They’ve just posted What Are the Top Ten Problems with Darwinian Evolution? It’s by Casey Luskin, our favorite creationist. He’s a Curmudgeon fellow and a follower of the Knights of Uranus. Casey says, with bold font added by us and his links omitted:

No wonder Hawly can't argue anything to save her life. This is a quote from her cut and paste that is supposed to be a thoughtful response? BWAHAHAHAHAH. The guys says NOTHING!

"Lack of a viable mechanism for producing high levels of complex and specified information.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Evolution has no mechanism? A couple of paragraphs ago we gave you a link to Casey’s mechanism for intelligent design. Take your pick, dear reader. Okay, here’s number two:"

 

[Youwerecreated]

YWC'S ILLITERACY SHINES THROUGH

Oh that went over your head to.

ahhh....no.
it's a: you don't even know what you don't know moment!
if you could actually read you'd understand it.

You're are paranoid Christians are gonna take your rights away so through that paranoia you subscribe to scientific ignorance.

 

[UltimateReality]

You confuse cutting and pasting from Christian cultists as "truth". Your religion has a long and lurid history of promoting falsehoods and keeping humanity mired in fear and superstition.

Then share with us your view on cell.

I use Verizon.

In the mean time, I've read through the article (Antidiluvian Plushies), and I can only shrug my shoulders and whince with embarrassment at the Christian creationist mindset that accepts such nonsense as literal events.

Your embarrassment comes from self-loathing and shrugging your shoulders is an outward sign of your self-loathing supermagicalistic califragic.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I got $50 says ole YWC is going to be in for a BIG surprise come judgement day.

I don't think your currency will be worth much in the new world.

what new world? the one you made up in your vivid imagination?
were you struck on the head one too many times as a child?

Nope even your side believe in a new world coming ever heard of the new world order ? mine is just the new world spoken of in the scriptures. Need I remind you I am a man of faith as well.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Listen I will mention this one more time for the ones that missed it or for the ones that it went over their heads. .

Life comes from living organisms scientific fact.

 

[UltimateReality]

Appealing to ignorance is not evidence. "I can't explain it, thus, God" is not evidence.

We can't explain the cell

What we can't explain is how the cell and all of it's complexity could arise through a natural process.Anyone that believes the cell formed itself are just fooling themselves. The book UR was referring to points out the intricate parts and functions of the cell you either needed miracles or a very intelligent designer. Your natural process would have needed miracles a designer does not need miracles.

The book by Meyer is a humorless joke.

You've never read it so how would know? This is common among blind followers of the Darwinistic religion. They do not search and prove anything for themselves but merely blindly follow the high priests, not questioning any of the dogma that is spoon fed to them as the eagerly lap up the lies.

 

[Youwerecreated]

it's you, as nobody but you know what a rope sucker is?

A rope sucker is someone who sucks the cum out of a priest's balls.

thanks! YWC wrote with the great gusto and authority that only first hand experience can convey.

No you once again demonstrated you could not follow the conversation.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Neither are you, if you are arguing from ignorance.

Wait you have no answers for his questions but you call him ignorant

Do you actually read what you pretend to respond to? I didn't call him ignorant. I said he was arguing from ignorance. Where in this did you get that I was calling him ignorant, as a person?

I don't need answers for his questions when there is no evidence from which to draw proper conclusions. Again, you are suggesting an argument from ignorance.

You might as well be doing that since you said his arguments are derived from ignorance.

 

[UltimateReality]

The book by Meyer is a humorless joke.

Hollie you are full of claims you can't back. I am giving you and your buddies that chance we are now discussing my major plus the work I performed for several years.

You're giving yourself credit for subject matter you are hopelessly ignorant of. Meyer did little more than plagiarize what Behe has rattled about.

Your ignorance is completely astounding!!! This is not one shred of truth in this statement and you just re-quoted this from Panda's Thumb propaganda, probably from some imbecile, who, like yourself, has never even read the book. Unbelievable!!

 

[UltimateReality]

The fear is yours. Your child-like fear and trembling before an imaginary father figure is obvious and disturbing. You choose fear and ignorance as opposed to knowledge and enlightenment.

Trying as you do to promote fear and ignorance is equally obvious and disturbing. There seems to be a propensity for some to share a need for remaining forever child-like and ignorant. Some are taken advantage of at an early age and terrified with stories of burning in hell for not believing in the gawds of their parents and / or social circumstances. That is what makes your chest-heaving, sweaty pronouncements to your gawds so ironic. Had you been raised in the islamist middle east, you would be "Islamic rage boy" - the bearded loon, fist pumping and screaming in favor of different gawds.

Fear what hollie here is your chance to show why your argument is superior.

I just did.

You do you loatheth yourselfeth so mucheth?

 

[Youwerecreated]

REAL SCIENCE ALERT.....


Origin of Cells
The appearance of the first cells marked the origin of life on earth. However, before cells could form, the organic molecules must have united with one another to form more complex molecules called polymers. Examples of polymers are polysaccharides and proteins.

In the 1950s, Sidney Fox placed amino acids in primitive earth conditions and showed that amino acids would unite to form polymers called proteinoids. The proteinoids were apparently able to act as enzymes and catalyze organic reactions.

More recent evidence indicates that RNA molecules have the ability to direct the synthesis of new RNA molecules as well as DNA molecules. Because DNA provides the genetic code for protein synthesis, it is conceivable that DNA may have formed in the primitive earth environment as a consequence of RNA activity. Then DNA activity could have led to protein synthesis.

For a cell to come into being, some sort of enclosing membrane is required to hold together the organic materials of the cytoplasm. A generation ago, scientists believed that membranous droplets formed spontaneously. These membranous droplets called protocells were presumed to be the first cell. Modem scientists believe, however, that protocells do not carry any genetic information and lack the internal organization of cells. Thus the protocell theory is not widely accepted. Several groups of scientists are currently investigating the synthesis of polypeptides and short nucleic acids on the surface of clay. The first cells remain a mystery.

ANY OTHER "THEORIES" THAT SPECULATE THAT CELL FORMATION WAS AN INTENTIONAL ACT BY AN INTELLIGENT DESIGNER ARE SPECIOUS CONJECTURE.
THE ACT OF CELL "DESIGN" HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED IN NATURE ...

Conjecture alert,now you paste something that suggest many cells formed at once and you can't prove one did

"organic molecules must have united with one another to form more complex molecules called polymers."

You ignored the other problems like left hand right handed amino acids bonding to form these proteins and they had to be in the right sequence fairtytale boy. Daws what happens to the organism if both left handed and right handed amino acids bonded to for these proteins ?

 

[UltimateReality]

REAL SCIENCE ALERT.....


Origin of Cells
The appearance of the first cells marked the origin of life on earth. However, before cells could form, the organic molecules must have united with one another to form more complex molecules called polymers. Examples of polymers are polysaccharides and proteins.

In the 1950s, Sidney Fox placed amino acids in primitive earth conditions

Prove this!!! ^

and showed that amino acids would unite to form polymers called proteinoids. The proteinoids were apparently able to act as enzymes and catalyze organic reactions.

More recent evidence indicates that RNA molecules have the ability to direct the synthesis of new RNA molecules as well as DNA molecules. Because DNA provides the genetic code for protein synthesis, it is conceivable that DNA may have formed in the primitive earth environment as a consequence of RNA activity. Then DNA activity could have led to protein synthesis.

For a cell to come into being, some sort of enclosing membrane is required to hold together the organic materials of the cytoplasm. A generation ago, scientists believed that membranous droplets formed spontaneously. These membranous droplets called protocells were presumed to be the first cell. Modem scientists believe, however, that protocells do not carry any genetic information and lack the internal organization of cells. Thus the protocell theory is not widely accepted. Several groups of scientists are currently investigating the synthesis of polypeptides and short nucleic acids on the surface of clay. The first cells remain a mystery.

ANY OTHER "THEORIES" THAT SPECULATE THAT CELL FORMATION WAS AN INTENTIONAL ACT BY AN INTELLIGENT DESIGNER ARE SPECIOUS CONJECTURE.
THE ACT OF CELL "DESIGN" HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED IN NATURE ...

Once the scales fall from your eyes and you see the fairy tales for what they are, it is like seeing the source code in the matrix.

 

[Hollie]

We can't explain the cell

What we can't explain is how the cell and all of it's complexity could arise through a natural process.Anyone that believes the cell formed itself are just fooling themselves. The book UR was referring to points out the intricate parts and functions of the cell you either needed miracles or a very intelligent designer. Your natural process would have needed miracles a designer does not need miracles.

The book by Meyer is a humorless joke.

You've never read it so how would know? This is common among blind followers of the Darwinistic religion. They do not search and prove anything for themselves but merely blindly follow the high priests, not questioning any of the dogma that is spoon fed to them as the eagerly lap up the lies.

Oh my. It's back to the angry fundie persona.

Meyer is a hack. Like so many Christian creationist charlatans, he has no degree or advanced study in the field he writes about. That's why he essentially stole the material for his book from Behe.

You are free to sit, slack-jawed and drooling over his nonsense but don't expect the science community to consider his nonsense as anything but what it is: Christian dogma.

 

[Hollie]

Fear what hollie here is your chance to show why your argument is superior.

I just did.

You do you loatheth yourselfeth so mucheth?

As incoherent as so much of your nonsense. Unless you're plagiarizing my posts, you can't compose an understandable sentence.

 

[UltimateReality]

it's you, as nobody but you know what a rope sucker is?

A rope sucker is someone who sucks the cum out of a priest's balls.

thanks! YWC wrote with the great gusto and authority that only first hand experience can convey.

And I'm the one supposedly with the gay slurs?? Look in the mirror twinkle toes.