Creationists

[daws101]

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.

I have never denied using any means necessary to make my point.
you on the other hand are completely dishonest and deceptive about your usage of derogatory language...making your comment a contradiction.

 

[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.

I think the fundie creationists are hoping that the infidels are missing the point that the ID’iot movement is a religious/political movement at heart, with any allusions to science being window dressing. These ID’iots want Christian prayer and the Christian gawds in school. Portraying their gawds as supported by science is merely the current means to that end. ID’iosy is clearly not some ‘science gone wrong’ due to unfortunate religious entanglement. Religious entanglement was always, and is now, what ID’iosy is about.

That’s the whole point of the movement.

 

[Hollie]

The disappearing Disco ‘Tute

The disappearing Disco 'Tute - The Panda's Thumb

An interesting pattern of Discovery Institute behavior has become evident in several events over the last 8 years. It’s a hit and run tactic, with emphasis on the “run.” In at least four significant instances of attempts to jam intelligent design creationism or one of its semantic equivalents into an educational context, the Disco ‘Tute was involved early in the process, providing aid and comfort to the local ID Creationism pushers. But later when push came to shove, the Disco ‘Tute backed out, abandoning their local proxies to the courts and the voters. I’ll briefly describe the four instances (Ohio State BOE; Mt. Vernon, OH, Dover, PA; and Darby, MO) I have in mind below the fold, highlighting the Disco ‘Tute’s style of participation.

 

[Hollie]

Does the intelligent design movement need to be demolished and rebuilt?

Does the intelligent design movement need to be demolished and rebuilt? - The Panda's Thumb

The intelligent design (ID) movement has been around for over 20 years, and few (if any) of its stated and implied goals and plans: The Wedge Strategy - Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture
have thus far come to fruition. While contributing factors to this lack of success are certainly the hard work of the scientific community and its friends, as well as the fact that ID has never been adequately formulated as a scientific idea, a significant proportion of the responsibility for the outcome should be laid upon the ID movement itself. It has, in arguably many respects, acted in the exact opposite way that it should have acted if it wanted to be taken seriously - only one example of which is bringing up religion whilst simultaneously claiming that they weren’t and then chastising critics who pointed out what they were doing.

It’s hard to find an ID proponent who will admit this. Like many movements, the one constructed around ID is insular, mistrusting and lacks introspection, and it spends most of its time on attacking “the Darwinist enemy” in academia instead of really thinking about what it’s doing. This is understandable, considering it’s been relentlessly criticised by the scientific community ever since it poked its head up out of the carcass of creation science, rendering it in a somewhat-perpetual state of defensiveness. Those few proponents who can somehow forget the fact that nearly every biologist in the world would laugh about their ideas to their face given the chance still attack evolutionary biology with unparalleled confidence, which bolsters the morale of those in the Internet trenches: and thus the movement continues. Even with its “Darwinist conspiracy” mindset, it still thinks it’s winning. But it’s not. Not by a long shot.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Life comes from living organisms scientific fact.

wrong! LIFE is living organisms that's a scientific fact.
not the other way around.
life as we know it is a process...living things reproduce ..that's what they do.
it is not however an answer to how life got started.
that's also a scientific fact.
as usual all you did was attempt and fail to put a supernatural spin on the obvious.

If there are no living organisms you have no reproduction,are you such a tool to deny the obvious ? The only one putting a spin on what was said was you.

 

[PretentiousGuy]

Life comes from living organisms scientific fact.

No it isn't... Abiogenesis?

 

[UltimateReality]

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.

There is no need to read it...

You must be psycho, er, I mean psychic.

 

[UltimateReality]

not an answer .

Definition of PARANOIA
1: a psychosis characterized by systematized delusions of persecution or grandeur usually without hallucinations
2: a tendency on the part of an individual or group toward excessive or irrational suspiciousness and distrustfulness of others

the only posters that display that definition are you and detective douche bag.

Yep fits you perfectly.

your answer is "a psychosis characterized by systematized delusions of persecution or grandeur usually without hallucinations "

Dawsy loath thyself.

 

[UltimateReality]

I am addressing his arguments, not him as a person. Logic 101.

Is that not what I just said. Is a person ignorant if they argue from the origins of ignorance ?

No. Study some logic, please. The validity and soundness of a persons arguments have nothing to do with the person. Arguments stand or fall on their own merits....

Really?!?!?! You should take your own advice

 

[UltimateReality]

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!!

My statement was completely true. Behe takes the position "irreducible complexity", which is really nothing more than intellectual bankruptcy. The entire position relies on the premise: “it’s too complex to have occurred naturally, therefore the gawds did it”.

Wrong! IC claims that intricate structures couldn't evolved according to Darwinism by developing gradually because they can only function as a whole, complex structure. It doesn't say anything about God. As usual you don't know what the fudge you are talking about. An unborn baby is even irreducibly complex because it has to be assembled and developed completely inside the mother before being viable and able to survive.

That’s precisely the thrust of Meyer’s book.

No it isn't you imbecile!! Meyers book has nothing to do with irreducible complexity. This post is so stupid and aggregious it shows how completely uninformed your atheist agenda hate websites are because try to tear down ID theories from a complete point of ignorance. And of course you fall in lock step with them without finding out for yourself. Your ignorance and unwillingness to seek out the truth on your own speaks volumes and I just really over it. I don't think I can take your utter stupidity for one more second.

It works for simpletons such as Christian creationists because they have an overriding need to believe it.

The Christian creationist industry refuses to recognize the scientific validity of biological evolution and contemporary evolutionary theory because science clashes with Christian dogma. And it is specifically, Christian dogma. There is no other religion that clings as tightly to the pro-ignorance, pro-fear, pro-superstition and anti-science mantra as Christian creationists.

Yes there is. You supermagical self loathing darwin faith.

 

[UltimateReality]

Does the intelligent design movement need to be demolished and rebuilt?

Does the intelligent design movement need to be demolished and rebuilt? - The Panda's Thumb

The intelligent design (ID) movement has been around for over 20 years, and few (if any) of its stated and implied goals and plans: The Wedge Strategy - Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture
have thus far come to fruition. While contributing factors to this lack of success are certainly the hard work of the scientific community and its friends, as well as the fact that ID has never been adequately formulated as a scientific idea, a significant proportion of the responsibility for the outcome should be laid upon the ID movement itself. It has, in arguably many respects, acted in the exact opposite way that it should have acted if it wanted to be taken seriously - only one example of which is bringing up religion whilst simultaneously claiming that they weren’t and then chastising critics who pointed out what they were doing.

It’s hard to find an ID proponent who will admit this. Like many movements, the one constructed around ID is insular, mistrusting and lacks introspection, and it spends most of its time on attacking “the Darwinist enemy” in academia instead of really thinking about what it’s doing. This is understandable, considering it’s been relentlessly criticised by the scientific community ever since it poked its head up out of the carcass of creation science, rendering it in a somewhat-perpetual state of defensiveness. Those few proponents who can somehow forget the fact that nearly every biologist in the world would laugh about their ideas to their face given the chance still attack evolutionary biology with unparalleled confidence, which bolsters the morale of those in the Internet trenches: and thus the movement continues. Even with its “Darwinist conspiracy” mindset, it still thinks it’s winning. But it’s not. Not by a long shot.

How about a non-biased website that promotes real science blind disciple?

 

[UltimateReality]

YWC and Lonestar,

It is with much regret I inform you that I am no longer going to subject myself to the frustration of dealing with the liars and complete imbeciles that populate this thread. This thread degenerated from an actual scientific discussion many pages ago. I will not endure the sick, perverted posts of the sexual deviant Daws anymore. No longer will I subject myself to the stupidity and lack of understanding of logic of NP and his baseless fallacy accusations. Nor will I appeal to his ignorance and lack of understanding of deductive and inductive reasoning, and how they apply to his own materialist worldview.

And finally, this last page is a prime example of what a complete and utter moron Hawly is and only a fool would continue to beat his head against the wall in an attempt to actually pull even one, count it, one remotely intelligent thought out of his/her bigoted head. It is impossible for me to behave in a manner pleasing to God when dealing with such continued blatant stupidity, and moronic, repetitive cut and pasted propaganda. How can you even argue with someone that doesn't even know what it is they are arguing and blatantly lies like as evidenced by her completely ignorant comments about Irreducible Complexity and Meyer's book above? It is an exercise in futility and frustration to even get him/her to stay on topic, and only a saint would be able to deal with such incompetent arrogance and continue to remain Christ-like.

I will check back occasionally to see if anyone who can actually present a logical, opposing argument or who desires to engage in a friendly, civil debate has shown up. But I will not endure the prejudicial, bigoted, and utterly devoid of logic attacks from these clowns anymore.

Good luck guys and God Bless. And for the rest of you, may God have mercy on your souls. Peace out.

 

[Hollie]

YWC and Lonestar,

It is with much regret I inform you that I am no longer going to subject myself to the frustration of dealing with the liars and complete imbeciles that populate this thread. This thread degenerated from an actual scientific discussion many pages ago. I will not endure the sick, perverted posts of the sexual deviant Daws anymore. No longer will I subject myself to the stupidity and lack of understanding of logic of NP and his baseless fallacy accusations. Nor will I appeal to his ignorance and lack of understanding of deductive and inductive reasoning, and how they apply to his own materialist worldview.

And finally, this last page is a prime example of what a complete and utter moron Hawly is and only a fool would continue to beat his head against the wall in an attempt to actually pull even one, count it, one remotely intelligent thought out of his/her bigoted head. It is impossible for me to behave in a manner pleasing to God when dealing with such continued blatant stupidity, and moronic, repetitive cut and pasted propaganda. How can you even argue with someone that doesn't even know what it is they are arguing and blatantly lies like as evidenced by her completely ignorant comments about Irreducible Complexity and Meyer's book above? It is an exercise in futility and frustration to even get him/her to stay on topic, and only a saint would be able to deal with such incompetent arrogance and continue to remain Christ-like.

I will check back occasionally to see if anyone who can actually present a logical, opposing argument or who desires to engage in a friendly, civil debate has shown up. But I will not endure the prejudicial, bigoted, and utterly devoid of logic attacks from these clowns anymore.

Good luck guys and God Bless. And for the rest of you, may God have mercy on your souls. Peace out.

Why did you need gargantuan fonts to post that weepy-eyed homage to your fruitless attempt at stalking me? You're as creepy as ever offering such melodrama and then slithering away. But then again, you've made these melodramatic pronouncements before, you silly, teenage drama queen.

 

[Hollie]

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!!

My statement was completely true. Behe takes the position "irreducible complexity", which is really nothing more than intellectual bankruptcy. The entire position relies on the premise: “it’s too complex to have occurred naturally, therefore the gawds did it”.

Wrong! IC claims that intricate structures couldn't evolved according to Darwinism by developing gradually because they can only function as a whole, complex structure. It doesn't say anything about God. As usual you don't know what the fudge you are talking about. An unborn baby is even irreducibly complex because it has to be assembled and developed completely inside the mother before being viable and able to survive.

That’s precisely the thrust of Meyer’s book.

No it isn't you imbecile!! Meyers book has nothing to do with irreducible complexity. This post is so stupid and aggregious it shows how completely uninformed your atheist agenda hate websites are because try to tear down ID theories from a complete point of ignorance. And of course you fall in lock step with them without finding out for yourself. Your ignorance and unwillingness to seek out the truth on your own speaks volumes and I just really over it. I don't think I can take your utter stupidity for one more second.

It works for simpletons such as Christian creationists because they have an overriding need to believe it.

The Christian creationist industry refuses to recognize the scientific validity of biological evolution and contemporary evolutionary theory because science clashes with Christian dogma. And it is specifically, Christian dogma. There is no other religion that clings as tightly to the pro-ignorance, pro-fear, pro-superstition and anti-science mantra as Christian creationists.

Yes there is. You supermagical self loathing darwin faith.

I see the issue you face in being confused as to what the pseudoscience of Christian creationism actually proposes.

From wiki:

Irreducible complexity (IC) is an argument by proponents of intelligent design that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler, or "less complete" predecessors, through natural selection acting upon a series of advantageous naturally occurring, chance mutations. [1] The argument is central to intelligent design, and is rejected by the scientific community at large, [2] which overwhelmingly regards intelligent design as pseudoscience. [3] Irreducible complexity is one of two main arguments used by intelligent design proponents, the other being specified complexity. [4]

Clearly, one of the issues facing the Flatl Earth worldview is that the fundies at the helm of the good ship "stupid" can't even further a consistent definition of the fear and ignorance they promote.

 

[Hollie]

YWC and Lonestar,

It is with much regret I inform you that I am no longer going to subject myself to the frustration of dealing with the liars and complete imbeciles that populate this thread. This thread degenerated from an actual scientific discussion many pages ago. I will not endure the sick, perverted posts of the sexual deviant Daws anymore. No longer will I subject myself to the stupidity and lack of understanding of logic of NP and his baseless fallacy accusations. Nor will I appeal to his ignorance and lack of understanding of deductive and inductive reasoning, and how they apply to his own materialist worldview.

What "scientific discussion" are you whining about? There was never any factual, peer reviewed data offered in support of Christian claims to supermagical intervention by the gawds. The entirety of the Christian creationist agenda is to cast doubt on the science data. Your silly conspiracy theories of a worldwide conglomeration of scientists and academics who were conspiring to manufacture data supporting evolutionary science is laughable.

For all your sweaty, chest- heaving attempts to denigrate science, you were never able to provide even a shred of evidence in support of your imagined gawds.

 

[Hollie]

The Disco ‘Tute’s fake laboratory

The Disco 'Tute's fake laboratory - The Panda's Thumb


This deserves its own post. Yesterday I pointed to a post at Larry Moran’s Sandwalk about a Discovery Institute video showing Ann Gauger, a “researcher” at the Disco ‘Tute’s BioLogic Institute, in which she mangles phylogenetics and population genetics. Commenters on Youtube and both Sandwalk and here have identified the laboratory in which Gauger was supposedly speaking. It is a stock photograph from a commercial photo site. It’s a green screen job, which is a peculiarly appropriate method by which to present the DI’s pseudoscience.

Fake lab, fake science.

Can we say “pathetic”?

 

[Hollie]

Still more fun: Douglas Axe’s Crocoduck

Still more fun: Douglas Axe's Crocoduck - The Panda's Thumb

By Richard B. Hoppe

In addition to being the bananaman, Ray Comfort is the co-popularizer of the crocoduck. Comfort believes that because modern biology shows that birds are descended from theropod ancestors, there must be a transitional form between extant birds and extant reptiles; hence a half-crocodile, half-duck. Here’s the video in which Comfort’s ex-child actor sidekick Kirk Cameron made that claim.

That general false claim–the claim that evolution predicts that there must be an evolutionary pathway directly linking two extant organisms or extant biological structures–is not unique to creationist loons, though. Doug Axe has posted a response to Paul McBride’s review of “Science and Human Origins” on ENV, and has disabled comments on his post. I won’t elaborate, but will note that an amusing part of Axe’s response is this:

Ann [Gauger] and I conducted experiments to find out how many changes would have to occur in a particular enzyme X in order for it to begin performing the function of another enzyme, Y. We found that they are too numerous for unguided evolution to have accomplished this transformation, even with the benefits of a massive bacterial population and billions of years. Having carefully made the case that our chosen X and Y are appropriate for the aims of our study, we think this result has catastrophic implications for Darwinism.

As has been shown, though, the research that Axe cites, The Evolutionary Accessibility of New Enzymes Functions: A Case Study from the Biotin Pathway, does not test an evolutionary hypothesis. By studying whether one extant enzyme in a family of enzymes could have evolved from another extant enzyme in the same family, when the evolutionary account is actually that both evolved from a common ancestor, Gauger and Axe are making precisely the same error that Comfort and Cameron made: the notion that “common descent” means that related extant populations evolved from each other, rather than from a common ancestral population. That about equivalent to claiming that common descent means that I am descended from my cousin Keith.

Even young-earth creationist biochemist Todd Wood rebutted that particular claim more than a year ago.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Life comes from living organisms scientific fact.

No it isn't... Abiogenesis?

Abiogenesis theory is a theory filled with conjecture lacks any real evidence that would support the theory. Many famous evolutionist avoid using this theory as an answer to the origins question. There is a reason for that as I stated.

 

[ima]

Life comes from living organisms scientific fact.

No it isn't... Abiogenesis?

Abiogenesis theory is a theory filled with conjecture lacks any real evidence that would support the theory. Many famous evolutionist avoid using this theory as an answer to the origins question. There is a reason for that as I stated.

Says the guy who can't show me with some real evidence where his invisible superbeing is. Man, you're such an idiot.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Yeah I think I am gonna join UR they can't even be honest with themselves they will never be honest with us.