Creationists

[LOki]

Yep but in the process destroyed the mutation argument.

No, actually that backs it up. What have I told you? Mutations are not beneficial or harmful, they just are. It is the environment that changes. Unbelievable that a scientist, even a physicist would make such an elementary mistake.

Oh it's not a mistake,there is no evidence to suggest mutations cause macro-evolution zero.

Right. Mutation results in a change of genotype; natural selection (with reproductive isolation) results in macro-evolution.

 

[LOki]

Every YWC thread is simply him forcing you to repeat yourself, and re-debunk assessments he made earlier in the thread over and over again until you're bored with it.


Then once you're bored with proving him wrong, he repeats himself again, and declares himself victor.

This isn't my thread

You follow me aronud it's almost like a fatal attraction.

Loki does the same thing.

LOLsome! First this asshat declares that I ignore him, and now he declares I have a "fatal attraction" for him.

His denial of reality is certainly thorough.

 

[LOki]

Hey, it's okay when they do it...when they do it, it's "proof". When we do it, we're stupid bible thumpers.

You're just intellectually dishonest superstitious retards.

 

[LOki]

"It's not a problem because I say so".

See, it's always the same.

Your superstition is the clown; Youwerecreated is the clown-shoes; and your retarded cheer-leading is the clown's squeaky red nose.

 

[LOki]

You still don't get it.

We don't claim that our faith is based upon proof.

But you seem to demand that you have verifiable evidence and valid logic that supports your claim. Your demand is bullshit, of course, yet you (particularly you, koshergrl) make it without bringing said verifiable evidence and valid logic.

You just don't accept the intellectually dishonesty of your intellectual paradigm. While you require no "proof" what-so-ever to claim absolute certainty in the validity of your beliefs, you demand absolute unqualified "proof" to refute your baseless beliefs; and you require that others with competing beliefs produce absolute unqualified "proof" to validate their beliefs.

You asshats validate "evidence" against your conclusion (rather than validating your conclusion against evidence). IOW, if some evidence is inconsistent with your baseless conclusion, you judge it to be invalid without any justification in valid logic or other verifiable evidence. Every bit of evidence and valid logic that refutes your "evidence" is judged invalid because it is inconsistent with your conclusion. For you, disagreement with you is the definition of invalid.

You do.

Untrue. And this has been explained to you repeatedly. Absolute unqualified certainty is not what we claim about out conclusions, nor is it what we require of competing conclusions. We require verifiable evidence and/or valid logic; NOT "proof." Our conclusions are subject to verifiable evidence and/or valid logic; in contrast to you and your superstitious tribe of intellectually dishonest retards who require that their evidence and logic are subject to their conclusion.

But you have no proof.

And your beliefs are baseless in verifiable evidence and valid logic.

 

[koshergrl]

"It's not a problem because I say so".

See, it's always the same.

Your superstition is the clown; Youwerecreated is the clown-shoes; and your retarded cheer-leading is the clown's squeaky red nose.

"There is no God cuz yore dumb!"

 

[koshergrl]

You still don't get it.

We don't claim that our faith is based upon proof.

But you seem to demand that you have verifiable evidence and valid logic that supports your claim. Your demand is bullshit, of course, yet you (particularly you, koshergrl) make it without bringing said verifiable evidence and valid logic.

You just don't accept the intellectually dishonesty of your intellectual paradigm. While you require no "proof" what-so-ever to claim absolute certainty in the validity of your beliefs, you demand absolute unqualified "proof" to refute your baseless beliefs; and you require that others with competing beliefs produce absolute unqualified "proof" to validate their beliefs.

You asshats validate "evidence" against your conclusion (rather than validating your conclusion against evidence). IOW, if some evidence is inconsistent with your baseless conclusion, you judge it to be invalid without any justification in valid logic or other verifiable evidence. Every bit of evidence and valid logic that refutes your "evidence" is judged invalid because it is inconsistent with your conclusion. For you, disagreement with you is the definition of invalid.

You do.

Untrue. And this has been explained to you repeatedly. Absolute unqualified certainty is not what we claim about out conclusions, nor is it what we require of competing conclusions. We require verifiable evidence and/or valid logic; NOT "proof." Our conclusions are subject to verifiable evidence and/or valid logic; in contrast to you and your superstitious tribe of intellectually dishonest retards who require that their evidence and logic are subject to their conclusion.

But you have no proof.

And your beliefs are baseless in verifiable evidence and valid logic.

Look, more lies.

How many times have I said we admit there is no solid evidence that God exists and there never will be? So again, you're a liar.

You morons, on the other hand, pretend you have solid evidence that "proves" the bible is full of lies...when you absolutely don't.

Which is why I don't spend time arguing with you. You post silliness and pass it off as some sort of superior argument and post lies and pretend it's evidence. There's no point. You lie, and there's no arguing with liars. All one can do is point out the lies...which is what I do.

And keep asking the same questions..which are never answered and always precipitate a flurry of ad hominem attacks, other logical fallacies, a flurry of deflections, and more lies.

It's like arguing with retards. Well, it is arguing with retards.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I'm snipping your wall of text again. Please express ideas in your own words concisely.



This is not a significant fact. No product of the imagination is ever used as evidence of facts not know.



Ah, I misunderstood you. I thought you were asking why the fossil ITSELF didn't change, not why it didn't SHOW change.

That's different. The answer is that it does show change.

Again, I'm not going to read through a wall of text. Please explain in your own words, concisely. Give me a few examples of things showing up with dates "much different" from the known date.

Please understand that I'm not denying this can happen. I am simply denying that it presents any significant problem with radioactive dating methods. Reasons why it would happen are known and understood, and the likelihood of them happening is known to be small.

Then you are saying eldredge and gould who came up with the theory of punctuated equilibrium didn't understand the fossil record ?

And many other well educated professors say there are no transitional fossils they don't understand the fossil record either ?

That quote!—about the missing transitional fossils

Punctuated equilibrium is a well known aspect of the modern evolutionary theory. It has since been shown that evolution can happen many different ways. This was not a problem with the fossil record or anything to do with the theory of evolution not being correct. When new evidence was presented, it was incorporated. That is how science works. As far as the last thing, I think they are just seeing what they want to see because everything is transitional.

Punctuated equilibrium came about as a theory because the lack of transitional fossils. The cambrian showed stasis and the same things found in the cambrian are still the same today,why ?

Don't theorize that an organism could survive many consecutive mutations over a short period of time there is no evidence to support this claim besides we know this is not true.

The only way to see immediate morphologoical changes is through crossbreeding.

Explain to me the main way for evolution to happen is through mutations,if all organisms exp mutations how come we are not seeing macro-evolution take place ?

 

[LOki]

You still don't get it.

We don't claim that our faith is based upon proof.

But you seem to demand that you have verifiable evidence and valid logic that supports your claim. Your demand is bullshit, of course, yet you (particularly you, koshergrl) make it without bringing said verifiable evidence and valid logic.

You just don't accept the intellectually dishonesty of your intellectual paradigm. While you require no "proof" what-so-ever to claim absolute certainty in the validity of your beliefs, you demand absolute unqualified "proof" to refute your baseless beliefs; and you require that others with competing beliefs produce absolute unqualified "proof" to validate their beliefs.

You asshats validate "evidence" against your conclusion (rather than validating your conclusion against evidence). IOW, if some evidence is inconsistent with your baseless conclusion, you judge it to be invalid without any justification in valid logic or other verifiable evidence. Every bit of evidence and valid logic that refutes your "evidence" is judged invalid because it is inconsistent with your conclusion. For you, disagreement with you is the definition of invalid.

Untrue. And this has been explained to you repeatedly. Absolute unqualified certainty is not what we claim about out conclusions, nor is it what we require of competing conclusions. We require verifiable evidence and/or valid logic; NOT "proof." Our conclusions are subject to verifiable evidence and/or valid logic; in contrast to you and your superstitious tribe of intellectually dishonest retards who require that their evidence and logic are subject to their conclusion.

But you have no proof.

And your beliefs are baseless in verifiable evidence and valid logic.

Look, more lies.

How many times have I said we admit there is no solid evidence that God exists and there never will be? So again, you're a liar.

I said the same, so how am I lying?

You morons, on the other hand, pretend you have solid evidence that "proves" the bible is full of lies...when you absolutely don't.

The evidence of the patent disparities between Biblical assertions regarding reality, and the verifiable facts of reality have been presented repeatedly.

Consistent with your intellectually dishonest paradigm, every bit of evidence and valid logic that refutes your "evidence" is judged invalid because it is inconsistent with your conclusion. For you, disagreement with you is the definition of invalid.

Which is why I don't spend time arguing with you.

Nonsense. You're just an intellectual coward.

You post silliness and pass it off as some sort of superior argument and post lies and pretend it's evidence.

Prima facie evidence that for you, disagreement with you is the definition of invalid.

There's no point. You lie, and there's no arguing with liars. All one can do is point out the lies...which is what I do.

If this were true, you would have actually pointed out one of these lies; and if you were intellectually honest, you would demonstrate just how they are lies.

And keep asking the same questions..which are never answered and always precipitate a flurry of ad hominem attacks, other logical fallacies, a flurry of deflections, and more lies.

You have earned the ad hominem attacks (which BTW is not the same thing as the logical fallacy of an ad hominem argument), and I have submitted no logical fallacies, deflections or lies that you can identify.

If you did, I would correct them. If you do, I WILL correct them.

It's like arguing with retards. Well, it is arguing with retards.

Another fine example of your pathological projection.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Petitio principii--the foundation of disingenuous retards.

Explain how a natural unintelligent process would think to put the ears,arms,legs,hands,and feet on the right side that is positive for all humans and animals use ?

This question is just ignorant. No one thought anything, how do the clouds know when to rain, how does the wind know when to blow, how does the sun know when to set. This question is on par with that, and also, a little tweaking of your homeobox genes during development would change all that anyway.

Oh boy,calling my question ignorant it's a solid question that you can't explain away let me show you.

How do clouds know when to rain ? How does the wind know when to blow ? You just admitted they are thinking processes that intelligence is behind it.

Unintelligence would not produce whats needed.

If you have a doctor build a car,if you have a carpenter do the work of a doctor,if you have a truck driver fly a plane,what do you think would happen ?

What does intelligence produce ? What would non-intelligence produce ?

 

[LOki]

"It's not a problem because I say so".

See, it's always the same.

Your superstition is the clown; Youwerecreated is the clown-shoes; and your retarded cheer-leading is the clown's squeaky red nose.

"There is no God cuz yore dumb!"

I have repeatedly said (in response to your repeated claims) that we ARE NOT concluding there is no God.

Can you manage to get it right for once?

 

[koshergrl]

You are, however, concluding and pretending there's evidence that proves the bible is in error. Which is essentially calling God a liar, and establishing that he isn't God after all.

And that is a lie.

Actually, I think your statement that you aren't claiming there's no god is a lie as well...after all, you refer to those who have faith as superstitious..if that is not claiming there's no God I don't know what is.

 

[Youwerecreated]

No you haven't.

And ... you have not provided your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this Creator you claim is the source of life on this planet, as I have so clearly and abundantly requested.

I can see you have clearly capitulated.

Chirality is evidence of intelligent design.

I take God at his word he states he has always been and always will be.

Now present your evidence.

No it is not, sorry, we have already been through this.

Chirality is a problem for evolution not only does random mutations have to get it right where thigs belong but random mutations have to make the exact opposite. Most rational human beings would admit this is evidence of design.

 

[Youwerecreated]

No, no it doesn't. But thank you for waving the white flag by not questioning the doctor's findings.

Macroevolution doesn't happen only because of beneficial mutations, I tried getting that through your thick head dozens of pages ago and it seems I failed.

Yes it does

Sometimes, I can not believe the crap you post. No, it does not no matter how much that would back the claims of others you keep citing if it was the truth.

I can't believe the crap you believe.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Petitio principii--the foundation of disingenuous retards.

Explain how a natural unintelligent process would think to put the ears,arms,legs,hands,and feet on the right side that is positive for all humans and animals use ?

On the other side of the coin, why do we need to defacate and urinate? And why do women have to give birth in such a way? Surely an 'intelligent designer' would fix these glitches.

Because we were designed to do the things we do other then sin.

Do most mothers have such a strong bond to those children unless they are loony ? Why?

He designed away to rid the body of waste, so what, he did it with all animals and humans.

 

[LOki]

You are, however, concluding and pretending there's evidence that proves the bible is in error.

There is verifiable evidence of the patent disparities between Biblical assertions regarding reality, and the verifiable facts of reality. The conclusions follow the evidence; there's no pretense at all.

Which is essentially calling God a liar, ...

FUCK NO!!!

It simply does not follow that pointing out the factual inaccuracies in a book of fables written by ignorant rock-chuckers is calling God a liar.

... and establishing that he isn't God after all.

It simply does not follow that pointing out the factual inaccuracies in a book of fables written by ignorant rock-chuckers leads to the conclusion that God is not God.

Seriousy, where do you get your notions of logical fallacy?

That's right: For you, disagreement with you is the definition of invalid.

And that is a lie.

Your emotional rationalizations for accusing others of making assertions that they are not making do not validate your lies.

 

[Youwerecreated]

By the way, your statement that a positive mutation has to be present in "all humans" for "macroevolution" to take place is completely wrong.

If "macroevolution" were to take place in the human species, it would be through a new species branching off from us. The most likely way for this to happen is if a human population were to be isolated from all other humans for a few million years. Conceivably this could happen as a result of space colonization. The different population groups and the different circumstances of life on the other planet would cause the two populations to diverge through evolution. Eventually (but again, we're talking at least a million years) the colony population could be changed enough that it and Earth humans would no longer be interfertile. Whatever mutations had occurred in the colony population would not exist at all in the Earth population, let alone be present in "all humans."

It has to spread through the population to be considered macroevolution.

No, it does not, all it takes is enough genetic variation that successful breeding is not possible anymore.

When we breed we breed out information not in information. Purebreds if you do not bring new lines of genetics of the same breed eventually it would become harmful to the breed. That is why breeders of greyhounds started breeding european greyhounds with american greyhounds. This is a fact.

The reason why things only bring forth offspring of their kind is because they only have the genetic data to produce what they are. It is loony to suggest otherwise. Breeders know what the offspring will be because they know what they're breeding. Same with farmers.

There is tons of evidence that genetics decide what the offspring will be and genetics has always been a problem for evolutionist because they know they have to come up with a way for new information for macro-evolution to be possible and they know humans and animals only possess genetics produce after their kind exactly what the bible states ten times in genesis.

 

[koshergrl]

Look, more lies.

Go figure.

I find it sort of funny that an asshat whose avatar proclaims itself as the "yaweh of mischief" and who has since told a few lies that are verifiable within his last two or three posts, continues to say "I never said that".

You're a liar, in other words. Nothing you say holds any water. And you mistakenly think that your childish and transparent net of words can hide that. You're wrong.

 

[Youwerecreated]

[All snipped except the pertinent part.] [You could have done this yourself if you had understood what you were quoting.]

If left-handed proteins and nucleic acids are necessary for life, then right-handed proteins and DNA will be eliminated by natural selection. There is no need for chirality to occur "randomly." Evolution is not random. This is not a problem.

Then you do not understand genetics. random mutations would have to produce the exact opposite.

Show me a single mutation that has changed the chirality of a protein. You are getting more out there every second.

It's not mutations causing chirality it's our DNA our genetics.

 

[LOki]

Look, more lies.

Go figure.

Quote one.

I find it sort of funny that an asshat whose avatar proclaims itself as the "yaweh of mischief" and who has since told a few lies that are verifiable within his last two or three posts, continues to say "I never said that".

Quote and link please.

You're a liar, in other words. Nothing you say holds any water. And you mistakenly think that your childish and transparent net of words can hide that. You're wrong.

Quote, link, provide some substantive explanation, or abandon all claims to credibility.