Creationists

[Youwerecreated]

If any of you watched the video Professor Lennox exposed dawkins to what his argument was hung on the same thing PretentiousGuy is hung up on, knowing something was designed you must be able to explain the designer. When you look at your watch you know it was designed,do you have to explain the designer to know the watch was designed ?

Those silly videos are amateurish and contrived.

Your denial of reality is noted. Don't you get tired of getting your empty accusations exposed ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

ALERT!!! For simpletons only!

There's no proof here, just the same old, same old.

Both sides admit to design but one side withdraws in to myth and fantasy to explain the evidence.

Nonsense. Science does not recognize the Christian gawds (or any supermagical entity) as a "designer".

No they admit to design but reject the thought that the design they admit to was the work of a creat even though they have no evidence to come to that conclusion.

 

[Youwerecreated]

A high school diploma is enough substance to discredit any notion of creationism ever put forth.

Only if you subscribe to myth, fantasy and conjecture.

Only cult fundies would define the entirety of science as a conspiracy.

Myth, fantasy and conjecture are on display,it's not a conspiracy.

 

[ima]

What is the teleological argument for the existence of God?

ALERT!!! For simpletons only!

There's no proof here, just the same old, same old.

Both sides admit to design but one side withdraws in to myth and fantasy to explain the evidence.

All it shows is the possibility it was designed, but no proof of anything, as usual, has been demonstrated to show a designer.

 

[Youwerecreated]

ALERT!!! For simpletons only!

There's no proof here, just the same old, same old.

Both sides admit to design but one side withdraws in to myth and fantasy to explain the evidence.

All it shows is the possibility it was designed, but no proof of anything, as usual, has been demonstrated to show a designer.

This is a start Ima,"the possibility". Now answer why there is a possibility ?

 

[ima]

Both sides admit to design but one side withdraws in to myth and fantasy to explain the evidence.

All it shows is the possibility it was designed, but no proof of anything, as usual, has been demonstrated to show a designer.

This is a start Ima,"the possibility". Now answer why there is a possibility ?

I'm an agnostic defined for myself as someone who sees no proof of a creator but doesn't close the door to changing my mind if I actually see some proof. And not some vague and douche: look! It's a tree! It was created!

 

[Hollie]

If any of you watched the video Professor Lennox exposed dawkins to what his argument was hung on the same thing PretentiousGuy is hung up on, knowing something was designed you must be able to explain the designer. When you look at your watch you know it was designed,do you have to explain the designer to know the watch was designed ?

Those silly videos are amateurish and contrived.

Your denial of reality is noted. Don't you get tired of getting your empty accusations exposed ?

What accusation was exposed? I'm merely suggesting that your empty claims to a version of partisan gawds are no better defined than any others' claims to supermagical gawds.

Your lack of ability to offer any demonstration of your gawds is what has been exposed -

 

[Youwerecreated]

All it shows is the possibility it was designed, but no proof of anything, as usual, has been demonstrated to show a designer.

This is a start Ima,"the possibility". Now answer why there is a possibility ?

I'm an agnostic defined for myself as someone who sees no proof of a creator but doesn't close the door to changing my mind if I actually see some proof. And not some vague and douche: look! It's a tree! It was created!

You see all the proof around you,you're just not open yet to the idea of a creator.

 

[Hollie]

Only if you subscribe to myth, fantasy and conjecture.

Only cult fundies would define the entirety of science as a conspiracy.

Myth, fantasy and conjecture are on display,it's not a conspiracy.

Do you realize that you define reality in terms of supermagical entities who inhabit spirit worlds created by a hierarchy of other supernatural gawds?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Those silly videos are amateurish and contrived.

Your denial of reality is noted. Don't you get tired of getting your empty accusations exposed ?

What accusation was exposed? I'm merely suggesting that your empty claims to a version of partisan gawds are no better defined than any others' claims to supermagical gawds.

Your lack of ability to offer any demonstration of your gawds is what has been exposed -

Just go back and look at the accusations that you and daws directed at me and you and he were either delibrately trying to make me look like a creationist nut while knowing the truth. Why would you resort to those tactics ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Only cult fundies would define the entirety of science as a conspiracy.

Myth, fantasy and conjecture are on display,it's not a conspiracy.

Do you realize that you define reality in terms of supermagical entities who inhabit spirit worlds created by a hierarchy of other supernatural gawds?

That is called faith hollie in what I read in the scriptures,however seeing design in nature is faith through evidence.The question remains who is the designer ?

 

[ima]

This is a start Ima,"the possibility". Now answer why there is a possibility ?

I'm an agnostic defined for myself as someone who sees no proof of a creator but doesn't close the door to changing my mind if I actually see some proof. And not some vague and douche: look! It's a tree! It was created!

You see all the proof around you,you're just not open yet to the idea of a creator.

No, you're the one who imagines a creator, when in fact, you have no proof of such a creator. Speculation isn't proof. You can only pretend to know why and how the universe came to be. At this point in time, we don't have the answers yet.

 

[Hollie]

Myth, fantasy and conjecture are on display,it's not a conspiracy.

Do you realize that you define reality in terms of supermagical entities who inhabit spirit worlds created by a hierarchy of other supernatural gawds?

That is called faith hollie in what I read in the scriptures,however seeing design in nature is faith through evidence.The question remains who is the designer ?

This is called delusion.

The question remains, define the hierarchy of designer gawds who designed your particular gawds.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I'm an agnostic defined for myself as someone who sees no proof of a creator but doesn't close the door to changing my mind if I actually see some proof. And not some vague and douche: look! It's a tree! It was created!

You see all the proof around you,you're just not open yet to the idea of a creator.

No, you're the one who imagines a creator, when in fact, you have no proof of such a creator. Speculation isn't proof. You can only pretend to know why and how the universe came to be. At this point in time, we don't have the answers yet.

Evidence of design is not imaginary.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Do you realize that you define reality in terms of supermagical entities who inhabit spirit worlds created by a hierarchy of other supernatural gawds?

That is called faith hollie in what I read in the scriptures,however seeing design in nature is faith through evidence.The question remains who is the designer ?

This is called delusion.

The question remains, define the hierarchy of designer gawds who designed your particular gawds.

Once again you avoid my questions have a good day.

 

[ima]

You see all the proof around you,you're just not open yet to the idea of a creator.

No, you're the one who imagines a creator, when in fact, you have no proof of such a creator. Speculation isn't proof. You can only pretend to know why and how the universe came to be. At this point in time, we don't have the answers yet.

Evidence of design is not imaginary.

Evidence of a designer is.

 

[Hollie]

That is called faith hollie in what I read in the scriptures,however seeing design in nature is faith through evidence.The question remains who is the designer ?

This is called delusion.

The question remains, define the hierarchy of designer gawds who designed your particular gawds.

Once again you avoid my questions have a good day.

What question was avoided? You presume designer gawds are inhabiting some spirit world which you cannot define, cannot access and have no means of demonstrating. I can't be held responsible for your hurt feelings when you insist that others are under some imagined requirement of yours to believe outlandish and totally unsupported claims.

 

[Hollie]

Why Gauger’s green-screened ‘lab’ is an appropriate target of ridicule

Why Gauger's green-screened 'lab' is an appropriate target of ridicule - The Panda's Thumb

Douglas Axe and Ann Gauger, both of the BioLogic Institute, have put out a series of videos summarizing some of the content of “Science and Human Origins.” They attempt to undermine the case for common descent, and in particular the descent of humans from non-human ancestors.

John Harshman, in comments on my posts on the use of a commercial stock photo of a lab as a background for Ann Gauger’s blather about “… a hidden secret in population genetics and in evolution,” argued that the focus on the green-screening diverts attention from the real issue, which is her mangling of the science. While John is right that setting the record straight on the science is important, it’s also the case that the green-screening is but one aspect of a larger effort on the part of the Disco ‘Tute to erode public confidence in ‘mainstream’ science. And that effort is what underpins the newest strategy of the Disco ‘Tute and its fellow travelers, which is to promote legislation embodying so-called “academic freedom” for public school teachers who want to teach creationism and intelligent design see here: (Academic Freedom bills - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia for an overview and here: The Fraud of Academic Freedom | NCSE for a Barbara Forrest video on it).

The “science” in the Axe/Gauger/Luskin book “Science and Human Origins” was eviscerated by Paul McBride (see here: Paul McBride's review of the Disco 'Tute's "Science and Human Origins" - The Panda's Thumb for pointers to the six posts of McBride’s evisceration). Commenters on several blogs have critiqued the representation of the science in a couple of the videos. But is the green-screen issue irrelevant? Nope.

 

[Hollie]

Myth, fantasy and conjecture are on display,it's not a conspiracy.

Do you realize that you define reality in terms of supermagical entities who inhabit spirit worlds created by a hierarchy of other supernatural gawds?

That is called faith hollie in what I read in the scriptures,however seeing design in nature is faith through evidence.The question remains who is the designer ?

Why do you keep avoiding the questions regarding what in the natural world requires designer gawds?

You claim to see "design" yet you are unable to identify a single thing in nature that requires design. Design would imply one or more supernatural / supermagical "designers" yet you are unable and unwilling to demonstrate these "designers" or what they have "designed".

 

[Hollie]

Your denial of reality is noted. Don't you get tired of getting your empty accusations exposed ?

What accusation was exposed? I'm merely suggesting that your empty claims to a version of partisan gawds are no better defined than any others' claims to supermagical gawds.

Your lack of ability to offer any demonstration of your gawds is what has been exposed -

Just go back and look at the accusations that you and daws directed at me and you and he were either delibrately trying to make me look like a creationist nut while knowing the truth. Why would you resort to those tactics ?

Well, you are a creationist nut.

I have a history of your nutty claims with which to make that assessment.