Creationists

[Hollie]

You would not believe the amount of scientists that are searching for evidence of the creator, why ? Because many are seeing the problems with current theories,because just to many gaps they have no chance of filling.

You're right, I would not believe it. What amount of scientists (other than the expected christian creationist pseudo-scientists), are looking for evidence of a "creator".

What "many scientists" (other than the expected christian creationist pseudo-scientists), are seeing the problems with current theories?

What "many gaps they have no chance of filling" are there?

I think you make the mistake of spewing rather broad generalities without knowing what you're talking about.

 

[Hollie]

They go hand and hand

You still have no solid proof of a designer, admit it. You look around you and say: Hey! I can't explain all this, there must be an invisible superbeing designer. You make no sense.

Even dawkins admits there is a good case for design. Didn't you watch that debate I posted of him and Professor Lennox ?

Crick also made similar comments when it came to the genetic code. There is evidence if you want physical evidence or historical evidence then you must look whats out there. Definitely when you get the chance watch the H2 channel. If it's going to take God himself to come to you personally then you might be waiting a while.

Where does Dawkins admit there is a good case for "design"?

 

[Youwerecreated]

You would not believe the amount of scientists that are searching for evidence of the creator, why ? Because many are seeing the problems with current theories,because just to many gaps they have no chance of filling.

So what have they found?

The God gene,and they are searching for the God particle. The hardened evolutionist will spin it though.

 

[Youwerecreated]

There are no miracles needed for life.

You never heard that scientist refer to the origins of life as a miracle or planets and their ailgnments ? Most certainly without a designer you needed miracles.

What I have seen is your propensity to modify, edit and recreate what others have written.

What scientists, (other than christian creationist pseudo-scientists), refer to the origins of life as a "miracle" or planets and their ailgnments as "miracles"?

What you have found is from your atheist sites that alter quotes made by famous scientists.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You still have no solid proof of a designer, admit it. You look around you and say: Hey! I can't explain all this, there must be an invisible superbeing designer. You make no sense.

Even dawkins admits there is a good case for design. Didn't you watch that debate I posted of him and Professor Lennox ?

Crick also made similar comments when it came to the genetic code. There is evidence if you want physical evidence or historical evidence then you must look whats out there. Definitely when you get the chance watch the H2 channel. If it's going to take God himself to come to you personally then you might be waiting a while.

Where does Dawkins admit there is a good case for "design"?

In the video you refused to watch but what he rejects is a personal God,go figure.

 

[Hollie]

Even dawkins admits there is a good case for design. Didn't you watch that debate I posted of him and Professor Lennox ?

Crick also made similar comments when it came to the genetic code. There is evidence if you want physical evidence or historical evidence then you must look whats out there. Definitely when you get the chance watch the H2 channel. If it's going to take God himself to come to you personally then you might be waiting a while.

Where does Dawkins admit there is a good case for "design"?

In the video you refused to watch but what he rejects is a personal God,go figure.

You have an odd fascination with Dawkins.

Your worldview seems to hinge on his singular opinion.

 

[Hollie]

Even dawkins admits there is a good case for design. Didn't you watch that debate I posted of him and Professor Lennox ?

Crick also made similar comments when it came to the genetic code. There is evidence if you want physical evidence or historical evidence then you must look whats out there. Definitely when you get the chance watch the H2 channel. If it's going to take God himself to come to you personally then you might be waiting a while.

Where does Dawkins admit there is a good case for "design"?

In the video you refused to watch but what he rejects is a personal God,go figure.

So, if Dawkins was to consider a personal gawd, would that validate your belief in gawds?

 

[Hollie]

You never heard that scientist refer to the origins of life as a miracle or planets and their ailgnments ? Most certainly without a designer you needed miracles.

What I have seen is your propensity to modify, edit and recreate what others have written.

What scientists, (other than christian creationist pseudo-scientists), refer to the origins of life as a "miracle" or planets and their ailgnments as "miracles"?

What you have found is from your atheist sites that alter quotes made by famous scientists.

Nonsense.

As usual, you're befuddled.

 

[Hollie]

You would not believe the amount of scientists that are searching for evidence of the creator, why ? Because many are seeing the problems with current theories,because just to many gaps they have no chance of filling.

So what have they found?

The God gene,and they are searching for the God particle. The hardened evolutionist will spin it though.

What gawd gene?

Who is "they"?

You just make up this nonsense as you go along.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Where does Dawkins admit there is a good case for "design"?

In the video you refused to watch but what he rejects is a personal God,go figure.

You have an odd fascination with Dawkins.

Your worldview seems to hinge on his singular opinion.

He is not the only one hollie but he is one of the most famous atheistic evolutionists that is actually educated.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Where does Dawkins admit there is a good case for "design"?

In the video you refused to watch but what he rejects is a personal God,go figure.

So, if Dawkins was to consider a personal gawd, would that validate your belief in gawds?

Nope but he does admit to biological things looking designed.

 

[Youwerecreated]

So what have they found?

The God gene,and they are searching for the God particle. The hardened evolutionist will spin it though.

What gawd gene?

Who is "they"?

You just make up this nonsense as you go along.

You are to lazy to look before claiming I make stuff up ? once again you have egg on your face.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/weekinreview/12wade.html?_r=0

 

[Youwerecreated]

Uh oh hollie it's confirmed by God.

Rom. 2:15, "Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another."

The existence of God is written in the human conscience.

Acts 17:23, "For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, To the Unknown God."

Conscience told them that there was a God though they did not know Him personally.

 

[Hollie]

In the video you refused to watch but what he rejects is a personal God,go figure.

So, if Dawkins was to consider a personal gawd, would that validate your belief in gawds?

Nope but he does admit to biological things looking designed.

It seems that you believe Dawkins is becoming your peersonal gawd.

The comment is so silly. What does "looks designed" mean?

 

[Hollie]

Uh oh hollie it's confirmed by God.

Rom. 2:15, "Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another."

The existence of God is written in the human conscience.

Acts 17:23, "For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, To the Unknown God."

Conscience told them that there was a God though they did not know Him personally.

Acts 17:23a, "For thee thouest be a moroon".


Which gawds are written in the human conscience?

I guess Jim Jones and Jimmy Swaggert saw the writing.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Uh oh hollie it's confirmed by God.

Rom. 2:15, "Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another."

The existence of God is written in the human conscience.

Acts 17:23, "For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, To the Unknown God."

Conscience told them that there was a God though they did not know Him personally.

Acts 17:23a, "For thee thouest be a moroon".



Which gawds are written in the human conscience?

I guess Jim Jones and Jimmy Swaggert saw the writing.

Hollie Gods laws are written in all hearts and minds. All people at some point in their life question themselves on the existence of God.

Some allow their conscience to be warped.

 

[Hollie]

In the video you refused to watch but what he rejects is a personal God,go figure.

You have an odd fascination with Dawkins.

Your worldview seems to hinge on his singular opinion.

He is not the only one hollie but he is one of the most famous atheistic evolutionists that is actually educated.

Well then. He being one of the most famous atheistic evolutionists means you had better pray at the altar of Dawkins.

Being one of the most famous atheistic evolutionists does carry quite a responsibility.

So tell us, who would you bestow the title of being the famous religious evolutionist? Or is there such an entity? Would that term be an oxymoron or would you consider such an entity to be just a mere pedsetrian moron?

 

[Hollie]

The God gene,and they are searching for the God particle. The hardened evolutionist will spin it though.

What gawd gene?

Who is "they"?

You just make up this nonsense as you go along.

You are to lazy to look before claiming I make stuff up ? once again you have egg on your face.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/weekinreview/12wade.html?_r=0

That's so silly. What does that have to do with genes? I think you misread - jeans.

 

[Hollie]

Uh oh hollie it's confirmed by God.

Rom. 2:15, "Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another."

The existence of God is written in the human conscience.

Acts 17:23, "For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, To the Unknown God."

Conscience told them that there was a God though they did not know Him personally.

Acts 17:23a, "For thee thouest be a moroon".



Which gawds are written in the human conscience?

I guess Jim Jones and Jimmy Swaggert saw the writing.

Hollie Gods laws are written in all hearts and minds. All people at some point in their life question themselves on the existence of God.

Some allow their conscience to be warped.

I see your dilemma. Your mind has been warped by christian creationist ministries.

 

[Hollie]

Casey’s Creationist Christmas

Casey's Creationist Christmas - The Panda's Thumb

This guest post is written by Paul Braterman and Mark Edon, and appears courtesy of the British Centre for Science Education. BCSE : Home Page

BCSE has long maintained that the Seattle-based Discovery Institute (DI), of which Glasgow’s own Centre for Intelligent Design (C4ID) seems to be a satellite, is a religiously motivated Creationist organisation. Casey Luskin has now demonstrated this with great clarity in his response, (British Center for Science Education Admits Alliance with Religious Believers Is Strictly to Gain "Tactical Advantage" - Evolution News & Views) in the misleadingly titled Evolution News and Views (“Serving the Intelligent Design Community&#8221, to the recent opinion piece “Anti-Creationists need to think about tactics”, which we recently posted on our site. Thanks Casey.

As our title and opening words make clear, our piece is addressed by us, as individual nonbelievers, to other nonbelievers, giving our reasons for cooperating with believers in defending science against Creationism. It does not even mention DI, or C4ID, or Intelligent Design. Nonetheless, Casey seems to find our piece relevant to his mission. Perhaps his concern with religion is not surprising, since the foundation document (http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.pdf) of DI’s Centre for Science and Culture gives the restoration of a “theistic understanding” as a core objective. As for Intelligent Design, few people can still believe the pretence that it is anything more than a cover for Creationism (in the strict sense of the term as applied to biological diversity), but it is good to see our thoughts on these matters so authoritatively confirmed.

There are many more reasons why being attacked by Casey has been compared to being savaged by a dead sheep. Here are a few of them (remember here that Casey is a trained lawyer, and has published on law in an internationally recognised journal, so presumably he has read what he refers to and means what he says about it):

...


For those of you unfamiliar with the background, here are a few pointers. The Discovery Institute is a religiously driven Crypto-Creationist group pushing a stripped down and camouflaged version of Creationism called Intelligent Design. This approach was hastily adopted for legal reasons in the US, where schools in the public sector are not allowed to promote religion, when Creationism and later Creation Science were ruled in the courts to be religious, not scientific, doctrines.

Creationist tactics rest upon three pillars. The first of these is that Evolution is in fact Atheism and that this whole political fight is one of Christians versus Atheists. No wonder Casey refers to BCSE as secular and humanist.

We talk about this fact in the very piece that Casey is attacking. We mention that there are two reasons Creationists adopt this tactic. First of all the conflict narrative is effective for the recruitment and retention of Creationists to their cause, as to any cause that involves a conspiracy theory. Secondly the conflict narrative is used to move the public debate away from “Creationism is daft” to genuine Atheist versus Christian issues. Creationists know that by framing the debate in such terms, they have a far greater chance of obtaining mainstream support.