Creationists

[UltimateReality]

I do not, actually. But then that probability thing rears its head. People over time have conjured 1000s of creation scenarios. So for one to, by chance, be right, and all the others made up myths, is also highly unlikely, to an astronomical degree.

People have conjured up supermagical, mythical unprovable multiple universe theories to counter the fine tuning by God argument too. They call one myth and the other science. Go figure.

I think that there is a criterion to distinguish science from myth. Individuals who hold competing scientific views in physics attempt to resolve the conflict via experimental observations using telescopes, particle accelerators, and other apparatus. I realize that theoretical physicists are considered the glamour boys of science, but their speculations are considered to be of little value to experimentalists if they don't yield testable hypothesis.

This doesn't stop the materialists sheeple from jumping on the multiverse bandwagon, which is as supernatural as God is.

 

[UltimateReality]

People have conjured up supermagical, mythical unprovable multiple universe theories to counter the fine tuning by God argument too. They call one myth and the other science. Go figure.

I think that there is a criterion to distinguish science from myth. Individuals who hold competing scientific views in physics attempt to resolve the conflict via experimental observations using telescopes, particle accelerators, and other apparatus. I realize that theoretical physicists are considered the glamour boys of science, but their speculations are considered to be of little value to experimentalists if they don't yield testable hypothesis.

We know with certainty that parents reproduce after there own kind. We know organisms only possess the genetic data to reproduce what they are.

And we know intelligent agent directed breeding reaches dead ends. Fundie Evo Materialists think if they ignore this scientific fact it might go away since it shreds proof of natural selections ability to produce people from microbes.

 

[UltimateReality]

When you see possessed people or walk in to a house and witnesses objects being throm across the room when appears to be empty or you here voices and no one is there.

The evidence of precision in nature is strong evidence over believing random chance produced the precision observed in nature.

The bible giving foreknowledge of things not known by man at the time is strong evidence it was inspired by this creator.

What makes you believe the origins of the universe and life was the product of random chance ?

Here is a section from a video, devoted to explaining the importance of the discovery of the Higgs boson, in which a physicist discusses why there is no life after death and also no validity to such assertions as biblical prophecy
TubeChop - Higgs Boson and the Fundamental Nature of Reality - Sean Carroll - Skepticon 5 (01:51)

They discovered the Higgs Boson??? Or a "Higgs Boson-like" particle to appease all the nitwits that wasted HUGE money on the Large Hardon Collider??

 

[Koios]

People have conjured up supermagical, mythical unprovable multiple universe theories to counter the fine tuning by God argument too. They call one myth and the other science. Go figure.

Haha. You actually think that the multi-verse theory was created in order to deal with fine tuning? It wasn't. Multi-verse theory is a natural byproduct of the math in string theory, which itself is an attempt at a unified field theory. It has nothing to do with your silly argument. It just so happens to make sense of it of these cosmological values. The values themselves do not demonstrate a god.

Ah, yeah they do. Or whatever you are calling the cause of the universe. Whatever or whoever caused the universe fine tuned it for life.

Two schools of thought exist: one right; the other merely a convenience, on all questions about the origins of the Universe:

1. We know some stuff, and other stuff we do not know. (right)

2. We know some stuff, and other stuff God does (convenience)

Problem with item 2: God is a diminishing entity with every new scientific discovery, when He is the answer for all shit we do not know. Ergo, He'll diminish to the zero point, eventually, when all or most is known.

 

[UltimateReality]

...since the stroke. That explains a lot!

"One can look at an object and determine by it's function whether it was designed or not."

- Thing is that a man made object can actually be traced back to its creator and he's an actual person that you can touch. I'm still waiting for you to show me the creator of nature...

And I never mentioned chaos ever, so I don't even know what you're talking about.

"Nor can anyone prove it was created billions of years ago."

- So you're admitting that you really have no idea how long it took the earth to form, so you don't believe the opening passage of the bible. Ok. So how about Noah, who said he was 600 years old?

Not really,the stroke only affected balance and eyes. Biologoical design can be traced back to it's designer as well.

What do you think the enviornment was like if the big bang put everything in to motion ? that's right chaos.

I have given my reason for not being sure if things were created by 24 hour periods or what a day is to God.

So you should be able to prove to me who and where nature's creator is.
As for the BB, it's possible that the previous universe ended up contracting to a point that re-exploded, or it could any number of other theories why it happened, maybe the nature of elements make it clump up into what we see today? Was that a purposeful design? Maybe, maybe not. No one's proved it either way yet (I'm agnostic, not atheist).
And you don't believe the word "day" at the bible's start. Ok.

Disproven by SCIENCE years ago. The universe is expanding and speeding up, not slowing down like a ball thrown vertically that falls back to earth.

 

[Hollie]

Which it lacks and can be considered dogma as well. Design is clearly seen in the cell,with God we don't need to believe in miracles but a naturalist believing in naturalism by chance you do need to believe in miracles.

You see "design" as the result of supermagical gawds in the same way you see spirits, spooks, etc. haunting a fantasy world you want to exist.

The creationist canard of "design" (as defined by complex code) in cells is a term coined by William Dembski, another of the frauds representing the Disco 'tute.

The "design" canard repeated by creationists has been refuted thoroughly and frequently.

Here, for example:

A response to Dembski's "Specified Complexity"

A response to Dembski's "Specified Complexity"

by Wesley R. Elsberry

Dembski's analysis fails to be even-handed. Dembski explores how evolutionary computation approaches a solution, but does not show that an intelligent agent can approach any particular problem in a supposedly different manner and escape the problems that Dembski asserts for EC. Specifically, if the probability of producing a solution becomes the relevant CSI metric, the probability of an intelligent agent achieving a solution looks to be just as much a "probability amplifier" as an algorithm.

What this means is that even though with respect to the uniform probability on the phase space the target has exceedingly small probability, the probability for the evolutionary algorithm E to get into the target in m steps is no longer small. And since complexity and improbability are for the purposes of specified complexity parallel notions, this means that even though the target is complex and specified with respect to the uniform probability on the phase space, it remains specified but is no longer complex with respect to the probability induced by evolutionary algorithm E.

[End Quote - WA Dembski, "Specified Complexity", MetaViews 152]

The above shows the kind of bait-and-switch tactic necessary to maintain the illusion that the products of algorithms or natural processes can in principle be distinguished from the products of intelligent agency. When one examines Dembski's technical discussion of "specification", one finds that the complexity is determined from the likelihood of a solution occurring due to the *chance* hypothesis. Here, Dembski swaps that out for the likelihood that the non-chance hypothesis finds the solution. Were this a pinball game, the machine would lock up and flash "TILT!".

The relative probability for assessing the complexity of some solution is given by Dembski on page 145 of TDI as P(E|H), where H is a *chance* hypothesis.

Essentially, what Dembski proves with his analysis of evolutionary computation is not that it cannot produce actual specified complexity, but rather that the bounded complexity measure discussed on page 144 of TDI will show that a problem is solvable by evolutionary computation given a certain limited m steps.



A dose of reality. I'm sure you will not watch these videos but many will that want to see the real arguments.

Those are hardly real arguments.

As expected, you made no attempt to address the refutation to the creationist fallacies furthered by Dembski and the Disco'tute.

Posting silly creationist videos, most of them apparently 1970's vintage, is really a waste of time. They are predictable in their bad analogies, presumptive conclusions and lack of scientific credibility.

 

[UltimateReality]

Funny how the conversation moved away from the mechanisms for evolution.

That dead horse has been beaten to a liquid. How about instead the mechanisms of creation?

Same as your computer. If you are truly interested, you might want to read "Signature in the Cell". So far all of the posters here don't take the time to educate themselves on any opposing viewpoints so that they can speak intelligently about the opposition. They prefer their materialistic religion and they wouldn't change if Christ appeared to them personally. They rather cut and paste from Atheist agenda "science" websites of which they have no true knowledge of what they are even repeating.

The proove everyday in this thread, their goal isn't to seek knowledge, but to attack Christians. Hawly dreams of living in Roman times where she could attend the coliseum and watch Christians get fed to the lions. She is the worst kind of dangerous, bigoted, militant, atheist Lesbian.

 

[Koios]

Not really,the stroke only affected balance and eyes. Biologoical design can be traced back to it's designer as well.

What do you think the enviornment was like if the big bang put everything in to motion ? that's right chaos.

I have given my reason for not being sure if things were created by 24 hour periods or what a day is to God.

So you should be able to prove to me who and where nature's creator is.
As for the BB, it's possible that the previous universe ended up contracting to a point that re-exploded, or it could any number of other theories why it happened, maybe the nature of elements make it clump up into what we see today? Was that a purposeful design? Maybe, maybe not. No one's proved it either way yet (I'm agnostic, not atheist).
And you don't believe the word "day" at the bible's start. Ok.

Disproven by SCIENCE years ago. The universe is expanding and speeding up, not slowing down like a ball thrown vertically that falls back to earth.

Still expanding at an accelerated rate. Came as a surprise, so now we have "dark matter." (unknown force at play)

But that in no way disproves that it might expand to a point and then fall back into itself, as scientists will say is merely one possibility, and Hindu religion posits is God's way.

 

[Hollie]

Funny how the conversation moved away from the mechanisms for evolution.

That dead horse has been beaten to a liquid. How about instead the mechanisms of creation?

Same as your computer. If you are truly interested, you might want to read "Signature in the Cell". So far all of the posters here don't take the time to educate themselves on any opposing viewpoints so that they can speak intelligently about the opposition. They prefer their materialistic religion and they wouldn't change if Christ appeared to them personally. The rather cut and paste from Atheist agenda "science" websites of which they have no true knowledge of what they are even repeating.

It's unfortunate for the angry fundies but Meyer has been roundly refuted as just another Loon from the Disco 'tute, preying upon the gullible and those ignorant of science.

 

[Koios]

Funny how the conversation moved away from the mechanisms for evolution.

That dead horse has been beaten to a liquid. How about instead the mechanisms of creation?

Same as your computer. If you are truly interested, you might want to read "Signature in the Cell". So far all of the posters here don't take the time to educate themselves on any opposing viewpoints so that they can speak intelligently about the opposition. They prefer their materialistic religion and they wouldn't change if Christ appeared to them personally. The rather cut and paste from Atheist agenda "science" websites of which they have no true knowledge of what they are even repeating.

The proove everyday in this thread, their goal isn't to seek knowledge, but to attack Christians. Hawly dreams of living in Roman times where she could attend the coliseum and watch Christians get fed to the lions. She is the worst kind of dangerous, bigoted, militant, atheist Lesbian.

Perhaps. I merely prefer to know stuff, especially what I do not know. (helps with knowing more.)

And indeed, if Christ appeared to me I would want to know if he's there or merely in my imagination (if the latter, some anti-psychotics might be a good idea.) So I'd ask around, and perhaps query, "Hey guys; you seeing what I am?"

So indeed, someone saying they saw Christ, appearing only to them, is something I might worry about (for that individual; mental illness is a terrible thing.) But should JC do Oprah, I'd lead the fucking parade in His honor, and repent my many blasphamies.

In short: thinking is not knowing.

 

[Hollie]

Encyclopedia of American Loons: #276: Stephen Meyer

As we see so often with those shilling for Christian creationist ministries, they so frequently have no formal training in the area of science they presume to lecture others' about.

 

[Hollie]

Funny how the conversation moved away from the mechanisms for evolution.

That dead horse has been beaten to a liquid. How about instead the mechanisms of creation?

Same as your computer. If you are truly interested, you might want to read "Signature in the Cell". So far all of the posters here don't take the time to educate themselves on any opposing viewpoints so that they can speak intelligently about the opposition. They prefer their materialistic religion and they wouldn't change if Christ appeared to them personally. The rather cut and paste from Atheist agenda "science" websites of which they have no true knowledge of what they are even repeating.

The proove everyday in this thread, their goal isn't to seek knowledge, but to attack Christians. Hawly dreams of living in Roman times where she could attend the coliseum and watch Christians get fed to the lions. She is the worst kind of dangerous, bigoted, militant, atheist Lesbian.

Oh my. It seems any disagreement with fundies and refutations of their presumed gawds causes them to lash out like petulant children.

 

[UltimateReality]

Haha. You actually think that the multi-verse theory was created in order to deal with fine tuning? It wasn't. Multi-verse theory is a natural byproduct of the math in string theory, which itself is an attempt at a unified field theory. It has nothing to do with your silly argument. It just so happens to make sense of it of these cosmological values. The values themselves do not demonstrate a god.

Ah, yeah they do. Or whatever you are calling the cause of the universe. Whatever or whoever caused the universe fine tuned it for life.

Two schools of thought exist: one right; the other merely a convenience, on all questions about the origins of the Universe:

1. We know some stuff, and other stuff we do not know. (right)

2. We know some stuff, and other stuff God does (convenience)

Problem with item 2: God is a diminishing entity with every new scientific discovery, when He is the answer for all shit we do not know. Ergo, He'll diminish to the zero point, eventually, when all or most is known.

Yeah, kind of like the universe that He caused. Your ignorance is astounding and devoid of actual scientific and theological implications. With each new scientific discovery we find MORE evidence for God. The big bang really rocked the science community, because at the time, even Einstein believed the universe was eternal. All the while Theists had been saying it had a beginning even though this was opposed to the current scientific thought at the time. Turns out the Bible was right all along and science was wrong. And this wasn't the only instance where the Atheist religion stifled science.

Atheism and the suppression of science - Conservapedia

 

[UltimateReality]

So you should be able to prove to me who and where nature's creator is.
As for the BB, it's possible that the previous universe ended up contracting to a point that re-exploded, or it could any number of other theories why it happened, maybe the nature of elements make it clump up into what we see today? Was that a purposeful design? Maybe, maybe not. No one's proved it either way yet (I'm agnostic, not atheist).
And you don't believe the word "day" at the bible's start. Ok.

Disproven by SCIENCE years ago. The universe is expanding and speeding up, not slowing down like a ball thrown vertically that falls back to earth.

...Came as a surprise, so now we have "dark matter." (unknown force at play)

Wait a second! Are you saying that scientist believe in an unknown force which they can't prove but they can see the effect of? This just proves it is the religion of Materialism driving the bus. Guess you are in it so you are too blind to see it.

 

[UltimateReality]

Encyclopedia of American Loons: #276: Stephen Meyer

As we see so often with those shilling for Christian creationist ministries, they so frequently have no formal training in the area of science they presume to lecture others' about.

We've already discussed the qualifications of the author of this blog yet you still desperately continue to link to it like it has some credibility. You really are pathetic.

 

[UltimateReality]

That dead horse has been beaten to a liquid. How about instead the mechanisms of creation?

Same as your computer. If you are truly interested, you might want to read "Signature in the Cell". So far all of the posters here don't take the time to educate themselves on any opposing viewpoints so that they can speak intelligently about the opposition. They prefer their materialistic religion and they wouldn't change if Christ appeared to them personally. The rather cut and paste from Atheist agenda "science" websites of which they have no true knowledge of what they are even repeating.

The proove everyday in this thread, their goal isn't to seek knowledge, but to attack Christians. Hawly dreams of living in Roman times where she could attend the coliseum and watch Christians get fed to the lions. She is the worst kind of dangerous, bigoted, militant, atheist Lesbian.

Perhaps. I merely prefer to know stuff, especially what I do not know. (helps with knowing more.)

And indeed, if Christ appeared to me I would want to know if he's there or merely in my imagination (if the latter, some anti-psychotics might be a good idea.) So I'd ask around, and perhaps query, "Hey guys; you seeing what I am?"

So indeed, someone saying they saw Christ, appearing only to them, is something I might worry about (for that individual; mental illness is a terrible thing.) But should JC do Oprah, I'd lead the fucking parade in His honor, and repent my many blasphamies.

In short: thinking is not knowing.

So then what is truth? What is really real? You are admitting you can't even tell the difference. Truth, by the way, is ultimate reality. Reality un-tarnished by human prejudice and perception. It's the unpolluted reality of God.

 

[Koios]

Ah, yeah they do. Or whatever you are calling the cause of the universe. Whatever or whoever caused the universe fine tuned it for life.

Two schools of thought exist: one right; the other merely a convenience, on all questions about the origins of the Universe:

1. We know some stuff, and other stuff we do not know. (right)

2. We know some stuff, and other stuff God does (convenience)

Problem with item 2: God is a diminishing entity with every new scientific discovery, when He is the answer for all shit we do not know. Ergo, He'll diminish to the zero point, eventually, when all or most is known.

Yeah, kind of like the universe that He caused. Your ignorance is astounding and devoid of actual scientific and theological implications. With each new scientific discovery we find MORE evidence for God. The big bang really rocked the science community, because at the time, even Einstein believed the universe was eternal. All the while Theists had been saying it had a beginning even though this was opposed to the current scientific thought at the time. Turns out the Bible was right all along and science was wrong. And this wasn't the only instance where the Atheist religion stifled science.

Atheism and the suppression of science - Conservapedia

I'm sure you're right. Good thinking.

Meanwhile, and merely a suggestion: Creationism isn't for us, since it tends to not hold up well to actual science. It's for ya'll, to help you resolve God in face of technology and scientific understanding that challenges many of the earlier myths, you now are moving away from. So I'm cool with it. Hell; it's an evolution in religious thinking, since I'm happy that ya'll are not ignoring entirely sicence and technology, as was hoped by Church leaders during the Age of Enlightenment. (Popes.)

So now, the folks who believe everything is destiny, and that all is God's will (don't go to docs when the kids are dying; fly planes into trade center towers, etc.) are comparitively rare, since once was a time that nearly all believed everything was His will: eclipses, earth quakes, floods, famines. etc. And worse, things like epilepsy were devil-possession, and a fast track to being stoned or burned to death.

Ya'll are coming along nicely. So I'm proud of you.

 

[Hollie]

Ah, yeah they do. Or whatever you are calling the cause of the universe. Whatever or whoever caused the universe fine tuned it for life.

Two schools of thought exist: one right; the other merely a convenience, on all questions about the origins of the Universe:

1. We know some stuff, and other stuff we do not know. (right)

2. We know some stuff, and other stuff God does (convenience)

Problem with item 2: God is a diminishing entity with every new scientific discovery, when He is the answer for all shit we do not know. Ergo, He'll diminish to the zero point, eventually, when all or most is known.

Yeah, kind of like the universe that He caused. Your ignorance is astounding and devoid of actual scientific and theological implications. With each new scientific discovery we find MORE evidence for God. The big bang really rocked the science community, because at the time, even Einstein believed the universe was eternal. All the while Theists had been saying it had a beginning even though this was opposed to the current scientific thought at the time. Turns out the Bible was right all along and science was wrong. And this wasn't the only instance where the Atheist religion stifled science.

Atheism and the suppression of science - Conservapedia

These kinds of bellicose statements wherein you state with 100% assurance and 0% facts that one or more alleged gawds supermagically "poofed" all of existence into place makes you appear to be quite the irrational zealot.

 

[Koios]

Same as your computer. If you are truly interested, you might want to read "Signature in the Cell". So far all of the posters here don't take the time to educate themselves on any opposing viewpoints so that they can speak intelligently about the opposition. They prefer their materialistic religion and they wouldn't change if Christ appeared to them personally. The rather cut and paste from Atheist agenda "science" websites of which they have no true knowledge of what they are even repeating.

The proove everyday in this thread, their goal isn't to seek knowledge, but to attack Christians. Hawly dreams of living in Roman times where she could attend the coliseum and watch Christians get fed to the lions. She is the worst kind of dangerous, bigoted, militant, atheist Lesbian.

Perhaps. I merely prefer to know stuff, especially what I do not know. (helps with knowing more.)

And indeed, if Christ appeared to me I would want to know if he's there or merely in my imagination (if the latter, some anti-psychotics might be a good idea.) So I'd ask around, and perhaps query, "Hey guys; you seeing what I am?"

So indeed, someone saying they saw Christ, appearing only to them, is something I might worry about (for that individual; mental illness is a terrible thing.) But should JC do Oprah, I'd lead the fucking parade in His honor, and repent my many blasphamies.

In short: thinking is not knowing.

So then what is truth? What is really real? You are admitting you can't even tell the difference. Truth, by the way, is ultimate reality. Reality un-tarnished by human prejudice and perception. It's the unpolluted reality of God.

Surely you jest.

 

[UltimateReality]

That dead horse has been beaten to a liquid. How about instead the mechanisms of creation?

Same as your computer. If you are truly interested, you might want to read "Signature in the Cell". So far all of the posters here don't take the time to educate themselves on any opposing viewpoints so that they can speak intelligently about the opposition. They prefer their materialistic religion and they wouldn't change if Christ appeared to them personally. The rather cut and paste from Atheist agenda "science" websites of which they have no true knowledge of what they are even repeating.

The proove everyday in this thread, their goal isn't to seek knowledge, but to attack Christians. Hawly dreams of living in Roman times where she could attend the coliseum and watch Christians get fed to the lions. She is the worst kind of dangerous, bigoted, militant, atheist Lesbian.

Oh my. It seems any disagreement with fundies and refutations of their presumed gawds causes them to lash out like petulant children.

The fundies will kick and scream like petulant children as their dogma assumes a supermagical causation, one which they are utterly unable to present a case for.

That is why you lash out like a petulant child ...

No need to whine like a petulant child. ...

And you are still unable to accept the historical record so you lash out like a petulant child.

In spite of your behavior that rivals a petulant child, I'll be pleased to critique your claims to supernaturalism.

Time for you to get some new buzz words don't you think? I am not a robot. I am not a robot. I am not a robot.