Creationists

[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?

Beat a dead horse,now that is funny we only scratched the surface on mutations. I was still waiting for your explanation as to where this new genetic data comes from that benefits the organism for fitness.

I would like you to list every known beneficial mutation that has been observed you can come up with absent of a conjecture filled explanation.

Plant world: flowering

Animal world: social insects

 

[Koios]

Creationist also have an explanation for the imperfection that we see it is punishment for the origional sin. We are not living in a perfect world any longer but we can still see work of the creator.

They used to be able to easily explain shit away. Poor crop? Must be god's not happy. Sacrifice a virgin, or 12, and it'll be okie doke.

Today they have a harder time, since new knowledge comes along and then proves obvious to all ... i.e that foolish Chuck Darwin fella. From apes??? How stupid is that???

Oops. Seems there are similarities, not to mention that Lucy bitch they dug up in East Africa. Mutherfucker.

But don't tell me the creepy crawly things became us!!! That's just fucking lunacy!!! Oops. Septapods do have a common ancestor, and DNA shows when we branched off. So yeah; that tree thing might be right.

But no big bang!!! That's just made up shit by retards who don't know God did it by power of just wanting it, and us!!! Oops. Background radiation? Fuck. Okay; big bang happened.

But no way we could have anything as perfect as the human eye without some really, really smart god making us!!! And those retards drinking the science koolaid cannot show where eyes, PROOF OF GOD'S PERFECTION!!!, evolved. Well goddamnit! Fuck me with a King James Version, they have that too.

Well, and this is final, and so fucking obvious even kids in Sunday School can tell ya: Nature is perfect. Never makes a mistake, and follows a divine order that only a REALLY, REALLY,REALLY,REALLY,REALLY, smart God could do. Get a clue you suckers of Satan's cock science assholes!!!

WHAT???? Quantum Mechanics?????? Now the "order" is maybe just one tiny part of it all??????

Well YES!!! Of course. We've been telling you it all along. This shit is fucking complicated. So only God knows, and by the way, he loves us, unless we're black, a child and in Darfur; and then some horseback-riding asshold lops off the kid's arms. Pray until the yacks come home, but God will not grow that arm back!!! For one thing, it's black, which has to be some kind of evil.

But bygod, Uncle Bob, being a good Methodist, survived cancer because we prayed, praise babyjesus!!!

Funny,you are now doing what is a normal response when you start to lose a debate. My you are now sounding like hollow and daws,for gods sake get a grip.

No. Just ridiculing the many assertions by Creationists that were slapped down. But certainly not all of them.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Yes; Really.

While the science had yet to advance to what it is today, Darwin was as advanced as any researcher working today.

To suggest him a primitive human as QW did is beyond absurd. It's idiotic.

I would like your view on Isaac Newton since he was a creationist ?

he was not a creationist as you understand it, it's a false comparison.
here's a better question newton was an alchemist considered witchcraft by creationists. was he still a real creationist?

Wrong again daws.


Isaac Newton


Sir Isaac Newton PRS MP was an English physicist, mathematician, astronomer, natural philosopher, alchemist and theologian, who has been considered by many to be the greatest and most influential scientist who ever lived

Isaac Newton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Youwerecreated]

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

Beat a dead horse,now that is funny we only scratched the surface on mutations. I was still waiting for your explanation as to where this new genetic data comes from that benefits the organism for fitness.

I would like you to list every known beneficial mutation that has been observed you can come up with absent of a conjecture filled explanation.

Plant world: flowering

Animal world: social insects

Do you have any details that I can offer a rebuttal to ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

They used to be able to easily explain shit away. Poor crop? Must be god's not happy. Sacrifice a virgin, or 12, and it'll be okie doke.

Today they have a harder time, since new knowledge comes along and then proves obvious to all ... i.e that foolish Chuck Darwin fella. From apes??? How stupid is that???

Oops. Seems there are similarities, not to mention that Lucy bitch they dug up in East Africa. Mutherfucker.

But don't tell me the creepy crawly things became us!!! That's just fucking lunacy!!! Oops. Septapods do have a common ancestor, and DNA shows when we branched off. So yeah; that tree thing might be right.

But no big bang!!! That's just made up shit by retards who don't know God did it by power of just wanting it, and us!!! Oops. Background radiation? Fuck. Okay; big bang happened.

But no way we could have anything as perfect as the human eye without some really, really smart god making us!!! And those retards drinking the science koolaid cannot show where eyes, PROOF OF GOD'S PERFECTION!!!, evolved. Well goddamnit! Fuck me with a King James Version, they have that too.

Well, and this is final, and so fucking obvious even kids in Sunday School can tell ya: Nature is perfect. Never makes a mistake, and follows a divine order that only a REALLY, REALLY,REALLY,REALLY,REALLY, smart God could do. Get a clue you suckers of Satan's cock science assholes!!!

WHAT???? Quantum Mechanics?????? Now the "order" is maybe just one tiny part of it all??????

Well YES!!! Of course. We've been telling you it all along. This shit is fucking complicated. So only God knows, and by the way, he loves us, unless we're black, a child and in Darfur; and then some horseback-riding asshold lops off the kid's arms. Pray until the yacks come home, but God will not grow that arm back!!! For one thing, it's black, which has to be some kind of evil.

But bygod, Uncle Bob, being a good Methodist, survived cancer because we prayed, praise babyjesus!!!

Funny,you are now doing what is a normal response when you start to lose a debate. My you are now sounding like hollow and daws,for gods sake get a grip.

No. Just ridiculing the many assertions by Creationists that were slapped down. But certainly not all of them.

Now that is funny, ridiculing something you have a problem grasping.

 

[Koios]

Yes; Really.

While the science had yet to advance to what it is today, Darwin was as advanced as any researcher working today.

To suggest him a primitive human as QW did is beyond absurd. It's idiotic.

I would like your view on Isaac Newton since he was a creationist ?

he was not a creationist as you understand it, it's a false comparison.
here's a better question newton was an alchemist considered witchcraft by creationists. was he still a real creationist?

Sir Issac? No. Not a Creationist, but a true scientist, in addition to being clergy at Cambridge, and a devout believer ... as was common in his day.

Easily, in my opinion, the most intelligent human yet born. And his motivation in greatly furthering science, math, and heck even getting some useful knowledge from his foolish foray into the cultish psuedoscience, Alchemy, was to understand God's order in making things. But that intellectual lock-down on creation myths not withstanding, Newton contributed greatly to a better understanding of the natural forces in the universe which debunk the myriad creation myths.

 

[Koios]

Funny,you are now doing what is a normal response when you start to lose a debate. My you are now sounding like hollow and daws,for gods sake get a grip.

No. Just ridiculing the many assertions by Creationists that were slapped down. But certainly not all of them.

Now that is funny, ridiculing something you have a problem grasping.

What's hard to grasp? Saying that man from apes was ridiculous, only later to accept it and posit that maybe evolution was God's method?

Or that the human eye is so perfect (tip: not the most perfect in the animal world), that only a divine intellegence could have been its creation due to no evidence in the fossil record, when in fact, tons of it existed, so they moved on to other nonsense, etc?

Any child should be able to grasp its foolishing, I'd think.

 

[Koios]

Beat a dead horse,now that is funny we only scratched the surface on mutations. I was still waiting for your explanation as to where this new genetic data comes from that benefits the organism for fitness.

I would like you to list every known beneficial mutation that has been observed you can come up with absent of a conjecture filled explanation.

Plant world: flowering

Animal world: social insects

Do you have any details that I can offer a rebuttal to ?

No; I do not. (tip: you offered no details to rebut)

Meanwhile, if you're indeed curious, here's a starting point in getting a sense of evolution: Timeline of evolutionary history of life - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Koios]

Plant world: flowering

Animal world: social insects

Do you have any details that I can offer a rebuttal to ?

No; I do not. (tip: you offered no details to rebut)

Meanwhile, if you're indeed curious, here's a starting point in getting a sense of evolution: Timeline of evolutionary history of life - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sorry; misread. Sure;

We have the gene for tails still within the human genome, albeit, nothing in our proteome triggers the gene to grow us a tail, except in rare cases. Thus over the course of our evolution, and branching off from ancestors with tails, the gene became moot.

So what we know is that we once had tails, prior to evolving into humans. Fact.

Now rebut ...

 

[Hollie]

I posted videos that provided evidence of precision in nature. The finely tuned universe you deny exists even though scientists on your side of the argument admit to this fact ?

Did you ever hear of Shoemaker-Levy? I didn't see that in any of your videos falsely claiming this 'precision" that emanates from the fundie cabal.

What about that little dalliance that occurred on this planet 65 million years ago? Was that the gawds just keeping in practice? A practice run at planet-wiping to punish sinners, no doubt.

Cultists live in a dark and dangerous place I'm happy not to be in.

You nor anyone alive knows what happened 65 million years ago.

Some may think they know, but they don't.

I can understand your discomfort with geologic timelines, archeology, earth sciences and the fossil record. All of it creates an irreconcilable contradiction to the fundie insistence of a 6,000 year old earth. Similarly, the evidence for a cataclysmic event such as a large meteor or asteroid impacting the planet has left evidences across the globe. The only real dispute to that is from fundamentalist Christians. An important part of the scientific method is the rejection or modification of a theory if the theory does not fit the observed facts. But in creationism, it is the other way around. If the facts don't fit the theory, then deny the facts, and attack the finder. Find some way to reject the data, at all costs. We see that distorted mindset with the fundies.

As put in such sharp focus by Henry Morris – this in connection with the tale of Noah’s flood:
"But the main reason for insisting on the universal Flood as a fact of history and as the primary vehicle for geological interpretation is that God's Word plainly teaches it! No geologic difficulties, real or imagined, can be allowed to take precedence over the clear statements and necessary inferences of Scripture."

Dr. Henry Morris, Biblical Cosmology and Modern Science (1970) p.32-33


As you see, creationism has a goal of stunting, of rejecting any facts, evidence or data that conflicts with biblical tales.

Science has the goal of seeking out the truth, regardless of where that truth may lead, even if the conclusion points away from their original theory. Science are open to the possibility that theories might be wrong. But in creationism, there is absolute opposition to the notion that biblical tales could be, even in the slightest degree, contradicted by available new data. Creationists even agree to sign a "Statement of Beliefs" (The Creation Research Society's Creed) when joining the Creation Research Society, wherein they declare their believe in the literal truth of the bible, and nothing, no data, no evidence, no matter how well supported, could ever make them doubt that their pre- conceived conclusion is the correct one.

That really is as ignorant and as biased an approach as I can imagine.

 

[Hollie]

Creationist also have an explanation for the imperfection that we see it is punishment for the origional sin. We are not living in a perfect world any longer but we can still see work of the creator.

They used to be able to easily explain shit away. Poor crop? Must be god's not happy. Sacrifice a virgin, or 12, and it'll be okie doke.

Today they have a harder time, since new knowledge comes along and then proves obvious to all ... i.e that foolish Chuck Darwin fella. From apes??? How stupid is that???

Oops. Seems there are similarities, not to mention that Lucy bitch they dug up in East Africa. Mutherfucker.

But don't tell me the creepy crawly things became us!!! That's just fucking lunacy!!! Oops. Septapods do have a common ancestor, and DNA shows when we branched off. So yeah; that tree thing might be right.

But no big bang!!! That's just made up shit by retards who don't know God did it by power of just wanting it, and us!!! Oops. Background radiation? Fuck. Okay; big bang happened.

But no way we could have anything as perfect as the human eye without some really, really smart god making us!!! And those retards drinking the science koolaid cannot show where eyes, PROOF OF GOD'S PERFECTION!!!, evolved. Well goddamnit! Fuck me with a King James Version, they have that too.

Well, and this is final, and so fucking obvious even kids in Sunday School can tell ya: Nature is perfect. Never makes a mistake, and follows a divine order that only a REALLY, REALLY,REALLY,REALLY,REALLY, smart God could do. Get a clue you suckers of Satan's cock science assholes!!!

WHAT???? Quantum Mechanics?????? Now the "order" is maybe just one tiny part of it all??????

Well YES!!! Of course. We've been telling you it all along. This shit is fucking complicated. So only God knows, and by the way, he loves us, unless we're black, a child and in Darfur; and then some horseback-riding asshold lops off the kid's arms. Pray until the yacks come home, but God will not grow that arm back!!! For one thing, it's black, which has to be some kind of evil.

But bygod, Uncle Bob, being a good Methodist, survived cancer because we prayed, praise babyjesus!!!

Funny,you are now doing what is a normal response when you start to lose a debate. My you are now sounding like hollow and daws,for gods sake get a grip.

I’ve noticed a pattern of behavior with the fundies: when their arguments are refuted and their attempts at proselytizing have failed, their only option is juvenile name-calling.

The most glaring example of the failure and hopelessness of the fundie argument can be found on every single page of this thread. On not a single page will you find the fundies offering positive evidence for their partisan gawds. What you will find are frantic, sweaty, hysterical attempts to denigrate science and the most ludicrous conspiracy theories to explain-away the valid scientific explanations for existence.

To creationists, a model demonstrating biological origins and diversity of life cannot have areas that are incomplete or show uncertainty. An explanation for diversity of life that includes an incomplete model, for example, one that says "all the data does not yet lend weight to the theory becoming accepted science", is, in their opinion, all the “proof” needed to support biblical tales even after those tales have long ago been refuted and discredited. Creationism concerns itself exclusively with efforts to refute evolution.

 

[daws101]

I would like your view on Isaac Newton since he was a creationist ?

he was not a creationist as you understand it, it's a false comparison.
here's a better question newton was an alchemist considered witchcraft by creationists. was he still a real creationist?

Wrong again daws.


Isaac Newton


Sir Isaac Newton PRS MP was an English physicist, mathematician, astronomer, natural philosopher, alchemist and theologian, who has been considered by many to be the greatest and most influential scientist who ever lived

Isaac Newton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

REALLY ?FROM WHAT YOU JUST POSTED: Sir Isaac Newton PRS MP (25 December 1642 – 20 March 1726) was an English physicist, mathematician, astronomer, natural philosopher, alchemist"
and :Although an unorthodox Christian, Newton was deeply religious and his occult studies took up a substantial part of his life. He secretly rejected Trinitarianism and refused holy orders.Isaac Newton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

once again proving you're a slapdicky illiterate braggart who is baffled by the mechanics of a child safety cap..

 

[Hollie]

You nor anyone alive knows what happened 65 million years ago.

Some may think they know, but they don't.

Precisely!!! And when we do not know exactly what happened this day in history 65 million years ago, and can only know that things definitely happened within ranges of time we call "periods," the real answer is: GOD!!!! That's the ticket!!!

That is what science is doing even einstein wanted to know how God did it.

Yet another fundie attempt to manufacture a lie.

 

[daws101]

I posted videos that provided evidence of precision in nature. The finely tuned universe you deny exists even though scientists on your side of the argument admit to this fact ?

Can you find evidence of children being born blonde and female? They have that, too.

But what you willingly ignore is that nature is rife with, nay nearly always is, wrong. Most of the random shit in nature, fails. No kidding.

Creationist also have an explanation for the imperfection that we see it is punishment for the origional sin. We are not living in a perfect world any longer but we can still see work of the creator.

quite the vivid imagination there YWC....how do you test for that?
it reeks of specious conjecture!

 

[Youwerecreated]

Do you have any details that I can offer a rebuttal to ?

No; I do not. (tip: you offered no details to rebut)

Meanwhile, if you're indeed curious, here's a starting point in getting a sense of evolution: Timeline of evolutionary history of life - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sorry; misread. Sure;

We have the gene for tails still within the human genome, albeit, nothing in our proteome triggers the gene to grow us a tail, except in rare cases. Thus over the course of our evolution, and branching off from ancestors with tails, the gene became moot.

So what we know is that we once had tails, prior to evolving into humans. Fact.

Now rebut ...

What is the difference of profound morphological differences between man and the apes and all other creatures? the differences do not reside in the genes that code for proteins, but must reside in other genetic characteristics.

Some females are born with mammary glands under the armpits. Some bats normally have their mammary glands in that region. Does that mean that human females are carrying long suppressed genes for mammary glands under the armpits and we humans have a bat in our ancestry? Some human females are born with mammary glands in the groin region. Mammary glands normally occur in the groin region of some whales. Does that mean that human females still possess genes for mammary glands in the groin region that have been inherited from a whale ancestor? Mammary glands have developed in humans in many places, including the back, arms, and legs. How can evolutionary theory help us explain that?

 

[Youwerecreated]

he was not a creationist as you understand it, it's a false comparison.
here's a better question newton was an alchemist considered witchcraft by creationists. was he still a real creationist?

Wrong again daws.


Isaac Newton


Sir Isaac Newton PRS MP was an English physicist, mathematician, astronomer, natural philosopher, alchemist and theologian, who has been considered by many to be the greatest and most influential scientist who ever lived

Isaac Newton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

REALLY ?FROM WHAT YOU JUST POSTED: Sir Isaac Newton PRS MP (25 December 1642 – 20 March 1726) was an English physicist, mathematician, astronomer, natural philosopher, alchemist"
and :Although an unorthodox Christian, Newton was deeply religious and his occult studies took up a substantial part of his life. He secretly rejected Trinitarianism and refused holy orders.Isaac Newton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

once again proving you're a slapdicky illiterate braggart who is baffled by the mechanics of a child safety cap..

Are you really this stupid ?

 

[Hollie]

I would like your view on Isaac Newton since he was a creationist ?

he was not a creationist as you understand it, it's a false comparison.
here's a better question newton was an alchemist considered witchcraft by creationists. was he still a real creationist?

Wrong again daws.


Isaac Newton


Sir Isaac Newton PRS MP was an English physicist, mathematician, astronomer, natural philosopher, alchemist and theologian, who has been considered by many to be the greatest and most influential scientist who ever lived

Isaac Newton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It seems strange that a christian "creationist" would reject the trinity.

Isaac Newton

During his time away from the scientific community, Newton conducted never-published work on alchemy and studied the history of the Bible, concluding that the Christian doctrine of the Trinity is a falsehood introduced some four centuries after the time of Christ. In 1675 he published the paper Of Nature's Obvious Laws, which was also challenged by Hooke. By 1680, however, Hooke and Newton were corresponding cordially and at length over such concepts as inertia and centripetal attraction.

 

[Hollie]

No; I do not. (tip: you offered no details to rebut)

Meanwhile, if you're indeed curious, here's a starting point in getting a sense of evolution: Timeline of evolutionary history of life - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sorry; misread. Sure;

We have the gene for tails still within the human genome, albeit, nothing in our proteome triggers the gene to grow us a tail, except in rare cases. Thus over the course of our evolution, and branching off from ancestors with tails, the gene became moot.

So what we know is that we once had tails, prior to evolving into humans. Fact.

Now rebut ...

What is the difference of profound morphological differences between man and the apes and all other creatures? the differences do not reside in the genes that code for proteins, but must reside in other genetic characteristics.

Some females are born with mammary glands under the armpits. Some bats normally have their mammary glands in that region. Does that mean that human females are carrying long suppressed genes for mammary glands under the armpits and we humans have a bat in our ancestry? Some human females are born with mammary glands in the groin region. Mammary glands normally occur in the groin region of some whales. Does that mean that human females still possess genes for mammary glands in the groin region that have been inherited from a whale ancestor? Mammary glands have developed in humans in many places, including the back, arms, and legs. How can evolutionary theory help us explain that?

Why would the gawds "design" with such incompetence?

 

[newpolitics]

I have answered this question many times.

You haven't answered it once. You just keep on assertion this to be the case, without evidence or demonstration. I have already pointed out that your attempt at concluding this includes a fallacy of hasty generalization. Without this fallacy, you can't reach your conclusion. Therefore, your conclusion is invalid and you should stop positing it as an assertion.

I have given you the overwhelming evidence that mutations harm fitness not promote fitness. The numbers do not lie. Unless you can show otherwise you're wasting my time and yours. I want examples of mutations promoting fitness as I have stated before there is overwhelming evidence of mutations causing genetic disorders that would be termed as harmful mutations.

I don't disputed the fact that harmful mutations are plentiful. That doesn't mean that beneficial ones don't happen. This is the fallacy of hasty generalization, but you don't seem to want to address this at all. In fact, I previously provided evidence of a beneficial mutation with the example of the gene mutation about 5000 years ago which enables adult
Humans the ability to digest lactase. This could be seen as massively beneficial because it allows more nutrition over a lifetime, especially in the context of humans who had domesticated animals and settled down out of the hunter-gatherer lifestyle. As a vegan, I hate to present this evidence, but historically, at least, it could be argued that this mutation was beneficial. Today, with factory farming and the sheer overconsumption of animal products, it can be shown scientifically that it is likely detrimental to human health when consumed as we do today, producing much of the heart disease, cancer and diabetes we see in America, especially with antibiotics and growth hormones pumped into these animals, which we then ingest. This is as an aside. The main point here is a mutation happened that at one point benefitted us.

 

[Koios]

No; I do not. (tip: you offered no details to rebut)

Meanwhile, if you're indeed curious, here's a starting point in getting a sense of evolution: Timeline of evolutionary history of life - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sorry; misread. Sure;

We have the gene for tails still within the human genome, albeit, nothing in our proteome triggers the gene to grow us a tail, except in rare cases. Thus over the course of our evolution, and branching off from ancestors with tails, the gene became moot.

So what we know is that we once had tails, prior to evolving into humans. Fact.

Now rebut ...

What is the difference of profound morphological differences between man and the apes and all other creatures? the differences do not reside in the genes that code for proteins, but must reside in other genetic characteristics.

Some females are born with mammary glands under the armpits. Some bats normally have their mammary glands in that region. Does that mean that human females are carrying long suppressed genes for mammary glands under the armpits and we humans have a bat in our ancestry? Some human females are born with mammary glands in the groin region. Mammary glands normally occur in the groin region of some whales. Does that mean that human females still possess genes for mammary glands in the groin region that have been inherited from a whale ancestor? Mammary glands have developed in humans in many places, including the back, arms, and legs. How can evolutionary theory help us explain that?

Explain the gene for tails, in the human genome, then we can move onto the next item.

That's how it works in the refutation game.