Creationists

[UltimateReality]

Yet another fundie attempt to manufacture a lie.

No need to lash out like a petulant child, like a petulant child, like a petulant child, like a petulant child.

No need to lash out like a petulant child, like a petulant child, like a petulant child, like a petulant child.

Damn if that ain't the POT calling the KETTLE black.

Apparently sarcasm is not something you are familiar with. And I guess broken records were before your time.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Guessed wrong. Try again.

Ledley made it clear it was only a growth and not a tail.

"As a matter of fact, even a superficial reading of Ledley's article makes clear that this so-called tail was no tail at all but was nothing more than an anomalous growth coincidentally located in the caudal region."

Evolution and the Human Tail

Hardly. Ledley, a geneticist, with both success in resesearch and bio-tech start-ups, indeed concludes -- as nearly all geneticists do -- that the rare case of children born with the beginnings of a tail does indeed show a connection between humans and our more primative ancestors.

But that's then parsed (read: distorted) by ICR, a junk "science" (Creationist) misinformation enterprise, which is not where thinking people go for better insights into the natural world. It's for you folks, who due to your yearning for legitimacy of your faith in the face of so much scientific fact contradicting your religious dogma, who will gobble it up, no matter how convoluted or absurd in its conclusions.

So the real question (rhetorical) is: why all the doubt about creation, from "Believers." Why do you need the pseudo-science horseshit to validate your faith. Why not simply believe and leave it at that. (tip: you have doubts; it's not people who accept the truth of evolution who have doubts.)

Please show me where they were able to access this gene in the genome and prove this gene is in all humans and codes for forming a tail ?

This is simply a fairytale that some have bought in to. The tail was ex-rayed and it did not have the structures of a tail it was just a growth from a mutation.

We had flies with four wings due to mutations. We had damaged antennas on flies because of mutations. We had limbs and antennas and wings located in the wrong area of the body due to mutations. We also had extra legs due to mutations.

 

[Koios]

Ledley made it clear it was only a growth and not a tail.

"As a matter of fact, even a superficial reading of Ledley's article makes clear that this so-called tail was no tail at all but was nothing more than an anomalous growth coincidentally located in the caudal region."

Evolution and the Human Tail

Hardly. Ledley, a geneticist, with both success in resesearch and bio-tech start-ups, indeed concludes -- as nearly all geneticists do -- that the rare case of children born with the beginnings of a tail does indeed show a connection between humans and our more primative ancestors.

But that's then parsed (read: distorted) by ICR, a junk "science" (Creationist) misinformation enterprise, which is not where thinking people go for better insights into the natural world. It's for you folks, who due to your yearning for legitimacy of your faith in the face of so much scientific fact contradicting your religious dogma, who will gobble it up, no matter how convoluted or absurd in its conclusions.

So the real question (rhetorical) is: why all the doubt about creation, from "Believers." Why do you need the pseudo-science horseshit to validate your faith. Why not simply believe and leave it at that. (tip: you have doubts; it's not people who accept the truth of evolution who have doubts.)

Please show me where they were able to access this gene in the genome and prove this gene is in all humans and codes for forming a tail ?

This is simply a fairytale that some have bought in to. The tail was ex-rayed and it did not have the structures of a tail it was just a growth from a mutation.

We had flies with four wings due to mutations. We had damaged antennas on flies because of mutations. We had limbs and antennas and wings located in the wrong area of the body due to mutations. We also had extra legs due to mutations.

So genetic mutation creates, and not God? Damnit, Ywc, we agree!!! Fuck me, I'm getting misty here just thinking about you and me agreeing, praise babyjesus.

 

[Hollie]

Fast Facts on the Trinity

The word "Trinity" does not appear in the Bible
The word "Trinity" was first used by Tertullian (c.155-230)
The doctrine of the Trinity is commonly expressed as: "One God, three Persons"
The doctrine is formally defined in the Nicene Creed, which declares Jesus to be: "God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father."
Past and present Christian faiths who do not believe in the Trinity include:
Arianism (4th century)
Some Radical Reformers (16th century), such as Michael Servetus
Jehovah's Witnesses
Mormonism
Unitarianism
Reasons given for rejecting the doctrine of the Trinity include:
It is not mentioned in the Bible
It does not make philosophical sense
It is not compatible with monotheism
It is not necessary in order to explain the "specialness" of Jesus
Reasons given for believing in the Trinity include:
It is taught indirectly in various statements in the Bible
It explains the divinity of Jesus and the Holy Spirit while affirming monotheism
It would not be expected that the nature of God would make sense to human minds
The early ecumenical councils (primarily Nicea) are authoritative

Doctrine of the Trinity - ReligionFacts

I didn't say I didn't believe in it. I said it is not mentioned in the Bible. This is a typical Hawly distraction technique to change the subject.

Typical fundie cluelessness. There was never any claim to the trinity appearing in any of the bibles. The comment was that the trinity is a foundational component of christianity.

Try paying attention.

 

[UltimateReality]

Doctrine of the Trinity - ReligionFacts

I didn't say I didn't believe in it. I said it is not mentioned in the Bible. This is a typical Hawly distraction technique to change the subject.

Typical fundie cluelessness. There was never any claim to the trinity appearing in any of the bibles. The comment was that the trinity is a foundational component of christianity.

Try paying attention.

Fundamental according to who? The only true requirement to be a Christian is to be a Christ follower. That entails believing he is God's son, that he died on a cross for your sins, and out of your appreciation for that, you desire to please him and live a Holy life. Everything else is just doctrine to argue over.

You are notorious for just making up definitions when it supports your lame revisionists claims. You are the most dangerous type of revisionist, because your endgame at attempting to manipulate the past is to destroy people of certain belief systems. Hitler was a revisionist.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Hardly. Ledley, a geneticist, with both success in resesearch and bio-tech start-ups, indeed concludes -- as nearly all geneticists do -- that the rare case of children born with the beginnings of a tail does indeed show a connection between humans and our more primative ancestors.

But that's then parsed (read: distorted) by ICR, a junk "science" (Creationist) misinformation enterprise, which is not where thinking people go for better insights into the natural world. It's for you folks, who due to your yearning for legitimacy of your faith in the face of so much scientific fact contradicting your religious dogma, who will gobble it up, no matter how convoluted or absurd in its conclusions.

So the real question (rhetorical) is: why all the doubt about creation, from "Believers." Why do you need the pseudo-science horseshit to validate your faith. Why not simply believe and leave it at that. (tip: you have doubts; it's not people who accept the truth of evolution who have doubts.)

Please show me where they were able to access this gene in the genome and prove this gene is in all humans and codes for forming a tail ?

This is simply a fairytale that some have bought in to. The tail was ex-rayed and it did not have the structures of a tail it was just a growth from a mutation.

We had flies with four wings due to mutations. We had damaged antennas on flies because of mutations. We had limbs and antennas and wings located in the wrong area of the body due to mutations. We also had extra legs due to mutations.

So genetic mutation creates, and not God? Damnit, Ywc, we agree!!! Fuck me, I'm getting misty here just thinking about you and me agreeing, praise babyjesus.

No the majority of mutations that cause change they cause deformity and harm.

atavism the reappearance of a trait that had been lost during evolution. Our genes do not determine who we are, but with atavism, they can sometimes serve as reminders of our evolutionary past.

Traits that appear or disappear over time are not the result of newly mutated genes encoding defective versions of the proteins associated with teeth or tails, nor are they caused by a loss of existing genes. Instead, a growing body of experimental evidence has shown such traits reflect changes in how, where, and when these genes are expressed.

Theory is what they are using for evidence get it ? Look all organisms only possess the genetic data to reproduce what they are. why ?

 

[Koios]

I didn't say I didn't believe in it. I said it is not mentioned in the Bible. This is a typical Hawly distraction technique to change the subject.

Typical fundie cluelessness. There was never any claim to the trinity appearing in any of the bibles. The comment was that the trinity is a foundational component of christianity.

Try paying attention.

Fundamental according to who? The only true requirement to be a Christian is to be a Christ follower. That entails believing he is God's son, that he died on a cross for your sins, and out of your appreciation for that, you desire to please him and live a Holy life. Everything else is just doctrine to argue over.

You are notorious for just making up definitions when it supports your lame revisionists claims. You are the most dangerous type of revisionist, because your endgame at attempting to manipulate the past is to destroy people of certain belief systems. Hitler was a revisionist.

Violates first commandment. Ergo many of the FF being Unitarians and not Christians, who cannot even read a list of fucking commandments, FROM GOD. Hell; not even the first one!!!!

Damn you, sinner. Burn ye in Hell!!!!

(Nothing personal, just following GOD'S top 10 list.)

 

[Youwerecreated]

With the quote above do you see they contradict themselves ? I am waiting for your response so I can tell you why that theory of atavism is refuted by population genetics.

 

[Koios]

Please show me where they were able to access this gene in the genome and prove this gene is in all humans and codes for forming a tail ?

This is simply a fairytale that some have bought in to. The tail was ex-rayed and it did not have the structures of a tail it was just a growth from a mutation.

We had flies with four wings due to mutations. We had damaged antennas on flies because of mutations. We had limbs and antennas and wings located in the wrong area of the body due to mutations. We also had extra legs due to mutations.

So genetic mutation creates, and not God? Damnit, Ywc, we agree!!! Fuck me, I'm getting misty here just thinking about you and me agreeing, praise babyjesus.

1. No the majority of mutations that cause change they cause deformity and harm.

atavism the reappearance of a trait that had been lost during evolution. Our genes do not determine who we are, but with atavism, they can sometimes serve as reminders of our evolutionary past.

Traits that appear or disappear over time are not the result of newly mutated genes encoding defective versions of the proteins associated with teeth or tails, nor are they caused by a loss of existing genes. Instead, a growing body of experimental evidence has shown such traits reflect changes in how, where, and when these genes are expressed.

Theory is what they are using for evidence get it ? Look all organisms only possess the genetic data to reproduce what they are. 2. why ?

1. So you're really missing that tail, which is now merely a tail bone???? (tip: vestigiality) Oh wait; most are fuck-ups, but not all. My bad. No tail good. But jesus-fucking-christ, God's a major fuck-up! (mostly)

2. Any value you want to place on it. Nature doesn't give a fuck (what, not why, which we've covered more than once, already.)

 

[Hollie]

I didn't say I didn't believe in it. I said it is not mentioned in the Bible. This is a typical Hawly distraction technique to change the subject.

Typical fundie cluelessness. There was never any claim to the trinity appearing in any of the bibles. The comment was that the trinity is a foundational component of christianity.

Try paying attention.

Fundamental according to who? The only true requirement to be a Christian is to be a Christ follower. That entails believing he is God's son, that he died on a cross for your sins, and out of your appreciation for that, you desire to please him and live a Holy life. Everything else is just doctrine to argue over.

You are notorious for just making up definitions when it supports your lame revisionists claims. You are the most dangerous type of revisionist, because your endgame at attempting to manipulate the past is to destroy people of certain belief systems. Hitler was a revisionist.

It seems your version of christianity is skewed. But then again, fundies have a habit of re-writing their bibles to accommodate their hateful, twisted views.

Speaking of Hitler and his Christian beliefs, you seem to espouse many of his intolerant, hateful attitudes. The Nazi party seemed to have defined so much of Christian history. Consider getting a belt buckle inscribed with Gott mit uns.

The gawds command you.

 

[Youwerecreated]

So genetic mutation creates, and not God? Damnit, Ywc, we agree!!! Fuck me, I'm getting misty here just thinking about you and me agreeing, praise babyjesus.

1. No the majority of mutations that cause change they cause deformity and harm.

atavism the reappearance of a trait that had been lost during evolution. Our genes do not determine who we are, but with atavism, they can sometimes serve as reminders of our evolutionary past.

Traits that appear or disappear over time are not the result of newly mutated genes encoding defective versions of the proteins associated with teeth or tails, nor are they caused by a loss of existing genes. Instead, a growing body of experimental evidence has shown such traits reflect changes in how, where, and when these genes are expressed.

Theory is what they are using for evidence get it ? Look all organisms only possess the genetic data to reproduce what they are. 2. why ?

1. So you're really missing that tail, which is now merely a tail bone???? (tip: vestigiality) Oh wait; most are fuck-ups, but not all. My bad. No tail good. But jesus-fucking-christ, God's a major fuck-up! (mostly)

2. Any value you want to place on it. Nature doesn't give a fuck (what, not why, which we've covered more than once, already.)

In that quote they say it was not result of newly mutated genes what ? newly mutated genes are what they need for evolution So in their haste and race to an explanation trying to show evidence for ancestry they contradict their theory of evolution.

Also the reason why genes do not I repeat do not get turned off is because when we reproduce we are breeding out genetic information. How do you think we get purebred animals ? how do we get different races and traits of men ? because they group up and breed out all other genetic information. Boxers only have the genes to produce boxers and so on and so on.

 

[daws101]

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 ?

it's obvious you are

 

[daws101]

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.

We all know what ywc is rejecting and failing at!

 

[daws101]

Nope, not one. Every single gay person I know has later in life admitted they were sexually abused as a child.

and how many gay people would that be one ..two ..five..
the admission of child sexual abuse is no indicator of sexual preference.
you interpreted it that way to fit you agenda.

The American Psychiatric Association stated in its May 2000 website fact sheet "Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Issues":


"[N]o specific psychosocial or family dynamic cause for homosexuality has been identified, including histories of childhood sexual abuse.

Sexual abuse does not appear to be more prevalent in children who grow up to identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual, than in children who identify as heterosexual."

May 2000 - American Psychiatric Association



Kali Munro, M.Ed., an online psychotherapist, wrote the following statements in her 2002 article titled "Am I Gay Because of the Abuse?," and posted on her website KaliMunro.com (accessed Mar. 5, 2009):


"Sexual abuse can interfere with sexual enjoyment; contribute to a survivor engaging in sexual behaviours that arise from the abuse; and interfere with survivors' ability to know what they want. But, sexual abuse can't create a survivor's deepest passion and desires...

We are all socially conditioned through culture, education, family, media, etc. Sexual abuse is another form of conditioning. As a result, sexual abuse survivors can be drawn to or be repulsed by things that have nothing to do with their authentic selves, and have more to do with their abuse... Homophobia plays a big role in creating the link between gay sexuality and sexual abuse. The myth that lesbians and gay men are sexual predators is still very much alive. In a society that links lesbian and gay sexuality with sexual predators, and where there is little or no information for youth about lesbian and gay sexuality, many lesbian and gay survivors assume that sexual abuse by someone of the same sex is what being gay is...

The truth is that sexual abuse and sexuality are a million miles apart; they truly have nothing in common. Something as wonderful and beautiful as our sexuality could never have arisen out of something as ugly and painful as sexual abuse."

Can childhood sexual abuse by a person of the same sex cause homosexuality? - Born Gay - ProCon.org

Manipulated data. Just like the militant gay lobby silenced the AIDs epidemic and all reporting. Nice try monkey effer.

just as expected, cry conspiracy when you have no evidence.
for someone who claims to have no homosexual urges you're inordinately interested in it.

 

[Koios]

1. No the majority of mutations that cause change they cause deformity and harm.

atavism the reappearance of a trait that had been lost during evolution. Our genes do not determine who we are, but with atavism, they can sometimes serve as reminders of our evolutionary past.

Traits that appear or disappear over time are not the result of newly mutated genes encoding defective versions of the proteins associated with teeth or tails, nor are they caused by a loss of existing genes. Instead, a growing body of experimental evidence has shown such traits reflect changes in how, where, and when these genes are expressed.

Theory is what they are using for evidence get it ? Look all organisms only possess the genetic data to reproduce what they are. 2. why ?

1. So you're really missing that tail, which is now merely a tail bone???? (tip: vestigiality) Oh wait; most are fuck-ups, but not all. My bad. No tail good. But jesus-fucking-christ, God's a major fuck-up! (mostly)

2. Any value you want to place on it. Nature doesn't give a fuck (what, not why, which we've covered more than once, already.)

In that quote they say it was not result of newly mutated genes what ? newly mutated genes are what they need for evolution So in their haste and race to an explanation trying to show evidence for ancestry they contradict their theory of evolution.

Also the reason why genes do not I repeat do not get turned off is because when we reproduce we are breeding out genetic information. How do you think we get purebred animals ? how do we get different races and traits of men ? because they group up and breed out all other genetic information. Boxers only have the genes to produce boxers and so on and so on.

So science and not the Bible are what's teaching about God's creation, yer thinkin'? Fucking absurd. How far will you nincumpoops go to justify the rank foolishness. Astonishing.

But maybe you're right and some shit got lost in translation. "Abomination," maybe, is not actually something contrary to Jewish Custom, but God telling us about His genetic creation, which by the way, fucks up and causes all manner of deformities and such, but on rare occasion, something divine results, by chance. Shit! And I woulda sworn the dude was perfect and shit.

Apparently not.

Hahahahahahahahaha! You got me rollin' Ywc. No shit.

Pure

Fucking

Comedy

 

[daws101]

You have to be a Christian to be a creationist ? Yes the majority of Christians believe in the trinity but that has nothing to do with being a creationist.

Of course, you're wrong. As I have shown you several times previously, it is with virtual exclusivity that creationism (defined by the organized anti-science, anti-evolution agenda), is a Christian fundamentalist endeavor.

As I've already identified for you, anyone can review the "about" section on any of the creationist websites to learn of their goals and attributes. How about a bit of honesty on your part. Identify for us the religious bias held by AIG, the ICR, CRS, etc. Do you want more?

Of course most of the creationist movement are Christians,but Isaac Newton is still a Christian even though he rejected the trinity. You are arguing a moot point. Isaac Newton believed in a creator and creation,enough said.

Daws was wrong and so are you Isaac Newton was an Unorthodox Christian.

how could I be wrong I posted that as evidence that you can't read.
so now your attempting to spin newton's unorthodoxy to appear the same as your creationist shit.
it won't fly.
newton's understanding of creation is not the same as your readers digest version for the mentally impaired, that you inanely yammer on about!

 

[Hollie]

Please show me where they were able to access this gene in the genome and prove this gene is in all humans and codes for forming a tail ?

This is simply a fairytale that some have bought in to. The tail was ex-rayed and it did not have the structures of a tail it was just a growth from a mutation.

We had flies with four wings due to mutations. We had damaged antennas on flies because of mutations. We had limbs and antennas and wings located in the wrong area of the body due to mutations. We also had extra legs due to mutations.

So genetic mutation creates, and not God? Damnit, Ywc, we agree!!! Fuck me, I'm getting misty here just thinking about you and me agreeing, praise babyjesus.

No the majority of mutations that cause change they cause deformity and harm.

atavism the reappearance of a trait that had been lost during evolution. Our genes do not determine who we are, but with atavism, they can sometimes serve as reminders of our evolutionary past.

Traits that appear or disappear over time are not the result of newly mutated genes encoding defective versions of the proteins associated with teeth or tails, nor are they caused by a loss of existing genes. Instead, a growing body of experimental evidence has shown such traits reflect changes in how, where, and when these genes are expressed.

Theory is what they are using for evidence get it ? Look all organisms only possess the genetic data to reproduce what they are. why ?

Well hold on a minute here. How does a gene get lost during evolution if evolution is a myth?

"Shirley", a mere 4000 years is not long enough for biological evolution to cause significant adaptive changes.

 

[Koios]

So genetic mutation creates, and not God? Damnit, Ywc, we agree!!! Fuck me, I'm getting misty here just thinking about you and me agreeing, praise babyjesus.

No the majority of mutations that cause change they cause deformity and harm.

atavism the reappearance of a trait that had been lost during evolution. Our genes do not determine who we are, but with atavism, they can sometimes serve as reminders of our evolutionary past.

Traits that appear or disappear over time are not the result of newly mutated genes encoding defective versions of the proteins associated with teeth or tails, nor are they caused by a loss of existing genes. Instead, a growing body of experimental evidence has shown such traits reflect changes in how, where, and when these genes are expressed.

Theory is what they are using for evidence get it ? Look all organisms only possess the genetic data to reproduce what they are. why ?

Well hold on a minute here. How does a gene get lost during evolution if evolution is a myth?

"Shirley", a mere 4000 years is not long enough for biological evolution to cause significant adaptive changes.

You will burn in a special kind of Hell that God saved for Abominations like you who mutated and thus have too-active brains.

Amen

 

[daws101]

No need to lash out like a petulant child, like a petulant child, like a petulant child, like a petulant child.

No need to lash out like a petulant child, like a petulant child, like a petulant child, like a petulant child.

Damn if that ain't the POT calling the KETTLE black.

Apparently sarcasm is not something you are familiar with. And I guess broken records were before your time.

his time ? what about you your cd and tape collection is far larger than you lps.
you get a fail on the relevant sarcasm scale.

 

[daws101]

Typical fundie cluelessness. There was never any claim to the trinity appearing in any of the bibles. The comment was that the trinity is a foundational component of christianity.

Try paying attention.

Fundamental according to who? The only true requirement to be a Christian is to be a Christ follower. That entails believing he is God's son, that he died on a cross for your sins, and out of your appreciation for that, you desire to please him and live a Holy life. Everything else is just doctrine to argue over.

You are notorious for just making up definitions when it supports your lame revisionists claims. You are the most dangerous type of revisionist, because your endgame at attempting to manipulate the past is to destroy people of certain belief systems. Hitler was a revisionist.

It seems your version of christianity is skewed. But then again, fundies have a habit of re-writing their bibles to accommodate their hateful, twisted views.

Speaking of Hitler and his Christian beliefs, you seem to espouse many of his intolerant, hateful attitudes. The Nazi party seemed to have defined so much of Christian history. Consider getting a belt buckle inscribed with Gott mit uns.

The gawds command you.

detective douche bag having nothing to say uses the old stand bys Hitler and revisionist.