Creationists

[UltimateReality]

Of course you do!!! No duh, Captain Obvious. This is the same flawed reasoning that allows you to give credibility to the supposed science book The Origin of the Species. Let's see, I just need to write a book about bird beaks and poof! instant scientist. Please tell me you see the utter stupidity in the self-debasing logic of the argument you just presented???

I think it's the providing of evidence and using the scientific method correctly that makes scientists. But lets assume that Darwin doesn't count as a scientist. How do you propose to discredit all of the credentialed scientists that have extensively studied this topic since the 1800s? I always love how creationist nutjobs rely on information from the 1800s as the sole source of information on evolution. hahaha.

let's say darwin was a quack. how do you plan to discredit the entire field of phylogenetics?

You wouldn't know the scientific method if it hit you in the face because it has been so bastardized by the "make it up as you go along" pseudo science of evolution. You really have no clue the spoon fed atheist agenda you are even arguing so I really don't feel like wasting my time to bring you up to speed. The information is out there if you are truly seeking the truth. But alas, like everyone else that shows up here, you are hopelessly blinded by your materialistic, atheist agenda. Your confirmation bias blinds you from the validity of any opposing viewpoint. Even if Charles Darwin appeared to you in the flesh and told you his whole book was a lie, you would come up with some excuse because you will never deny the religion that motivates you.

You still seem to be pushing hard on the Darwin thing as the end-all of evolution. How short sighted.

So, you claim that I have the scientific method wrong, and your notion is correct. Please, educate everyone. What is the scientific method in your own words?

You go first. Remember, google is definitely YOUR friend.

 

[UltimateReality]

Of course you do!!! No duh, Captain Obvious. This is the same flawed reasoning that allows you to give credibility to the supposed science book The Origin of the Species. Let's see, I just need to write a book about bird beaks and poof! instant scientist. Please tell me you see the utter stupidity in the self-debasing logic of the argument you just presented???

I think it's the providing of evidence and using the scientific method correctly that makes scientists. But lets assume that Darwin doesn't count as a scientist. How do you propose to discredit all of the credentialed scientists that have extensively studied this topic since the 1800s? I always love how creationist nutjobs rely on information from the 1800s as the sole source of information on evolution. hahaha.

let's say darwin was a quack. how do you plan to discredit the entire field of phylogenetics?

No need. They continually discredit themselves. You will remember a few posts back my comment about making it up as you go along.

If falsifiability is essential in science then perhaps evolutionary theory belongs in a different box. Repeatedly evolution sustains contradictory evidence without missing a beat and the latest example is the next step in the long story of horizontal transfer of genomic material. Once evolutionary theory held that when the species were compared they would form an evolutionary tree, common descent, pattern. And when the genes of bacteria violated this pattern, it was said they had been horizontally transferred—a complicated mechanism that allows bacteria to trade genetic material with each other rather than merely inheriting it. Suddenly the framework of evolutionary theory was much more fluid as most any genetic pattern could be explained. The horizontal gene transfer explanation was used liberally and it was even recruited and greatly expanded in highly speculative narratives of how early evolution created its designs. But all of that was for bacteria. The higher eukaryote species, evolutionists argued, still very much confirmed the traditional evolutionary tree model. The theory was solid and falsifiable, the evolutionists assured their skeptics. That is, until now. For new research has brought horizontal transfer to the front and center for eukaryotes as well. To wit:

In higher organisms such as vertebrates, it is generally believed that lateral transfer of genetic information does not readily occur, with the exception of retroviral infection. However, horizontal transfer (HT) of protein coding repetitive elements is the simplest way to explain the patchy distribution of BovB, a long interspersed element (LINE) about 3.2 kb long, that has been found in ruminants, marsupials, squamates, monotremes, and African mammals.


The point here is not that any of this is impossible. The details of how such horizontal transfer of genetic material could occur and then propagate in the higher species are not well understood. But that doesn’t mean it cannot happen. In fact BovB has been found in a reptile tick. So BovB vectors do exist.

The point, rather, is that this is another example of how failed predictions are so easily sustained by evolutionary theory. And when you sustain failed predictions you crush the theory’s explanatory power. For when a theory explains everything, then it really is nothing more than a tautology.

http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2013/01/horizontal-transfer-finally-reaches.html

 

[UltimateReality]

If there is one concept on Earth that has been the absolute bane of human existence (besides global elitism), it would have to be the concept of the “majority opinion”. The moment men began refusing to develop their own world views without first asking “What does everyone else think?”, they set themselves up for an endless future of failures. Human beings desperately want to belong, but, they also desperately want to understand the environment around them. Often, the desire to belong and the desire to know the truth conflict. In some societies, in order to be accepted, one must give up on his search for truth and avoid eliciting the anger of others. The idea of the majority view or the “mainstream”, gives people the sense that they are a part of a group, and at the same time, gives them the illusion of being informed.

Their rationale is:

If most of the population believes something to be true, then, by “statistical law”, it most likely is true. Those who do not share in the majority opinion are therefore in opposition to statistical law; meaning they are behind the times, social deviants, or just plain crazy..

Guest Post: The "Majority Opinion" Is An Illusion | Zero Hedge

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Wow! Just Wow! Above you stated Evolution and Origins weren't related.

Actually I never said that. In fact what I said was "evolution and the origins of life are connected." Do you have trouble reading English, do you unknowingly make up reality as you go, or do you just purposely write drastically incorrect statements because you can't create an honest argument? You literally stated I said the exact opposite of what was actually said. Do you realize how moronic that makes you look?

Here's one for you, Mister Evolution is on Par with Gravity: Please provide me a link to one example of experiment where a random mutation resulted in additional information which resulted in natural selection. Please don't make the mistake of linking to the pathetic 20-year-old Ecoli experiment in which destruction of information resulted in mutations. For your theory to work, we need proof of information ADDED by a random mutation. Remember, us "creationists" are claiming the information has always been there.

Actually, creationists believe in this made up term called macroevolution which poorly attempts to justify small amounts of new information "not counting" as evolution. To claim no new information is possible shows a complete lack of understanding of the concept of mutation AND evolution. Regardless most creationists do believe new information can be created, and this has been extensively documented in countless experiments:
Researchers Trace HIV Mutations that Lead to Drug Resistance
PLOS Biology: The Genetic Basis of Thermal Reaction Norm Evolution in Lab and Natural Phage Populations
Evolutionary rescue of a green alga kept in the dark. [Biol Lett. 2013] - PubMed - NCBI
Contribution of individual random mutations to genotype-by-environment interactions in Escherichia coli

To name a few examples. To assert that nothing beneficial could possibly come from mutation is incredibly foolish. How do you think bacteria become resistant to antibiotics? We can literally reproduce it from bacteria that are all sensitive to antibiotics in a lab at any time. They acquire beneficial mutations to allow for survival in antibiotics. Most creationists don't even try to contest this. I find it amusing that you do.

So it seems like your criteria are that it must be complex, provide function, and occur naturally in the non-living world. Is that correct? Now when we remove all life from the planet and look at the remaining natural elements, how do you define FUNCTION exactly? HAHAHA. I do enjoy a good circular reasoning argument. Go on, share yours.

This doesn't even make sense.

Ah, perhaps I misread. Please, provide me with your personal criteria on how to "detect" intelligent design.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

You go first. Remember, google is definitely YOUR friend.

You claim I don't understand the scientific method, but then back away from explaining it yourself. This is your claim, not mine. If you believe, for whatever made up reason, that I don't understand the scientific method, it's your job to to support your claim via correction. Notice how when I claim you're a moron, I can provide specific support to the claim. Well, I suppose YOU provide support to that claim and I just point it out with other evidence, but you get the idea.

If you think I don't understand the scientific method, it's your responsibility to show or correct it. But let's face it, this is just another one of your finger-pointing unsupported ad hominem attacks because you can't actually support your own claims, and now you're backpedaling because you were called out on it.

Of course you do!!! No duh, Captain Obvious. This is the same flawed reasoning that allows you to give credibility to the supposed science book The Origin of the Species. Let's see, I just need to write a book about bird beaks and poof! instant scientist. Please tell me you see the utter stupidity in the self-debasing logic of the argument you just presented???

I think it's the providing of evidence and using the scientific method correctly that makes scientists. But lets assume that Darwin doesn't count as a scientist. How do you propose to discredit all of the credentialed scientists that have extensively studied this topic since the 1800s? I always love how creationist nutjobs rely on information from the 1800s as the sole source of information on evolution. hahaha.

let's say darwin was a quack. how do you plan to discredit the entire field of phylogenetics?

No need. They continually discredit themselves. You will remember a few posts back my comment about making it up as you go along.

If falsifiability is essential in science then perhaps evolutionary theory belongs in a different box. Repeatedly evolution sustains contradictory evidence without missing a beat and the latest example is the next step in the long story of horizontal transfer of genomic material. Once evolutionary theory held that when the species were compared they would form an evolutionary tree, common descent, pattern. And when the genes of bacteria violated this pattern, it was said they had been horizontally transferred—a complicated mechanism that allows bacteria to trade genetic material with each other rather than merely inheriting it. Suddenly the framework of evolutionary theory was much more fluid as most any genetic pattern could be explained. The horizontal gene transfer explanation was used liberally and it was even recruited and greatly expanded in highly speculative narratives of how early evolution created its designs. But all of that was for bacteria. The higher eukaryote species, evolutionists argued, still very much confirmed the traditional evolutionary tree model. The theory was solid and falsifiable, the evolutionists assured their skeptics. That is, until now. For new research has brought horizontal transfer to the front and center for eukaryotes as well. To wit:

In higher organisms such as vertebrates, it is generally believed that lateral transfer of genetic information does not readily occur, with the exception of retroviral infection. However, horizontal transfer (HT) of protein coding repetitive elements is the simplest way to explain the patchy distribution of BovB, a long interspersed element (LINE) about 3.2 kb long, that has been found in ruminants, marsupials, squamates, monotremes, and African mammals.


The point here is not that any of this is impossible. The details of how such horizontal transfer of genetic material could occur and then propagate in the higher species are not well understood. But that doesn’t mean it cannot happen. In fact BovB has been found in a reptile tick. So BovB vectors do exist.

The point, rather, is that this is another example of how failed predictions are so easily sustained by evolutionary theory. And when you sustain failed predictions you crush the theory’s explanatory power. For when a theory explains everything, then it really is nothing more than a tautology.

Darwin's God: Horizontal Transfer Finally Reaches the Eukaryotes

If there is one concept on Earth that has been the absolute bane of human existence (besides global elitism), it would have to be the concept of the “majority opinion”. The moment men began refusing to develop their own world views without first asking “What does everyone else think?”, they set themselves up for an endless future of failures. Human beings desperately want to belong, but, they also desperately want to understand the environment around them. Often, the desire to belong and the desire to know the truth conflict. In some societies, in order to be accepted, one must give up on his search for truth and avoid eliciting the anger of others. The idea of the majority view or the “mainstream”, gives people the sense that they are a part of a group, and at the same time, gives them the illusion of being informed.

Their rationale is:

If most of the population believes something to be true, then, by “statistical law”, it most likely is true. Those who do not share in the majority opinion are therefore in opposition to statistical law; meaning they are behind the times, social deviants, or just plain crazy..

Guest Post: The "Majority Opinion" Is An Illusion | Zero Hedge

I find it hilarious that you falsely accuse me of copying and pasting, when I've done no such thing, and you follow it up with copied and pasted drivel. If you'd like to make a point on your own, please feel free to make it, and I'll shoot you down accordingly.

 

[Hollie]

Meyer seems to typify the fundie creationist. As noted, he isn't a scientist and as is the case with so many who front for creationist ministries, their lack of credentials in the subject matter they rattle on about makes them appear to be quite the bufoons.

I guess you never watched Carl Sagan's "Cosmos." Credentials or not, baffonery certainly isn't limited to creationists in the least. By the way, was Darwin a scientist?

You're suffering real confusion regarding science vs. hyper-religious claims to supernaturalism so I'm happy to lend an assist. Firstly, it's a common tactic of the hyper-religious / science loathing fundie crowd to attack Darwin without understanding his theory. Darwin was a learned man who presented a theory of common descent with modification. His theory was based upon the rigors of the scientific method and that theory has been supported and confirmed in the last 150 years. As with the other Christian fundies in this thread, you seem to be suggesting a worldwide conspiracy among relevant scientists and teaching universities that involves promotion of those horrible attributes of literacy and education.

 

[Youwerecreated]

And for the love of god!!!

For starters, the "human" Genome was in fact a sampling, I think from one or two celebs, a few scientists, etc. But a very small sampling.

It's not THE human genome, and to suggest rates of mutation which are not simply time driven, but also subject to environmental factors, are NOT KNOWN!!! Hell; even speculations on rates is STILL UNDER INVESTIGATION!!

You never heard of the human Genome project and the many scientists that worked on this project ?

Projects actually. There was a race between public and private funded efforts, since private ones we patenting sections of the code as they parsed / discovered it.

Meanwhile, all the hubbub may have been over thought. Turns out the vastly more complex Protenome is what's controlling the bitch, not to mention the Epi-genetic deal where enviroment comes into play and the same fucking gene in identical twins doesn't necessarily result in the same outcome. Shit!!! No cure for cancer, nor the common cold. But we know more, so there's that.

How'd I do?

You failed.

 

[LittleNipper]

Meyer seems to typify the fundie creationist. As noted, he isn't a scientist and as is the case with so many who front for creationist ministries, their lack of credentials in the subject matter they rattle on about makes them appear to be quite the bufoons.

I guess you never watched Carl Sagan's "Cosmos." Credentials or not, baffonery certainly isn't limited to creationists in the least. By the way, was Darwin a scientist?

You're suffering real confusion regarding science vs. hyper-religious claims to supernaturalism so I'm happy to lend an assist. Firstly, it's a common tactic of the hyper-religious / science loathing fundie crowd to attack Darwin without understanding his theory. Darwin was a learned man who presented a theory of common descent with modification. His theory was based upon the rigors of the scientific method and that theory has been supported and confirmed in the last 150 years. As with the other Christian fundies in this thread, you seem to be suggesting a worldwide conspiracy among relevant scientists and teaching universities that involves promotion of those horrible attributes of literacy and education.

Was Darwin a sientist?

 

[Youwerecreated]

If your description of the creation process gets into chemistry that's over my head, I'll let you know and ask you dumb it down for me. K?

So then, please go hog wild not fearing my understanding (lack of) of chemisty or anything else. Prove away.

If you did not understand how I figured out the mutation rate argument you would not understand biochemistry.

You really should consider taking some courses in the biological sciences. It would help you to understand the abysmal lack of facts in your arguments.

Have you not yet learned that your nonsensical "mutation rate" claims, which you apparently dredge up from creationist sites, are baseless?

 

[Youwerecreated]

No. I'm talking about you and making a factual claim:

Abject.

Fucking.

Retard.

Someone is having a bad day.

Yeah; and someone else is having a bad life. Sucks to be a moron, yeah?

So you're down to name calling. Yep you're using every play in the book that atheistic evolutionists use when their brain is stuck on stop.

 

[Youwerecreated]

No I understood. Come up with a bullshit rate, which by the way, is nonsense. Rates vary by the complexity of the organism, not to mention rates of reproduction.

Moreover, 2.2 or whatever million years, is bullshit. 4 to 6 million is more accurate, not to mention, the entire fucking human genome did not evolve in that time. Just a tiny, tiny portion did, which today differentiates us, rather slightly, in fact, from chimps or apes, depending on which is most closely related. The bulk of our DNA evolved over BILLIONS OF FUCKING YEARS!!!

You people are beyond ignorant. You're complete fucking idiots.

Fact, not opinion.

Then you are using circular reasoning to prove a point.

The rate was figured by rate of mutations in humans after the mapping of the human Genome.

When you are finished watching the first video watch the 2nd video because this is what I will use for evidence creation or design whichever term makes you more comfortable.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3R1I9Xi1FU]Stephen Meyer - Genetics Proves Design and Disproves Evolution PT 2 of 2 - YouTube[/ame]

I made it 4 min into the video and seriously. This guy isn't a scientist. He constantly makes broad sweeping generalizations and uses those generalizations to build on. He is a fraud. Just the statement that ALL the scientists he knows don't believe in random opportunity in evolution is rediculous.

It is amazing how hard some work a speel to defend their religion.

Really? a Professor that is well known from Cambridge University

 

[Youwerecreated]

Who said it happened by random chance? I love when hicks use phrases like that. It demonstrates their complete lack of knowledge on the subject. In this case, it comes down to the idea that you don't understand something, and therefore it must be divine intervention that created it. In a nutshell: Your stupidity equals your religion.

You're right it was not by random chance, it was by design.

I am right. But it was you who claimed that evolution supports correction enzymes arising out of "random chance." This again shows, after years of being told you are clueless, that you still don't understand evolution. Don't you find it odd that you try to shoot down a scientific theory on par with the theory of gravitation, and you don't even have a basic understanding of the general concepts?

Have you not seen evolutionist make the claim that evolution has not stopped, everything is still evolving ? They made this claim in this thread.

You people don't know what the heck to believe.

Shhh, honey, the big kids are talking. When you have a 3rd grade understanding of evolution concepts, then you can participate in whimsical conjecture about how established scientific facts may play out in the future.

I argue so much from your side I forget I am a creationist. I believe things exist because they were designed. that is the mechanism to keep humans from going extinct. But the mutation rate is so high deletrious mutations are going through without being repaired.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Are you telling me you can't look at something and detect design ,really ?

"Detect design?!" No please, educate us. What part of you "detects" design? I'm curious. What specific criteria do you have that serves as your design detection? I'd like to apply those criteria to various other things in the world to see which holds up and which don't.

I love boxing you into your own stupidity. This is where science with its clear definitions and evidence outshines the "witch hunt" detection of antiquity. Please, provide your criteria for design detection so we can see if it holds water.

My guess is that you will avoid providing such support to your argument like the plague, seeing as it would wreck your case.

The complexity of the cell is evidence of creation by the designer.

Does the complexity of my dog's vomit also provide evidence of a divine designer? To assume anything complex requires a designer is so childishly foolish.

Then you are using circular reasoning to prove a point.

This coming from the person whose entire argument is "the bible told me what's in the bible is all true". HAHAHAHA. hey, you should watch this informative video:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmx4twCK3_I]State Farm® - State of Disbelief (French Model) - YouTube[/ame]

BUNJURE!

Mathematics helps deciding the probability on chance or purposeful design.

 

[Hollie]

Then you are using circular reasoning to prove a point.

The rate was figured by rate of mutations in humans after the mapping of the human Genome.

When you are finished watching the first video watch the 2nd video because this is what I will use for evidence creation or design whichever term makes you more comfortable.


Stephen Meyer - Genetics Proves Design and Disproves Evolution PT 2 of 2 - YouTube

I made it 4 min into the video and seriously. This guy isn't a scientist. He constantly makes broad sweeping generalizations and uses those generalizations to build on. He is a fraud. Just the statement that ALL the scientists he knows don't believe in random opportunity in evolution is rediculous.

It is amazing how hard some work a speel to defend their religion.

Really? a Professor that is well known from Cambridge University

So, your criteria for credibility amounts to being "well known"?

You should be aware that Meyer is a demonstrated hack fronting for the Disco'tute.

He also has no credentials that would provide for knowledgeable testimony on cell biology. That would account for the blundering incompetence of his work ato the Disco'tute.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Ah good old Number 5. Incorrectly claim repeatedly that the start of the universe if part of evolution.

Your whole theory is built on a house of cards my friend. You can claim your theory starts with a complex cell all day long but this is really just avoiding the hard truth... denialism at its best. How did the information get into the first cell? Even Jodie Foster recognized an intelligent source in the movie Contact when she received a message containing the first 261 prime numbers. She knew there was no way in hell that the message had been generated randomly from outerspace. Yet you buffoons would have us believe the complex information in DNA occurred randomly. Maybe you should take a hint from Jodie.

Even Darwin thought evolution and the origin of life questions were inextricably connected. Evolutionists like the easy answers and run very hard and fast from the hard questions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ok-Oz7huWFw

So your counterargument to the defined limitations of evolution is a sci-fi movie about ALIENS from outer space. Really now? Please go on. Tell me more about how Jodie Foster teaches you about creationism.

Who said DNA occurred randomly? I love when hicks say things like that. It really shows that they're arguing against a concept they don't understand. Evolution is not an entirely random process. If has random parts to it, but the end result is far from random. It's unfortunate you didn't actually know that before entering this discussion.

And yes, evolution and the origins of life are connected. And yet they are separate. Connection does not mean "the same thing" Similarly the theory of gravity and how gravity came into existence are connected, and yet we don't need to prove how it got there to know that things roll downhill. Again, you really should have a better understanding of the concept you're failing to discredit.

You are finally coming around hick you believe everything is being ran by someone or something that things were not developed through randomness.

 

[Hollie]

Are you telling me you can't look at something and detect design ,really ?

"Detect design?!" No please, educate us. What part of you "detects" design? I'm curious. What specific criteria do you have that serves as your design detection? I'd like to apply those criteria to various other things in the world to see which holds up and which don't.

I love boxing you into your own stupidity. This is where science with its clear definitions and evidence outshines the "witch hunt" detection of antiquity. Please, provide your criteria for design detection so we can see if it holds water.

My guess is that you will avoid providing such support to your argument like the plague, seeing as it would wreck your case.


Does the complexity of my dog's vomit also provide evidence of a divine designer? To assume anything complex requires a designer is so childishly foolish.

Then you are using circular reasoning to prove a point.

This coming from the person whose entire argument is "the bible told me what's in the bible is all true". HAHAHAHA. hey, you should watch this informative video:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmx4twCK3_I]State Farm® - State of Disbelief (French Model) - YouTube[/ame]

BUNJURE!

Mathematics helps deciding the probability on chance or purposeful design.

Sweepingly ignorant. There is no mechanism to calculate a probability of purposeful design when there is no rational, demonstrated, or meaningful example of such a thing.

Supernaturalism, magic and metaphysics do not lend themselves to the rigors of mathematics. The madrassahs run by Harun Yahya are probably not real strong on math and science.

Learn to adapt.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I made it 4 min into the video and seriously. This guy isn't a scientist. He constantly makes broad sweeping generalizations and uses those generalizations to build on. He is a fraud. Just the statement that ALL the scientists he knows don't believe in random opportunity in evolution is rediculous.

It is amazing how hard some work a speel to defend their religion.

Really? a Professor that is well known from Cambridge University

So, your criteria for credibility amounts to being "well known"?

You should be aware that Meyer is a demonstrated hack fronting for the Disco'tute.

He also has no credentials that would provide for knowledgeable testimony on cell biology. That would account for the blundering incompetence of his work ato the Disco'tute.

Well educated people who believe in a designer seem to drive you over the edge.

 

[Youwerecreated]

"Detect design?!" No please, educate us. What part of you "detects" design? I'm curious. What specific criteria do you have that serves as your design detection? I'd like to apply those criteria to various other things in the world to see which holds up and which don't.

I love boxing you into your own stupidity. This is where science with its clear definitions and evidence outshines the "witch hunt" detection of antiquity. Please, provide your criteria for design detection so we can see if it holds water.

My guess is that you will avoid providing such support to your argument like the plague, seeing as it would wreck your case.


Does the complexity of my dog's vomit also provide evidence of a divine designer? To assume anything complex requires a designer is so childishly foolish.


This coming from the person whose entire argument is "the bible told me what's in the bible is all true". HAHAHAHA. hey, you should watch this informative video:

State Farm® - State of Disbelief (French Model) - YouTube

BUNJURE!

Mathematics helps deciding the probability on chance or purposeful design.

Sweepingly ignorant. There is no mechanism to calculate a probability of purposeful design when there is no rational, demonstrated, or meaningful example of such a thing.

Supernaturalism, magic and metaphysics do not lend themselves to the rigors of mathematics. The madrassahs run by Harun Yahya are probably not real strong on math and science.

Learn to adapt.

Wrong again hollie.

The specificity in living organisms is evidence of design. Why is this so hard for you to understand ?

 

[Hollie]

Really? a Professor that is well known from Cambridge University

So, your criteria for credibility amounts to being "well known"?

You should be aware that Meyer is a demonstrated hack fronting for the Disco'tute.

He also has no credentials that would provide for knowledgeable testimony on cell biology. That would account for the blundering incompetence of his work ato the Disco'tute.

Well educated people who believe in a designer seem to drive you over the edge.

What you hope to sidestep is the fact that Meyer, like so many representing the Christian creationist ministries, is not well educated in the subject matter he rattles on about.

That's one of the reasons why creationist are such laughable buffoons - Casey Luskin is authoring "science" material on behalf of the Disco'tute.

It's enough to make one cringe, but at the same time, reading these charlatans getting flamed on their own blogs is always good for a bit of schadenfreude

 

[Hollie]

Mathematics helps deciding the probability on chance or purposeful design.

Sweepingly ignorant. There is no mechanism to calculate a probability of purposeful design when there is no rational, demonstrated, or meaningful example of such a thing.

Supernaturalism, magic and metaphysics do not lend themselves to the rigors of mathematics. The madrassahs run by Harun Yahya are probably not real strong on math and science.

Learn to adapt.

Wrong again hollie.

The specificity in living organisms is evidence of design. Why is this so hard for you to understand ?

False. The "specificity" you claim is an illusion that you cling to as a way to placate your hyper-religious belief. By the same twisted thinking, your "specificity" would also apply to cancer cells, for one example. Aside from your hyper-religious "because I say so" admonition, there is no reason to accept your unfounded and demonstrably false claim that "living organisms is evidence of design".