Creationists

[SmarterThanHick]

Nice Story. Still waiting for your examples of where genetic information was added.

Yeah because that takes reading. I have you multiple examples of drug resistance coming about from new genetic information as a result of mutation, along with numerous other survival advantages. We can literally reproduce this in a lab at any time. Even YouWereCreated believes this is possible. It's sad that you don't even understand how basic mutation works and believe yourself suitable to enter this discussion.

Let me put this another way: do you feel a single one of the links I provided DOES NOT show new genetic information coming from mutation? Pick one out and tell me why you think it doesn't count.

Nice dodge to avoid presenting a rebuttal to the information. So let me get this straight, by stating that you don't cut and paste you are somehow inferring that all the information you present is your own??? It must have spontaneously generated in your head just like your evolutionary theory of spontaneous generation. You're a dimwit.

You must be new to the internet. or forums. You see copying and pasting others work is seen as moronic. It demonstrates that you aren't even able to understand the concept that someone else is trying to say, and so have to literally vomit what they said verbatim in hopes something in there makes sense to others. In short: make your own point using your big boy words, or leave the thread and let the adults keep talking.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

His doctoral dissertation was on the origin of life you dimwit.

His doctoral dissertation in HISTORY was on the HISTORY of an evolutionist. Again, you seem to think that reporting on history or philosophy qualifies someone who couldn't get into a science program suddenly qualified in science.

Do you believe that reporting on the history of other subjects also makes someone qualified in them? I asked you this before you and avoided it like the plague. Does writing a biography on Mozart make me qualified to play the violin? Your point, just like that person's attempt to skirt acquiring actual credentials, is laughable.

 

[daws101]

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. 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.

wrong again slapdick! your answer is more proof that you are illiterate. you've, by some convoluted logic gleaned wrongly that this " Evolution is not an entirely random process. If has random parts to it, but the end result is far from random." -STH
means this:"You are finally coming around hick you believe everything is being ran by someone or something that things were not developed through randomness." -YWC
(BTW THAT'S RUN BY)

NOWHERE DOES STH infer, mention, or hint at , a supernatural someone or some thing is behind the scenes directing existence.
that's all you reading in what's not there.
denial of fact at it's finest.

 

[UltimateReality]

And here's why, Ywc.

Meyer will reject any and all old or new information which would in any way contradict his (and many other's) postulate:

Sublime order within some/all organisms = some intelligence must be behind it = Christian god is ABSOLUTELY FACTUAL.

And that, I'm sorry to say, if the fucking EPITOME of logical fallasy.

Simple truth, pursuant to 9th Commandment, which is a gooder, IMO, since we humans thought it up and nearly all of us can agree it's as Martha would say, "a good thing."

This post shows your incredible ignorance. If you want to even have a shred of credibility left in this discussion you really need to read Signature In The Cell so you don't make such incredibly misinformed stupid comments on the topic.

Wouldn't work on me; and it's not intended to. It's for ya'll's consumption, and speaks to the myriad other logical fallacies advanced by Creationists, which again, is a misnomer, since they/you are merely Evolution Denialists.

Some examples of other logical fallacies ...

Mutations do exists, after all = Human Genome Project (plural actually) proves rates don't fit time factors (patently false) = some other force it at play (true; evironment, proteins, no doubt others) = Christian god is ABSOLUTE FACT.

Or ...

Cells have components = some intelligence put it there = Christian god is ABSOLUTE FACT.

Got any more?

Repeating the same ignorant fallacy won't make it any more applicable to the actual ID argument.

 

[daws101]

some questionable creationist credentials

suspicious creationist credentials

they'll burn in hell for their flagrant disregard for god's 9th commandment, amen.

can i get a hallelujah brothas' and sistas'

hallelujah! And a do da day!

 

[daws101]

They'll burn in Hell for their flagrant disregard for God's 9th Commandment, Amen.

Can I get a hallelujah brothas' and sistas'

And you claimed atheism is not a religous view.

IT'S NOT in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby.




disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Origin:
1580–90; < Greek áthe ( os ) godless + -ism .

just the opposite of theism :
the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation ( distinguished from deism ).

2.
belief in the existence of a god or gods

as always wrong! and talking out your ass

 

[daws101]

I have realized that engaging in the rampant stupidity exhibited by atheist agenda disciples in this thread is hazardous to my intelligence. Peace out until next time.

translation : nobody's buying the bullshit. UR is in and out of this thread so much he should be a closet!

 

[Koios]

This post shows your incredible ignorance. If you want to even have a shred of credibility left in this discussion you really need to read Signature In The Cell so you don't make such incredibly misinformed stupid comments on the topic.

Wouldn't work on me; and it's not intended to. It's for ya'll's consumption, and speaks to the myriad other logical fallacies advanced by Creationists, which again, is a misnomer, since they/you are merely Evolution Denialists.

Some examples of other logical fallacies ...

Mutations do exists, after all = Human Genome Project (plural actually) proves rates don't fit time factors (patently false) = some other force it at play (true; evironment, proteins, no doubt others) = Christian god is ABSOLUTE FACT.

Or ...

Cells have components = some intelligence put it there = Christian god is ABSOLUTE FACT.

Got any more?

Repeating the same ignorant fallacy won't make it any more applicable to the actual ID argument.

We agree. Imagine you and I agreeing. Please someone: bring me a tissue; I'm getting misty here.

Now then, UR, since we're both real prickly on the subject of fallacies and shit, might some fallacious nonsense be within my comments, aside from those which merely illustrate the fallacies employed by Creationists, an apparent science in which "creation" is studied by ignoring most of evolutionary science and distrorting what's left of it?

Apologies for the run-on question. Thanks in advance for your speedy reply now that we're all agreeable and shit, praise babygod.

 

[daws101]

This post shows your incredible ignorance. If you want to even have a shred of credibility left in this discussion you really need to read Signature In The Cell so you don't make such incredibly misinformed stupid comments on the topic.

Wouldn't work on me; and it's not intended to. It's for ya'll's consumption, and speaks to the myriad other logical fallacies advanced by Creationists, which again, is a misnomer, since they/you are merely Evolution Denialists.

Some examples of other logical fallacies ...

Mutations do exists, after all = Human Genome Project (plural actually) proves rates don't fit time factors (patently false) = some other force it at play (true; evironment, proteins, no doubt others) = Christian god is ABSOLUTE FACT.

Or ...

Cells have components = some intelligence put it there = Christian god is ABSOLUTE FACT.

Got any more?

Repeating the same ignorant fallacy won't make it any more applicable to the actual ID argument.

staying or leaving? the fickle school girl routine is so last year.

 

[Koios]

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?

No; a scientist, in the field of study called "Naturalist," at that time in England. He was considered as being among the scientific elite, from a young age.

And his later accomplishments, which GREATLY advanced the field of science, certainly suggest the "elite" he was considered when young proved well-founded.

 

[Youwerecreated]

The angry fundie is perturbed that Meyer is exposed as a fraud in connection with defining cell biology. But then again, fraudulent credentials are so common among creationist charlatans.

What the angry fundies hope to avoid addressing is that the theory proposed by Darwin has passed through the filter of the scientific method and has science supported evidence to support the theory.

Desperate, angry, hyper-religious fundies seek to promote supermagicalism and mysticism as promoted by Christian ministries as a substitute for research and peer-reviewed data. That's why the charlatans are forced to pose in front of green screens in attempts to deceive the gullible that religion supplants science.

Typical incredibly ignorant post. Gone over a week and nothing changes. How do you not apply the same argument to Darwin's credentials??? Please do tell.

Perhaps because it's irrelevant? Since when did a wrong answer by someone with 80 PhDs doing post-doc studies thrump a correct answer by a Kindergardener?

Oh boy

 

[Youwerecreated]

Was Darwin a sientist?

Who cares? Let's say for the sake of argument he wasn't a scientist even though he correctly used the scientific method. Let's claim he was a quack.

Well, the countless credentialed scientists that came after him that also accurately utilized the scientific method and bias-free approaches to confirm and expand upon his work were scientists. So remind me what's your point again?

I dare you and the other defenders of the faith to take a look at your theory and predictions vs creationism. Everything on this site can be verified don't look unless you're willing to accept that Science better supports the creationist theory over the evolutionary theory.

It points out evolutionist and creationism Hypothesis supported or refuted through carefully crafted experimentation or observation, In other words the scientific method.

The Hypothesis of Evolution And Creation Science 


Part two.

The Age of the Earth

 

[Hollie]

This post shows your incredible ignorance. If you want to even have a shred of credibility left in this discussion you really need to read Signature In The Cell so you don't make such incredibly misinformed stupid comments on the topic.

Wouldn't work on me; and it's not intended to. It's for ya'll's consumption, and speaks to the myriad other logical fallacies advanced by Creationists, which again, is a misnomer, since they/you are merely Evolution Denialists.

Some examples of other logical fallacies ...

Mutations do exists, after all = Human Genome Project (plural actually) proves rates don't fit time factors (patently false) = some other force it at play (true; evironment, proteins, no doubt others) = Christian god is ABSOLUTE FACT.

Or ...

Cells have components = some intelligence put it there = Christian god is ABSOLUTE FACT.

Got any more?

Repeating the same ignorant fallacy won't make it any more applicable to the actual ID argument.

The "actual ID'iot" argument is really quite simple.

"In all of these efforts, [to promote creationism in schools] the creationists make abundant use of a simple tactic: They lie. They lie continually, they lie prodigiously, and they lie because they must."
--William J. Bennetta, from "Alabama Will Use Schoolbooks to Spread Lies and Foster Creationism"

Creationists are fundie Christians. Fundie Christians believe the various Bibles to be the absolute word of Gawd. Creationism is the extension of fundie Christian belief into the realm of science and scientific endeavour. Creationist believe that the entire universe, the Earth and all life, was created by Gawds in six days between 5,000 and 10,000 years ago as described in the Old Testament's Book of Genesis.

There are minor variations to the script but YEC'ists, ID'iots, etc., hold to the common theme of christian gawds as the "designer gawds".

 

[Koios]

Was Darwin a sientist?

Who cares? Let's say for the sake of argument he wasn't a scientist even though he correctly used the scientific method. Let's claim he was a quack.

Well, the countless credentialed scientists that came after him that also accurately utilized the scientific method and bias-free approaches to confirm and expand upon his work were scientists. So remind me what's your point again?

I dare you and the other defenders of the faith to take a look at your theory and predictions vs creationism. Everything on this site can be verified don't look unless you're willing to accept that Science better supports the creationist theory over the evolutionary theory.

It points out evolutionist and creationism Hypothesis supported or refuted through carefully crafted experimentation or observation, In other words the scientific method.

The Hypothesis of Evolution And Creation Science*


Part two.

The Age of the Earth

Part two would be a contrasting opinion, such as someone from the evolutionist side addressing the same comparitive matters.

What you have is nothing more than a stupid product comparison by the maker of whatever. It's akin to Coca-Cola doing a comparison of Coke vs. Pepsi. Whadaya bet Coke might win such a comparison?

 

[Hollie]

Was Darwin a sientist?

Who cares? Let's say for the sake of argument he wasn't a scientist even though he correctly used the scientific method. Let's claim he was a quack.

Well, the countless credentialed scientists that came after him that also accurately utilized the scientific method and bias-free approaches to confirm and expand upon his work were scientists. So remind me what's your point again?

I dare you and the other defenders of the faith to take a look at your theory and predictions vs creationism. Everything on this site can be verified don't look unless you're willing to accept that Science better supports the creationist theory over the evolutionary theory.

It points out evolutionist and creationism Hypothesis supported or refuted through carefully crafted experimentation or observation, In other words the scientific method.

The Hypothesis of Evolution And Creation Science*


Part two.

The Age of the Earth

From the "about us" section of your slanted copy and paste:

The website's main purpose after much prayer, is to provide many Christian resources for the purpose of growing in the Lord, and proclaim the Gospel to the lost. News items was later added due to the ever increasing bias in the media towards Christians. Many topics haven't been covered yet or just touched upon, but will be added to the array of Christian resources on this site. Lord willing...

Puh-rayze hey-zoos. He ain't willing.

 

[Koios]

Wouldn't work on me; and it's not intended to. It's for ya'll's consumption, and speaks to the myriad other logical fallacies advanced by Creationists, which again, is a misnomer, since they/you are merely Evolution Denialists.

Some examples of other logical fallacies ...

Mutations do exists, after all = Human Genome Project (plural actually) proves rates don't fit time factors (patently false) = some other force it at play (true; evironment, proteins, no doubt others) = Christian god is ABSOLUTE FACT.

Or ...

Cells have components = some intelligence put it there = Christian god is ABSOLUTE FACT.

Got any more?

Repeating the same ignorant fallacy won't make it any more applicable to the actual ID argument.

The "actual ID'iot" argument is really quite simple.

"In all of these efforts, [to promote creationism in schools] the creationists make abundant use of a simple tactic: They lie. They lie continually, they lie prodigiously, and they lie because they must."
--William J. Bennetta, from "Alabama Will Use Schoolbooks to Spread Lies and Foster Creationism"

Creationists are fundie Christians. Fundie Christians believe the various Bibles to be the absolute word of Gawd. Creationism is the extension of fundie Christian belief into the realm of science and scientific endeavour. Creationist believe that the entire universe, the Earth and all life, was created by Gawds in six days between 5,000 and 10,000 years ago as described in the Old Testament's Book of Genesis.

There are minor variations to the script but YEC'ists, ID'iots, etc., hold to the common theme of christian gawds as the "designer gawds".

Well said, Hollie and William. Bow, bow, kudos a many!!! Perfectly succinct and sublime in it's reasoning and accuracy!!!

Thumbs up, times a googol; or 1 times 10 to the 100th, unless you're a Creationist, in which case it's a number we do not know and thus God is real, which we've proven mathematically!!!!

 

[newpolitics]

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.

Wow! Just Wow! Above you stated Evolution and Origins weren't related. Now you post a sentence that insinuates Natural Selection had something to do with the specifiably complex information in DNA. Yawn. You are horribly out matched here. You might want to quit while your behind.

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.

we have the example which I've already provided twice, wherein humans evolved the ability to digest lactase into adulthood through a mutation that increased our survivability.

This is an example of a mutation that survived natural selection. However I don't understand your obsession with information being added. This is not required for a beneficial mutation as evidenced with this example.

 

[LOki]

"These two meanings are worlds apart, and defenders of faith equivocate on these two definitions constantly to try and show that faith is justified. This is logically fallacious, because you are sneakily switching definitions of faith, interchanging them as needed."

Expect nothing else from intellectually and morally disingenuous douche-bags.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Hmm no rebuttal,that is usually the case when dealing with the facts.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

And you claimed atheism is not a religous view.

IT'S NOT in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby.

The problem with religious nutjobs is that they can't even fathom the concept that someone can procure knowledge without faith that is different but on par with their own. The very idea baffles them. So they assign faith where none existed to avoid addressing any other possibilities.

But this is ultimately the difference between science and religion. Science strives for bias-free examination, allowing for perspective to be changed based on that evidence, whereas religion requires bias to cherry pick evidence so that faith can be preserved.

I dare you and the other defenders of the faith to take a look at your theory and predictions vs creationism. Everything on this site can be verified don't look unless you're willing to accept that Science better supports the creationist theory over the evolutionary theory.

It points out evolutionist and creationism Hypothesis supported or refuted through carefully crafted experimentation or observation, In other words the scientific method.

The Hypothesis of Evolution And Creation Science*


Part two.

The Age of the Earth

And I dare you to make an argument of your own instead of copying and pasting the crap of others. I'm fairly certain I shot down these links previously. In this thread.

Yes, coherent arguments of your own! Crazy idea! You, who in this very thread have been shown to fabricate evidence and information on the topic. You who in this very thread has shown himself on countless occasion to have absolutely no understanding of the basis of evolution despite despising it. People have actually made lists of all the erroneous things you've said. How is it that you still believe, after being proven wrong so many times about the same things, that you never actually learn anything about evolution? How is that depth of ignorance humanly possible?