Creationists

[Youwerecreated]

you'd have to clarify, were there days when the galaxy was forming? was time even a factor during the formation ?
maybe this will be easier Galaxy Song - YouTube

God, through the Bible, frames what is meant by "day" in terms of what would become the standard for a day for Adam (...and the evening and the morning was the first.. second... third... day). God created for 12 hours and then rested 12 hours.

as stated before you have no quantifiable proof that god did anything.
funny if god created everything why was human kind the species that invented the clock?

Your ability to believe in miracles is noted.

God gave human kind the ability to do so through intelligence. That is what separates us from all living organisms our intelligence.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Faith always comes first and then comes the works. The works are the sign of one's faith and are the result of the working of the Holy Spirit in the life of the saved individual. The works do not achieve salvation. The Law was God's illustration to man of perfection and man's inability to work his way to God. Only God Himself could keep the Law --- the Christ, the only begotten Son of God. Even the faith comes from God and not from within ourselves. God comes to the door of our inner being and knocks. We either accept or reject. When we accept our soul becomes moldable. If we reject God, one's soul becomes harder and harder. This is what happened to Pharoah and King Saul as examples...

I have not faired well with my actions sometimes in this thread.

Not so, you're an expert at believing in fairy tales, being willfully ignorant, quote mining, misrepresenting, braggadocio, bigotry, homophobia, hubris, pseudoscience.
all in all you're one of the most fabulous fuck up's I've ever met.
after 30 years in showbiz that's saying something.




 

I was speaking of keeping my patience with nitwits like yourself where your views are based on miracles and or fairytales.

You're the queen of ignorance.

 

[Hollie]

God created man in His own image ------ and that includes a creative spirit. God created life. Can you create life?

,
What leads you to believe your partisan gawds, as opposed to other gawds, created anything?

Jesus Christ

Robin Hood.

They're both mythical characters.

 

[daws101]

I have not faired well with my actions sometimes in this thread.

Not so, you're an expert at believing in fairy tales, being willfully ignorant, quote mining, misrepresenting, braggadocio, bigotry, homophobia, hubris, pseudoscience.
all in all you're one of the most fabulous fuck up's I've ever met.
after 30 years in showbiz that's saying something.

 

Whatever, Pot.

scathing retort detective douche bag!

 

[daws101]

I have not faired well with my actions sometimes in this thread.

Not so, you're an expert at believing in fairy tales, being willfully ignorant, quote mining, misrepresenting, braggadocio, bigotry, homophobia, hubris, pseudoscience.
all in all you're one of the most fabulous f--k up's I've ever met.
after 30 years in showbiz that's saying something.




 

Actually, it would seem you are a bigot, as you base your own opinions on how you feel and not on what God reveals/teaches. Judge not lest ye be judged. Your own opinion is not a reason to disrespect someone. Homosexuality is non productive. It is founded on self debasement and the misuse of the human body. God's Word is very clear in this regard. And the random use of deragatory terms for sexual encounters is only another symptom of a negative self righteous destructive society promoting hedonism.

hardly! your religious delusion is so pervasive that you fail to notice how truly bigoted it is.
you have no proof god reveals anything, what you are taught from the bible is an interpretation by either yourself or someone you "believe" to be more in touch with a so called god. most of all it's subjective.. your use of this phrase:"Judge not lest ye be judged" is contradictive.
as you've already judged wrongly, myself... homosexuality...what is productive and what's not and society as a whole.
or to put it another way: opinions are like assholes everybody's got one and yours stinks!

 

[daws101]

God created man in His own image ------ and that includes a creative spirit. God created life. Can you create life?

,
What leads you to believe your partisan gawds, as opposed to other gawds, created anything?

Jesus Christ

typical non answer, there is no actual evidence Jesus did anything he's credited with ,since none of his actions can be corroborated by non biblical sources they can only be deemed fiction.

 

[daws101]

God, through the Bible, frames what is meant by "day" in terms of what would become the standard for a day for Adam (...and the evening and the morning was the first.. second... third... day). God created for 12 hours and then rested 12 hours.

as stated before you have no quantifiable proof that god did anything.
funny if god created everything why was human kind the species that invented the clock?

God created man in His own image ------ and that includes a creative spirit. God created life. Can you create life?

another non answer.. the point, Small Nipples, is you have no possible way of knowing if god did 12 hour shifts as the concept of measuring time by hours mins ,seconds is completely human.
so your assumption is false.

 

[daws101]

You tried to spin out of your dumb, uneducated comments, I won't let you off the hook this time.

how's that slapdick? as you have no line or hook to cast!
please present my uneducated statements!

You said it in your posts. One was attacking the theory migration was due to land bridges and that is how animals got to Australia.The other was to suggest Australia was never flooded or under water.

more proof you are an illiterate so you exposed nothing but your own ignorance ....


The great Flood: the story from the Bible


A modern reconstruction of the Ark, in Schagen (Holland). Photo Johan Huibers.
Modern reconstruction of Noah's Ark
The Great Flood: mythological story about a great destruction that once befell the earth. There are several variants; the Biblical version is the most famous. The possibility that there is a historical event behind the story (a local flood in southern Babylonia in the twenty-eighth century BCE) can not be excluded.

Bible Sumer Babylonia Greece Archaeology
Full text Eridu Genesis Atrahasis Ovid

Reconstruction
Gilgameš Hyginus

Quran
Berossus Apollodorus



Introduction
The famous story about the Great Flood is best known from the Bible (Genesis 6-9). It has always been known that there were similar stories from Greece and Rome (like the ones by Apollodorus, Ovid, and Hyginus), but in the nineteenth century, several texts from ancient Iraq were added. The first discovery was Tablet XI of the Babylonian Epic of Gilgameš (in 1872), the second the Sumerian original, now called the Eridu Genesis (1914), and the third the Epic of Atrahasis (1956). It is now clear that the Biblical account stays close to a Babylonian model.
http://www.livius.org/fa-fn/flood/flood1.html

 

[daws101]

God, through the Bible, frames what is meant by "day" in terms of what would become the standard for a day for Adam (...and the evening and the morning was the first.. second... third... day). God created for 12 hours and then rested 12 hours.

as stated before you have no quantifiable proof that god did anything.
funny if god created everything why was human kind the species that invented the clock?

Your ability to believe in miracles is noted.

God gave human kind the ability to do so through intelligence. That is what separates us from all living organisms our intelligence.

funny, god's stock and trade is miracles .
your denial of this means you fashioned god in your own image.
you can believe god gave humans abilities but you have no proof to back it up.
on the other hand it's been proven that humans developed skills and abilities over time with no help from
deities
Bitching, whining and unprovable pseudoscience ravings in 3...2.....1

 

[UltimateReality]

You haven't refuted any of my claims. Meyers does not rely on forces now in operation. He makes assumptions he is not justified in making, such as Pretending that his probabilities accurately describe anything. Tell me, how does he know what numbers to plug into his probabilities? How does he know his numbers are descriptive of what happened? He doesn't. He is just selling an idea, and you've bought it. Whether it not he is using forces now in operation doesn't save him from his use of an inductive argument. Try actually researching inductive reasoning so you can understand what he is doing, Although I am guessing you don't really want to find out how wrong he is. Your stupid equivalency of meyers argument to darwin's is laughable. Darwin had direct, demonstrable evidence for his claims. Meyers has none.

Meyer does too: No complex, information with specificity exists in nature unless it has an intelligent agent as its source, period. Or put another way, ALL functional, complex information has an intelligent agent as its source. This is a hypothesis that will become a law eventually until you prove otherwise. However, you are too blind to even have a logical discussion with, as evidenced by this post. Logic escapes you so what is the point in arguing with you?

There is only one species that we know of who is "intelligent," by our own definition: us. We are therefore, by definition, the ONLY Known intelligent source of specifiable, complex information. My point: you are begging the question, and your sample size is far too small to generalize this to then claim that "all specifiable, complex information is created by intelligence."

Prove me wrong then!!!

So small, as to make your argument laughable. Your sample size is n=1. Are you serious? Your inductive argument is so incredibly weak. Even if we knew of a million intelligent species who created specifiable information, that doesn't mean that the next unknown example of information is necessarily made by an intelligence. You can never make that conclusion without direct evidence. This is the fallacy of inductive reasoning. You could never claim with any certainty, therefore t will never be a law.

What you are doing is the equivalent of seeing a red apple for first time and saying, "this red apple has seeds and is round, therefore anything that has seeds and is round is also a red apple."

Omigosh!! I can't believe you are so ignorant to your own theory of Evolution!! The TOE does this continually. All the historic sciences do this. When there are multiple explanations, they default to the best explanation. Meyer refutes all the chance, necessity and chance with necessity arguments and then points to a cause presently in operation as being the best explanation. Again, you denial of Meyers probability arguments just screams of your ignorance of origins arguments made by the so called pseudo scientist of evolultion. Meyers probability arguments are merely a rebuttal to origins theories from your camp. Your inability to acknowledge this just shows your blatant ignorance of your own worldview.

This is the level of your arrogance.

No, its the level of yours.

There are green apples, yellow apples, etc...You can't generalize to all apples being red based on the first apple you saw.

Wrong again!! You have not presented me with any yellow or green apples in this case so your fallacy accusation has no merit!!! Find an example of complex, functional information that doesn't have an intelligent agent as its source and you will have your green apple. Furthermore, we have billions examples of information created by intelligent agents, dating as far back as cave drawings, NOT ONE, as in your completely ignorant and fallacious apple comparison. So it is not the first apple, but apple after apple after apple after apple infinity that fits until you falsify it with an example that violates the hypothesis. That silly, false comparison might work on the mental giants like Daws and Hawly, who were quick to thank you for your fallacious example, but you are sadly mistaken if you think you can pass it off on the intelligent folks here. Until then, your silly comparison has no merit and is fallacious in and of itself.

Yet, this is what you are doing while looking at human created information. Even more arrogant is that you are the one defining us as intelligent. Therefore, you are defining this conclusion into existence. It is begging the question, yet another fallacy.

This is by far the dumbest thing you have said yet and shows a complete lack of intelligence on your part. So excluding yourself, are you are saying that the human mind does not represent intelligence??? Really???

 

[UltimateReality]

Not so, you're an expert at believing in fairy tales, being willfully ignorant, quote mining, misrepresenting, braggadocio, bigotry, homophobia, hubris, pseudoscience.
all in all you're one of the most fabulous fuck up's I've ever met.
after 30 years in showbiz that's saying something.

 

Whatever, Pot.

scathing retort detective douche bag!

Do you think you are bothering me with your little nickname? Quite the contrary!! You are just demonstrating your own lack of maturity and stupidity.

 

[Hollie]

Meyer does too: No complex, information with specificity exists in nature unless it has an intelligent agent as its source, period. Or put another way, ALL functional, complex information has an intelligent agent as its source. This is a hypothesis that will become a law eventually until you prove otherwise. However, you are too blind to even have a logical discussion with, as evidenced by this post. Logic escapes you so what is the point in arguing with you?

There is only one species that we know of who is "intelligent," by our own definition: us. We are therefore, by definition, the ONLY Known intelligent source of specifiable, complex information. My point: you are begging the question, and your sample size is far too small to generalize this to then claim that "all specifiable, complex information is created by intelligence."

Prove me wrong then!!! Omigosh!! I can't believe you are so ignorant to your own theory of Evolution!! The TOE does this continually. All the historic sciences do this. When there are multiple explanations, they default to the best explanation. Meyer refutes all the chance, necessity and chance with necessity arguments and then points to a cause presently in operation as being the best explanation. Again, you denial of Meyers probability arguments just screams of your ignorance of origins arguments made by the so called pseudo scientist of evolultion. Meyers probability arguments are merely a rebuttal to origins theories from your camp. Your inability to acknowledge this just shows your blatant ignorance of your own worldview.
No, its the level of yours.

There are green apples, yellow apples, etc...You can't generalize to all apples being red based on the first apple you saw.

Wrong again!! You have not presented me with any yellow or green apples in this case so your fallacy accusation has no merit!!! Find an example of complex, functional information that doesn't have an intelligent agent as its source and you will have your green apple. Furthermore, we have billions examples of information created by intelligent agents, dating as far back as cave drawings, NOT ONE, as in your completely ignorant and fallacious apple comparison. So it is not the first apple, but apple after apple after apple after apple infinity that fits until you falsify it with an example that violates the hypothesis. That silly, false comparison might work on the mental giants like Daws and Hawly, who were quick to thank you for your fallacious example, but you are sadly mistaken if you think you can pass it off on the intelligent folks here. Until then, your silly comparison has no merit and is fallacious in and of itself.

Yet, this is what you are doing while looking at human created information. Even more arrogant is that you are the one defining us as intelligent. Therefore, you are defining this conclusion into existence. It is begging the question, yet another fallacy.

This is by far the dumbest thing you have said yet and shows a complete lack of intelligence on your part. So excluding yourself, are you are saying that the human mind does not represent intelligence??? Really???

Gee whiz but angry stalker is on a tear – as usual, showing ignorance, incompetence and a willingness to believe whatever is concocted by the ID’iot cabal of Christian creationist. It is always interesting to see a Meyer groupie blather into an incoherent frothing rage when in a stupor, not realizing what a con job Meyer has pulled on him.

Fundie stalker is, as usual, frothing over the creationist invented “all specifiable, complex information is created by intelligence”, which is - I have to advise - pure gibberish. As an example, both Christian creationist charlatans Mayer and Dembski blather on about "ordered sequence complexity" and "random sequence complexity". Both are their own self-invented terms. What is laughable is that neither charlatan can even give a well-defined way to calculate such “complexity”.

There’s a thorough trashing of Meyer’s falsehoods and inventions, here:

Recursivity: Stephen Meyer's Bogus Information Theory

Creationist information, as discussed by Meyer, is an incoherent mess. One version of it has been introduced by William Dembski, and criticized in detail by Mark Perakh, Richard Wein, and many others (including me). Intelligent design creationists love to call it "specified information" or "specified complexity" and imply that it is widely accepted by the scientific community, but this is not the case. There is no paper in the scientific literature that gives a rigorous and coherent definition of creationist information; nor is it used in scientific or mathematical investigations.

 

[Hollie]

The ID’iot methodology of claiming “The Gawds Did It”

It’s one logical fallacy after another but for ID’iots, logical fallacies are the stuff of affirming an incoherent and derelict argument.

The ID’iot argument:
(a) All landscape flamingos are pink;
(b) An object in my yard is pink.
(c) Therefore, the object in my yard is a landscape flamingo.


This is the ID’iot argument that Meyer stole from Behe and Dembski. They just make up this nonsense as they go along.
(a) - DNA has 'specified complexity'
(b) - 'Specified complexity' can only be caused by intelligent agents
(c) - DNA was made by an intelligent agent

It's really just an embarrassing admission of the failure of the fundie Christian creationist cabal.

 

[Hollie]

Whatever, Pot.

scathing retort detective douche bag!

Do you think you are bothering me with your little nickname? Quite the contrary!! You are just demonstrating your own lack of maturity and stupidity.

"That silly, false comparison might work on the mental giants like Daws and Hawly,..."

It seems fundie stalker has yet to emerge from his stupor.

 

[daws101]

Whatever, Pot.

scathing retort detective douche bag!

Do you think you are bothering me with your little nickname? Quite the contrary!! You are just demonstrating your own lack of maturity and stupidity.

really ? if that's the case why mention it at all....

 

[daws101]

scathing retort detective douche bag!

Do you think you are bothering me with your little nickname? Quite the contrary!! You are just demonstrating your own lack of maturity and stupidity.

"That silly, false comparison might work on the mental giants like Daws and Hawly,..."

It seems fundie stalker has yet to emerge from his stupor.

he's like a neurotic school girl.

 

[UltimateReality]

The ID’iot methodology of claiming “The Gawds Did It”

It’s one logical fallacy after another but for ID’iots, logical fallacies are the stuff of affirming an incoherent and derelict argument.

The ID’iot argument:
(a) All landscape flamingos are pink;
(b) An object in my yard is pink.
(c) Therefore, the object in my yard is a landscape flamingo.


This is the ID’iot argument that Meyer stole from Behe and Dembski. They just make up this nonsense as they go along.
(a) - DNA has 'specified complexity'
(b) - 'Specified complexity' can only be caused by intelligent agents
(c) - DNA was made by an intelligent agent

It's really just an embarrassing admission of the failure of the fundie Christian creationist cabal.

Wow, just wow. Your angry fundie persona might be more effective if you actually knew how to compose a syllogism. The first syllogism you used doesn't even qualify so it is worthless for comparison purposes. How many countless times must I expose your lack of education? You can educate yourself here:

Syllogism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In your stupid example below, (b) does not even qualify as a premise. Therefore, your argument is invalid.

(a) All landscape flamingos are pink;
(b) An object in my yard is pink.
(c) Therefore, the object in my yard is a landscape flamingo.

Here is your incompetent example rephrased as a valid syllogism:

All landscape flamingos are pink.

Hawly is a landscape flamingo.

Hawly is pink.

The correct and true ID syllogism would go like this:

All functional information has an intelligent agent as its source. (prove this statement isn't true)

DNA contains functional information. (prove this statement isn't true)

DNA has an intelligent agent as its source.

Now I'm just waiting for the imbecile Daws to thank Hawly for her incompetent post.

 

[UltimateReality]

Do you think you are bothering me with your little nickname? Quite the contrary!! You are just demonstrating your own lack of maturity and stupidity.

"That silly, false comparison might work on the mental giants like Daws and Hawly,..."

It seems fundie stalker has yet to emerge from his stupor.

he's like a neurotic school girl.

When you say Thespian, do you pronounce it thethspian?

 

[Hollie]

The ID’iot methodology of claiming “The Gawds Did It”

It’s one logical fallacy after another but for ID’iots, logical fallacies are the stuff of affirming an incoherent and derelict argument.

The ID’iot argument:
(a) All landscape flamingos are pink;
(b) An object in my yard is pink.
(c) Therefore, the object in my yard is a landscape flamingo.


This is the ID’iot argument that Meyer stole from Behe and Dembski. They just make up this nonsense as they go along.
(a) - DNA has 'specified complexity'
(b) - 'Specified complexity' can only be caused by intelligent agents
(c) - DNA was made by an intelligent agent

It's really just an embarrassing admission of the failure of the fundie Christian creationist cabal.

Wow, just wow. Your angry fundie persona might be more effective if you actually knew how to compose a syllogism. The first syllogism you used doesn't even qualify so it is worthless for comparison purposes. How many countless times must I expose your lack of education? You can educate yourself here:

Syllogism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In your stupid example below, (b) does not even qualify as a premise. Therefore, your argument is invalid.

(a) All landscape flamingos are pink;
(b) An object in my yard is pink.
(c) Therefore, the object in my yard is a landscape flamingo.

Here is your incompetent example rephrased as a valid syllogism:

All landscape flamingos are pink.

Hawly is a landscape flamingo.

Hawly is pink.

The correct and true ID syllogism would go like this:

All functional information has an intelligent agent as its source. (prove this statement isn't true)

DNA contains functional information. (prove this statement isn't true)

DNA has an intelligent agent as its source.

Now I'm just waiting for the imbecile Daws to thank Hawly for her incompetent post.

Oh my. Angry fundie fails again. It seems the religiously addled are unable to defend their bad analogies, inept comparisons and false claims, thus are forced to retreat to wiki. It seems that the hyper-religious Loon doesn't understand the false result, of the false premise that is set forth by the ID'iot argument.

Fundie Christians promoting ID'iosy seem to forget that their charade has long ago been exposed as fraudulent.

 

[LittleNipper]

Not so, you're an expert at believing in fairy tales, being willfully ignorant, quote mining, misrepresenting, braggadocio, bigotry, homophobia, hubris, pseudoscience.
all in all you're one of the most fabulous f--k up's I've ever met.
after 30 years in showbiz that's saying something.




 

Actually, it would seem you are a bigot, as you base your own opinions on how you feel and not on what God reveals/teaches. Judge not lest ye be judged. Your own opinion is not a reason to disrespect someone. Homosexuality is non productive. It is founded on self debasement and the misuse of the human body. God's Word is very clear in this regard. And the random use of deragatory terms for sexual encounters is only another symptom of a negative self righteous destructive society promoting hedonism.

hardly! your religious delusion is so pervasive that you fail to notice how truly bigoted it is.
you have no proof god reveals anything, what you are taught from the bible is an interpretation by either yourself or someone you "believe" to be more in touch with a so called god. most of all it's subjective.. your use of this phrase:"Judge not lest ye be judged" is contradictive.
as you've already judged wrongly, myself... homosexuality...what is productive and what's not and society as a whole.
or to put it another way: opinions are like assholes everybody's got one and yours stinks!

God Word says that the wages of sin is death. Do you believe that you will die one day? Even if you believe you will not --- God's Word says you will. Can the act of sex between two men produce a child? If not, it is not productive. And you are correct when you say everyone has a anus. But not everyone enjoys something to be stuck up it.