Creationists

[SmarterThanHick]

Do you understand the difference between micro-adaptations and macro-evolution ?

Yes. We've gone over this. The former is actual evolution, whereby changes in the genes occur over time to create differences within and between species. The latter is a term you made up to pretend that the former doesn't really count. Because in your mind taking 5 steps in changing genes is possible, but 6 is completely outside the realm of plausible belief.

You compare a newborn child to the universe and call me a loon .

No, not at all. We haven't seen this poor tactic of yours of completely making things up about the person you just quoted in a long time. You must be getting desperate. Or I could return to the idea of you hallucinating again.

Lets look at all the problems with your so called accurate dating methods. By someone that is not as biased as I am against them.

Bet you won't read it and learn something.

I try to learn things from verifiable sources and scientific study, not the sloppy personal webpage of someone expressing an unsupported belief. But we've gone over that before too, and in your usual fashion, you've conveniently forgotten. But again, these are your tactics: ignoring verified peer-reviewed scientific evidence with a system of checks and balances to instead just go for whatever nut happens to agree with you. These are the best underhanded methods in your arsenal. How sad.

When you are off you are off period. It's like firing a projectile the further the projectile travels the further it is off by the time it reaches the target area. And to say you're close and just off a little is baloney you have no idea how far off you're if the age is wrong.

Actually we know exactly how far we can be off by, and then we recheck it against other forms of dating to ensure they all agree. If I'm trying to shoot a target and I consistently either hit the bulls-eye or come within 2cm of it on the target, the accuracy is still high. But again, I can't expect you to understand a complex concept like known and expected deviation. In your mind the world is black or white, not bell curves of averages.

You're a dreamer,the bible is clear kinds reresent your term for today species. The word seed represents genes.

I love crappy guesses as people try to coerce biblical words into modern technological knowledge. So when we say every human cell has 3 billion genes, you really think that means there are 3 billion SEEDS in every cell? Maybe you don't understand what the word SEED means............

Then answer does the parents genes determine what the offspring will be ?

Not always. This is another topic you've conveniently forgotten. Yay!

I expect you to quote this entire post, and then ignore 99% of the content that completely tears down everything you say, to instead focus on more misdirection, because you are incapable of producing the type of intelligence or integrity to honestly discuss a topic.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

I rely on scientists too..

For example, the premier genetecist in the world, who believes in God.

And this is why you are perceived as a moron. A "premier" scientist publishes a widely reliable and verifiable peer reviewed topic on genetics, and then the next week admits that he really believes in ghosts or living dinosaurs in his kitchen, or God, or anything else. A smart person would say "well he has some crazy unsupported beliefs, but the scientific paper he published is actually verifiable and shown to be correct. I'm still going to accept the scientific work and reject his other odd beliefs unless he can similarly provide verifiable evidence for it like he did in genetics." The moron would say "because he said something smart in genetics, EVERYTHING he believes must be true!"

This is precisely why creationists record PhDs in completely unrelated topics talking about evolution or physics despite absolutely no education or training in them. At first it was just random priests. Then they got smart and got PhDs in theology. Then people started seeing through that so they had to reach to get people with PhD in some unrelated science.

Meanwhile, the entirety of the scientific community basically ridicules those people. And the religious nuts go on agreeing with the 0.01% because they "know" they are right.

You think you agree with scientists? No no, dear, you agree with the cherry picked people who you want to agree with.

 

[LOki]

Since there is no evidence of the big bang it is Pseudoscience.

Yet, there is evidence of the big bang. The big bang theory is not pseudoscience.

Denial of reality is the hallmark of faith, which is the foundation of superstition.

Since there is no accurate age of the earth it is Pseudoscience.

Yet, there is evidence of the earth. The earth is not pseudoscience.

Denial of reality is the hallmark of faith, which is the foundation of superstition.

Since there is no evidence for macro-evolution it is Pseudoscience.

Yet, there is evidence of macro-evolution. The theory of evolution is not pseudoscience.

Denial of reality is the hallmark of faith, which is the foundation of superstition.

These are beliefs based on faith.

Nonsense.

The big bang, the earth, and evolution are supported by evidence and valid logic--unlike any assertions that require first faith in the existence of a creator.

 

[koshergrl]

What complete garbage.

You just saying it doesn't make it so, skippy.

 

[LOki]

What complete garbage.

You just saying it doesn't make it so, skippy.

Factually baseless and logically fallacious denials are even less effective at making them not so, cupcake.

 

[koshergrl]

You are making the assertations, you get to prove them, or we'll just go along continuing to think you're full of shit.

Which of course, you are, cupcake.

 

[Dr.Drock]

What complete garbage.

You just saying it doesn't make it so, skippy.

Factually baseless and logically fallacious denials are even less effective at making them not so, cupcake.

She's right, no offense but you saying so doesn't make it so. It's scientists saying so that makes it important.

But scientists saying something makes it even less valid to kosher.

 

[LOki]

What complete garbage.

You just saying it doesn't make it so, skippy.

Factually baseless and logically fallacious denials are even less effective at making them not so, cupcake.

She's right, no offense but you saying so doesn't make it so. It's scientists saying so that makes it important.

But scientists saying something makes it even less valid to kosher.

Well Drock, you only need to read my reply to her, and follow the response she was replying to, to figure out I wasn't saying she was wrong.

Thanks for being sort-of in the game though.

 

[LOki]

You are making the assertations, you get to prove them, or we'll just go along continuing to think you're full of shit.

Which of course, you are, cupcake.

Well cupcake, isn't it just convenient for you that you just refuse to see that the douche making the assertions was actually Youwerecreated.

Now I know that intellectually dishonest deniers of reality like yourself always demand that your denials of reality are really just assertions of self-evident fact--so you'll blow off leveling this same challenge to the retarded champion of superstitions that you favor. Until you find the intellectual integrity to come around proper, you'll find the times I do such favors for you will only be those times that it suits me.

 

[koshergrl]

You haven't proven it's *reality*. And until you do, all your fist waving and foot stomping just makes you look lame and sad.

And very un-scientific.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Do I? Yes. Do you? No.


The passage could easily be interpretted to go along with macroevolution. Again, you prefer the loony science denying interpretation.

Tell me the difference briefly if you can ?

Then answer does the parents genes determine what the offspring will be ?

Not getting into this again. Cuz i know it'll be 20 pages and after you've been so overwhelmed with facts you'll just tell me the devil is behind it again. Crown yourself victor if you so desire.

All my points stand in terms of an interpretation going along with evolution and your interpretation not being superior to others.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Do you understand the difference between micro-adaptations and macro-evolution ?

Yes. We've gone over this. The former is actual evolution, whereby changes in the genes occur over time to create differences within and between species. The latter is a term you made up to pretend that the former doesn't really count. Because in your mind taking 5 steps in changing genes is possible, but 6 is completely outside the realm of plausible belief.

You compare a newborn child to the universe and call me a loon .

No, not at all. We haven't seen this poor tactic of yours of completely making things up about the person you just quoted in a long time. You must be getting desperate. Or I could return to the idea of you hallucinating again.


I try to learn things from verifiable sources and scientific study, not the sloppy personal webpage of someone expressing an unsupported belief. But we've gone over that before too, and in your usual fashion, you've conveniently forgotten. But again, these are your tactics: ignoring verified peer-reviewed scientific evidence with a system of checks and balances to instead just go for whatever nut happens to agree with you. These are the best underhanded methods in your arsenal. How sad.


Actually we know exactly how far we can be off by, and then we recheck it against other forms of dating to ensure they all agree. If I'm trying to shoot a target and I consistently either hit the bulls-eye or come within 2cm of it on the target, the accuracy is still high. But again, I can't expect you to understand a complex concept like known and expected deviation. In your mind the world is black or white, not bell curves of averages.

You're a dreamer,the bible is clear kinds reresent your term for today species. The word seed represents genes.

I love crappy guesses as people try to coerce biblical words into modern technological knowledge. So when we say every human cell has 3 billion genes, you really think that means there are 3 billion SEEDS in every cell? Maybe you don't understand what the word SEED means............

Then answer does the parents genes determine what the offspring will be ?

Not always. This is another topic you've conveniently forgotten. Yay!

I expect you to quote this entire post, and then ignore 99% of the content that completely tears down everything you say, to instead focus on more misdirection, because you are incapable of producing the type of intelligence or integrity to honestly discuss a topic.

Rhetoric tears down my thoughts

Not one response is worthy of a reply.

What besides genes determine what the offspring will be ?

Where do the genes of the offspring come from ?

How do the genes get delivered to the offspring ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

I rely on scientists too..

For example, the premier genetecist in the world, who believes in God.

And this is why you are perceived as a moron. A "premier" scientist publishes a widely reliable and verifiable peer reviewed topic on genetics, and then the next week admits that he really believes in ghosts or living dinosaurs in his kitchen, or God, or anything else. A smart person would say "well he has some crazy unsupported beliefs, but the scientific paper he published is actually verifiable and shown to be correct. I'm still going to accept the scientific work and reject his other odd beliefs unless he can similarly provide verifiable evidence for it like he did in genetics." The moron would say "because he said something smart in genetics, EVERYTHING he believes must be true!"

This is precisely why creationists record PhDs in completely unrelated topics talking about evolution or physics despite absolutely no education or training in them. At first it was just random priests. Then they got smart and got PhDs in theology. Then people started seeing through that so they had to reach to get people with PhD in some unrelated science.

Meanwhile, the entirety of the scientific community basically ridicules those people. And the religious nuts go on agreeing with the 0.01% because they "know" they are right.

You think you agree with scientists? No no, dear, you agree with the cherry picked people who you want to agree with.

Are you saying a scientist can't write an article and it's peer reviewed and then admit he believes in God and creation ?

No son, many brilliant people of science believe in God and creation.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Since there is no evidence of the big bang it is Pseudoscience.

Yet, there is evidence of the big bang. The big bang theory is not pseudoscience.

Denial of reality is the hallmark of faith, which is the foundation of superstition.

Since there is no accurate age of the earth it is Pseudoscience.

Yet, there is evidence of the earth. The earth is not pseudoscience.

Denial of reality is the hallmark of faith, which is the foundation of superstition.

Since there is no evidence for macro-evolution it is Pseudoscience.

Yet, there is evidence of macro-evolution. The theory of evolution is not pseudoscience.

Denial of reality is the hallmark of faith, which is the foundation of superstition.

These are beliefs based on faith.

Nonsense.

The big bang, the earth, and evolution are supported by evidence and valid logic--unlike any assertions that require first faith in the existence of a creator.

No, there is evidence of an expanding universe and many have said it's speeding up how can that be if it was an explosion ?over time it should be slowing.

What reality am I denying ?

What is your evidence of macro-evolution please don't give me examples of micro-adaptations or micro-evolution and call it macro-evolution. Micro-evolution and micro-adaptations are factual there is no arguing that.

 

[koshergrl]

We don't know what reality you're denying because they haven't provided any evidence of the alleged "reality".

They just say "what you say flies in the face of science!" but then refuse to produce any evidence.

Because it doesn't exist. And they're so stupid, I don't think they even know it. They go off half-cocked and don't bother to do the research...they don't think they need to, they THINK they're standing on the shoulders of giants.

It's just smoke and mirrors. Their own faith is so great, they don't bother with actually looking into it, and they think that should be enough for EVERYBODY, because they attach the word "science" to it. Except it's not science, and what they claim doesn't even exist.

 

[konradv]

The only evolution it would support is at the micro-adaptations level not your macro-evolution level.

Already shredded that mindset when I showed how someone could interpret those passages and still go along with scientific facts.

I have no reason to take your interpretation over mine. None. Just the opposite actually.

Do you understand the difference between micro-adaptations and macro-evolution ?

They are adaptations that you can't and can see, respectively. Other that that, there's no real difference, except as a creationist quibbling point.

 

[koshergrl]

Lol....

 

[JakeStarkey]

I have studied the bible for forty years, I think by now it would begin sinking in.

Have you studied the bible as many years and have a better understanding of it ?

Longer, and, of course.

Then show me how I am wrong in my views.

Because you can show yourself right in your views. The proof is not there for a literalist intepretation. You cannot do it textually, linguistically, hermeneutically, etc. But you can go for it. I will read your comments.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Already shredded that mindset when I showed how someone could interpret those passages and still go along with scientific facts.

I have no reason to take your interpretation over mine. None. Just the opposite actually.

Do you understand the difference between micro-adaptations and macro-evolution ?

They are adaptations that you can't and can see, respectively. Other that that, there's no real difference, except as a creationist quibbling point.

Anyone who thinks there is no difference from Micro-adaptations and macro-evolution better hit the books.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Longer, and, of course.

Then show me how I am wrong in my views.

Because you can show yourself right in your views. The proof is not there for a literalist intepretation. You cannot do it textually, linguistically, hermeneutically, etc. But you can go for it. I will read your comments.

With a thourough study, the bible only has one message on each subject you study.