Creationists

[daws101]

That is not a problem for me I have asked repeatedly for your side to make that convincing argument on how life began through a total natural process and heck you guys are not even using the Miller and Urey experiment to make your argument but you're convinced there is no intelligent designer.

false premise

How do you think life got it's start ? use your own words and no copying and pasting like your partner and let's have this discussion. You must have a thought of your own with 6 years of biology under your belt.

ok.. but first you must learn what a false premise is. until you do no real discussion can happen.
examples of a false premises "there is proof of guided or intelligent design in nature."
"creation science is science"

 

[UltimateReality]

I’ve never maintained that Miller and Urey either was, or is, the determining factor for how life began on the planet. I understand you tend to focus on this because you feel it appeals to the loathing you have for science. How sad for you.

Here's why fundies such as yourself devote so much energy toward your science loathing agenda: Creationists are almost exclusively Christian Fundamentalists; that is to say, literalists, taking every word of the bible to be the true and infallable word of God. Many echo the sentiments of Henry Morris, previous chief snake-oil salesman in charge fronting for fundie Christian charlatans who you have frequently cut and pasted from:

"But the main reason for insisting on the universal Flood as a fact of history and as the primary vehicle for geological interpretation is that God's Word plainly teaches it! No geologic difficulties, real or imagined, can be allowed to take precedence over the clear statements and necessary inferences of Scripture."

Dr. Henry Morris, Biblical Cosmology and Modern Science (1970) p.32-33



The fundie charlatans are nearly universal in that they view evolutionary science, which flatly contradicts the book of Genesis, as a direct threat to their theology, the foundation of society and a threat to the basis of morality itself.

I’ve noticed also, with near universality, that fundies attempt to sidestep the problem by stating, without any evidence to back it up (as usual), that their gawds made the stars, galaxies and intervening space and light from said stars and galaxies, in their present configurations. All this was done, presumably, to give the appearance of a very old, vast universe, and therefore to mislead scientists (and the rest of the rational world) to the spurious conclusion of a big bang that happened about 15 billion years ago.

Kind of a strange thing to do for a God who is "a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he." (Deut. 32:4) Also, Numbers 23:19- "God is not a man, that he should lie..." Also it is said that "Every word of God is flawless." Proverbs 30:5. Are His actions not like His words? Something to think about...




In spite of your inability to form coherent sentences….. I’ve already explained to you (on many occasions), that the precise biological mechanisms that sparked the first existence of life are unknown.

However, because you are forever burdened by a yolk of ignorance you choose to be constrained with (a function of your religious affliction), are you looking for the fact that species are observed to evolve into new species?:
Observed Instances of Speciation


How about some more observed Speciation Events:
Some More Observed Speciation Events


Or are you looking for the fact that there are tons of transitional fossils, showing the transformation of species?
Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ



Here is a one good example out of hundreds you can find within the pages above:

"Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved."


This is an example witnessed in nature, not a laboratory (not that it makes much of a difference). Yes, we're talking about plants in this one instance. But it doesn't matter if we are talking about plants, flies, bacterium, dogs or humans-- the biological process is the same-- it makes no distinction. Remember that the shorter the lifespan of the organisms, the easier it is to witness evolution in action.

There are hundreds of clear examples to choose from. You can look at Evidence for Evolution for more examples.
Evidence for Evolution: An Eclectic Survey



So…. I’m still waiting for your comprehensive description of the hierarchy of gawds who designed your designer gawds.

And why do your gawds lie?

The bibles state that there are winged creatures that go about on 4 legs (Lev 11:20-21).

There aren't. Ooops.

The bibles also state specifically that rabbits chew their cud (Deu 14:7). They don't. Jesus states that there were some standing and listening to him speak who would still be alive to see his second coming (Mat 16:28)... obviously untrue.

He also stated that the world would come to an end during his generation:
Jesus is talking of signs that will happen before the end of the world to his disciples. (Notice: Jesus probably thought the stars were little lights attached to a solid rotating sky dome like everyone else at that time. Imagine just one star "falling to earth"!)


(Mat 24:29 NRSV) "Immediately after the suffering of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; *the stars will fall from heaven*, and the powers of heaven will be shaken. Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see 'the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven' with power and great glory.

(Jesus now says to his disciples that their generation will not pass away before the end of the world)

(Mat 24:34 NRSV) Truly I tell you, *this generation will not pass away* until all these things have taken place.

(Their generation did pass away, but the world didn't end) The evidence is the current existence of the world.


Need more?

Ezekiel predicted Babylon would conquer Egypt and was wrong. It never happened, and can now never be fulfilled.

In Luke 1:26, the angel who appears to Mary to foretell the birth of Jesus says that Jesus will be given the "throne of David", that he will reign over Israel. It never happened, did it?
Here is another factual error. "The love of money is the root of all evil." (1 Timothy 6:10) This is obviously untrue, and a blatantly ridiculous statement. There are sources of evil other than the love of money. Racism, sexism, jealousy, pride, shame, hate-- all these things are evil and can drive someone to murder. I am sure you can think of more, if you try.

Sorry, but hey - if you want to play Lumberjack, try holding up your end of the log.

You, Daws and a few others in this thread most certainly turned to the miller and urey experiment as an answer for origins until You were owned on the issue.

You certainly made every effort to sidestep, dodge and avoid addressing the issues presented to you.

You must be looking at your own reflection as you type this. You haven't had a single original thought or argument since this thread began and you certainly haven't refuted any arguments presented to you without feeble attempts at rabid cut and pasting of irrelevant material.

 

[daws101]

lol you're precious.

...
also it's a chicken shit dodge..

That's your middle name.

more proof of you willful ignorance! and ham handed cherry picking.

 

[daws101]

You, Daws and a few others in this thread most certainly turned to the miller and urey experiment as an answer for origins until You were owned on the issue.

You certainly made every effort to sidestep, dodge and avoid addressing the issues presented to you.

You must be looking at your own reflection as you type this.

another unoriginal and needless retort.

 

[UltimateReality]

You certainly made every effort to sidestep, dodge and avoid addressing the issues presented to you.

You must be looking at your own reflection as you type this.

another unoriginal and needless retort.

And you as well staring into the mirror as you type. You are the king of needless retorts and unoriginal material.

And while you are at schooling folks on the definition of false premise, you might want to refer to Hollies argument refuted above.

 

[Hollie]

You must be looking at your own reflection as you type this.

another unoriginal and needless retort.

And you as well staring into the mirror as you type. You are the king of needless retorts and unoriginal material.

And while you are at schooling folks on the definition of false premise, you might want to refer to Hollies argument refuted above.

Refuted where?

You have contributed nothing but whining as a result of your fragile, wounded ego being damaged.

You have something on your chin.

 

[daws101]

you must be looking at your own reflection as you type this.

another unoriginal and needless retort.

and you as well staring into the mirror as you type. You are the king of needless retorts and unoriginal material.

And while you are at schooling folks on the definition of false premise, you might want to refer to hollies argument refuted above.

see post# 16146.

 

[UltimateReality]

another unoriginal and needless retort.

and you as well staring into the mirror as you type. You are the king of needless retorts and unoriginal material.

And while you are at schooling folks on the definition of false premise, you might want to refer to hollies argument refuted above.

see post# 16146.

See post 16140. Flawed logic and false premise refuted.

 

[daws101]

and you as well staring into the mirror as you type. You are the king of needless retorts and unoriginal material.

And while you are at schooling folks on the definition of false premise, you might want to refer to hollies argument refuted above.

see post# 16146.

See post 16140. Flawed logic and false premise refuted.

you mean this steaming pile of rationalizing:

" Speaking of things that have been refuted thousands of times, you hierarchy of gawds argument has been refuted over and over and has proven to be based on bad logic and a false premise, but yet you persist in presenting it over and over as if repeating something a thousand times will legitimize it. Pathetic.

Let's repeat it one more time for those who just joined us, only a beginning necessitates a cause, like the beginning of the universe for instance. God has always existed and predates the universe. Since God has no beginning, he requires no cause. He claims in the Bible, "no gods were formed before me and none will be formed after me".-
Your weak argument is based on the false premise that God had a beginning. Of course I have no hope that you will respond to this valid, logical argument which refutes yours, nor will you cease repeating your tired, stupid, devoid of logic argument in the future, but one can dream. [/QUOTE]

thanks for the fine example of the false premise rule in action.
1."false premise that God had a beginning." wrong! the FP here is assuming that god has always been. There is no evidence for that argument.
to make this short and sweet.
anything you base on the assumption " god has ALWAYS existed" like theories or speculation are also by definition false because the basic premise is false.
any argument you make from that premise is subjective and unsupportable.

 

[Youwerecreated]

false premise

How do you think life got it's start ? use your own words and no copying and pasting like your partner and let's have this discussion. You must have a thought of your own with 6 years of biology under your belt.

ok.. but first you must learn what a false premise is. until you do no real discussion can happen.
examples of a false premises "there is proof of guided or intelligent design in nature."
"creation science is science"

So the False premise is to assume that a natural process is responsible for life ? sorry there is evidence of purposeful design.

 

[daws101]

How do you think life got it's start ? use your own words and no copying and pasting like your partner and let's have this discussion. You must have a thought of your own with 6 years of biology under your belt.

ok.. but first you must learn what a false premise is. until you do no real discussion can happen.
examples of a false premises "there is proof of guided or intelligent design in nature."
"creation science is science"

So the False premise is to assume that a natural process is responsible for life ? sorry there is evidence of purposeful design.

as always wrong: "examples of a false premises "there is proof of guided or intelligent design in nature."
until you understand that the appearance of design is not actual design, your assumption of a designer will always be false.

 

[Youwerecreated]

ok.. but first you must learn what a false premise is. until you do no real discussion can happen.
examples of a false premises "there is proof of guided or intelligent design in nature."
"creation science is science"

So the False premise is to assume that a natural process is responsible for life ? sorry there is evidence of purposeful design.

as always wrong: "examples of a false premises "there is proof of guided or intelligent design in nature."
until you understand that the appearance of design is not actual design, your assumption of a designer will always be false.

Ok so you choose to believe in coincidence and miracles to many to number.

 

[daws101]

So the False premise is to assume that a natural process is responsible for life ? sorry there is evidence of purposeful design.

as always wrong: "examples of a false premises "there is proof of guided or intelligent design in nature."
until you understand that the appearance of design is not actual design, your assumption of a designer will always be false.

Ok so you choose to believe in coincidence and miracles to many to number.

another false assumption based on a false premise.
also your use of the words coincidence, believe, miracles have no bearing on the veracity of my statement.
because they are based on the same FP as your designer assumption.

 

[Youwerecreated]

as always wrong: "examples of a false premises "there is proof of guided or intelligent design in nature."
until you understand that the appearance of design is not actual design, your assumption of a designer will always be false.

Ok so you choose to believe in coincidence and miracles to many to number.

another false assumption based on a false premise.
also your use of the words coincidence, believe, miracles have no bearing on the veracity of my statement.
because they are based on the same FP as your designer assumption.

Wrong by your reasoning you just eliminated the scientific method

What is the first step in the scientific method ?

 

[daws101]

Ok so you choose to believe in coincidence and miracles to many to number.

another false assumption based on a false premise.
also your use of the words coincidence, believe, miracles have no bearing on the veracity of my statement.
because they are based on the same FP as your designer assumption.

Wrong by your reasoning you just eliminated the scientific method

What is the first step in the scientific method ?

btw no I did not, I eliminated then non evidence based variables... and you call yourself a scientist.

 

[Youwerecreated]

another false assumption based on a false premise.
also your use of the words coincidence, believe, miracles have no bearing on the veracity of my statement.
because they are based on the same FP as your designer assumption.

Wrong by your reasoning you just eliminated the scientific method

What is the first step in the scientific method ?

btw no I did not, I eliminated then non evidence based variables... and you call yourself a scientist.

What is an idea ?

 

[daws101]

Wrong by your reasoning you just eliminated the scientific method

What is the first step in the scientific method ?

btw no I did not, I eliminated then non evidence based variables... and you call yourself a scientist.

What is an idea ?

something you never had...that is to say an original or creative one.
I know what you're hinting at and its false too.

 

[Youwerecreated]

btw no I did not, I eliminated then non evidence based variables... and you call yourself a scientist.

What is an idea ?

something you never had...that is to say an original or creative one.
I know what you're hinting at and its false too.

You were looking for the term Hypotheses nitwit. I showed you why your graph was in error in the other thread.

You really should stick to a subject you know something about if you can't handle a 7th grade question

 

[daws101]

What is an idea ?

something you never had...that is to say an original or creative one.
I know what you're hinting at and its false too.

You were looking for the term Hypotheses nitwit. I showed you why your graph was in error in the other thread.

You really should stick to a subject you know something about if you can't handle a 7th grade question

making shit up to cover you ignorance fucking typical!

 

[Youwerecreated]

something you never had...that is to say an original or creative one.
I know what you're hinting at and its false too.

You were looking for the term Hypotheses nitwit. I showed you why your graph was in error in the other thread.

You really should stick to a subject you know something about if you can't handle a 7th grade question

making shit up to cover you ignorance fucking typical!

LOL you're silly.

Quote by daws

"I just did.
you're kinda slow on the uptake.
since those fossils cannot be formed anywhere except under water and only between the surface and a certain depth. and liquid water for the most part is found in the lowest places on the earths surface. it's obvious that they could not have formed on dry land mountains, so other then fictional supernatural intervention the only logical conclusion is plate tectonics .
you did know that the Rockies are where the continental plate and the pacific plate meet that's why they're mountains.
got it or do I have to explain 6th grade science to you?
what were once seabed's were forced upwards by the plates grinding into each other"


So you're saying there were no mountains ? hmm you're a flat earther

You see daws yo agree with the bible and so does science.

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form and empty. And darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved on the face of the waters.


Gen 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together to one place, and let the dry land appear; and it was so.
Gen 1:10 And God called the dry land, Earth. And He called the gathering together of the waters, Seas. And God saw that it was good.

The mountains were not as high at one point because God say's

Psa 104:8 (The mountains rose, the valleys sank down) Unto the place which thou hadst founded for them.

But we now know those mountains were not as high as they are now. The organisms were not created yet so the fossils came after plate tectonics happened.

Explain to me if fossils do not form on ocean floors now how did they do it in the past then explain how in the same strata you have dry land fossils buried in the same strata as marine fossils. Do you need me to explain how fossils are formed ?

So science and you agree with the bible just not your twisted explanations.