Creationists

[Montrovant]

Respectfully Montrovant,its time for Dr Max and Dr Spetner to set the record straight. If they are gonna make ss claims now they are gonna have to show the doctors wrong. And if you or anyone like to discuss mutations the discussion is now open. I am tired of going around and around now its time for them to put up or shut up. Besides they need to see one of their own trying to call something evidence that it is not evidence which has been repeated by the parrots.

Nothing you just said has anything to do with my point. What you posted would have said exactly the same thing if you had provided a link and either a brief summary of the contents or a snippet of the text so anyone interested could then go read it.

This is far from the first time you have posted one of these walls of text. You have even posted the same huge copy-paste multiple times in the same thread. This isn't the first time I have pointed out the generally accepted rudeness of this practice. You seem to feel that such rudeness doesn't matter. There's nothing I can do about that other than to say that it's unlikely to bolster your argument, and quite possibly might lead to people deciding your arguments aren't worth the time to read.

You're concerned with me being rude by posting facts have you not seen the rudeness from your side ?

Notice how Dr.Spetner and Dr. Max handled their exchange ? If it's rude i'm sorry but it is pointing out a lot of faulty claims made by both Cbirch and Loki.

Are you truly this blind?

I'm not concerned with you being rude to individual posters. I'm not concerned with individual posters being rude to you. What concerns me is the GIANT WALLS OF TEXT that you feel a need to post over and over which is rude to anyone who decides to read the thread. Which side of this argument anyone is on is irrelevant. If any of the people arguing with you post GIANT WALLS OF TEXT they are being just as rude.

Again, it has nothing to do with this particular argument. In any thread, it is rude to post GIANT WALLS OF TEXT instead of providing a link. Your inability to recognize or admit this does not speak well to your ability to have a reasonable discussion on any other topic.

 

[LOki]

I guess it is time for us to get into the nitty gritty and discuss these so called mutations that caused macro-evolution.

For you LOKI and Cbirch lets see if you understand the problems presented.

A Scientific Critique of Evolution
Dr. Lee Spetner
in an exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max

© 2000 L.M. Spetner. All Rights Reserved.

---COPY/PASTE THOUGHTLESSLY VOMITED INTO THREAD SNIPPED---​

Dr. Lee M. Spetner

A Scientific Defense of a Creationist Position on Evolution

Don't run i am calling you out both of you. The information for organisms to adapt has always been in the DNA and this information aided in micro-evolution or better yet micro-adaptations. This information accounts for variations in species.

REBUTTAL

ALSO

Yes Dr. Spetner showed how max manipulated what he said and when he said it. The point is that Dr. Max could not provide one point mutation that produced new information without it presenting a loss of the origional information. Talk origins their not biased and by the way Dr. Spetner also provided a link from that site as well.

This is entirely untrue.

The discussions in those links fully rebut Spetner's fallacious assertions, and his (literally) magical mechanism for the expression of variations in genetic information.

Spetner asserts that when a gene increases in generality of information, it NECESSARILY loses in specificity of information; ... and then weirdly, when a gene increases in specificity of information, it NECESSARILY loses in generality of information.

Spetner simply ignores the valid logic and the verifiable evidence that entirely rebuts his fatuous assertions. And he defends that disingenuously cultivated ignorance by applying first one metric describing information when generality increases, and then uses a different metric describing information when specificity increases; each according to it's convenience in supporting his claims, while at the same time refusing to acknowledge that part of the metrics he uses that do not support his assertions.

Much like the disingenuous way you flip back and forth between taxonomic "species" and "family," when you use the term "kind" to obfuscate your patently wrong notions of speciation and evolution.

You asshats routinely ignore the qualifications that are explicitly expressed when a generalization is proffered, in order to misapply it as an absolute; just as you intentionally ignore the explicitly expressed specificity of an assertion to to misapply it as a generalization--always to the convenience of your criticisms that are denials of verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.

He, like you, is insisting he can eat his cake, and then have it.

You're both retards.

Bottom line mutations do not do what evolutionist claim unless you would like to show otherwise.

No. The bottom line is that creationists cannot apply valid logic to the verifiable facts of reality to support their claims or invalidate the theory of evolution.

With each retarded attempt, creationists validate the indictment of their intellectual disingenuousness, by insisting upon applying logical fallacies, misrepresenting evolution and evolutionists, and flatly denying as valid, any verifiable evidence that refutes their baseless preconceptions. And in those cases where it is just impossible to deny the validity of the evidence, they dismiss it as ENTIRELY invalid because it fails to conclusively and unambiguously PROVE their entirely baseless beliefs wrong.

And all the while, you intellectually dishonest superstitious retards take the fall-back position that you don't have to validate your certainties against reality, because your certainties cannot be validated against reality. You simply DENY the legitimacy of valid logic applied to verifiable evidence in favor of the verisimilitude of your certainty in the reality of your unverifiable, untestable, unprovable, specious creationism.

That is funny your source claims directed mutations is from a non-intelligent force.

Blatant misrepresentation. "Directed" is Spetner's presumptive term.

That is like believing that non-intelligence can produce intelligence,in other words a non-intelligent prcocess could produce and program the human brain.

And this is clearly what you believe. You said it yourself, you believe that intelligence is only possible as the result of another intelligence; since no intelligence "programed" or otherwise conferred intelligence upon this "Designer" of yours, He simply cannot be intelligent.

Or that in winter a non-intelligent process would cause an animal to grow longer hair and in the summer it would cause the animal to shed. It all points to that dirty word design.

"Design" requires intelligence to guide the will to a purpose for a design. As you claim, it is impossible that this "Designer" of yours is intelligent, otherwise I'd expect you to perform intellectually honest due diligence and provide substantiation in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic for your belief (contradictory to your assertions) that this "Designer" of yours is intelligent.

Then you'll have to show me the mechanism, or process, of design this "Designer" of yours utilizes. If you want to use the human mechanism, or process, of design as the comparative indicator that life was designed, then you need to produce the mechanism, or process, of design of this "Designer" of yours so your comparison can be validated by reality.

Having done that, you'll have to explain what purpose all this "design" you see has for this "Designer" of yours. Just because something has a use, it doesn't follow that it was designed for that use, or designed at all. Humans use their feet to operate cars, but it's silly to assert that feet were designed to operate cars; and humans don't design cars so that roads can have something that can be driven on them; we design cars for our own purposes.

So what purpose does designing an animal to grow longer hair in the winter, and shed it in the summer, serve this "Designer" of yours?

You're the one who wanted to "get to the nitty gritty and quit bloviating," so get to it. And no more of this "I don't have to explain God" business. Bring both your "nitty" and your "gritty"; let's examine this "creator" of yours, this unintelligent "designer." Get intellectual integrity or get out.

 

[daws101]

YWC, it's been brought up to you multiple times in the past that all the pages-long copy-pasting you do is generally considered a breach of message board etiquette. In other words, your walls of text are rude. They do not improve your point, they just annoy people trying to read the thread. If someone wants to read the information, they can do it just as easily by clicking a link. Your refusal to simply post a link and perhaps a short summary of the information contained within is rude.

Seriously. Do you think he believes anyone actually read that?

just enough to see the biasness of the source.
ywc will not acknowledge that objectivity is one of the basic tenants of science.

 

[daws101]

Special creation by God (or for that matter, the gods of other religions) has never been proven scientifically. It is a matter of faith alone.

Read more: How is creation scientifically proven

"Creation science" fails two important tests of science: it neither makes predictions nor makes claims that can be empirically verified. It simply makes proclamations by faith. Furthermore, creation scientists have yet to offer any scientific evidence that proves the case of creationism; their efforts are almost entirely spent critiquing apparent contradictions within evolution. Finally, the scientific credentials of the creation scientists are what we might charitably describe as suspicious.

In the last few decades, a movement called "creation science" has gained considerable influence among Christian fundamentalists. According to Henry Morris, director of the Institute for Creation Research, their studies require "no reliance upon biblical revelation," but utilize "only scientific data to support and expound the creation model." (1) Specifically, this model is the literal interpretation of Genesis as it happened 6,000 years ago. Discoveries in both geology and biology were already deconstructing this model by the mid-19th century, and by the turn of the 20th century most fundamentalists had simply conceded the scientific fight to evolutionists. In recent times, however, creationists have become determined to resurrect their scientific case, and fight against evolutionists on their own ground.

By presenting the creation model as science, creationists have re-raised the question of what "science" is. Philosophers of science have worked out a commonly accepted list of criteria (produced well outside the debate between creationists and evolutionists). To be accepted as science, a theory must have predictive value, must be coherent (or internally consistent), must be falsifiable (or verifiable), and must explain at least those phenomena explained by the current theory.

Creation science fails to meet these criteria in several ways. First, its claims are not falsifiable. (This doesn't mean a theory has to be false -- only that if it were false, there would be some way of verifying it. It's the same thing as being vulnerable without actually being hurt.) If you were to claim that life exists on a planet orbiting the star Alpha Centauri, that would not qualify as science because there is no way of verifying it. It merely becomes an unsupported assertion. The claim that God made the earth is likewise unverifiable… no one has yet found any way to test this claim. Evolution, on the other hand, has made countless claims that have the capacity to be proven false, if indeed they are.

Second, creationism has no predictive value. A theory must be able to make predictions which can then be tested for accuracy. Creation science makes "predictions" that already happened in the past or are unfalsifiable. Evolutionary theory passes this test because it has made accurate predictions concerning population densities, physiologies, chemistries, fossil find forecasts, and many other things.

Third, creation scientists have not come anywhere close to explaining all the phenomena of life to the extent that evolution has. It would be entirely fair, and no exaggeration whatsoever, to say that the difference between the two explanatory efforts is akin to the difference between a magazine article and the Encyclopedia Britannica.

Here, creation scientists will probably protest. Although it's true that the Institute for Creation Research is a small organization, employing dozens of researchers who have written dozens of books, this is hardly the entire literary output of creationists. The book Anti-Evolution, by Tom McIver, is a bibliography of those Christian books touching upon any aspect of this debate, and he lists no less than 1,852 titles. (2) However, virtually none of these books makes a positive scientific description of creationism. There is almost no attempt to use the scientific data found in the world today to prove creationism. Instead, the overwhelming majority of these books forge a negative scientific critique on its opponent, evolution. When not doing that, they concern themselves with the theological or legal issues surrounding the debate. But when it comes to making a positive scientific case for their paradigm, the analogy of a magazine article vs. the Encyclopedia Britannica is entirely correct.

The near complete absence of a scientific theory of creationism has been an embarrassment to that movement ever since it started. Creation scientists claim to have scientific evidence -- tons and tons of it, according to their charming and affable spokesman, Duane Gish -- but they never produce it. The welcome page for talk.origins, the Internet discussion group where evolution and creation are hotly debated, says up front: "No one has ever presented a scientific theory of creation to us." (3) A study of 135,000 manuscripts submitted to 68 scientific journals over a 3-year period found that only 18 attempted to make a case for scientific creationism, and these were rejected because they were apparently written by laymen with a high-school level understanding of their subjects. (4) The simple fact is, creationists do not have any scientific evidence to support their hypothesis. If they had it, they would offer it.

"Creation science" is science.

 

[Youwerecreated]

REBUTTAL

ALSO

Yes Dr. Spetner showed how max manipulated what he said and when he said it. The point is that Dr. Max could not provide one point mutation that produced new information without it presenting a loss of the origional information. Talk origins their not biased and by the way Dr. Spetner also provided a link from that site as well.

This is entirely untrue.

The discussions in those links fully rebut Spetner's fallacious assertions, and his (literally) magical mechanism for the expression of variations in genetic information.

Spetner asserts that when a gene increases in generality of information, it NECESSARILY loses in specificity of information; ... and then weirdly, when a gene increases in specificity of information, it NECESSARILY loses in generality of information.

Spetner simply ignores the valid logic and the verifiable evidence that entirely rebuts his fatuous assertions. And he defends that disingenuously cultivated ignorance by applying first one metric describing information when generality increases, and then uses a different metric describing information when specificity increases; each according to it's convenience in supporting his claims, while at the same time refusing to acknowledge that part of the metrics he uses that do not support his assertions.

Much like the disingenuous way you flip back and forth between taxonomic "species" and "family," when you use the term "kind" to obfuscate your patently wrong notions of speciation and evolution.

You asshats routinely ignore the qualifications that are explicitly expressed when a generalization is proffered, in order to misapply it as an absolute; just as you intentionally ignore the explicitly expressed specificity of an assertion to to misapply it as a generalization--always to the convenience of your criticisms that are denials of verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.

He, like you, is insisting he can eat his cake, and then have it.

You're both retards.

No. The bottom line is that creationists cannot apply valid logic to the verifiable facts of reality to support their claims or invalidate the theory of evolution.

With each retarded attempt, creationists validate the indictment of their intellectual disingenuousness, by insisting upon applying logical fallacies, misrepresenting evolution and evolutionists, and flatly denying as valid, any verifiable evidence that refutes their baseless preconceptions. And in those cases where it is just impossible to deny the validity of the evidence, they dismiss it as ENTIRELY invalid because it fails to conclusively and unambiguously PROVE their entirely baseless beliefs wrong.

And all the while, you intellectually dishonest superstitious retards take the fall-back position that you don't have to validate your certainties against reality, because your certainties cannot be validated against reality. You simply DENY the legitimacy of valid logic applied to verifiable evidence in favor of the verisimilitude of your certainty in the reality of your unverifiable, untestable, unprovable, specious creationism.

Blatant misrepresentation. "Directed" is Spetner's presumptive term.

That is like believing that non-intelligence can produce intelligence,in other words a non-intelligent prcocess could produce and program the human brain.

And this is clearly what you believe. You said it yourself, you believe that intelligence is only possible as the result of another intelligence; since no intelligence "programed" or otherwise conferred intelligence upon this "Designer" of yours, He simply cannot be intelligent.

Or that in winter a non-intelligent process would cause an animal to grow longer hair and in the summer it would cause the animal to shed. It all points to that dirty word design.

"Design" requires intelligence to guide the will to a purpose for a design. As you claim, it is impossible that this "Designer" of yours is intelligent, otherwise I'd expect you to perform intellectually honest due diligence and provide substantiation in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic for your belief (contradictory to your assertions) that this "Designer" of yours is intelligent.

Then you'll have to show me the mechanism, or process, of design this "Designer" of yours utilizes. If you want to use the human mechanism, or process, of design as the comparative indicator that life was designed, then you need to produce the mechanism, or process, of design of this "Designer" of yours so your comparison can be validated by reality.

Having done that, you'll have to explain what purpose all this "design" you see has for this "Designer" of yours. Just because something has a use, it doesn't follow that it was designed for that use, or designed at all. Humans use their feet to operate cars, but it's silly to assert that feet were designed to operate cars; and humans don't design cars so that roads can have something that can be driven on them; we design cars for our own purposes.

So what purpose does designing an animal to grow longer hair in the winter, and shed it in the summer, serve this "Designer" of yours?

You're the one who wanted to "get to the nitty gritty and quit bloviating," so get to it. And no more of this "I don't have to explain God" business. Bring both your "nitty" and your "gritty"; let's examine this "creator" of yours, this unintelligent "designer." Get intellectual integrity or get out.

Let's learn about this intelligent designer.

You keep speaking of logic ok let's look at this from a logical standpoint.

Where does all information come from ? Dna information ? the genetic code ?any form of communicating ?the information that programmed our brains ?What causes intelligence ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Special creation by God (or for that matter, the gods of other religions) has never been proven scientifically. It is a matter of faith alone.

Read more: How is creation scientifically proven

"Creation science" fails two important tests of science: it neither makes predictions nor makes claims that can be empirically verified. It simply makes proclamations by faith. Furthermore, creation scientists have yet to offer any scientific evidence that proves the case of creationism; their efforts are almost entirely spent critiquing apparent contradictions within evolution. Finally, the scientific credentials of the creation scientists are what we might charitably describe as suspicious.

In the last few decades, a movement called "creation science" has gained considerable influence among Christian fundamentalists. According to Henry Morris, director of the Institute for Creation Research, their studies require "no reliance upon biblical revelation," but utilize "only scientific data to support and expound the creation model." (1) Specifically, this model is the literal interpretation of Genesis as it happened 6,000 years ago. Discoveries in both geology and biology were already deconstructing this model by the mid-19th century, and by the turn of the 20th century most fundamentalists had simply conceded the scientific fight to evolutionists. In recent times, however, creationists have become determined to resurrect their scientific case, and fight against evolutionists on their own ground.

By presenting the creation model as science, creationists have re-raised the question of what "science" is. Philosophers of science have worked out a commonly accepted list of criteria (produced well outside the debate between creationists and evolutionists). To be accepted as science, a theory must have predictive value, must be coherent (or internally consistent), must be falsifiable (or verifiable), and must explain at least those phenomena explained by the current theory.

Creation science fails to meet these criteria in several ways. First, its claims are not falsifiable. (This doesn't mean a theory has to be false -- only that if it were false, there would be some way of verifying it. It's the same thing as being vulnerable without actually being hurt.) If you were to claim that life exists on a planet orbiting the star Alpha Centauri, that would not qualify as science because there is no way of verifying it. It merely becomes an unsupported assertion. The claim that God made the earth is likewise unverifiable… no one has yet found any way to test this claim. Evolution, on the other hand, has made countless claims that have the capacity to be proven false, if indeed they are.

Second, creationism has no predictive value. A theory must be able to make predictions which can then be tested for accuracy. Creation science makes "predictions" that already happened in the past or are unfalsifiable. Evolutionary theory passes this test because it has made accurate predictions concerning population densities, physiologies, chemistries, fossil find forecasts, and many other things.

Third, creation scientists have not come anywhere close to explaining all the phenomena of life to the extent that evolution has. It would be entirely fair, and no exaggeration whatsoever, to say that the difference between the two explanatory efforts is akin to the difference between a magazine article and the Encyclopedia Britannica.

Here, creation scientists will probably protest. Although it's true that the Institute for Creation Research is a small organization, employing dozens of researchers who have written dozens of books, this is hardly the entire literary output of creationists. The book Anti-Evolution, by Tom McIver, is a bibliography of those Christian books touching upon any aspect of this debate, and he lists no less than 1,852 titles. (2) However, virtually none of these books makes a positive scientific description of creationism. There is almost no attempt to use the scientific data found in the world today to prove creationism. Instead, the overwhelming majority of these books forge a negative scientific critique on its opponent, evolution. When not doing that, they concern themselves with the theological or legal issues surrounding the debate. But when it comes to making a positive scientific case for their paradigm, the analogy of a magazine article vs. the Encyclopedia Britannica is entirely correct.

The near complete absence of a scientific theory of creationism has been an embarrassment to that movement ever since it started. Creation scientists claim to have scientific evidence -- tons and tons of it, according to their charming and affable spokesman, Duane Gish -- but they never produce it. The welcome page for talk.origins, the Internet discussion group where evolution and creation are hotly debated, says up front: "No one has ever presented a scientific theory of creation to us." (3) A study of 135,000 manuscripts submitted to 68 scientific journals over a 3-year period found that only 18 attempted to make a case for scientific creationism, and these were rejected because they were apparently written by laymen with a high-school level understanding of their subjects. (4) The simple fact is, creationists do not have any scientific evidence to support their hypothesis. If they had it, they would offer it.

"Creation science" is science.

I have never denied that my belief in God is based on faith as well as infromation written in the scriptures.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Special creation by God (or for that matter, the gods of other religions) has never been proven scientifically. It is a matter of faith alone.

Read more: How is creation scientifically proven

"Creation science" fails two important tests of science: it neither makes predictions nor makes claims that can be empirically verified. It simply makes proclamations by faith. Furthermore, creation scientists have yet to offer any scientific evidence that proves the case of creationism; their efforts are almost entirely spent critiquing apparent contradictions within evolution. Finally, the scientific credentials of the creation scientists are what we might charitably describe as suspicious.

In the last few decades, a movement called "creation science" has gained considerable influence among Christian fundamentalists. According to Henry Morris, director of the Institute for Creation Research, their studies require "no reliance upon biblical revelation," but utilize "only scientific data to support and expound the creation model." (1) Specifically, this model is the literal interpretation of Genesis as it happened 6,000 years ago. Discoveries in both geology and biology were already deconstructing this model by the mid-19th century, and by the turn of the 20th century most fundamentalists had simply conceded the scientific fight to evolutionists. In recent times, however, creationists have become determined to resurrect their scientific case, and fight against evolutionists on their own ground.

By presenting the creation model as science, creationists have re-raised the question of what "science" is. Philosophers of science have worked out a commonly accepted list of criteria (produced well outside the debate between creationists and evolutionists). To be accepted as science, a theory must have predictive value, must be coherent (or internally consistent), must be falsifiable (or verifiable), and must explain at least those phenomena explained by the current theory.

Creation science fails to meet these criteria in several ways. First, its claims are not falsifiable. (This doesn't mean a theory has to be false -- only that if it were false, there would be some way of verifying it. It's the same thing as being vulnerable without actually being hurt.) If you were to claim that life exists on a planet orbiting the star Alpha Centauri, that would not qualify as science because there is no way of verifying it. It merely becomes an unsupported assertion. The claim that God made the earth is likewise unverifiable… no one has yet found any way to test this claim. Evolution, on the other hand, has made countless claims that have the capacity to be proven false, if indeed they are.

Second, creationism has no predictive value. A theory must be able to make predictions which can then be tested for accuracy. Creation science makes "predictions" that already happened in the past or are unfalsifiable. Evolutionary theory passes this test because it has made accurate predictions concerning population densities, physiologies, chemistries, fossil find forecasts, and many other things.

Third, creation scientists have not come anywhere close to explaining all the phenomena of life to the extent that evolution has. It would be entirely fair, and no exaggeration whatsoever, to say that the difference between the two explanatory efforts is akin to the difference between a magazine article and the Encyclopedia Britannica.

Here, creation scientists will probably protest. Although it's true that the Institute for Creation Research is a small organization, employing dozens of researchers who have written dozens of books, this is hardly the entire literary output of creationists. The book Anti-Evolution, by Tom McIver, is a bibliography of those Christian books touching upon any aspect of this debate, and he lists no less than 1,852 titles. (2) However, virtually none of these books makes a positive scientific description of creationism. There is almost no attempt to use the scientific data found in the world today to prove creationism. Instead, the overwhelming majority of these books forge a negative scientific critique on its opponent, evolution. When not doing that, they concern themselves with the theological or legal issues surrounding the debate. But when it comes to making a positive scientific case for their paradigm, the analogy of a magazine article vs. the Encyclopedia Britannica is entirely correct.

The near complete absence of a scientific theory of creationism has been an embarrassment to that movement ever since it started. Creation scientists claim to have scientific evidence -- tons and tons of it, according to their charming and affable spokesman, Duane Gish -- but they never produce it. The welcome page for talk.origins, the Internet discussion group where evolution and creation are hotly debated, says up front: "No one has ever presented a scientific theory of creation to us." (3) A study of 135,000 manuscripts submitted to 68 scientific journals over a 3-year period found that only 18 attempted to make a case for scientific creationism, and these were rejected because they were apparently written by laymen with a high-school level understanding of their subjects. (4) The simple fact is, creationists do not have any scientific evidence to support their hypothesis. If they had it, they would offer it.

"Creation science" is science.

Creation compared to evolution.


The creation model includes the scientific evidence and the related inferences suggesting that:

The evolution model includes the scientific evidence and the related inferences suggesting that:



I. The universe and the Solar system were suddenly created.

I. The universe and the solar system emerged by naturalistic processes.



II. Life was suddenly created.

II. Life emerged from nonlife by naturalistic processes.



III. All present living kinds of animals and plants have remained fixed since creation, other than extinctions, and genetic variation in originally created kinds has only occurred within narrow limits.

III. All present kinds emerged from simpler earlier kinds, so that single-celled organisms evolved into invertebrates, then vertebrates, then amphibians, then reptiles, then mammals, then primates, including man.



IV. Mutation and natural selection are insufficient to have brought about any emergence of present living kinds from a simple primordial organism.

IV. Mutation and natural selection have brought about the emergence of present complex kinds from a simple primordial organism.



V. Man and apes have a separate ancestry.

V. Man and apes emerged from a common ancestor.



VI. The earth's geologic features appear to have been fashioned largely by rapid, catastrophic processes that affected the earth on a global and regional scale (catastrophism).

VI. The earth's geologic features were fashioned largely by slow, gradual processes, with infrequent catastrophic events restricted to a local scale (uniformitarianism).



VII. The inception of the earth and of living kinds may have been relatively recent.

VII. The inception of the earth and then of life must have occurred several billion years ago.


Summary of Scientific Evidence for Creation (Part I & II)

 

[AVG-JOE]

Are you truly this blind?

I'm not concerned with you being rude to individual posters. I'm not concerned with individual posters being rude to you. What concerns me is the GIANT WALLS OF TEXT that you feel a need to post over and over which is rude to anyone who decides to read the thread. Which side of this argument anyone is on is irrelevant. If any of the people arguing with you post GIANT WALLS OF TEXT they are being just as rude.

Again, it has nothing to do with this particular argument. In any thread, it is rude to post GIANT WALLS OF TEXT instead of providing a link. Your inability to recognize or admit this does not speak well to your ability to have a reasonable discussion on any other topic.

In any case, Montrovant is right.

"Free" speech is a myth - every board has rules, including this one, believe it or not.

Copyright Guidelines:
Copyright infringement is illegal. USmessageboard.com will enforce the law. Never post an article in its entirety. When posting copyrighted material, please use small sections or link to the article. When posting copyrighted material you MUST give credit to the author in your post. You are responsible for including links/credit, regardless of how you originally came across the material. Link Each Copy and Paste.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/announcements-and-feedback/47455-usmb-rules-and-regulations.html

Posting copyrighted material without a link can get you an infraction. eek: Whatever the fuck THAT is!)
A general rule of thumb is to post no more than 3 paragraphs and link it.

Yes, I realize that I'm ass-U-me-ing the material copy and pasted is copyrighted stuff. I'm impressive that way when I mod.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Are you truly this blind?

I'm not concerned with you being rude to individual posters. I'm not concerned with individual posters being rude to you. What concerns me is the GIANT WALLS OF TEXT that you feel a need to post over and over which is rude to anyone who decides to read the thread. Which side of this argument anyone is on is irrelevant. If any of the people arguing with you post GIANT WALLS OF TEXT they are being just as rude.

Again, it has nothing to do with this particular argument. In any thread, it is rude to post GIANT WALLS OF TEXT instead of providing a link. Your inability to recognize or admit this does not speak well to your ability to have a reasonable discussion on any other topic.

In any case, Montrovant is right.

"Free" speech is a myth - every board has rules, including this one, believe it or not.

Copyright Guidelines:
Copyright infringement is illegal. USmessageboard.com will enforce the law. Never post an article in its entirety. When posting copyrighted material, please use small sections or link to the article. When posting copyrighted material you MUST give credit to the author in your post. You are responsible for including links/credit, regardless of how you originally came across the material. Link Each Copy and Paste.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/announcements-and-feedback/47455-usmb-rules-and-regulations.html

Posting copyrighted material without a link can get you an infraction. eek: Whatever the fuck THAT is!)
A general rule of thumb is to post no more than 3 paragraphs and link it.

Yes, I realize that I'm ass-U-me-ing the material copy and pasted is copyrighted stuff. I'm impressive that way when I mod.

Ok I will not post full articles,it doesn't do any good anyways because most of them did not understand what was posted.

 

[daws101]

Special creation by God (or for that matter, the gods of other religions) has never been proven scientifically. It is a matter of faith alone.

Read more: How is creation scientifically proven

"Creation science" fails two important tests of science: it neither makes predictions nor makes claims that can be empirically verified. It simply makes proclamations by faith. Furthermore, creation scientists have yet to offer any scientific evidence that proves the case of creationism; their efforts are almost entirely spent critiquing apparent contradictions within evolution. Finally, the scientific credentials of the creation scientists are what we might charitably describe as suspicious.

In the last few decades, a movement called "creation science" has gained considerable influence among Christian fundamentalists. According to Henry Morris, director of the Institute for Creation Research, their studies require "no reliance upon biblical revelation," but utilize "only scientific data to support and expound the creation model." (1) Specifically, this model is the literal interpretation of Genesis as it happened 6,000 years ago. Discoveries in both geology and biology were already deconstructing this model by the mid-19th century, and by the turn of the 20th century most fundamentalists had simply conceded the scientific fight to evolutionists. In recent times, however, creationists have become determined to resurrect their scientific case, and fight against evolutionists on their own ground.

By presenting the creation model as science, creationists have re-raised the question of what "science" is. Philosophers of science have worked out a commonly accepted list of criteria (produced well outside the debate between creationists and evolutionists). To be accepted as science, a theory must have predictive value, must be coherent (or internally consistent), must be falsifiable (or verifiable), and must explain at least those phenomena explained by the current theory.

Creation science fails to meet these criteria in several ways. First, its claims are not falsifiable. (This doesn't mean a theory has to be false -- only that if it were false, there would be some way of verifying it. It's the same thing as being vulnerable without actually being hurt.) If you were to claim that life exists on a planet orbiting the star Alpha Centauri, that would not qualify as science because there is no way of verifying it. It merely becomes an unsupported assertion. The claim that God made the earth is likewise unverifiable… no one has yet found any way to test this claim. Evolution, on the other hand, has made countless claims that have the capacity to be proven false, if indeed they are.

Second, creationism has no predictive value. A theory must be able to make predictions which can then be tested for accuracy. Creation science makes "predictions" that already happened in the past or are unfalsifiable. Evolutionary theory passes this test because it has made accurate predictions concerning population densities, physiologies, chemistries, fossil find forecasts, and many other things.

Third, creation scientists have not come anywhere close to explaining all the phenomena of life to the extent that evolution has. It would be entirely fair, and no exaggeration whatsoever, to say that the difference between the two explanatory efforts is akin to the difference between a magazine article and the Encyclopedia Britannica.

Here, creation scientists will probably protest. Although it's true that the Institute for Creation Research is a small organization, employing dozens of researchers who have written dozens of books, this is hardly the entire literary output of creationists. The book Anti-Evolution, by Tom McIver, is a bibliography of those Christian books touching upon any aspect of this debate, and he lists no less than 1,852 titles. (2) However, virtually none of these books makes a positive scientific description of creationism. There is almost no attempt to use the scientific data found in the world today to prove creationism. Instead, the overwhelming majority of these books forge a negative scientific critique on its opponent, evolution. When not doing that, they concern themselves with the theological or legal issues surrounding the debate. But when it comes to making a positive scientific case for their paradigm, the analogy of a magazine article vs. the Encyclopedia Britannica is entirely correct.

The near complete absence of a scientific theory of creationism has been an embarrassment to that movement ever since it started. Creation scientists claim to have scientific evidence -- tons and tons of it, according to their charming and affable spokesman, Duane Gish -- but they never produce it. The welcome page for talk.origins, the Internet discussion group where evolution and creation are hotly debated, says up front: "No one has ever presented a scientific theory of creation to us." (3) A study of 135,000 manuscripts submitted to 68 scientific journals over a 3-year period found that only 18 attempted to make a case for scientific creationism, and these were rejected because they were apparently written by laymen with a high-school level understanding of their subjects. (4) The simple fact is, creationists do not have any scientific evidence to support their hypothesis. If they had it, they would offer it.

"Creation science" is science.

Creation compared to evolution.


The creation model includes the scientific evidence and the related inferences suggesting that:

The evolution model includes the scientific evidence and the related inferences suggesting that:



I. The universe and the Solar system were suddenly created.

I. The universe and the solar system emerged by naturalistic processes.



II. Life was suddenly created.

II. Life emerged from nonlife by naturalistic processes.



III. All present living kinds of animals and plants have remained fixed since creation, other than extinctions, and genetic variation in originally created kinds has only occurred within narrow limits.

III. All present kinds emerged from simpler earlier kinds, so that single-celled organisms evolved into invertebrates, then vertebrates, then amphibians, then reptiles, then mammals, then primates, including man.



IV. Mutation and natural selection are insufficient to have brought about any emergence of present living kinds from a simple primordial organism.

IV. Mutation and natural selection have brought about the emergence of present complex kinds from a simple primordial organism.



V. Man and apes have a separate ancestry.

V. Man and apes emerged from a common ancestor.



VI. The earth's geologic features appear to have been fashioned largely by rapid, catastrophic processes that affected the earth on a global and regional scale (catastrophism).

VI. The earth's geologic features were fashioned largely by slow, gradual processes, with infrequent catastrophic events restricted to a local scale (uniformitarianism).



VII. The inception of the earth and of living kinds may have been relatively recent.

VII. The inception of the earth and then of life must have occurred several billion years ago.


Summary of Scientific Evidence for Creation (Part I & II)

Creation science fails to meet these criteria in several ways. First, its claims are not falsifiable. (This doesn't mean a theory has to be false -- only that if it were false, there would be some way of verifying it. It's the same thing as being vulnerable without actually being hurt.) If you were to claim that life exists on a planet orbiting the star Alpha Centauri, that would not qualify as science because there is no way of verifying it. It merely becomes an unsupported assertion. The claim that God made the earth is likewise unverifiable… no one has yet found any way to test this claim. Evolution, on the other hand, has made countless claims that have the capacity to be proven false, if indeed they are.

you are either too ignorant or too stupid to understand that what you're presenting as evidence is not evidence as detailed above.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Well since you guys are Hell bent on believing information comes from a natural means let's talk about where and how it came about ? Let's see if intelligence and information comes from natural processes or from intelligence. Come on loki let's get to it. This is the true difference between your belief and mine.

 

[daws101]

Special creation by God (or for that matter, the gods of other religions) has never been proven scientifically. It is a matter of faith alone.

Read more: How is creation scientifically proven

"Creation science" fails two important tests of science: it neither makes predictions nor makes claims that can be empirically verified. It simply makes proclamations by faith. Furthermore, creation scientists have yet to offer any scientific evidence that proves the case of creationism; their efforts are almost entirely spent critiquing apparent contradictions within evolution. Finally, the scientific credentials of the creation scientists are what we might charitably describe as suspicious.

In the last few decades, a movement called "creation science" has gained considerable influence among Christian fundamentalists. According to Henry Morris, director of the Institute for Creation Research, their studies require "no reliance upon biblical revelation," but utilize "only scientific data to support and expound the creation model." (1) Specifically, this model is the literal interpretation of Genesis as it happened 6,000 years ago. Discoveries in both geology and biology were already deconstructing this model by the mid-19th century, and by the turn of the 20th century most fundamentalists had simply conceded the scientific fight to evolutionists. In recent times, however, creationists have become determined to resurrect their scientific case, and fight against evolutionists on their own ground.

By presenting the creation model as science, creationists have re-raised the question of what "science" is. Philosophers of science have worked out a commonly accepted list of criteria (produced well outside the debate between creationists and evolutionists). To be accepted as science, a theory must have predictive value, must be coherent (or internally consistent), must be falsifiable (or verifiable), and must explain at least those phenomena explained by the current theory.

Creation science fails to meet these criteria in several ways. First, its claims are not falsifiable. (This doesn't mean a theory has to be false -- only that if it were false, there would be some way of verifying it. It's the same thing as being vulnerable without actually being hurt.) If you were to claim that life exists on a planet orbiting the star Alpha Centauri, that would not qualify as science because there is no way of verifying it. It merely becomes an unsupported assertion. The claim that God made the earth is likewise unverifiable… no one has yet found any way to test this claim. Evolution, on the other hand, has made countless claims that have the capacity to be proven false, if indeed they are.

Second, creationism has no predictive value. A theory must be able to make predictions which can then be tested for accuracy. Creation science makes "predictions" that already happened in the past or are unfalsifiable. Evolutionary theory passes this test because it has made accurate predictions concerning population densities, physiologies, chemistries, fossil find forecasts, and many other things.

Third, creation scientists have not come anywhere close to explaining all the phenomena of life to the extent that evolution has. It would be entirely fair, and no exaggeration whatsoever, to say that the difference between the two explanatory efforts is akin to the difference between a magazine article and the Encyclopedia Britannica.

Here, creation scientists will probably protest. Although it's true that the Institute for Creation Research is a small organization, employing dozens of researchers who have written dozens of books, this is hardly the entire literary output of creationists. The book Anti-Evolution, by Tom McIver, is a bibliography of those Christian books touching upon any aspect of this debate, and he lists no less than 1,852 titles. (2) However, virtually none of these books makes a positive scientific description of creationism. There is almost no attempt to use the scientific data found in the world today to prove creationism. Instead, the overwhelming majority of these books forge a negative scientific critique on its opponent, evolution. When not doing that, they concern themselves with the theological or legal issues surrounding the debate. But when it comes to making a positive scientific case for their paradigm, the analogy of a magazine article vs. the Encyclopedia Britannica is entirely correct.

The near complete absence of a scientific theory of creationism has been an embarrassment to that movement ever since it started. Creation scientists claim to have scientific evidence -- tons and tons of it, according to their charming and affable spokesman, Duane Gish -- but they never produce it. The welcome page for talk.origins, the Internet discussion group where evolution and creation are hotly debated, says up front: "No one has ever presented a scientific theory of creation to us." (3) A study of 135,000 manuscripts submitted to 68 scientific journals over a 3-year period found that only 18 attempted to make a case for scientific creationism, and these were rejected because they were apparently written by laymen with a high-school level understanding of their subjects. (4) The simple fact is, creationists do not have any scientific evidence to support their hypothesis. If they had it, they would offer it.

"Creation science" is science.

I have never denied that my belief in God is based on faith as well as infromation written in the scriptures.

neither one is science or scientific "The simple fact is, creationists do not have any scientific evidence to support their hypothesis."

 

[LOki]

Let's learn about this intelligent designer.

Yes, let's. Finally.

You keep speaking of logic ok let's look at this from a logical standpoint.

Yes, yes I do; let us indeed examine this using VALID logic.

Where does all information come from ?

If you're asserting that "information" can only come from intelligence; and you categorically dismiss any notion that observable natural processes could possibly lead to intelligence. You also say this "Designer" of yours cannot be intelligent, so ... Leprechauns?

Dna information ?

If you're asserting that "information" can only come from intelligence; and you categorically dismiss any notion that observable natural processes could possibly lead to intelligence. You also argue that this "Designer" of yours cannot be intelligent, so ... Paul Bunyan?

the genetic code ?

If you're asserting that "information" can only come from intelligence; and you categorically dismiss any notion that observable natural processes could possibly lead to intelligence. You also argue that this "Designer" of yours cannot be intelligent, so ... the Easter Bunny?

any form of communicating ?

If you're asserting that "information" can only come from intelligence; and you categorically dismiss any notion that observable natural processes could possibly lead to intelligence. You also argue that this "Designer" of yours cannot be intelligent, so ... Frosty the snowman?

the information that programmed our brains ?What causes intelligence ?

If you're asserting that "information" can only come from intelligence; and you categorically dismiss any notion that observable natural processes could possibly lead to intelligence. You also argue that this "Designer" of yours cannot be intelligent, so ... the Tooth Fairy?

Is this what you've got now? You'll accept the Tooth Fairy, or any other superstitious magic explanation, so long as you don't have to accept any notion that observable natural processes could possibly lead to intelligence? I thought YOU were going to explain this "Designer" of yours. Why are YOU asking me your stupid questions, when YOU should be answering them; when YOU should be providing the explanations.

For instance;

Since you deny that intelligence can come to exist from processes without intelligence, and given that this "Designer" of yours was not imbued with intelligence by another intelligence, it is impossible (according to your premises) that this "Designer" of yours is intelligent. And since "design" requires intelligence to guide the will to a purpose for a design, I expect you to perform intellectually honest due diligence and provide substantiation in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic for your belief (contradictory to your assertions) that this "Designer" of yours is intelligent.

When you're done there, show me the mechanism, or process, of design this "Designer" of yours utilizes. If you want to use the human mechanism, or process, of design as the comparative indicator that life was designed, then you need to produce the mechanism, or process, of design of this "Designer" of yours so your comparison can be validated by reality.

Once you manage that, you can get to explaining what purpose all this "design" you see has for this "Designer" of yours. Just because something has a use, it doesn't follow that it was designed for that use, or designed at all. Humans use their feet to operate cars, but it's silly to assert that feet were designed to operate cars; and humans don't design cars so that roads can have something that can be driven on them; we design cars for our own purposes.

So what purpose does designing an animal to grow longer hair in the winter, and shed it in the summer, serve this "Designer" of yours?

Remember, YOU are the one who wanted to "get to the nitty gritty and quit bloviating," so get to it. And no more of this "I don't have to explain God" business. Bring both your "nitty" and your "gritty"; it's finally time for you to stop challenging us, and start meeting the challenges brought to you; it's time for you to finally explain this "creator" of yours, ... this unintelligent "Designer."

Well since you guys are Hell bent on believing information comes from a natural means let's talk about where and how it came about ? Let's see if intelligence and information comes from natural processes or from intelligence. Come on loki let's get to it. This is the true difference between your belief and mine.

Absolutely. Challenge enthusiastically accepted. AFTER you have finished what you've started first; then I will happily hand you your own ass ... again. First you meet your obligations above, THEN we "get to it" ... NOT Before.

​

 

[Youwerecreated]

Special creation by God (or for that matter, the gods of other religions) has never been proven scientifically. It is a matter of faith alone.

Read more: How is creation scientifically proven

"Creation science" fails two important tests of science: it neither makes predictions nor makes claims that can be empirically verified. It simply makes proclamations by faith. Furthermore, creation scientists have yet to offer any scientific evidence that proves the case of creationism; their efforts are almost entirely spent critiquing apparent contradictions within evolution. Finally, the scientific credentials of the creation scientists are what we might charitably describe as suspicious.

In the last few decades, a movement called "creation science" has gained considerable influence among Christian fundamentalists. According to Henry Morris, director of the Institute for Creation Research, their studies require "no reliance upon biblical revelation," but utilize "only scientific data to support and expound the creation model." (1) Specifically, this model is the literal interpretation of Genesis as it happened 6,000 years ago. Discoveries in both geology and biology were already deconstructing this model by the mid-19th century, and by the turn of the 20th century most fundamentalists had simply conceded the scientific fight to evolutionists. In recent times, however, creationists have become determined to resurrect their scientific case, and fight against evolutionists on their own ground.

By presenting the creation model as science, creationists have re-raised the question of what "science" is. Philosophers of science have worked out a commonly accepted list of criteria (produced well outside the debate between creationists and evolutionists). To be accepted as science, a theory must have predictive value, must be coherent (or internally consistent), must be falsifiable (or verifiable), and must explain at least those phenomena explained by the current theory.

Creation science fails to meet these criteria in several ways. First, its claims are not falsifiable. (This doesn't mean a theory has to be false -- only that if it were false, there would be some way of verifying it. It's the same thing as being vulnerable without actually being hurt.) If you were to claim that life exists on a planet orbiting the star Alpha Centauri, that would not qualify as science because there is no way of verifying it. It merely becomes an unsupported assertion. The claim that God made the earth is likewise unverifiable… no one has yet found any way to test this claim. Evolution, on the other hand, has made countless claims that have the capacity to be proven false, if indeed they are.

Second, creationism has no predictive value. A theory must be able to make predictions which can then be tested for accuracy. Creation science makes "predictions" that already happened in the past or are unfalsifiable. Evolutionary theory passes this test because it has made accurate predictions concerning population densities, physiologies, chemistries, fossil find forecasts, and many other things.

Third, creation scientists have not come anywhere close to explaining all the phenomena of life to the extent that evolution has. It would be entirely fair, and no exaggeration whatsoever, to say that the difference between the two explanatory efforts is akin to the difference between a magazine article and the Encyclopedia Britannica.

Here, creation scientists will probably protest. Although it's true that the Institute for Creation Research is a small organization, employing dozens of researchers who have written dozens of books, this is hardly the entire literary output of creationists. The book Anti-Evolution, by Tom McIver, is a bibliography of those Christian books touching upon any aspect of this debate, and he lists no less than 1,852 titles. (2) However, virtually none of these books makes a positive scientific description of creationism. There is almost no attempt to use the scientific data found in the world today to prove creationism. Instead, the overwhelming majority of these books forge a negative scientific critique on its opponent, evolution. When not doing that, they concern themselves with the theological or legal issues surrounding the debate. But when it comes to making a positive scientific case for their paradigm, the analogy of a magazine article vs. the Encyclopedia Britannica is entirely correct.

The near complete absence of a scientific theory of creationism has been an embarrassment to that movement ever since it started. Creation scientists claim to have scientific evidence -- tons and tons of it, according to their charming and affable spokesman, Duane Gish -- but they never produce it. The welcome page for talk.origins, the Internet discussion group where evolution and creation are hotly debated, says up front: "No one has ever presented a scientific theory of creation to us." (3) A study of 135,000 manuscripts submitted to 68 scientific journals over a 3-year period found that only 18 attempted to make a case for scientific creationism, and these were rejected because they were apparently written by laymen with a high-school level understanding of their subjects. (4) The simple fact is, creationists do not have any scientific evidence to support their hypothesis. If they had it, they would offer it.

"Creation science" is science.

Creation compared to evolution.


The creation model includes the scientific evidence and the related inferences suggesting that:

The evolution model includes the scientific evidence and the related inferences suggesting that:



I. The universe and the Solar system were suddenly created.

I. The universe and the solar system emerged by naturalistic processes.



II. Life was suddenly created.

II. Life emerged from nonlife by naturalistic processes.



III. All present living kinds of animals and plants have remained fixed since creation, other than extinctions, and genetic variation in originally created kinds has only occurred within narrow limits.

III. All present kinds emerged from simpler earlier kinds, so that single-celled organisms evolved into invertebrates, then vertebrates, then amphibians, then reptiles, then mammals, then primates, including man.



IV. Mutation and natural selection are insufficient to have brought about any emergence of present living kinds from a simple primordial organism.

IV. Mutation and natural selection have brought about the emergence of present complex kinds from a simple primordial organism.



V. Man and apes have a separate ancestry.

V. Man and apes emerged from a common ancestor.



VI. The earth's geologic features appear to have been fashioned largely by rapid, catastrophic processes that affected the earth on a global and regional scale (catastrophism).

VI. The earth's geologic features were fashioned largely by slow, gradual processes, with infrequent catastrophic events restricted to a local scale (uniformitarianism).



VII. The inception of the earth and of living kinds may have been relatively recent.

VII. The inception of the earth and then of life must have occurred several billion years ago.


Summary of Scientific Evidence for Creation (Part I & II)

Creation science fails to meet these criteria in several ways. First, its claims are not falsifiable. (This doesn't mean a theory has to be false -- only that if it were false, there would be some way of verifying it. It's the same thing as being vulnerable without actually being hurt.) If you were to claim that life exists on a planet orbiting the star Alpha Centauri, that would not qualify as science because there is no way of verifying it. It merely becomes an unsupported assertion. The claim that God made the earth is likewise unverifiable… no one has yet found any way to test this claim. Evolution, on the other hand, has made countless claims that have the capacity to be proven false, if indeed they are.

you are either too ignorant or too stupid to understand that what you're presenting as evidence is not evidence as detailed above.

Uh can you explain how evolution is falsifiable and creation is not ?

Definition for falsifiable:
Web definitions:
confirmable: capable of being tested (verified or falsified) by experiment or observation.

How can you confirm the universe came about by natural processes ?


How can you confirm Life emerged from nonlife by naturalistic processes ?

How can you confirm All present kinds of organisms emerged from simpler earlier kinds, so that single-celled organisms evolved into invertebrates, then vertebrates, then amphibians, then reptiles, then mammals, then primates, including man ?

How can you confirm Mutation and natural selection have brought about the emergence of present complex kinds from a simple primordial organism ?

How can you confirm Man and apes emerged from a common ancestor ?

How can you confirm The earth's geologic features were fashioned largely by slow, gradual processes, with infrequent catastrophic events restricted to a local scale (uniformitarianism) ?

How can you confirm The inception of the earth and then that life must have occurred several billion years ago ?

Your theories are no more falsifiable then creation dummy.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Let's learn about this intelligent designer.

Yes, let's. Finally.

You keep speaking of logic ok let's look at this from a logical standpoint.

Yes, yes I do; let us indeed examine this using VALID logic.

If you're asserting that "information" can only come from intelligence; and you categorically dismiss any notion that observable natural processes could possibly lead to intelligence. You also say this "Designer" of yours cannot be intelligent, so ... Leprechauns?

If you're asserting that "information" can only come from intelligence; and you categorically dismiss any notion that observable natural processes could possibly lead to intelligence. You also argue that this "Designer" of yours cannot be intelligent, so ... Paul Bunyan?

If you're asserting that "information" can only come from intelligence; and you categorically dismiss any notion that observable natural processes could possibly lead to intelligence. You also argue that this "Designer" of yours cannot be intelligent, so ... the Easter Bunny?

If you're asserting that "information" can only come from intelligence; and you categorically dismiss any notion that observable natural processes could possibly lead to intelligence. You also argue that this "Designer" of yours cannot be intelligent, so ... Frosty the snowman?

If you're asserting that "information" can only come from intelligence; and you categorically dismiss any notion that observable natural processes could possibly lead to intelligence. You also argue that this "Designer" of yours cannot be intelligent, so ... the Tooth Fairy?

Is this what you've got now? You'll accept the Tooth Fairy, or any other superstitious magic explanation, so long as you don't have to accept any notion that observable natural processes could possibly lead to intelligence? I thought YOU were going to explain this "Designer" of yours. Why are YOU asking me your stupid questions, when YOU should be answering them; when YOU should be providing the explanations.

For instance;

Since you deny that intelligence can come to exist from processes without intelligence, and given that this "Designer" of yours was not imbued with intelligence by another intelligence, it is impossible (according to your premises) that this "Designer" of yours is intelligent. And since "design" requires intelligence to guide the will to a purpose for a design, I expect you to perform intellectually honest due diligence and provide substantiation in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic for your belief (contradictory to your assertions) that this "Designer" of yours is intelligent.

When you're done there, show me the mechanism, or process, of design this "Designer" of yours utilizes. If you want to use the human mechanism, or process, of design as the comparative indicator that life was designed, then you need to produce the mechanism, or process, of design of this "Designer" of yours so your comparison can be validated by reality.

Once you manage that, you can get to explaining what purpose all this "design" you see has for this "Designer" of yours. Just because something has a use, it doesn't follow that it was designed for that use, or designed at all. Humans use their feet to operate cars, but it's silly to assert that feet were designed to operate cars; and humans don't design cars so that roads can have something that can be driven on them; we design cars for our own purposes.

So what purpose does designing an animal to grow longer hair in the winter, and shed it in the summer, serve this "Designer" of yours?

Remember, YOU are the one who wanted to "get to the nitty gritty and quit bloviating," so get to it. And no more of this "I don't have to explain God" business. Bring both your "nitty" and your "gritty"; it's finally time for you to stop challenging us, and start meeting the challenges brought to you; it's time for you to finally explain this "creator" of yours, ... this unintelligent "Designer."

Well since you guys are Hell bent on believing information comes from a natural means let's talk about where and how it came about ? Let's see if intelligence and information comes from natural processes or from intelligence. Come on loki let's get to it. This is the true difference between your belief and mine.

Absolutely. Challenge enthusiastically accepted. AFTER you have finished what you've started first; then I will happily hand you your own ass ... again. First you meet your obligations above, THEN we "get to it" ... NOT Before.

​

You are easy to rebut ,Yes.

Can you demonstrate otherwise ?

God has always existed and as always been intelligent.

 

[LOki]

Let's learn about this intelligent designer.

Yes, let's. Finally.

Yes, yes I do; let us indeed examine this using VALID logic.

If you're asserting that "information" can only come from intelligence; and you categorically dismiss any notion that observable natural processes could possibly lead to intelligence. You also say this "Designer" of yours cannot be intelligent, so ... Leprechauns?

If you're asserting that "information" can only come from intelligence; and you categorically dismiss any notion that observable natural processes could possibly lead to intelligence. You also argue that this "Designer" of yours cannot be intelligent, so ... Paul Bunyan?

If you're asserting that "information" can only come from intelligence; and you categorically dismiss any notion that observable natural processes could possibly lead to intelligence. You also argue that this "Designer" of yours cannot be intelligent, so ... the Easter Bunny?

If you're asserting that "information" can only come from intelligence; and you categorically dismiss any notion that observable natural processes could possibly lead to intelligence. You also argue that this "Designer" of yours cannot be intelligent, so ... Frosty the snowman?

If you're asserting that "information" can only come from intelligence; and you categorically dismiss any notion that observable natural processes could possibly lead to intelligence. You also argue that this "Designer" of yours cannot be intelligent, so ... the Tooth Fairy?

Is this what you've got now? You'll accept the Tooth Fairy, or any other superstitious magic explanation, so long as you don't have to accept any notion that observable natural processes could possibly lead to intelligence? I thought YOU were going to explain this "Designer" of yours. Why are YOU asking me your stupid questions, when YOU should be answering them; when YOU should be providing the explanations.

For instance;

Since you deny that intelligence can come to exist from processes without intelligence, and given that this "Designer" of yours was not imbued with intelligence by another intelligence, it is impossible (according to your premises) that this "Designer" of yours is intelligent. And since "design" requires intelligence to guide the will to a purpose for a design, I expect you to perform intellectually honest due diligence and provide substantiation in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic for your belief (contradictory to your assertions) that this "Designer" of yours is intelligent.

When you're done there, show me the mechanism, or process, of design this "Designer" of yours utilizes. If you want to use the human mechanism, or process, of design as the comparative indicator that life was designed, then you need to produce the mechanism, or process, of design of this "Designer" of yours so your comparison can be validated by reality.

Once you manage that, you can get to explaining what purpose all this "design" you see has for this "Designer" of yours. Just because something has a use, it doesn't follow that it was designed for that use, or designed at all. Humans use their feet to operate cars, but it's silly to assert that feet were designed to operate cars; and humans don't design cars so that roads can have something that can be driven on them; we design cars for our own purposes.

So what purpose does designing an animal to grow longer hair in the winter, and shed it in the summer, serve this "Designer" of yours?

Remember, YOU are the one who wanted to "get to the nitty gritty and quit bloviating," so get to it. And no more of this "I don't have to explain God" business. Bring both your "nitty" and your "gritty"; it's finally time for you to stop challenging us, and start meeting the challenges brought to you; it's time for you to finally explain this "creator" of yours, ... this unintelligent "Designer."

Absolutely. Challenge enthusiastically accepted. AFTER you have finished what you've started first; then I will happily hand you your own ass ... again. First you meet your obligations above, THEN we "get to it" ... NOT Before.

​

You are easy to rebut ,Yes.

Can you demonstrate otherwise ?

Rebut? "Yes" to what? Demonstrate "otherwise" regarding ... ?

God has always existed and as always been intelligent.

I am aware that you believe this, ... and I am waiting for you to demonstrate this, as you said you would ... using logic; let me add, VALID logic.

So, there's no need for you to procrastinate any longer. Please commence with the demonstrations and explanations, forthwith.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Yes, let's. Finally.

Yes, yes I do; let us indeed examine this using VALID logic.

If you're asserting that "information" can only come from intelligence; and you categorically dismiss any notion that observable natural processes could possibly lead to intelligence. You also say this "Designer" of yours cannot be intelligent, so ... Leprechauns?

If you're asserting that "information" can only come from intelligence; and you categorically dismiss any notion that observable natural processes could possibly lead to intelligence. You also argue that this "Designer" of yours cannot be intelligent, so ... Paul Bunyan?

If you're asserting that "information" can only come from intelligence; and you categorically dismiss any notion that observable natural processes could possibly lead to intelligence. You also argue that this "Designer" of yours cannot be intelligent, so ... the Easter Bunny?

If you're asserting that "information" can only come from intelligence; and you categorically dismiss any notion that observable natural processes could possibly lead to intelligence. You also argue that this "Designer" of yours cannot be intelligent, so ... Frosty the snowman?

If you're asserting that "information" can only come from intelligence; and you categorically dismiss any notion that observable natural processes could possibly lead to intelligence. You also argue that this "Designer" of yours cannot be intelligent, so ... the Tooth Fairy?

Is this what you've got now? You'll accept the Tooth Fairy, or any other superstitious magic explanation, so long as you don't have to accept any notion that observable natural processes could possibly lead to intelligence? I thought YOU were going to explain this "Designer" of yours. Why are YOU asking me your stupid questions, when YOU should be answering them; when YOU should be providing the explanations.

For instance;

Since you deny that intelligence can come to exist from processes without intelligence, and given that this "Designer" of yours was not imbued with intelligence by another intelligence, it is impossible (according to your premises) that this "Designer" of yours is intelligent. And since "design" requires intelligence to guide the will to a purpose for a design, I expect you to perform intellectually honest due diligence and provide substantiation in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic for your belief (contradictory to your assertions) that this "Designer" of yours is intelligent.

When you're done there, show me the mechanism, or process, of design this "Designer" of yours utilizes. If you want to use the human mechanism, or process, of design as the comparative indicator that life was designed, then you need to produce the mechanism, or process, of design of this "Designer" of yours so your comparison can be validated by reality.

Once you manage that, you can get to explaining what purpose all this "design" you see has for this "Designer" of yours. Just because something has a use, it doesn't follow that it was designed for that use, or designed at all. Humans use their feet to operate cars, but it's silly to assert that feet were designed to operate cars; and humans don't design cars so that roads can have something that can be driven on them; we design cars for our own purposes.

So what purpose does designing an animal to grow longer hair in the winter, and shed it in the summer, serve this "Designer" of yours?

Remember, YOU are the one who wanted to "get to the nitty gritty and quit bloviating," so get to it. And no more of this "I don't have to explain God" business. Bring both your "nitty" and your "gritty"; it's finally time for you to stop challenging us, and start meeting the challenges brought to you; it's time for you to finally explain this "creator" of yours, ... this unintelligent "Designer."

​

You are easy to rebut ,Yes.

Can you demonstrate otherwise ?

Rebut? "Yes" to what? Demonstrate "otherwise" regarding ... ?

God has always existed and as always been intelligent.

I am aware that you believe this, ... and I am waiting for you to demonstrate this, as you said you would ... using logic; let me add, VALID logic.

So, there's no need for you to procrastinate any longer. Please commence with the demonstrations and explanations, forthwith.

So you can't give an example of intelligence or any of the other things mentioned arising through a natural means. So chalk one up for it took intelligence to produce intelligence. Everything formed built or created needed intelligence to bring it about. So now if there is no creator where did intelligence and information come from ? It's logical to assume a creator ,thanks for playing.

 

[Montrovant]

You are easy to rebut ,Yes.

Can you demonstrate otherwise ?

Rebut? "Yes" to what? Demonstrate "otherwise" regarding ... ?

God has always existed and as always been intelligent.

I am aware that you believe this, ... and I am waiting for you to demonstrate this, as you said you would ... using logic; let me add, VALID logic.

So, there's no need for you to procrastinate any longer. Please commence with the demonstrations and explanations, forthwith.

So you can't give an example of intelligence or any of the other things mentioned arise through a natural means. So chalk one up for it took intelligence to produce intelligence. Everything formed built or created needed intelligence to bring it about. So now if there is no creator where did intelligence and information come from ? It's logical to assume a creator ,thanks for playing.

You believe that to be true, but there is no evidence that it is the case. In fact, you give the impression that your argument is actually 'everything formed, built or created by intelligence needed intelligence to bring it about'. If a new river is formed, was it intelligence that necessarily did it?

 

[LOki]

So you can't give an example of intelligence or any of the other things mentioned arise through a natural means. So chalk one up for it took intelligence to produce intelligence.

Even if true, this is not an explanation or demonstration of this intelligent designer of yours using valid logic.

So, chalk this up as another failure on your part to make your point.

Everything formed built or created needed intelligence to bring it about.

Even if true, this is not an explanation or demonstration of this intelligent designer of yours using valid logic.

So, chalk this up as another failure on your part to make your point.

So now if there is no creator where did intelligence and information come from ?

This is not an explanation or demonstration of this intelligent designer of yours using valid logic.

So, chalk this up as another failure on your part to make your point.

It's logical to assume a creator ,thanks for playing.

This is not an explanation or demonstration of this intelligent designer of yours using valid logic.

So, chalk this up as another failure on your part to make your point.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Rebut? "Yes" to what? Demonstrate "otherwise" regarding ... ?

I am aware that you believe this, ... and I am waiting for you to demonstrate this, as you said you would ... using logic; let me add, VALID logic.

So, there's no need for you to procrastinate any longer. Please commence with the demonstrations and explanations, forthwith.

So you can't give an example of intelligence or any of the other things mentioned arise through a natural means. So chalk one up for it took intelligence to produce intelligence. Everything formed built or created needed intelligence to bring it about. So now if there is no creator where did intelligence and information come from ? It's logical to assume a creator ,thanks for playing.

You believe that to be true, but there is no evidence that it is the case. In fact, you give the impression that your argument is actually 'everything formed, built or created by intelligence needed intelligence to bring it about'. If a new river is formed, was it intelligence that necessarily did it?

What does a river have to do with anything mentioned ?

Yes,rivers are easily formed just imagine the colorado river down at the bottom of the grand canyon that was one heck of a flood to carve out the grand canyon and leave that little river behind.

Not a very good example but i was expecting bad examples from your side to try and compare to things that took intelligence to create.