Creationists

[Youwerecreated]

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.

Wrong,intelligence cannot arise on it's own. A non-intelligent process could not create the greatest organ formed, the brain. Just think of what the brain has accomplished.

Failure intelligence and all information came from only one thing, intelligence.

Chalk one up for intelligence.

If God the all knowing creator is not a good explanation for all intelligence and information what is ?

By this demonstration a person with just a little bit of intelligence can see it took intelligence to create,build,and form. Not only is our brains responsible for all intelligence,information,and creations of man but it aso runs our body.

Scientist compare our brains as better then any super computer designed ,built,and programmed. But yet you are still willing to say this organ was the result of a non-intelligent non-thinking process. You're in denial my friend and you are using poor logic to assume such a thing.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Now lets cover young earth evidence.

Ok evidence that shows a much younger earth then man says.

Introduction:
Contrary to what we've been told over and over by the evolution-believing mass media, the "scientific" establishment, and old-Earth (slow) Creationists (who don't want God to receive too much glory), there are, in fact, numerous geophysical and astronomical clocks which point to a young age for the earth, solar system, and universe. In fact, such young-earth indicators are in the majority. But because the scientific establishment and the media are biased in favor of evolution, and against the Creator, and because evolution requires an old earth to appear plausible, the public at large is rarely informed of the mounting evidence that contradicts the old earth dogma of evolution.

In the pages that follow we discuss 22 clocks, or indicators that the Earth and Universe are young. Or to say it another way: there is a LOT of scientific evidence that suggests the Earth is perhaps only thousands of years old, and that the 4.5 billion year age that evolution-believing "scientists" have LOUDLY proclaimed -- over and over -- is incorrect.

Time Clocks:
A "clock" is any geophysical or astronomical process that is changing at a constant rate. Clocks may be used to estimate how long a process has been going on for. All clocks (including radiometric ones) require the use of at least three assumptions. These are:

1. The rate of change has remained constant throughout the past.
2. The original conditions are known.
3. The process has not been altered by outside forces.

In each of these cases it is not possible to prove that the assumptions are true. For example flooding can greatly alter sedimentation rates, and with clocks over 5,000 years old, the original conditions cannot be known with certainty. Therefore scientists must make a guess with regard to what they believe the original conditions might have been. The shorter the time involved, the more likely that a specific process has been constant, and unaltered by external influences.

The following clocks point to a young earth, solar system, and universe. Taken together, they suggest that the earth is quite young -- probably less than 10,000 years old.

For undisputed evidence of a younger earth then man states.


The Age of the Earth: Evidence for a Young Earth, Young Earth Evidences.





Is There Really Scientific Evidence for a Young Earth?
For the past several decades, the question of the age of the Earth has been a very divisive one among Christians. Many people (known as "Young-Earth Creationists") believe that the only valid interpretation of the Bible indicates that the Earth is 10,000 years old or less, and they also claim to have scientific evidence that supports this view of the Earth. At the same time, there are many others who believe that scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports the claim that the Earth is about 4.6 billion years old, while the Universe as a whole is 10 to 20 billion years old. Many people in this latter category affirm the intimate involvement of God in this process of creation.

It is not the purpose of this paper to discuss theology, but this author firmly believes that a literal interpretation of Genesis allows for an Old-Earth view that is consistent with mainstream science. I say this only to emphasize that this paper is not intended to oppose any Christian beliefs, or to tear down anyone's faith. Rather, the purpose of this paper is to ensure that our Faith is based firmly on Truth, and not merely wishful thinking.

Through the ages, many people have denied certain facts of nature because those facts did not fit into the belief system that they desired to hold to. Both Christians and atheists are commonly guilty of this error. It should be obvious that any Christian who believes that God is the ordainer and framer of this world, and that God is the initiator of all logic and scientific thought, should never take such a position. The purpose of this paper is to show that Young-Earth Creationists, however unintentionally, have in fact done this. Regardless of what we may think the Bible says, the facts of nature are also ordained by God, and it is not right deny them or to misrepresent them in order to support any particular belief system. The purpose of this paper is to set forth the facts of nature in light of the claims made by Young-Earth Creationist leaders in hope that, by better understanding the facts of nature, we will also come to a better understanding of God's greater source of revelation - the words of the Bible.

Please read further.

Is There Really Scientific Evidence for a Young Earth?

 

[Montrovant]

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.

The more you post, the less I think you understand the responses people give.

I put the important part of your post in bold, and still you missed it. You said "Everything formed built or created needed intelligence to bring it about." I brought up rivers being formed, as an example of something formed that didn't need intelligence. See the extremely obvious connection yet?

Your point truly does seem to be that since humans, with our intelligence, have created many things, all things must also have been created with intelligence.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

The more you post, the less I think you understand the responses people give.

I put the important part of your post in bold, and still you missed it. You said "Everything formed built or created needed intelligence to bring it about." I brought up rivers being formed, as an example of something formed that didn't need intelligence. See the extremely obvious connection yet?

Your point truly does seem to be that since humans, with our intelligence, have created many things, all things must also have been created with intelligence.

Give me an example otherwise. all information, intelligence,communications,science,computers, came about through intelligence. So why do you reason different for life and the universe ? Don't forget the brain.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

The more you post, the less I think you understand the responses people give.

I put the important part of your post in bold, and still you missed it. You said "Everything formed built or created needed intelligence to bring it about." I brought up rivers being formed, as an example of something formed that didn't need intelligence. See the extremely obvious connection yet?

Your point truly does seem to be that since humans, with our intelligence, have created many things, all things must also have been created with intelligence.

Must i point out the genetic code again. It's a language and blue print of a living organism did that not need intelligence to produce the blue print ?

 

[cbirch2]

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.

Blah blah blah blah blah

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.

Do not ever accuse me of copy and pasting because i cant articulate it myself, obviously thats your role.

And second, Spetner has a degree in mechanical engineering. IDGAF about idiot creationists.

Explain it in your own words fool. Im not going to read your 5,000+ word copya pasta from creationist websites.

Explain it to me using actual genetic terminology and then i will take you seriously. Im not even reading that massive wall of text.

 

[cbirch2]

Why did you just totally ignore the purebred topic kid?

Wasnt that essentially the basic point of your argument?

That purebreds are pure breeds created by god and everything else is just a mix???

Lets go back to that. That was funny to hear someone argue.

 

[Montrovant]

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.

The more you post, the less I think you understand the responses people give.

I put the important part of your post in bold, and still you missed it. You said "Everything formed built or created needed intelligence to bring it about." I brought up rivers being formed, as an example of something formed that didn't need intelligence. See the extremely obvious connection yet?

Your point truly does seem to be that since humans, with our intelligence, have created many things, all things must also have been created with intelligence.

Give me an example otherwise. all information, intelligence,communications,science,computers, came about through intelligence. So why do you reason different for life and the universe ? Don't forget the brain.

First, good job not admitting your mistake.
Second, all intelligence came about through intelligence? Are you sure that's what you meant to say?
Third, just because humans have created various technologies does not in any way mean that everything in the universe came about through intelligence. Humans created explosives; does that mean all explosions require intelligence to happen?

You believe an intelligence is behind creation. That's fine. I have no proof to offer that an intelligence didn't create the universe, or that an intelligence didn't create life. However, your belief does not make it an objectively obvious truth.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

Blah blah blah blah blah

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.

Do not ever accuse me of copy and pasting because i cant articulate it myself, obviously thats your role.

And second, Spetner has a degree in mechanical engineering. IDGAF about idiot creationists.

Explain it in your own words fool. Im not going to read your 5,000+ word copya pasta from creationist websites.

Explain it to me using actual genetic terminology and then i will take you seriously. Im not even reading that massive wall of text.

Correction,he is a Physicist.

And it was very clear by the responses from Dr. Max that Dr. Spetner knew what he was talking about. Anmd did you see max didn't even attempt an argument against spetners views on antibiotic resistence bacteria.

Dr. spetner believes in the same adaptations or micro-evolution i believe in and he knows that mutations don't do what Neo darwinist claim.

He tackled the many mutations that darwinist point to as their evidence if you don't read it,it is your loss.

But we differ on information you say it came about naturally and i believe intelligence was required for producing information and intelligence the thread is now focused on this subject.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Why did you just totally ignore the purebred topic kid?

Wasnt that essentially the basic point of your argument?

That purebreds are pure breeds created by god and everything else is just a mix???

Lets go back to that. That was funny to hear someone argue.

God yes did create purebreds,but do you know the origional breeds God created ? You are being ignorant because all dog breeds were the result of cross breeding by man. The only breeds that were in the wild were not defiled by man.

Wolf,coyote,fox. who is to say the origional breeds God created. Man has created breeds in all domesticated animals.

The animals in the wild only breed with animals of their kind and that is why you see smaller gene pools in the wild. Once man creates a new breed through selective breeding they stop the cross breeding and only breed members of the same breed.That goes for cows,horses,dogs,and all other livestock.

The thread has moved on now there is no point to me repeating this again.

 

[Youwerecreated]

The more you post, the less I think you understand the responses people give.

I put the important part of your post in bold, and still you missed it. You said "Everything formed built or created needed intelligence to bring it about." I brought up rivers being formed, as an example of something formed that didn't need intelligence. See the extremely obvious connection yet?

Your point truly does seem to be that since humans, with our intelligence, have created many things, all things must also have been created with intelligence.

Give me an example otherwise. all information, intelligence,communications,science,computers, came about through intelligence. So why do you reason different for life and the universe ? Don't forget the brain.

First, good job not admitting your mistake.
Second, all intelligence came about through intelligence? Are you sure that's what you meant to say?
Third, just because humans have created various technologies does not in any way mean that everything in the universe came about through intelligence. Humans created explosives; does that mean all explosions require intelligence to happen?

You believe an intelligence is behind creation. That's fine. I have no proof to offer that an intelligence didn't create the universe, or that an intelligence didn't create life. However, your belief does not make it an objectively obvious truth.

Not a mistake,intelligence was needed to create the brain and the brain was needed to create what we see today.

God was that intelligence.

 

[cbirch2]

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.

Blah blah blah blah blah

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.

Do not ever accuse me of copy and pasting because i cant articulate it myself, obviously thats your role.

And second, Spetner has a degree in mechanical engineering. IDGAF about idiot creationists.

Explain it in your own words fool. Im not going to read your 5,000+ word copya pasta from creationist websites.

Explain it to me using actual genetic terminology and then i will take you seriously. Im not even reading that massive wall of text.

Correction,he is a Physicist.

And it was very clear by the responses from Dr. Max that Dr. Spetner knew what he was talking about. Anmd did you see max didn't even attempt an argument against spetners views on antibiotic resistence bacteria.

Dr. spetner believes in the same adaptations or micro-evolution i believe in and he knows that mutations don't do what Neo darwinist claim.

He tackled the many mutations that darwinist point to as their evidence if you don't read it,it is your loss.

But we differ on information you say it came about naturally and i believe intelligence was required for producing information and intelligence the thread is now focused on this subject.

I didnt read anything that spetner says, but let me guess a bit.

He threw up a few examples of bacteria losing information (maybe a receptor site??) in response to the environment (say a virus).

Not impressed.

Tell me why DNA polymerase cannot insert a nucleotide, like adenine, into a gene, through mutation.

 

[cbirch2]

Why did you just totally ignore the purebred topic kid?

Wasnt that essentially the basic point of your argument?

That purebreds are pure breeds created by god and everything else is just a mix???

Lets go back to that. That was funny to hear someone argue.

God yes did create purebreds,but do you know the origional breeds God created ? You are being ignorant because all dog breeds were the result of cross breeding by man. The only breeds that were in the wild were not defiled by man.

Wolf,coyote,fox. who is to say the origional breeds God created. Man has created breeds in all domesticated animals.

The animals in the wild only breed with animals of their kind and that is why you see smaller gene pools in the wild. Once man creates a new breed through selective breeding they stop the cross breeding and only breed members of the same breed.That goes for cows,horses,dogs,and all other livestock.

The thread has moved on now there is no point to me repeating this again.

So just so im clear, your dropping your contention that the animals we now call purebreed are special?

Good. For a second i thought you were crazy....lol....

 

[LOki]

Wrong,intelligence cannot arise on it's own.

Explain or demonstrate this with valid logic applied to verifiable evidence.

A non-intelligent process could not create the greatest organ formed, the brain.

Explain or demonstrate this with valid logic applied to verifiable evidence.

Just think of what the brain has accomplished.

It was brains that surely imagined Leprechauns, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Frosty the snowman, Paul Bunyan, Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and this "Creator" or "Designer" of yours, but none of that is any kind of evidence that the existence of any of these beings is a fact of reality.

Failure intelligence and all information came from only one thing, intelligence.

Nonsense. Information exists independent of any intelligence that would endow it with meaning.

And you're just NOT demonstrating the reality of, or explaining in any manner, this intelligent "Designer" of yours using valid logic. You have actually done nothing but affirm that solely by the virtue of simply imagining this "Designer" of yours--and all of his attributes, abilities, and deeds--and simply believing they are all real, you have valid reasons to assert all of it as fact of reality.

Chalk one up for intelligence.

Fine, so long as we're not imagining it's your "intelligence," or the imaginary intelligence of your imaginary "Designer."

If God the all knowing creator is not a good explanation for all intelligence and information what is ?

Some combination of natural processes that can be validated with verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.

Regardless of how incomplete and uncertain such an explanation might prove to be, an explanation founded upon, and validated with, verifiable evidence and/or valid logic is certainly a better explanation for "all intelligence and information" than this obviously imaginary "God" of yours.

By this demonstration a person with just a little bit of intelligence can see it took intelligence to create,build,and form.

Simply declaring that you demonstrated something is not the same a actually demonstrating something.

Just as simply believing that this plainly factitious "Creator' or "Designer" or "God" of yours is real, is in no way the same thing as this "Creator' or "Designer" or "God" of yours actually being real.

Not only is our brains responsible for all intelligence,information,and creations of man but it aso runs our body.

Excellent. This statement is consistent with my notions of the source of our intelligence, as well as that of this "Creator' or "Designer" or "God" of yours; I agree that it's OUR brains that are responsible for all intelligence, information, and creations of man--including this "Creator' or "Designer" or "God" of yours.

Scientist compare our brains as better then any super computer designed ,built,and programmed. But yet you are still willing to say this organ was the result of a non-intelligent non-thinking process.

Valid logic applied to the verifiable evidence certainly leads to such a conclusion.

If you want to use the human mechanism, or process, of design (as you're clearly doing) 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. So, unless you present the mechanism, or process, of design this "Designer" of yours utilizes, the point you're really making--the conclusion you must make based upon applying valid logic to the verifiable evidence--is that life appears to be "man-made."

If you're trying to do that, then we have all entirely misunderstood your point. It's more likely, however, that you are just continuing you exemplary track record of having no idea what you're talking about.

You're in denial my friend and you are using poor logic to assume such a thing.

In denial of what, exactly? I see no weakness in the logic that leads to denying the verifiable reality of this imaginary "Designer" of yours. I am certainly not in denial of the verifiable evidence or the valid logic.

Not that there's any possibility that you'd even make the attempt, but why don't you try to summon up some intellectual integrity, and demonstrate (with VALID logic) that the logic I'm using is "poor."

 

[cbirch2]

Give me an example otherwise. all information, intelligence,communications,science,computers, came about through intelligence. So why do you reason different for life and the universe ? Don't forget the brain.

First, good job not admitting your mistake.
Second, all intelligence came about through intelligence? Are you sure that's what you meant to say?
Third, just because humans have created various technologies does not in any way mean that everything in the universe came about through intelligence. Humans created explosives; does that mean all explosions require intelligence to happen?

You believe an intelligence is behind creation. That's fine. I have no proof to offer that an intelligence didn't create the universe, or that an intelligence didn't create life. However, your belief does not make it an objectively obvious truth.

Not a mistake,intelligence was needed to create the brain and the brain was needed to create what we see today.

God was that intelligence.

No actually rings of carbon, nitrogen, and hydrogen were that information.

God is raining information from the sky!!!!

I think the problem here is that an understanding of evolution (and abiogenesis) requires at least a basic understanding of both cellular biology and organic chemistry.

You have neither.

 

[cbirch2]

I hate that conservatives cant get past their general terms. Its because they know nothing else.

God created the "information" needed for our brains?

You dont say what that "information" is because if you did your argument would sound fucking retarded.

God "created" the rings of carbon that comprise the nucleotide sequences that are our DNA??? Do you mean directly assembled??? God directly assembled the rings of carbon and nitrogen atoms that comprise our genome?

Sorry. But that just seems like bullshit to me. Its just a total of like 15 atoms that react in specific electrochemical ways. Hows a viroid fit your definition of a god creating the information directly?? An organism is just composed of cells, a cell is just a complex structure of 4 types of organic polymers (lipids, nucleic acids, carbs, and proteins), each of those polymers is just a chain of monomers, each of those monomers is just a group of atoms electromagnetically attracted to each other, and each of those atoms are composed of elementary particles. When it comes down to it, the only things in life youve ever interacted with are up quarks, down quarks, electrons, and photons. Everything around you is just a combination of these things, all you are is a combination of these things. The nature of these things not only allow but necessitate the formation of life.

If there is a god, these are the mechanisms through which it works. Not by literally assembling organic molecules into a life form. Thats retardation.

 

[daws101]

OK, if the bible is accurate then every human on earth should be a descendant of Noah ?
how could that be true, as Noah and his crew were not large enough to sustain a viable breeding population.
also it does not explain the other races on the earth.
did god SHAZAM them into being when nobody was looking?
why if Noah, put all the land animals on the ark and the description of Leviathan in the bible accurately translates to dinosaurs and other PRE human animals, then logically shouldn't there be aquatic dinosaurs in every ocean and stream.
one more little tid bit, there is evidence that some land masses have never been underwater, Australia come to mind.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Do not ever accuse me of copy and pasting because i cant articulate it myself, obviously thats your role.

And second, Spetner has a degree in mechanical engineering. IDGAF about idiot creationists.

Explain it in your own words fool. Im not going to read your 5,000+ word copya pasta from creationist websites.

Explain it to me using actual genetic terminology and then i will take you seriously. Im not even reading that massive wall of text.

Correction,he is a Physicist.

And it was very clear by the responses from Dr. Max that Dr. Spetner knew what he was talking about. Anmd did you see max didn't even attempt an argument against spetners views on antibiotic resistence bacteria.

Dr. spetner believes in the same adaptations or micro-evolution i believe in and he knows that mutations don't do what Neo darwinist claim.

He tackled the many mutations that darwinist point to as their evidence if you don't read it,it is your loss.

But we differ on information you say it came about naturally and i believe intelligence was required for producing information and intelligence the thread is now focused on this subject.

I didnt read anything that spetner says, but let me guess a bit.

He threw up a few examples of bacteria losing information (maybe a receptor site??) in response to the environment (say a virus).

Not impressed.

Tell me why DNA polymerase cannot insert a nucleotide, like adenine, into a gene, through mutation.

Didn't say it could not happen,but would it benefit the organism ?could it do it enough to create enough beneficial mutations for everything to evolve through macro-evolution ? The answer is no.

Your using wiki as your source and you say Dr. Spetner has not delivered an impressive blow to Neo Darwinist and your not impressed and you didn't even read it. He takes on all your so called mutations and they don't do what your side needs.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Why did you just totally ignore the purebred topic kid?

Wasnt that essentially the basic point of your argument?

That purebreds are pure breeds created by god and everything else is just a mix???

Lets go back to that. That was funny to hear someone argue.

God yes did create purebreds,but do you know the origional breeds God created ? You are being ignorant because all dog breeds were the result of cross breeding by man. The only breeds that were in the wild were not defiled by man.

Wolf,coyote,fox. who is to say the origional breeds God created. Man has created breeds in all domesticated animals.

The animals in the wild only breed with animals of their kind and that is why you see smaller gene pools in the wild. Once man creates a new breed through selective breeding they stop the cross breeding and only breed members of the same breed.That goes for cows,horses,dogs,and all other livestock.

The thread has moved on now there is no point to me repeating this again.

So just so im clear, your dropping your contention that the animals we now call purebreed are special?

Good. For a second i thought you were crazy....lol....

ped·i·gree/ˈpedəˌgrē/
Noun:
1.The record of descent of an animal, showing it to be purebred.
2.A purebred animal.


How do they become purebred genius ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Wrong,intelligence cannot arise on it's own.

Explain or demonstrate this with valid logic applied to verifiable evidence.

A non-intelligent process could not create the greatest organ formed, the brain.

Explain or demonstrate this with valid logic applied to verifiable evidence.

It was brains that surely imagined Leprechauns, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Frosty the snowman, Paul Bunyan, Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and this "Creator" or "Designer" of yours, but none of that is any kind of evidence that the existence of any of these beings is a fact of reality.

Nonsense. Information exists independent of any intelligence that would endow it with meaning.

And you're just NOT demonstrating the reality of, or explaining in any manner, this intelligent "Designer" of yours using valid logic. You have actually done nothing but affirm that solely by the virtue of simply imagining this "Designer" of yours--and all of his attributes, abilities, and deeds--and simply believing they are all real, you have valid reasons to assert all of it as fact of reality.

Fine, so long as we're not imagining it's your "intelligence," or the imaginary intelligence of your imaginary "Designer."

Some combination of natural processes that can be validated with verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.

Regardless of how incomplete and uncertain such an explanation might prove to be, an explanation founded upon, and validated with, verifiable evidence and/or valid logic is certainly a better explanation for "all intelligence and information" than this obviously imaginary "God" of yours.

Simply declaring that you demonstrated something is not the same a actually demonstrating something.

Just as simply believing that this plainly factitious "Creator' or "Designer" or "God" of yours is real, is in no way the same thing as this "Creator' or "Designer" or "God" of yours actually being real.

Excellent. This statement is consistent with my notions of the source of our intelligence, as well as that of this "Creator' or "Designer" or "God" of yours; I agree that it's OUR brains that are responsible for all intelligence, information, and creations of man--including this "Creator' or "Designer" or "God" of yours.

Scientist compare our brains as better then any super computer designed ,built,and programmed. But yet you are still willing to say this organ was the result of a non-intelligent non-thinking process.

Valid logic applied to the verifiable evidence certainly leads to such a conclusion.

If you want to use the human mechanism, or process, of design (as you're clearly doing) 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. So, unless you present the mechanism, or process, of design this "Designer" of yours utilizes, the point you're really making--the conclusion you must make based upon applying valid logic to the verifiable evidence--is that life appears to be "man-made."

If you're trying to do that, then we have all entirely misunderstood your point. It's more likely, however, that you are just continuing you exemplary track record of having no idea what you're talking about.

You're in denial my friend and you are using poor logic to assume such a thing.

In denial of what, exactly? I see no weakness in the logic that leads to denying the verifiable reality of this imaginary "Designer" of yours. I am certainly not in denial of the verifiable evidence or the valid logic.

Not that there's any possibility that you'd even make the attempt, but why don't you try to summon up some intellectual integrity, and demonstrate (with VALID logic) that the logic I'm using is "poor."

Dummy you are the one that believes it happened it's on you.

I can give many cases where something was formed,built,designed,and created and itelligence was needed to do so.

Now you show how non-intelligence can do the same.

I know you avoided my question because you can't do what was asked of you.

Chalk one up for God the creator.