Creationists

[Youwerecreated]

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.

Go read your wiki little man.

You still can't produce anything that was formed,built,designed or created without intelligence being needed.

 

[daws101]

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.

Go read your wiki little man.

You still can't produce anything that was formed,built,designed or created without intelligence being needed.

really? ...lava...

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

Do you understand variations according to enviornment ?

Humans are all descended from Adam and Eve. There is only one human race there are just variations within the family.

Here educate yourself.

http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=337

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

Go read your wiki little man.

You still can't produce anything that was formed,built,designed or created without intelligence being needed.

really? ...lava...

Design. I'll give you a kids site.

What Causes Volcanoes

How bout oxygen ? How bout the earths plane ? How bout the moons position ? How bout the suns position ? How bout the hydrologic system ? Yeah more design.

 

[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.

Do you understand variations according to enviornment ?

Humans are all descended from Adam and Eve. There is only one human race there are just variations within the family.

Here educate yourself.

http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=337

dodge! Adam and eve are a worse example than Noah....two is not a viable breeding population for humans or any other higher life forms (I take it you've never seen the film deliverance)
once again you're substituting belief for evidence.
still does not answer the question: why are all humans born after the so called flood NOT descendants of Noah.
or why there are no ocean going dinosaurs ( odd that god let the Coelacanths ( /ˈsiːləkænθ/, adaptation of Modern Latin Cœlacanthus "hollow spine", from Greek κοῖλ-ος koilos "hollow" + ἄκανθ-α akantha "spine", referring to the hollow caudal fin rays of the first fossil specimen described and named by Agassiz in 1839[1]) are members of an order of fish that includes the oldest living lineage of Sarcopterygii (lobe-finned fish + tetrapods) known to date.

Coelacanths belong to the subclass Actinistia, a group of lobed-finned fish that are related to lungfish and other extinct Devonian fish like osteolepiforms, porolepiforms, rhizodonts, and Panderichthys.[1] Coelacanths were thought to have gone extinct in the Late Cretaceous, but were rediscovered in 1938 off the coast of South Africa.[2] Latimeria chalumnae and the Latimeria menadoensis are the only two living coelacanth species, which are found along the coastlines of the Indian Ocean.[3] The coelacanth has been nicknamed a “living fossil”, because it was originally known only through fossils, long before the first discovery of a live specimen.[1] The coelacanth is thought to have evolved into roughly its current form approximately 400 million years ago.[4] survive and not the sea going reptiles.

also your reply does not answer the never been underwater question.

 

[InDoctriNation]

Wrong,intelligence cannot arise on it's own.

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

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.

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.

What about snowflakes? They look pretty damn intricate and symmetrical, but they are the pure product of natural (or "non-intelligent," as you would say) processes.

But I suppose you think that God handcrafts every individual snowflake too.

 

[daws101]

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

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.

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.

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.

What about snowflakes? They look pretty damn intricate and symmetrical, but they are the pure product of natural (or "non-intelligent," as you would say) processes.

But I suppose you think that God handcrafts every individual snowflake too.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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

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.

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.

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.

What about snowflakes? They look pretty damn intricate and symmetrical, but they are the pure product of natural (or "non-intelligent," as you would say) processes.

But I suppose you think that God handcrafts every individual snowflake too.

Joh 1:3 All things came into being through Him, and without Him not even one thing came into being that has come into being.

Job 31:15 Did not He who made me in the womb make him? And did not One shape us in the womb?

Psa 139:13

(ASV) For thou didst form my inward parts: Thou didst cover me in my mother's womb.

(BBE) My flesh was made by you, and my parts joined together in my mother's body.

(CEV) You are the one who put me together inside my mother's body,

The answer is yes everything was created by God.

 

[InDoctriNation]

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.

What about snowflakes? They look pretty damn intricate and symmetrical, but they are the pure product of natural (or "non-intelligent," as you would say) processes.

But I suppose you think that God handcrafts every individual snowflake too.

Joh 1:3 All things came into being through Him, and without Him not even one thing came into being that has come into being.

Job 31:15 Did not He who made me in the womb make him? And did not One shape us in the womb?

Psa 139:13

(ASV) For thou didst form my inward parts: Thou didst cover me in my mother's womb.

(BBE) My flesh was made by you, and my parts joined together in my mother's body.

(CEV) You are the one who put me together inside my mother's body,

The answer is yes everything was created by God.

Except we know that snowflakes aren't created by God, so no, not everything was created by God. We also know that the fetus is not physically created by God, because if that was the case a sonogram is all you would need to prove God's existence. However, I have yet to hear of a sonogram showing God gluing limbs to the torso of a fetus. Epic Bible fail.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

Do you understand variations according to enviornment ?

Humans are all descended from Adam and Eve. There is only one human race there are just variations within the family.

Here educate yourself.

http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=337

dodge! Adam and eve are a worse example than Noah....two is not a viable breeding population for humans or any other higher life forms (I take it you've never seen the film deliverance)
once again you're substituting belief for evidence.
still does not answer the question: why are all humans born after the so called flood NOT descendants of Noah.
or why there are no ocean going dinosaurs ( odd that god let the Coelacanths ( /ˈsiːləkænθ/, adaptation of Modern Latin Cœlacanthus "hollow spine", from Greek κοῖλ-ος koilos "hollow" + ἄκανθ-α akantha "spine", referring to the hollow caudal fin rays of the first fossil specimen described and named by Agassiz in 1839[1]) are members of an order of fish that includes the oldest living lineage of Sarcopterygii (lobe-finned fish + tetrapods) known to date.

Coelacanths belong to the subclass Actinistia, a group of lobed-finned fish that are related to lungfish and other extinct Devonian fish like osteolepiforms, porolepiforms, rhizodonts, and Panderichthys.[1] Coelacanths were thought to have gone extinct in the Late Cretaceous, but were rediscovered in 1938 off the coast of South Africa.[2] Latimeria chalumnae and the Latimeria menadoensis are the only two living coelacanth species, which are found along the coastlines of the Indian Ocean.[3] The coelacanth has been nicknamed a “living fossil”, because it was originally known only through fossils, long before the first discovery of a live specimen.[1] The coelacanth is thought to have evolved into roughly its current form approximately 400 million years ago.[4] survive and not the sea going reptiles.

also your reply does not answer the never been underwater question.

May 11 2011
The world population has grown tremendously over the past two thousand years. In 1999, the world population passed the six billion mark.
Latest official current world population estimate, for mid-year 2010, is estimated at 6,852,472,823.

The chart below shows past world population data back to the year one and future world population projections through the year 2050.


World Population Growth



Year

Population



1

200 million



1000

275 million



1500

450 million



1650

500 million



1750

700 million



1804

1 billion



1850

1.2 billion



1900

1.6 billion



1927

2 billion



1950

2.55 billion



1955

2.8 billion



1960

3 billion



1965

3.3 billion



1970

3.7 billion



1975

4 billion



1980

4.5 billion



1985

4.85 billion



1990

5.3 billion



1995

5.7 billion



1999

6 billion



2006

6.5 billion



2009

6.8 billion



2011

7 billion



2025

8 billion



2043

9 billion


World Population - The Current World Population

 

[LOki]

Wrong,intelligence cannot arise on it's own.

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

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.

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.

No. YOU said, "... intelligence cannot arise on it's own," so it's NOT my responsibility to explain why. Douche.

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

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

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 must meet your obligations above, THEN we "get to it" ... NOT Before.

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

No. You are engaging again in pathological projection. You are avoiding your own responsibilities, simply because you know you cannot meet them; and you are illicitly attributing your own dishonest tactics to me.

No one's ever going to buy your bullshit here pal, because I will never tire of linking you right back to your sanctimonious hypocrisy.

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."

Chalk one up for God the creator.

What "Creator?" You keep referencing this "Creator," yet there's no evidence of His existence. NONE! You keep saying [this thing or that] was "created," which "proves" the existence of this "Creator" of yours, but that's just asserting invalid logic.

It is INVALID to require the acceptance of your conclusion in the premise OR the arguments that lead to your conclusion.

You have done LITERALLY NOTHING to demonstrate or explain the "intelligence" of this "Designer" of yours. You continue to affirm (ad nauseam) 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.

So, FUCK NO! there's no chalking of ANYTHING up to this fictitious Creator of yours.

 

[Montrovant]

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.

What about snowflakes? They look pretty damn intricate and symmetrical, but they are the pure product of natural (or "non-intelligent," as you would say) processes.

But I suppose you think that God handcrafts every individual snowflake too.

Joh 1:3 All things came into being through Him, and without Him not even one thing came into being that has come into being.

Job 31:15 Did not He who made me in the womb make him? And did not One shape us in the womb?

Psa 139:13

(ASV) For thou didst form my inward parts: Thou didst cover me in my mother's womb.

(BBE) My flesh was made by you, and my parts joined together in my mother's body.

(CEV) You are the one who put me together inside my mother's body,

The answer is yes everything was created by God.

Are you saying that there is no such thing as a natural process?

 

[Youwerecreated]

What about snowflakes? They look pretty damn intricate and symmetrical, but they are the pure product of natural (or "non-intelligent," as you would say) processes.

But I suppose you think that God handcrafts every individual snowflake too.

Joh 1:3 All things came into being through Him, and without Him not even one thing came into being that has come into being.

Job 31:15 Did not He who made me in the womb make him? And did not One shape us in the womb?

Psa 139:13

(ASV) For thou didst form my inward parts: Thou didst cover me in my mother's womb.

(BBE) My flesh was made by you, and my parts joined together in my mother's body.

(CEV) You are the one who put me together inside my mother's body,

The answer is yes everything was created by God.

Are you saying that there is no such thing as a natural process?

Not saying that,the only natural systems is ones that God put in motion. Like the hydrologic system and the seasons and adaptations.

 

[Montrovant]

Joh 1:3 All things came into being through Him, and without Him not even one thing came into being that has come into being.

Job 31:15 Did not He who made me in the womb make him? And did not One shape us in the womb?

Psa 139:13

(ASV) For thou didst form my inward parts: Thou didst cover me in my mother's womb.

(BBE) My flesh was made by you, and my parts joined together in my mother's body.

(CEV) You are the one who put me together inside my mother's body,

The answer is yes everything was created by God.

Are you saying that there is no such thing as a natural process?

Not saying that,the only natural systems is ones that God put in motion. Like the hydrologic system and the seasons and adaptations.

That leaves me still wondering what your answer is to whether snowflakes (or any other similar, natural process) can be formed or created without intelligence.

 

[LOki]

The answer is yes everything was created by God.

What is this "God" thing you keep referencing?

 

[cbirch2]

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.

Actually the answer to both is yes.

Could the insertion benefit the organism? Well that depends. The probability that a new nucleotide is beneficial is the same probability that a deletion is beneficial. So your argument (evolution by deletion), is just as likely to yield beneficial results as actual evolution.

Could it happen fast enough? Certainly! The human genome is 3 billion base pairs long. Thats an average of one insertion mutation in a gene pool a year to go from a group of amino acid coding nucleotides 3 billion years ago to a human genome.

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.

Maybe im wrong but havent you and Dr Spetner been refuted by multiple people already? I remember Loki refuted your massive wall of text, from what i read.

 

[cbirch2]

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 ?

German Shephard - Horand von Grafrath (January 1, 1895 - after 1899) (formerly Hektor Linksrhein) was the first German Shepherd Dog and the genetic basis for modern German Shepherds.

Labrador Retriever - The modern Labrador's ancestors originated on the island of Newfoundland, now part of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada.[8] The founding breed of the Labrador was the St. John's Water Dog, a breed that emerged through ad-hoc breedings by early settlers of the island in the 16th century.

WE BRED THE BREEDS THAT EXIST TODAY!!

HOW MANY MORE TIMES DO I HAVE TO TELL YOU THAT!?!

 

[Youwerecreated]

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

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.

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.

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.

No. YOU said, "... intelligence cannot arise on it's own," so it's NOT my responsibility to explain why. Douche.

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."

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 must meet your obligations above, THEN we "get to it" ... NOT Before.

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

No. You are engaging again in pathological projection. You are avoiding your own responsibilities, simply because you know you cannot meet them; and you are illicitly attributing your own dishonest tactics to me.

No one's ever going to buy your bullshit here pal, because I will never tire of linking you right back to your sanctimonious hypocrisy.

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."

Chalk one up for God the creator.

What "Creator?" You keep referencing this "Creator," yet there's no evidence of His existence. NONE! You keep saying [this thing or that] was "created," which "proves" the existence of this "Creator" of yours, but that's just asserting invalid logic.

It is INVALID to require the acceptance of your conclusion in the premise OR the arguments that lead to your conclusion.

You have done LITERALLY NOTHING to demonstrate or explain the "intelligence" of this "Designer" of yours. You continue to affirm (ad nauseam) 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.

So, FUCK NO! there's no chalking of ANYTHING up to this fictitious Creator of yours.

Yeah it was also the brain that was creative and created a theory that goes against the the evidence that is observed for a belief that has not been observed.

God created all if there are any natural processes it was put in motion by God. If God created all things that came in to existence these natural processes are working because of design.

There is so many evidences of design that goes ignored you and others because you have not laid eyes on the creator but i assure you all will see the creator in due time.

That is correct intelligence is responsible for so much is it logical to believe that all of these things came about by chance or someone designed them ?

God has always existed the intelligence dealing with man was definitely created how ever God has always existed and he has always been God so his intelligence has always existed.

You guys keep trying to put the same limitations on God that is upon man. Man had a beginning where God has not.

Man believes time began with the universe who or what created the universe,well God did,that is why he is not bound by the time of man. God existed outside of time and our universe.

God didn't create himself he has always existed. The laws of man are not the laws for God other then the ones he gave to man to obey to the best of our ability.

I feel some day you will wake out of the fog you are under and acknowledge like many of us that once believed as you do, and realized,all of this just didn't happen by chance through natural processes.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Are you saying that there is no such thing as a natural process?

Not saying that,the only natural systems is ones that God put in motion. Like the hydrologic system and the seasons and adaptations.

That leaves me still wondering what your answer is to whether snowflakes (or any other similar, natural process) can be formed or created without intelligence.

Seasons,snow,rain,snowflakes,summer heat,spring,are natural processes that was put in motion by the creator ,who created all things.

Whoever designed the computer and programmed it was still responsible for what the computer was capable of.

People were able to add to it's ability and even attack it but it was still a product of design through intelligence.

Man has always been intelligent we can see that by the things they built and designed absent of the technology we possess today.

 

[Youwerecreated]

The answer is yes everything was created by God.

What is this "God" thing you keep referencing?

A supernatural being that is all knowing and all powerful,the creator of everything we see,and don't see.