Creationists

[Youwerecreated]

Yes, let's look at your signature.....wow, who'd have guessed it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with what we are currently discussing? It has nothing to do with your statements about other holy books or the supposed scientific verifiability of the bible.

Care to discuss those, or retract the statements, or will you (once again) simply ignore those things you cannot or will not discuss?

The thing is you had a chance to point out flaws and could not do it.

WTF are you talking about? Had a chance to point out flaws in what? You jump around from point to point wildly, with little or no relation to the current discussion. Maybe you should consider responding less frequently, or to fewer people, if you are unable to stay on track with the person you are responding to.

What are you talking about ? i responded to another poster that was commenting on what you and I were talking about. You could have responded i'm not the one having a problem keeping up.

 

[Youwerecreated]

What "Creator"?

It's seems rather apparent that a being with "infinite" resources would "design" according to specific purpose rather than pulling parts from "off the shelf." Such a being certainly would not say, put finger bones in the fins of dolphins when sharks surely have no "design" requirement for them; or put tissues in the light path to light receptors of eyes, when it's evident that such a counter-intuitive "design" is not necessary.

And to what purpose (for the designer) is all the superfluous DNA? All the stuff that encodes nothing? And remember, just because something (eventually) has a use, it doesn't follow that it was designed for that use, or designed at all.

It's seems rather apparent that a being with "infinite" resources would "design" according to specific purpose rather than pulling parts from the shelf.

And let's not forget that the DNA in question is demonstrably not native to the ...ahem... "design."

Before you object to explaining these elements of "design," remember that its the evidence of the mechanism or specific process of design that identifies "design" in the absence of evidence for this "Designer" of yours. If you have no valid verifiable evidence of either your "Designer" or His "design," then you have no argument for design.

What "Creator"?

Why is this "amazing"? Why would it be less "amazing" if "the same biological similarity he was able to produce vastly different information," just without your Tooth-Fairy's involvement.

So? You seem to repeat this like it's an important refutation of what the Theory of Evolution--what Natural Selection--proposes. What's up with that? ANSWER

How many times will I have to repeat the actual fact of reality that the theory you're so opposed to says nothing different?

We don't have to prove that parent organisms of the same species always produce offspring of the same species.

It is, however, a logical necessity of the Theory of Biblical Creationism that parent organisms must have, at various points, magically given rise to progeny of a different species. This is why you are obligated to disingenuously use the meaningless term "kind" when describing your fatuous Creationist taxonomy (Cats are all the same "kind" of animal ... except when it's inconvenient to say that the term means "species"; then cats are not all the same "kind" of animal). Otherwise, Creationists have no explanation for the diversity of species ... it's INEXPLICABLE!

The Theory of Evolution actually REQUIRES parent organisms of the same species to produce offspring of the same species. Get it into your retarded head, and stop repeating your misinformation as if you now don't know better.

Either way you look at it there is a creator either God the Almighty or your natural process.

"Creator" implies the agency of intent ... demonstrate this "Agency;" use valid verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, please.

Which ever it is shows intelligence to create what we see.

Demonstrate the necessity of this "intelligence;" use valid verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, please.

Your denial is noted. Your God is chance and mistakes.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Either way you look at it there is a creator either God the Almighty or your natural process. Which ever it is shows intelligence to create what we see.

What if I think there is a different creator? What if I think there were multiple creators?

The assumption that Christianity or atheism are the only possible answers is both ridiculous and arrogant, especially combined with the strong impression you give that the only possibilities are YOUR version of Christianity and atheism.

Not arrogance,just confidence that there is only one creator and his name is YAHWEH.

 

[Montrovant]

The thing is you had a chance to point out flaws and could not do it.

WTF are you talking about? Had a chance to point out flaws in what? You jump around from point to point wildly, with little or no relation to the current discussion. Maybe you should consider responding less frequently, or to fewer people, if you are unable to stay on track with the person you are responding to.

What are you talking about ? i responded to another poster that was commenting on what you and I were talking about. You could have responded i'm not the one having a problem keeping up.

Another poster?

You responded to another poster in the post in which there was a quote from me, a response by you, and another response by me? With no other poster quoted? That is what you mean by responding to another poster?

You do understand the point behind quoting someone's post, right?

 

[LOki]

Either way you look at it there is a creator either God the Almighty or your natural process.

"Creator" implies the agency of intent ... demonstrate this "Agency;" use valid verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, please.

Which ever it is shows intelligence to create what we see.

Demonstrate the necessity of this "intelligence;" use valid verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, please.

Your denial is noted. Your God is chance and mistakes.

"Creator" implies the agency of intent ... demonstrate this "Agency;" use valid verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, please.

Demonstrate the necessity of this "intelligence;" use valid verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, please.

 

[Youwerecreated]

WTF are you talking about? Had a chance to point out flaws in what? You jump around from point to point wildly, with little or no relation to the current discussion. Maybe you should consider responding less frequently, or to fewer people, if you are unable to stay on track with the person you are responding to.

What are you talking about ? i responded to another poster that was commenting on what you and I were talking about. You could have responded i'm not the one having a problem keeping up.

Another poster?

You responded to another poster in the post in which there was a quote from me, a response by you, and another response by me? With no other poster quoted? That is what you mean by responding to another poster?

You do understand the point behind quoting someone's post, right?

Yes. I don't know what you think is funny if what can be said in the bible can be verified by the evidence.

But you understand when you go back and read it don't you ? so what is your point ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

"Creator" implies the agency of intent ... demonstrate this "Agency;" use valid verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, please.

Demonstrate the necessity of this "intelligence;" use valid verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, please.

Your denial is noted. Your God is chance and mistakes.

"Creator" implies the agency of intent ... demonstrate this "Agency;" use valid verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, please.

Demonstrate the necessity of this "intelligence;" use valid verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, please.

Universe,sun,moon,atmosphere,gravity,oxygen,carbon dioxide,water,life,plants,animals,genders,humans,sex organs,organs,molecular machines,blood,the ability to adapt,offspring of our own kind,love,language,song,joy,sadness,forgiveness,intelligence,the brain. So many things left out.

Where would we be without these creations ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

If man knew how God did everything and had all the answers,there would be no need for God.

 

[Montrovant]

What are you talking about ? i responded to another poster that was commenting on what you and I were talking about. You could have responded i'm not the one having a problem keeping up.

Another poster?

You responded to another poster in the post in which there was a quote from me, a response by you, and another response by me? With no other poster quoted? That is what you mean by responding to another poster?

You do understand the point behind quoting someone's post, right?

Yes. I don't know what you think is funny if what can be said in the bible can be verified by the evidence.

But you understand when you go back and read it don't you ? so what is your point ?

In case you don't understand : the purpose of quoting someone else's post is to respond to it. It is not used to respond to a different poster. When you quote my post, and respond to someone else, it makes no sense!

Everything in the bible cannot be verified scientifically, and there are many things for which there is no evidence. Just because there are some things in it that are accurate does not mean all of it is accurate; especially when there are many things in it which go against observable reality.

If you can't even understand that quoting someone indicates you are responding to them, it seems unlikely you can understand the complexities of evolution or cosmology.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Another poster?

You responded to another poster in the post in which there was a quote from me, a response by you, and another response by me? With no other poster quoted? That is what you mean by responding to another poster?

You do understand the point behind quoting someone's post, right?

Yes. I don't know what you think is funny if what can be said in the bible can be verified by the evidence.

But you understand when you go back and read it don't you ? so what is your point ?

In case you don't understand : the purpose of quoting someone else's post is to respond to it. It is not used to respond to a different poster. When you quote my post, and respond to someone else, it makes no sense!

Everything in the bible cannot be verified scientifically, and there are many things for which there is no evidence. Just because there are some things in it that are accurate does not mean all of it is accurate; especially when there are many things in it which go against observable reality.

If you can't even understand that quoting someone indicates you are responding to them, it seems unlikely you can understand the complexities of evolution or cosmology.

Oh please don't be rediculous. Maybe i did quote you and this other poster.

By the way i did quote you at post #2332

Where i pointed out what you believe in my signature and because you were laughing at sayings in the bible that has been confirmed by evidence.

 

[Youwerecreated]

"Creator" implies the agency of intent ... demonstrate this "Agency;" use valid verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, please.

Demonstrate the necessity of this "intelligence;" use valid verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, please.

Your denial is noted. Your God is chance and mistakes.

"Creator" implies the agency of intent ... demonstrate this "Agency;" use valid verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, please.

Demonstrate the necessity of this "intelligence;" use valid verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, please.

If you can't see the necessity of the things metioned you are hopeless. No demonstration would ever convince you of the intent when it stares you in the face.

 

[cbirch2]

I would like to do two things right here. 1. Disprove your notion of DNA, its more complicated then you understand. 2. Prove lineage among primates, at least to anyone that has a brain.

As viruses infect their hosts, especially proviruses, they can leave behind parts of their genome, called an endogenous retroviral sequence. If this happens to a gamete or a newly fertilized embryo, which is not uncommon, that retroviral insertion insertion would continue down their lineage.

If your great ancestors millions of generations ago were apes, we should be able to find a distinct pattern of endogenous retroviral sequences that have persisted through the entire million generation lineage of the family.

Again, i expect that you will claim this is only circumstantial evidence. It is only so to someone that doesnt understand biology.

How does your "we only have the information for us" theory compare to that little story.

And did god insert the viral genomes at the same place in monkeys and humans genome just to make it look like we were descended from the same species? And insert the types of mutations in just the right types of monkeys so that it fits perfectly with our anatomical and complete genetic timeline. As well as our timeline from radiometric dating.

Wrong,if the creator used the same elements with similar design that would explain the DNA similarity seen. That is exactly what the creator did. But what was amazing with the same biological similarity he was able to produce vastly different information.

So god inserted viral genomes into our DNA?

But how true that statement is. You can't prove any organism has information to produce anything other then what they are. That is where your magical, and wild explanation has to come in which you cannot prove.

Genes from Ebola Virus Family Found in Human Genome: Scientific American

We are Ebola!

" You can't prove any organism has information to produce anything other then what they are."

Whats in Your Genes?

Yes i can

 

[cbirch2]

I would like to do two things right here. 1. Disprove your notion of DNA, its more complicated then you understand. 2. Prove lineage among primates, at least to anyone that has a brain.

As viruses infect their hosts, especially proviruses, they can leave behind parts of their genome, called an endogenous retroviral sequence. If this happens to a gamete or a newly fertilized embryo, which is not uncommon, that retroviral insertion insertion would continue down their lineage.

If your great ancestors millions of generations ago were apes, we should be able to find a distinct pattern of endogenous retroviral sequences that have persisted through the entire million generation lineage of the family.

Again, i expect that you will claim this is only circumstantial evidence. It is only so to someone that doesnt understand biology.

How does your "we only have the information for us" theory compare to that little story.

And did god insert the viral genomes at the same place in monkeys and humans genome just to make it look like we were descended from the same species? And insert the types of mutations in just the right types of monkeys so that it fits perfectly with our anatomical and complete genetic timeline. As well as our timeline from radiometric dating.

No God did not use mutations to create,he used them to hand down his punishment for sin which is death.

1. You clearly did not understand my argument, which has nothing to do with random mutations, and everything to do with viral infections.
2. Mutations are caused by sin? Wow. Do we live in the 17th century? Now i understand why we cant have a coherent debate, you dont even understand fundamentals. Sin causes mutation...wow....So the very act of DNA replication is sin, because errors in replication inevitably occur each time.

 

[Montrovant]

Yes. I don't know what you think is funny if what can be said in the bible can be verified by the evidence.

But you understand when you go back and read it don't you ? so what is your point ?

In case you don't understand : the purpose of quoting someone else's post is to respond to it. It is not used to respond to a different poster. When you quote my post, and respond to someone else, it makes no sense!

Everything in the bible cannot be verified scientifically, and there are many things for which there is no evidence. Just because there are some things in it that are accurate does not mean all of it is accurate; especially when there are many things in it which go against observable reality.

If you can't even understand that quoting someone indicates you are responding to them, it seems unlikely you can understand the complexities of evolution or cosmology.

Oh please don't be rediculous. Maybe i did quote you and this other poster.

By the way i did quote you at post #2332

Where i pointed out what you believe in my signature and because you were laughing at sayings in the bible that has been confirmed by evidence.

Post #2334. You did not quote me and some other poster to whom you were responding, you quoted only me (and yourself).

Your signature is a silly oversimplification, but I'm sure you know that.

You didn't just say some things in the bible can be confirmed by science, you said the bible can be confirmed by science. That is obviously ridiculous. Walking on water, a serpent talking, water into wine, living inside a whale, etc. etc. etc....there are many things in the bible that cannot be confirmed by science and often go against the observed rules of the natural world. You believe they are possible through god, and that is fine; when you claim they are confirmed by science, you are lying.

If I pull some quotes from other holy books of things that can be confirmed by science, does that make those books confirmed by science?

Of course, many of the scripture quotes you bring up as being confirmed by science are nothing of the sort, as has been pointed out to you by many posters. At best, your interpretation of those quotes conforms with scientific knowledge. That interpretation is neither universally held nor, in many cases, clear to anyone who does not already agree with you. Some of the connections you make strain the bonds of credulity to breaking.

I'm not sure why you feel the need to try and shoehorn this book of faith into modern scientific knowledge.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I would like to do two things right here. 1. Disprove your notion of DNA, its more complicated then you understand. 2. Prove lineage among primates, at least to anyone that has a brain.

As viruses infect their hosts, especially proviruses, they can leave behind parts of their genome, called an endogenous retroviral sequence. If this happens to a gamete or a newly fertilized embryo, which is not uncommon, that retroviral insertion insertion would continue down their lineage.

If your great ancestors millions of generations ago were apes, we should be able to find a distinct pattern of endogenous retroviral sequences that have persisted through the entire million generation lineage of the family.

Again, i expect that you will claim this is only circumstantial evidence. It is only so to someone that doesnt understand biology.

How does your "we only have the information for us" theory compare to that little story.

And did god insert the viral genomes at the same place in monkeys and humans genome just to make it look like we were descended from the same species? And insert the types of mutations in just the right types of monkeys so that it fits perfectly with our anatomical and complete genetic timeline. As well as our timeline from radiometric dating.

No God did not use mutations to create,he used them to hand down his punishment for sin which is death.

1. You clearly did not understand my argument, which has nothing to do with random mutations, and everything to do with viral infections.
2. Mutations are caused by sin? Wow. Do we live in the 17th century? Now i understand why we cant have a coherent debate, you dont even understand fundamentals. Sin causes mutation...wow....So the very act of DNA replication is sin, because errors in replication inevitably occur each time.

Yes the loss of genetic data causes aging and death,just an opinion can't prove it but that is what i think.

God struck people with plagues.

Gen 12:17 And Jehovah plagued Pharaoh and his house with great plagues because of Sarai, Abram's wife.

Exo 9:14 For I am going to send at this time all My plagues upon your heart, and upon your servants, and upon your people, so that you may know that there is none like Me in all the earth.
Exo 9:15 For now I will stretch out My hand, that I may strike you and your people with plagues, and you shall be cut off from the earth.


Lev 26:21 And if you walk contrary to Me, and will not listen to Me, I will bring seven times more plagues on you according to your sins.

Deu 28:59 then Jehovah will make your plagues remarkable, and the plagues of your seed great and persistent plagues; with evil and long-lasting sicknesses.

Deu 29:22 so that the generation to come of your sons that shall rise up after you, and the stranger that shall come from a far land, shall say (when they see the plagues of that land, and the sicknesses which Jehovah has laid on it)

Jer 49:17 Also Edom shall be a ruin. Everyone who goes by it shall be amazed and shall hiss at all its plagues.

Jer 50:13 Because of the wrath of Jehovah it shall not be inhabited, but it shall be wholly a waste. Everyone who goes by Babylon shall be amazed and hiss at all her plagues.

Rev 15:1 And I saw another sign in Heaven, great and marvelous: seven angels with the seven last plagues; for in them is filled up the wrath of God.

Rev 15:8 And the temple was filled with smoke from the glory of God, and from His authority. And no one was able to enter into the temple until the seven plagues of the seven angels were completed.

Rev 22:18 For I testify together to everyone who hears the Words of the prophecy of this Book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add on him the plagues that have been written in this Book.


How do you think these come upon us ? Mutations and bacteria.

 

[Youwerecreated]

In case you don't understand : the purpose of quoting someone else's post is to respond to it. It is not used to respond to a different poster. When you quote my post, and respond to someone else, it makes no sense!

Everything in the bible cannot be verified scientifically, and there are many things for which there is no evidence. Just because there are some things in it that are accurate does not mean all of it is accurate; especially when there are many things in it which go against observable reality.

If you can't even understand that quoting someone indicates you are responding to them, it seems unlikely you can understand the complexities of evolution or cosmology.

Oh please don't be rediculous. Maybe i did quote you and this other poster.

By the way i did quote you at post #2332

Where i pointed out what you believe in my signature and because you were laughing at sayings in the bible that has been confirmed by evidence.

Post #2334. You did not quote me and some other poster to whom you were responding, you quoted only me (and yourself).

Your signature is a silly oversimplification, but I'm sure you know that.

You didn't just say some things in the bible can be confirmed by science, you said the bible can be confirmed by science. That is obviously ridiculous. Walking on water, a serpent talking, water into wine, living inside a whale, etc. etc. etc....there are many things in the bible that cannot be confirmed by science and often go against the observed rules of the natural world. You believe they are possible through god, and that is fine; when you claim they are confirmed by science, you are lying.

If I pull some quotes from other holy books of things that can be confirmed by science, does that make those books confirmed by science?

Of course, many of the scripture quotes you bring up as being confirmed by science are nothing of the sort, as has been pointed out to you by many posters. At best, your interpretation of those quotes conforms with scientific knowledge. That interpretation is neither universally held nor, in many cases, clear to anyone who does not already agree with you. Some of the connections you make strain the bonds of credulity to breaking.

I'm not sure why you feel the need to try and shoehorn this book of faith into modern scientific knowledge.

Things from the bible can be confirmed through science and the evidence.

I posted a few things that men would not have known at the time of the writing of the scriptures but is known today.

 

[FactFinder]

In case you don't understand : the purpose of quoting someone else's post is to respond to it. It is not used to respond to a different poster. When you quote my post, and respond to someone else, it makes no sense!

Everything in the bible cannot be verified scientifically, and there are many things for which there is no evidence. Just because there are some things in it that are accurate does not mean all of it is accurate; especially when there are many things in it which go against observable reality.

If you can't even understand that quoting someone indicates you are responding to them, it seems unlikely you can understand the complexities of evolution or cosmology.

Oh please don't be rediculous. Maybe i did quote you and this other poster.

By the way i did quote you at post #2332

Where i pointed out what you believe in my signature and because you were laughing at sayings in the bible that has been confirmed by evidence.

Post #2334. You did not quote me and some other poster to whom you were responding, you quoted only me (and yourself).

Your signature is a silly oversimplification, but I'm sure you know that.

You didn't just say some things in the bible can be confirmed by science, you said the bible can be confirmed by science. That is obviously ridiculous. Walking on water, a serpent talking, water into wine, living inside a whale, etc. etc. etc....there are many things in the bible that cannot be confirmed by science and often go against the observed rules of the natural world. You believe they are possible through god, and that is fine; when you claim they are confirmed by science, you are lying.

If I pull some quotes from other holy books of things that can be confirmed by science, does that make those books confirmed by science?

Of course, many of the scripture quotes you bring up as being confirmed by science are nothing of the sort, as has been pointed out to you by many posters. At best, your interpretation of those quotes conforms with scientific knowledge. That interpretation is neither universally held nor, in many cases, clear to anyone who does not already agree with you. Some of the connections you make strain the bonds of credulity to breaking.

I'm not sure why you feel the need to try and shoehorn this book of faith into modern scientific knowledge.

There is a difference between what can be confirmed by science and what has been confirmed. It's all about faith, heh?

 

[LOki]

Your denial is noted. Your God is chance and mistakes.

"Creator" implies the agency of intent ... demonstrate this "Agency;" use valid verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, please.

Demonstrate the necessity of this "intelligence;" use valid verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, please.

Universe,sun,moon,atmosphere,gravity,oxygen,carbon dioxide,water,life,plants,animals,genders,humans,sex organs,organs,molecular machines,blood,the ability to adapt,offspring of our own kind,love,language,song,joy,sadness,forgiveness,intelligence,the brain. So many things left out.

Where would we be without these creations ?

What "creations"? Demonstrate that anything you've listed there was created. Use valid verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, please.

 

[LOki]

If man knew how God did everything and had all the answers,there would be no need for God.

So what? There's apparently no need for this "God" of yours, regardless.

 

[LOki]

Your denial is noted. Your God is chance and mistakes.

"Creator" implies the agency of intent ... demonstrate this "Agency;" use valid verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, please.

Demonstrate the necessity of this "intelligence;" use valid verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, please.

If you can't see the necessity of the things metioned you are hopeless.

If you can't demonstrate with verifiable evidence and/or valid logic the necessity of this "intelligence" you claim is required for the things mentioned, your assertion of the necessity of this "intelligence" you claim is meaningless.

No demonstration would ever convince you of the intent when it stares you in the face.

This is untrue, and you know it. It is another example of your pathological projection. I have consistently said I would be convinced by a demonstration using verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.

You just can't make such demonstration, and you lack the intellectual integrity to admit that the reason is that this "Creator" of yours and you creation "theory" is entirely imaginary.

But in case you're ready to prove me wrong I'll remind you of this exchange you've been pretending never happened:

What verfiable evidence do you have for macro-evolution ?

The entire fossil record, the verifiable relationship between genotype and phenotype, and the observed instances of contemporary speciation--such as those evidenced by ring species.

What verifiable evidence do you have for the big bang ?

The current expansion of the entire observable universe.

What verifiable evidence do you have for life coming about through a narural process ?

The self-evident fact that life IS a natural process. The verifiable evidence of natural processes bringing about all manner of organization and complexity (snowflakes, ripples on ponds, organic compounds, etc.). The verifiable evidence that life is maintained and promoted through natural processes, and that life is impossible without natural processes.

What you have is another mans opinions of the evidence.

Nope. That would be religion; and even if I had religion, I am possessed of sufficient intellectual integrity to NOT promote it's baseless preconceptions as intellectually valid conclusions. I actually have enough courage in my convictions to test them against objective reality, using VALID logic; and I have sufficient humility in my convictions to accept and declare the uncertainties in them, as well as the errors in them when they are discovered.

And, unlike you, what I certainly am NOT asserting is my own superstition and Tooth-Fairy in place of my ignorance and/or uncertainty.

So, now that I have once again made an intellectually ingenuous response to your requests, why don't you reciprocate? Why don't you provide the kind of response, in both detail and intellectual validity that you require from my responses?

What verifiable evidence and/or valid logic do you have for asserting the objective reality of this "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" of yours?​

The verifiable evidence of your paucity of intellectual integrity very strongly suggests that you are simply incapable of doing so; I'll take it as certain that you just won't.

For a change of pace, why don't you prove me wrong?

And I'll reiterate without fear you'll actually make an intellectually honest and valid attempt at making your point; the verifiable evidence of your paucity of intellectual integrity very strongly suggests that you are simply incapable of bringing verifiable evidence and/or valid logic to demonstrate the objective reality of this "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" of yours; I'll take it as certain that you just won't.