Creationists

[Youwerecreated]

that all I need... as opposed to the mountains of bullshit you pile up to bolster your nonsense..
it's not a viable source because it's biased .
it being biased is just a statement of fact.

Really so you know of no language or form of communication or a code that developed naturally ?

Now you brought up your mutation argument once again let's deal with that.

Bell Labs scientist Claude Shannon.

Claude Shannon said Random Mutations in DNA does exactly the same as Noise in an electrical communication system.

So here is the quesations.

Is there any instance in the field of computers, electrical engineering, radio, TV or any other aspect of communication where noise is added to a signal to increase its quality? Can adding noise increase the information in a signal?

might wanna back off on your meds....ahhh this answer must be for post# 6290

Are you gonna answer the questions ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

If you can't take the heat in the kitchen you might want to get out of the kitchen.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Yeah, entertainment is the place to get facts if you have no education.

Speak for yourself you mental midget.

I'm still waiting for you to asnwer my question oh great one.

Awww, I am so hurt that you do not think highly of me when I tried so hard

Because nonsense is nonsense.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Because schools are not corporations that make money off entertaining idiots.

No, schools have become a way to brainwash our young.

Is that what happened to you? You could get therapy for that.

They did for a while then I grew up.

 

[daws101]

Really so you know of no language or form of communication or a code that developed naturally ?

Now you brought up your mutation argument once again let's deal with that.

Bell Labs scientist Claude Shannon.

Claude Shannon said Random Mutations in DNA does exactly the same as Noise in an electrical communication system.

So here is the quesations.

Is there any instance in the field of computers, electrical engineering, radio, TV or any other aspect of communication where noise is added to a signal to increase its quality? Can adding noise increase the information in a signal?

might wanna back off on your meds....ahhh this answer must be for post# 6290

Are you gonna answer the questions ?

wrong poster ..like i said back off your meds!

 

[daws101]

If you can't take the heat in the kitchen you might want to get out of the kitchen.

 

[daws101]

Speak for yourself you mental midget.

I'm still waiting for you to asnwer my question oh great one.

Awww, I am so hurt that you do not think highly of me when I tried so hard

Because nonsense is nonsense.

 

[Youwerecreated]

might wanna back off on your meds....ahhh this answer must be for post# 6290

Are you gonna answer the questions ?

wrong poster ..like i said back off your meds!

Maybe you should take your meds. No I asked you questions you are avoiding.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Awww, I am so hurt that you do not think highly of me when I tried so hard

Because nonsense is nonsense.

There is actually evidence for a young earth. Trying to dodge my questions are you.

 

[LOki]

I am asking you, have assumed facts ever turned out to be wrong ?

You're the one dancing my little monkey.

Most of the facts the humanity has held, and that were then proved wrong, were religious doctrines.

Some scientific theories have been improved upon, but generally every specific science has been successful since its start. Physics has been sucessful since newton, although einstein had to improve it for light-speed and high-gravity, things newton didnt know about. Biology came along later, but since the creation of the microscope, and when biology became a real science, it has had tremendous success. Chemistry is only a hundred or so years old, the structure of the atom hasnt been known for that long. Yet we have a total understanding of chemistry.

On the whole science has an amazing record and religion has a horrible one. The story of humanity has been smart people continually overturning idiotic dogma.

You have a real problem with scientist that believed in a creator don't you ?

No. I just have a problem with their Creator superstition.

So you just dismiss guys like Sir Isaac Newton ?

No. I dismiss their superstition for being nothing but superstition.

And you are wrong.

Got any valid and verifiable evidence to back that up? Any valid logic?

Didn't think so.

Do you realize how many things had to be revised out of secular textbooks ?

Pretty much.

Do you realize how many of the things you believe are meaningless in reality, because your beliefs are faith? Probably not. The answer is that ALL of your beliefs that are faith are meaningless; many of them are--in fact of objective reality--just wrong.

The point is the science community when in agreement on evidence believe the evidence and teach as fact until proven otherwise.

You don't see something wrong with that ? When they still can't test ,study,and observe the origins of the universe or the origins of life,and they sure as heck can't test ,study,and observe macro-evolution.

Since scientists are, in fact of reality, currently testing, studying, and/or observing the origins of the universe, the origins of life, and macro-evolution despite your manifestly retarded denial of reality; no, I see nothing wrong with that. I find it to be a virtue of science and scientists, that with improving understanding of the origins of the universe, the origins of life, and macro-evolution consequent from the testing, studying, and/or observing performed by scientists leads them to revisions and/or adjustments of their conclusions.

The notion you are struggling to identify and grasp is the virtue of "integrity of intellectual honesty." The reason you are struggling Youwerecreated, is that you--just like your fellow Christian Creationists--just don't have it.

If you did have integrity of intellectual honesty, you'd be appalled at your insistence that your beliefs--your convictions in your (absolute) certainty of the reality of some thing(s)--are validated solely upon the meaningless basis that you believe your beliefs to be valid.

That is disengenious at the highest degree.

Nonsense. Basing one's beliefs upon verifiable evidence and valid logic; validating those beliefs against valid logic applied to the verifiable evidence; admitting to uncertainties and qualifying one's conclusions accordingly; admitting to errors when discovered in the light of better or more complete information, and adjusting one's beliefs in accord with valid logic and verifiable evidence so they conform more closely to objective reality, is in no manner disingenuous.

Let me explain to you what "disingenuous at the highest degree" really is. It is holding your preconceptions as unassailably valid without any basis or foundation in validly verifiable evidence and/or valid logic; it is validating your convictions of absolute certainty by through obtuse denials of any and all contradicting evidences and/or valid logic; it is validating your evidences against your conclusions, rather than validating you conclusions against valid logic applied to verifiable evidence; it is invalidating evidence and arguments solely on the basis that they contradict your baseless preconceived conclusions.

"Disingenuous at the highest degree" is your insistence upon the validity of logical fallacies to "prove" your point; it is refusing to bring verifiable evidence AND valid logic to support your point, or refusing to admit that you cannot bring verifiable evidence AND valid logic to support your point; it is your denial of the reality of the appurtenances of an objectively real existence; it is your demand that "nothing" is really "some(objectively real)thing" that explains everything.

What "disingenuous at the highest degree" really is, is your shameless misrepresentations of your opponent's positions, the claims and assertions of opposing experts, and the actual descriptions, claims and predictions made by the scientific theories you oppose. It is your adamant refusal to honestly provide the exact same specificity of explanation regarding the mechanisms of your Creation "theory" that you require evolution scientists to provide when they explain their claims--including the means by which you can test and verify the claims you make regarding your "theory."

The unrevised and/or unadjusted status of your Creationism has nothing to do with its eternal consistency with reality; rather, you Creationists have imbued--without valid basis--eternal consistency in this invented Creator of yours, and you reject the validity of any reason to adjust and/or revise your preconceived "explanations" and conclusions on the basis of that invalidly asserted eternal consistency with reality. The point here is that you and the Christian Creationism community, all in agreement on your preconceived "explanations" and conclusions, assert your preconceived "explanations" and conclusions as unassailable facts of reality without any regard to valid logic applied to verifiable evidence--most especially when valid logic applied to verifiable evidence demonstrates otherwise.

"Disingenuous at the highest degree" really is YOU.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Most of the facts the humanity has held, and that were then proved wrong, were religious doctrines.

Some scientific theories have been improved upon, but generally every specific science has been successful since its start. Physics has been sucessful since newton, although einstein had to improve it for light-speed and high-gravity, things newton didnt know about. Biology came along later, but since the creation of the microscope, and when biology became a real science, it has had tremendous success. Chemistry is only a hundred or so years old, the structure of the atom hasnt been known for that long. Yet we have a total understanding of chemistry.

On the whole science has an amazing record and religion has a horrible one. The story of humanity has been smart people continually overturning idiotic dogma.

You have a real problem with scientist that believed in a creator don't you ?

No. I just have a problem with their Creator superstition.

No. I dismiss their superstition for being nothing but superstition.

Got any valid and verifiable evidence to back that up? Any valid logic?

Didn't think so.

Pretty much.

Do you realize how many of the things you believe are meaningless in reality, because your beliefs are faith? Probably not. The answer is that ALL of your beliefs that are faith are meaningless; many of them are--in fact of objective reality--just wrong.

The point is the science community when in agreement on evidence believe the evidence and teach as fact until proven otherwise.

You don't see something wrong with that ? When they still can't test ,study,and observe the origins of the universe or the origins of life,and they sure as heck can't test ,study,and observe macro-evolution.

Since scientists are, in fact of reality, currently testing, studying, and/or observing the origins of the universe, the origins of life, and macro-evolution despite your manifestly retarded denial of reality; no, I see nothing wrong with that. I find it to be a virtue of science and scientists, that with improving understanding of the origins of the universe, the origins of life, and macro-evolution consequent from the testing, studying, and/or observing performed by scientists leads them to revisions and/or adjustments of their conclusions.

The notion you are struggling to identify and grasp is the virtue of "integrity of intellectual honesty." The reason you are struggling Youwerecreated, is that you--just like your fellow Christian Creationists--just don't have it.

If you did have integrity of intellectual honesty, you'd be appalled at your insistence that your beliefs--your convictions in your (absolute) certainty of the reality of some thing(s)--are validated solely upon the meaningless basis that you believe your beliefs to be valid.

That is disengenious at the highest degree.

Nonsense. Basing one's beliefs upon verifiable evidence and valid logic; validating those beliefs against valid logic applied to the verifiable evidence; admitting to uncertainties and qualifying one's conclusions accordingly; admitting to errors when discovered in the light of better or more complete information, and adjusting one's beliefs in accord with valid logic and verifiable evidence so they conform more closely to objective reality, is in no manner disingenuous.

Let me explain to you what "disingenuous at the highest degree" really is. It is holding your preconceptions as unassailably valid without any basis or foundation in validly verifiable evidence and/or valid logic; it is validating your convictions of absolute certainty by through obtuse denials of any and all contradicting evidences and/or valid logic; it is validating your evidences against your conclusions, rather than validating you conclusions against valid logic applied to verifiable evidence; it is invalidating evidence and arguments solely on the basis that they contradict your baseless preconceived conclusions.

"Disingenuous at the highest degree" is your insistence upon the validity of logical fallacies to "prove" your point; it is refusing to bring verifiable evidence AND valid logic to support your point, or refusing to admit that you cannot bring verifiable evidence AND valid logic to support your point; it is your denial of the reality of the appurtenances of an objectively real existence; it is your demand that "nothing" is really "some(objectively real)thing" that explains everything.

What "disingenuous at the highest degree" really is, is your shameless misrepresentations of your opponent's positions, the claims and assertions of opposing experts, and the actual descriptions, claims and predictions made by the scientific theories you oppose. It is your adamant refusal to honestly provide the exact same specificity of explanation regarding the mechanisms of your Creation "theory" that you require evolution scientists to provide when they explain their claims--including the means by which you can test and verify the claims you make regarding your "theory."

The unrevised and/or unadjusted status of your Creationism has nothing to do with its eternal consistency with reality; rather, you Creationists have imbued--without valid basis--eternal consistency in this invented Creator of yours, and you reject the validity of any reason to adjust and/or revise your preconceived "explanations" and conclusions on the basis of that invalidly asserted eternal consistency with reality. The point here is that you and the Christian Creationism community, all in agreement on your preconceived "explanations" and conclusions, assert your preconceived "explanations" and conclusions as unassailable facts of reality without any regard to valid logic applied to verifiable evidence--most especially when valid logic applied to verifiable evidence demonstrates otherwise.

"Disingenuous at the highest degree" really is YOU.

I guess you have no answers to the questions asked nor a response for the actual scientists that disagree with your so called valid logic and evidence.



No real scientist accepts any theory that has been given that tries to explain how the first cell created itself and then evolved it's way into what we see today. I am gonna give this to you to but I am gonna add something else for you.

British scientist Francis Crick who helped in discovering the structure of DNA,believed that human genes could not have evolved by chance.

Crick said you would be more likely to assemble a jumbo jet by passing a hurricane through a junk yard then to assemble a DNA molecule by chance in any kind of primeval soup in 5 or 6 hundred million years. He said it's just not possible.

Then asked the question, if it could not have happened naturally how did it happen ?

Sounds like he was open to an intelligent creator or in your words Goddidit. If you check his background it is pretty impressive.


Bell Labs scientist Claude Shannon.

Claude Shannon said Random Mutations in DNA does exactly the same as Noise in an electrical communication system.

So here are the questions.

Is there any instance in the field of computers, electrical engineering, radio, TV or any other aspect of communication where noise is added to a signal to increase its quality? Can adding noise increase the information in a signal?


Look at the kind of rational scientist that rejects your theory the way it is taught.

Now catch up with the thread.

 

[FurthurBB]

Most of the facts the humanity has held, and that were then proved wrong, were religious doctrines.

Some scientific theories have been improved upon, but generally every specific science has been successful since its start. Physics has been sucessful since newton, although einstein had to improve it for light-speed and high-gravity, things newton didnt know about. Biology came along later, but since the creation of the microscope, and when biology became a real science, it has had tremendous success. Chemistry is only a hundred or so years old, the structure of the atom hasnt been known for that long. Yet we have a total understanding of chemistry.

On the whole science has an amazing record and religion has a horrible one. The story of humanity has been smart people continually overturning idiotic dogma.

You have a real problem with scientist that believed in a creator don't you ?

No. I just have a problem with their Creator superstition.

No. I dismiss their superstition for being nothing but superstition.

Got any valid and verifiable evidence to back that up? Any valid logic?

Didn't think so.

Pretty much.

Do you realize how many of the things you believe are meaningless in reality, because your beliefs are faith? Probably not. The answer is that ALL of your beliefs that are faith are meaningless; many of them are--in fact of objective reality--just wrong.

The point is the science community when in agreement on evidence believe the evidence and teach as fact until proven otherwise.

You don't see something wrong with that ? When they still can't test ,study,and observe the origins of the universe or the origins of life,and they sure as heck can't test ,study,and observe macro-evolution.

Since scientists are, in fact of reality, currently testing, studying, and/or observing the origins of the universe, the origins of life, and macro-evolution despite your manifestly retarded denial of reality; no, I see nothing wrong with that. I find it to be a virtue of science and scientists, that with improving understanding of the origins of the universe, the origins of life, and macro-evolution consequent from the testing, studying, and/or observing performed by scientists leads them to revisions and/or adjustments of their conclusions.

The notion you are struggling to identify and grasp is the virtue of "integrity of intellectual honesty." The reason you are struggling Youwerecreated, is that you--just like your fellow Christian Creationists--just don't have it.

If you did have integrity of intellectual honesty, you'd be appalled at your insistence that your beliefs--your convictions in your (absolute) certainty of the reality of some thing(s)--are validated solely upon the meaningless basis that you believe your beliefs to be valid.

That is disengenious at the highest degree.

Nonsense. Basing one's beliefs upon verifiable evidence and valid logic; validating those beliefs against valid logic applied to the verifiable evidence; admitting to uncertainties and qualifying one's conclusions accordingly; admitting to errors when discovered in the light of better or more complete information, and adjusting one's beliefs in accord with valid logic and verifiable evidence so they conform more closely to objective reality, is in no manner disingenuous.

Let me explain to you what "disingenuous at the highest degree" really is. It is holding your preconceptions as unassailably valid without any basis or foundation in validly verifiable evidence and/or valid logic; it is validating your convictions of absolute certainty by through obtuse denials of any and all contradicting evidences and/or valid logic; it is validating your evidences against your conclusions, rather than validating you conclusions against valid logic applied to verifiable evidence; it is invalidating evidence and arguments solely on the basis that they contradict your baseless preconceived conclusions.

"Disingenuous at the highest degree" is your insistence upon the validity of logical fallacies to "prove" your point; it is refusing to bring verifiable evidence AND valid logic to support your point, or refusing to admit that you cannot bring verifiable evidence AND valid logic to support your point; it is your denial of the reality of the appurtenances of an objectively real existence; it is your demand that "nothing" is really "some(objectively real)thing" that explains everything.

What "disingenuous at the highest degree" really is, is your shameless misrepresentations of your opponent's positions, the claims and assertions of opposing experts, and the actual descriptions, claims and predictions made by the scientific theories you oppose. It is your adamant refusal to honestly provide the exact same specificity of explanation regarding the mechanisms of your Creation "theory" that you require evolution scientists to provide when they explain their claims--including the means by which you can test and verify the claims you make regarding your "theory."

The unrevised and/or unadjusted status of your Creationism has nothing to do with its eternal consistency with reality; rather, you Creationists have imbued--without valid basis--eternal consistency in this invented Creator of yours, and you reject the validity of any reason to adjust and/or revise your preconceived "explanations" and conclusions on the basis of that invalidly asserted eternal consistency with reality. The point here is that you and the Christian Creationism community, all in agreement on your preconceived "explanations" and conclusions, assert your preconceived "explanations" and conclusions as unassailable facts of reality without any regard to valid logic applied to verifiable evidence--most especially when valid logic applied to verifiable evidence demonstrates otherwise.

"Disingenuous at the highest degree" really is YOU.

Excellent post!

 

[FurthurBB]

You have a real problem with scientist that believed in a creator don't you ?

No. I just have a problem with their Creator superstition.

No. I dismiss their superstition for being nothing but superstition.

Got any valid and verifiable evidence to back that up? Any valid logic?

Didn't think so.

Pretty much.

Do you realize how many of the things you believe are meaningless in reality, because your beliefs are faith? Probably not. The answer is that ALL of your beliefs that are faith are meaningless; many of them are--in fact of objective reality--just wrong.

Since scientists are, in fact of reality, currently testing, studying, and/or observing the origins of the universe, the origins of life, and macro-evolution despite your manifestly retarded denial of reality; no, I see nothing wrong with that. I find it to be a virtue of science and scientists, that with improving understanding of the origins of the universe, the origins of life, and macro-evolution consequent from the testing, studying, and/or observing performed by scientists leads them to revisions and/or adjustments of their conclusions.

The notion you are struggling to identify and grasp is the virtue of "integrity of intellectual honesty." The reason you are struggling Youwerecreated, is that you--just like your fellow Christian Creationists--just don't have it.

If you did have integrity of intellectual honesty, you'd be appalled at your insistence that your beliefs--your convictions in your (absolute) certainty of the reality of some thing(s)--are validated solely upon the meaningless basis that you believe your beliefs to be valid.

That is disengenious at the highest degree.

Nonsense. Basing one's beliefs upon verifiable evidence and valid logic; validating those beliefs against valid logic applied to the verifiable evidence; admitting to uncertainties and qualifying one's conclusions accordingly; admitting to errors when discovered in the light of better or more complete information, and adjusting one's beliefs in accord with valid logic and verifiable evidence so they conform more closely to objective reality, is in no manner disingenuous.

Let me explain to you what "disingenuous at the highest degree" really is. It is holding your preconceptions as unassailably valid without any basis or foundation in validly verifiable evidence and/or valid logic; it is validating your convictions of absolute certainty by through obtuse denials of any and all contradicting evidences and/or valid logic; it is validating your evidences against your conclusions, rather than validating you conclusions against valid logic applied to verifiable evidence; it is invalidating evidence and arguments solely on the basis that they contradict your baseless preconceived conclusions.

"Disingenuous at the highest degree" is your insistence upon the validity of logical fallacies to "prove" your point; it is refusing to bring verifiable evidence AND valid logic to support your point, or refusing to admit that you cannot bring verifiable evidence AND valid logic to support your point; it is your denial of the reality of the appurtenances of an objectively real existence; it is your demand that "nothing" is really "some(objectively real)thing" that explains everything.

What "disingenuous at the highest degree" really is, is your shameless misrepresentations of your opponent's positions, the claims and assertions of opposing experts, and the actual descriptions, claims and predictions made by the scientific theories you oppose. It is your adamant refusal to honestly provide the exact same specificity of explanation regarding the mechanisms of your Creation "theory" that you require evolution scientists to provide when they explain their claims--including the means by which you can test and verify the claims you make regarding your "theory."

The unrevised and/or unadjusted status of your Creationism has nothing to do with its eternal consistency with reality; rather, you Creationists have imbued--without valid basis--eternal consistency in this invented Creator of yours, and you reject the validity of any reason to adjust and/or revise your preconceived "explanations" and conclusions on the basis of that invalidly asserted eternal consistency with reality. The point here is that you and the Christian Creationism community, all in agreement on your preconceived "explanations" and conclusions, assert your preconceived "explanations" and conclusions as unassailable facts of reality without any regard to valid logic applied to verifiable evidence--most especially when valid logic applied to verifiable evidence demonstrates otherwise.

"Disingenuous at the highest degree" really is YOU.

I guess you have no answers to the questions asked nor a response for the actual scientists that disagree with your so called valid logic and evidence.



No real scientist accepts any theory that has been given that tries to explain how the first cell created itself and then evolved it's way into what we see today. I am gonna give this to you to but I am gonna add something else for you.

British scientist Francis Crick who helped in discovering the structure of DNA,believed that human genes could not have evolved by chance.

Crick said you would be more likely to assemble a jumbo jet by passing a hurricane through a junk yard then to assemble a DNA molecule by chance in any kind of primeval soup in 5 or 6 hundred million years. He said it's just not possible.

Then asked the question, if it could not have happened naturally how did it happen ?

Sounds like he was open to an intelligent creator or in your words Goddidit. If you check his background it is pretty impressive.


Bell Labs scientist Claude Shannon.

Claude Shannon said Random Mutations in DNA does exactly the same as Noise in an electrical communication system.

So here are the questions.

Is there any instance in the field of computers, electrical engineering, radio, TV or any other aspect of communication where noise is added to a signal to increase its quality? Can adding noise increase the information in a signal?


Look at the kind of rational scientist that rejects your theory the way it is taught.

Now catch up with the thread.

After searching around and not very far I found that Crick absolutely believed in abiogenesis, he just thought that it would be a very rare event in the universe and once abiogenesis happened it would be seeded throughout the universe and life would survive, where it would. A hypothesis called panspermia. Crick also absolutely believed in evolution and had more disdain for christianity than probably any poster on this message board. The quote also cannot be confirmed as coming from him and has been attributed to over a dozen different scientists. Stop letting people deceive you and think for yourself.

 

[Youwerecreated]

No. I just have a problem with their Creator superstition.

No. I dismiss their superstition for being nothing but superstition.

Got any valid and verifiable evidence to back that up? Any valid logic?

Didn't think so.

Pretty much.

Do you realize how many of the things you believe are meaningless in reality, because your beliefs are faith? Probably not. The answer is that ALL of your beliefs that are faith are meaningless; many of them are--in fact of objective reality--just wrong.

Since scientists are, in fact of reality, currently testing, studying, and/or observing the origins of the universe, the origins of life, and macro-evolution despite your manifestly retarded denial of reality; no, I see nothing wrong with that. I find it to be a virtue of science and scientists, that with improving understanding of the origins of the universe, the origins of life, and macro-evolution consequent from the testing, studying, and/or observing performed by scientists leads them to revisions and/or adjustments of their conclusions.

The notion you are struggling to identify and grasp is the virtue of "integrity of intellectual honesty." The reason you are struggling Youwerecreated, is that you--just like your fellow Christian Creationists--just don't have it.

If you did have integrity of intellectual honesty, you'd be appalled at your insistence that your beliefs--your convictions in your (absolute) certainty of the reality of some thing(s)--are validated solely upon the meaningless basis that you believe your beliefs to be valid.


Nonsense. Basing one's beliefs upon verifiable evidence and valid logic; validating those beliefs against valid logic applied to the verifiable evidence; admitting to uncertainties and qualifying one's conclusions accordingly; admitting to errors when discovered in the light of better or more complete information, and adjusting one's beliefs in accord with valid logic and verifiable evidence so they conform more closely to objective reality, is in no manner disingenuous.

Let me explain to you what "disingenuous at the highest degree" really is. It is holding your preconceptions as unassailably valid without any basis or foundation in validly verifiable evidence and/or valid logic; it is validating your convictions of absolute certainty by through obtuse denials of any and all contradicting evidences and/or valid logic; it is validating your evidences against your conclusions, rather than validating you conclusions against valid logic applied to verifiable evidence; it is invalidating evidence and arguments solely on the basis that they contradict your baseless preconceived conclusions.

"Disingenuous at the highest degree" is your insistence upon the validity of logical fallacies to "prove" your point; it is refusing to bring verifiable evidence AND valid logic to support your point, or refusing to admit that you cannot bring verifiable evidence AND valid logic to support your point; it is your denial of the reality of the appurtenances of an objectively real existence; it is your demand that "nothing" is really "some(objectively real)thing" that explains everything.

What "disingenuous at the highest degree" really is, is your shameless misrepresentations of your opponent's positions, the claims and assertions of opposing experts, and the actual descriptions, claims and predictions made by the scientific theories you oppose. It is your adamant refusal to honestly provide the exact same specificity of explanation regarding the mechanisms of your Creation "theory" that you require evolution scientists to provide when they explain their claims--including the means by which you can test and verify the claims you make regarding your "theory."

The unrevised and/or unadjusted status of your Creationism has nothing to do with its eternal consistency with reality; rather, you Creationists have imbued--without valid basis--eternal consistency in this invented Creator of yours, and you reject the validity of any reason to adjust and/or revise your preconceived "explanations" and conclusions on the basis of that invalidly asserted eternal consistency with reality. The point here is that you and the Christian Creationism community, all in agreement on your preconceived "explanations" and conclusions, assert your preconceived "explanations" and conclusions as unassailable facts of reality without any regard to valid logic applied to verifiable evidence--most especially when valid logic applied to verifiable evidence demonstrates otherwise.

"Disingenuous at the highest degree" really is YOU.

I guess you have no answers to the questions asked nor a response for the actual scientists that disagree with your so called valid logic and evidence.



No real scientist accepts any theory that has been given that tries to explain how the first cell created itself and then evolved it's way into what we see today. I am gonna give this to you to but I am gonna add something else for you.

British scientist Francis Crick who helped in discovering the structure of DNA,believed that human genes could not have evolved by chance.

Crick said you would be more likely to assemble a jumbo jet by passing a hurricane through a junk yard then to assemble a DNA molecule by chance in any kind of primeval soup in 5 or 6 hundred million years. He said it's just not possible.

Then asked the question, if it could not have happened naturally how did it happen ?

Sounds like he was open to an intelligent creator or in your words Goddidit. If you check his background it is pretty impressive.


Bell Labs scientist Claude Shannon.

Claude Shannon said Random Mutations in DNA does exactly the same as Noise in an electrical communication system.

So here are the questions.

Is there any instance in the field of computers, electrical engineering, radio, TV or any other aspect of communication where noise is added to a signal to increase its quality? Can adding noise increase the information in a signal?


Look at the kind of rational scientist that rejects your theory the way it is taught.

Now catch up with the thread.

After searching around and not very far I found that Crick absolutely believed in abiogenesis, he just thought that it would be a very rare event in the universe and once abiogenesis happened it would be seeded throughout the universe and life would survive, where it would. A hypothesis called panspermia. Crick also absolutely believed in evolution and had more disdain for christianity than probably any poster on this message board. The quote also cannot be confirmed as coming from him and has been attributed to over a dozen different scientists. Stop letting people deceive you and think for yourself.

So you are suggesting crick was lying ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

No. I just have a problem with their Creator superstition.

No. I dismiss their superstition for being nothing but superstition.

Got any valid and verifiable evidence to back that up? Any valid logic?

Didn't think so.

Pretty much.

Do you realize how many of the things you believe are meaningless in reality, because your beliefs are faith? Probably not. The answer is that ALL of your beliefs that are faith are meaningless; many of them are--in fact of objective reality--just wrong.

Since scientists are, in fact of reality, currently testing, studying, and/or observing the origins of the universe, the origins of life, and macro-evolution despite your manifestly retarded denial of reality; no, I see nothing wrong with that. I find it to be a virtue of science and scientists, that with improving understanding of the origins of the universe, the origins of life, and macro-evolution consequent from the testing, studying, and/or observing performed by scientists leads them to revisions and/or adjustments of their conclusions.

The notion you are struggling to identify and grasp is the virtue of "integrity of intellectual honesty." The reason you are struggling Youwerecreated, is that you--just like your fellow Christian Creationists--just don't have it.

If you did have integrity of intellectual honesty, you'd be appalled at your insistence that your beliefs--your convictions in your (absolute) certainty of the reality of some thing(s)--are validated solely upon the meaningless basis that you believe your beliefs to be valid.


Nonsense. Basing one's beliefs upon verifiable evidence and valid logic; validating those beliefs against valid logic applied to the verifiable evidence; admitting to uncertainties and qualifying one's conclusions accordingly; admitting to errors when discovered in the light of better or more complete information, and adjusting one's beliefs in accord with valid logic and verifiable evidence so they conform more closely to objective reality, is in no manner disingenuous.

Let me explain to you what "disingenuous at the highest degree" really is. It is holding your preconceptions as unassailably valid without any basis or foundation in validly verifiable evidence and/or valid logic; it is validating your convictions of absolute certainty by through obtuse denials of any and all contradicting evidences and/or valid logic; it is validating your evidences against your conclusions, rather than validating you conclusions against valid logic applied to verifiable evidence; it is invalidating evidence and arguments solely on the basis that they contradict your baseless preconceived conclusions.

"Disingenuous at the highest degree" is your insistence upon the validity of logical fallacies to "prove" your point; it is refusing to bring verifiable evidence AND valid logic to support your point, or refusing to admit that you cannot bring verifiable evidence AND valid logic to support your point; it is your denial of the reality of the appurtenances of an objectively real existence; it is your demand that "nothing" is really "some(objectively real)thing" that explains everything.

What "disingenuous at the highest degree" really is, is your shameless misrepresentations of your opponent's positions, the claims and assertions of opposing experts, and the actual descriptions, claims and predictions made by the scientific theories you oppose. It is your adamant refusal to honestly provide the exact same specificity of explanation regarding the mechanisms of your Creation "theory" that you require evolution scientists to provide when they explain their claims--including the means by which you can test and verify the claims you make regarding your "theory."

The unrevised and/or unadjusted status of your Creationism has nothing to do with its eternal consistency with reality; rather, you Creationists have imbued--without valid basis--eternal consistency in this invented Creator of yours, and you reject the validity of any reason to adjust and/or revise your preconceived "explanations" and conclusions on the basis of that invalidly asserted eternal consistency with reality. The point here is that you and the Christian Creationism community, all in agreement on your preconceived "explanations" and conclusions, assert your preconceived "explanations" and conclusions as unassailable facts of reality without any regard to valid logic applied to verifiable evidence--most especially when valid logic applied to verifiable evidence demonstrates otherwise.

"Disingenuous at the highest degree" really is YOU.

I guess you have no answers to the questions asked nor a response for the actual scientists that disagree with your so called valid logic and evidence.



No real scientist accepts any theory that has been given that tries to explain how the first cell created itself and then evolved it's way into what we see today. I am gonna give this to you to but I am gonna add something else for you.

British scientist Francis Crick who helped in discovering the structure of DNA,believed that human genes could not have evolved by chance.

Crick said you would be more likely to assemble a jumbo jet by passing a hurricane through a junk yard then to assemble a DNA molecule by chance in any kind of primeval soup in 5 or 6 hundred million years. He said it's just not possible.

Then asked the question, if it could not have happened naturally how did it happen ?

Sounds like he was open to an intelligent creator or in your words Goddidit. If you check his background it is pretty impressive.


Bell Labs scientist Claude Shannon.

Claude Shannon said Random Mutations in DNA does exactly the same as Noise in an electrical communication system.

So here are the questions.

Is there any instance in the field of computers, electrical engineering, radio, TV or any other aspect of communication where noise is added to a signal to increase its quality? Can adding noise increase the information in a signal?


Look at the kind of rational scientist that rejects your theory the way it is taught.

Now catch up with the thread.

After searching around and not very far I found that Crick absolutely believed in abiogenesis, he just thought that it would be a very rare event in the universe and once abiogenesis happened it would be seeded throughout the universe and life would survive, where it would. A hypothesis called panspermia. Crick also absolutely believed in evolution and had more disdain for christianity than probably any poster on this message board. The quote also cannot be confirmed as coming from him and has been attributed to over a dozen different scientists. Stop letting people deceive you and think for yourself.

The Nobel laureate Dr. Francis H. Crick, in his 1981 book, Life Itself insists that the probability of life's chance at origin simply defies calculation. Crick, an atheist, had this to say:



“

What is so frustrating for our present purpose is that it seems almost impossible to give any numerical value to the probability of what seems a rather unlikely sequence of events... An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle.

”


On this point creationists would find themselves in complete agreement.


Origin of life - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

Even in defending abiogenesis, biologist Francis Crick acknowledged in 1981:

"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to be satisfied to get it going."

Rest of article.

Evolution as Mythology, Part 3 (of 5): The Myth of Abiogenesis | Reasons To Believe


The Guy simply does not want to believe in a creator like many of you.

 

[FurthurBB]

I guess you have no answers to the questions asked nor a response for the actual scientists that disagree with your so called valid logic and evidence.



No real scientist accepts any theory that has been given that tries to explain how the first cell created itself and then evolved it's way into what we see today. I am gonna give this to you to but I am gonna add something else for you.

British scientist Francis Crick who helped in discovering the structure of DNA,believed that human genes could not have evolved by chance.

Crick said you would be more likely to assemble a jumbo jet by passing a hurricane through a junk yard then to assemble a DNA molecule by chance in any kind of primeval soup in 5 or 6 hundred million years. He said it's just not possible.

Then asked the question, if it could not have happened naturally how did it happen ?

Sounds like he was open to an intelligent creator or in your words Goddidit. If you check his background it is pretty impressive.


Bell Labs scientist Claude Shannon.

Claude Shannon said Random Mutations in DNA does exactly the same as Noise in an electrical communication system.

So here are the questions.

Is there any instance in the field of computers, electrical engineering, radio, TV or any other aspect of communication where noise is added to a signal to increase its quality? Can adding noise increase the information in a signal?


Look at the kind of rational scientist that rejects your theory the way it is taught.

Now catch up with the thread.

After searching around and not very far I found that Crick absolutely believed in abiogenesis, he just thought that it would be a very rare event in the universe and once abiogenesis happened it would be seeded throughout the universe and life would survive, where it would. A hypothesis called panspermia. Crick also absolutely believed in evolution and had more disdain for christianity than probably any poster on this message board. The quote also cannot be confirmed as coming from him and has been attributed to over a dozen different scientists. Stop letting people deceive you and think for yourself.

So you are suggesting crick was lying ?

Could you really be that daft or are you just pretending to not understand?

 

[cbirch2]

Watch the discovery channel and you will see i am right they won't teach much of this stuff in secular schools.

Two things.

1. Discovery channel is showing american chopper right now. Sorry but i preferred to take my history right after chemistry class, not right after the "sons of guns" marathon. Wow.

2. Islam and secularism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You are no better than the fundamentalist muslims.

Mohammed Yusuf (Boko Haram) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia <<This man says that if the koran says the earth is not a sphere, that it is not a sphere. He also does not believe that rain is evaporated water, he believes god creates it in the sky.

Thinking god creates water in the sky and makes it rain is no different than thinking god gives someone the Mycobacterium that causes leprosy. It just shows that you dont understand biology like that man doesnt understand rain.

Well I have several different discovery channels,and I have watched shows that cover the universe and shows that show secularlist archaeologist digging for biblical ruins To verify .there is a lot evidence from bible that hey have confirmed then you know of.

King david has been confirmed and the walls of Jericho just to name a few.

"I have watched shows that cover the universe"

That must be why you say things like "a spinning rock exploded", and cant understand the concept of mass-energy equivalence and the significance of particle physics at the moment of the big bang. If you dont understand the 12 fermions, the 4 bosons that carry force, and the higgs boson as well, then you cant have an actual understanding of the big bang.

And you totally ignored the fact that you think god gives people leprosy, once again.

 

[FurthurBB]

Two things.

1. Discovery channel is showing american chopper right now. Sorry but i preferred to take my history right after chemistry class, not right after the "sons of guns" marathon. Wow.

2. Islam and secularism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You are no better than the fundamentalist muslims.

Mohammed Yusuf (Boko Haram) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia <<This man says that if the koran says the earth is not a sphere, that it is not a sphere. He also does not believe that rain is evaporated water, he believes god creates it in the sky.

Thinking god creates water in the sky and makes it rain is no different than thinking god gives someone the Mycobacterium that causes leprosy. It just shows that you dont understand biology like that man doesnt understand rain.

Well I have several different discovery channels,and I have watched shows that cover the universe and shows that show secularlist archaeologist digging for biblical ruins To verify .there is a lot evidence from bible that hey have confirmed then you know of.

King david has been confirmed and the walls of Jericho just to name a few.

"I have watched shows that cover the universe"

That must be why you say things like "a spinning rock exploded", and cant understand the concept of mass-energy equivalence and the significance of particle physics at the moment of the big bang. If you dont understand the 12 fermions, the 4 bosons that carry force, and the higgs boson as well, then you cant have an actual understanding of the big bang.

And you totally ignored the fact that you think god gives people leprosy, once again.

Maybe You thinks that god is a virologist that likes to engineer viruses. I like to engineer viruses too, does that make me god?

 

[cbirch2]

I am asking you, have assumed facts ever turned out to be wrong ?

You're the one dancing my little monkey.

Most of the facts the humanity has held, and that were then proved wrong, were religious doctrines.

Some scientific theories have been improved upon, but generally every specific science has been successful since its start. Physics has been sucessful since newton, although einstein had to improve it for light-speed and high-gravity, things newton didnt know about. Biology came along later, but since the creation of the microscope, and when biology became a real science, it has had tremendous success. Chemistry is only a hundred or so years old, the structure of the atom hasnt been known for that long. Yet we have a total understanding of chemistry.

On the whole science has an amazing record and religion has a horrible one. The story of humanity has been smart people continually overturning idiotic dogma.

You have a real problem with scientist that believed in a creator don't you ? So you just dismiss guys like Sir Isaac Newton ?

And you are wrong. Do you realize how many things had to be revised out of secular textbooks ? The point is the science community when in agreement on evidence believe the evidence and teach as fact until proven otherwise.

You don't see something wrong with that ? That is disengenious at the highest degree. When they still can't test ,study,and observe the origins of the universe or the origins of life,and they sure as heck can't test ,study,and observe macro-evolution.

Remember my post about how DNA is a code? Only someone that doesnt understand how the abstract translates into the physical nucleotides would deny evolution.

Sure, science has retracted some things. Evolution wont be one of those things, because its stood up against all types of attacks for 150 years. People that understand how it works laugh off the things your saying, theyre mostly just a total ignorance of the process.

And now i think were to the root of the problem. You just dont like science because it takes the role of your god in stating facts. What parts of science would you deny friend, besides evolution? Chemistry? Particle physics? Gravity? Projectile motion? Medicine? Surgery? Electricity?

Hmmm??

 

[daws101]

Are you gonna answer the questions ?

wrong poster ..like i said back off your meds!

Maybe you should take your meds. No I asked you questions you are avoiding.

not my post: try #post# 6290