Creationists

[Youwerecreated]

You see, folks like me don't don't possess quite enough "... chest pounding, arrogance, and "I have all the answers and you don't" attitude ..." to express their beliefs as unqualified certainties in the manner that intellectually dishonest superstitious retards express theirs.

Have a nice chuckle there, Mr. Chucklehead.

And that would be why you didn't respond to the concepts in the post and immediately resorted to name calling.

Well, if you had actually bothered to read through the last few pages of my responses to the intellectually dishonest, superstitious retards, you should have been able to surmise that you really didn't bring any new concept to the discussion--that really, you're just jumping on Youwerecreated's question-begging, special-pleading, negative-proof appeal to ignorance, strawman quote-mining bandwagon.

For example:

A simple "yeah, we have no clue how life actually started so our entire theory is pretty much built on a house of cards" would have sufficed.

Even a "house of cards" is more substantive in verifiable evidence and valid logic than the fairytales offered by the superstitious. It seems that only the intellectually dishonest and superstitious demand that if you can't claim unqualified certainty about everything, then you can't claim any certainty about anything. Really, what a bunch of retards.

Retards , what you really hate is logic and evidence that shows something as complex as life could not happen by random chance. What you deny is what real scientist know ,the genetic code is a language that can be decoded. We all know by now there is no form of communicating a language without the use of intelligence. If anyone here is dishonest it is the ones that deny what scientist say concerning mutations,Dna,and the genetic code. You also deny that this natural process would have to be an intelligent thinker. I am looking for an answer still for three questions let me remind you. How by random mutations did non-intelligence create intelligence ? How by random chance did non-life create life ? How by random chance did the genetic code and DNA information come about ? Loki explain it in your own words since you make the claim to be qualified.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Remember Loki, empirical evidence that has been verified and in your own words not an old post or a source from wiki nor some biased website your words. Provide the evidence and the observation.

 

[Youwerecreated]

And that would be why you didn't respond to the concepts in the post and immediately resorted to name calling. A simple "yeah, we have no clue how life actually started so our entire theory is pretty much built on a house of cards" would have sufficed.

This is funny, given that a lot of your reply to me was calling me 'arrogant,' a 'Captain Obvious,' and a 'materialist.' The last one is a jab entire from your own admittance. I don't really get why creationists like to use that as an insult.

It's a symptom of the sanctimonious hubris of those who possess an unqualified certainty that they are right, because they can't be proven wrong about their imaginary superfriends.

A natural process would think to create genders to keep the human race going ? However on the other hand you need to explain how a non-intelligent non-thinking natural process would think of such a thing. That is design oh brilliant one.

 

[LOki]

And that would be why you didn't respond to the concepts in the post and immediately resorted to name calling.

Well, if you had actually bothered to read through the last few pages of my responses to the intellectually dishonest, superstitious retards, you should have been able to surmise that you really didn't bring any new concept to the discussion--that really, you're just jumping on Youwerecreated's question-begging, special-pleading, negative-proof appeal to ignorance, strawman quote-mining bandwagon.

For example:

A simple "yeah, we have no clue how life actually started so our entire theory is pretty much built on a house of cards" would have sufficed.

Even a "house of cards" is more substantive in verifiable evidence and valid logic than the fairytales offered by the superstitious. It seems that only the intellectually dishonest and superstitious demand that if you can't claim unqualified certainty about everything, then you can't claim any certainty about anything. Really, what a bunch of retards.

Retards , what you really hate is logic and evidence that shows something as complex as life could not happen by random chance.

Wrong. I'd greatly enjoy seeing such logic and evidence, provided they are valid logic and valid verifiable evidence.

What you deny is what real scientist know ,the genetic code is a language that can be decoded.

Language? Translate "This is proof that the genetic code is a language." into genetic code.

We all know by now there is no form of communicating a language without the use of intelligence.

And we all know that the genetic code is not a language.

If anyone here is dishonest it is the ones that deny what scientist say concerning mutations,Dna,and the genetic code.

And that has proven to be you.

You also deny that this natural process would have to be an intelligent thinker.

You just can't support your point without lies, can you?

I am looking for an answer still for three questions let me remind you. How by random mutations did non-intelligence create intelligence ? How by random chance did non-life create life ? How by random chance did the genetic code and DNA information come about ?

If you were really looking for these answers rather than asking for them just to deny I've answered them, you would have found them. I have responded to all of these specifically for, and directly to you several times--in fact, every time you have asked; just go back and read them ... they haven't changed.

Loki explain it in your own words since you make the claim to be qualified.

Where did I "... make the claim to be qualified," and for what?

 

[LOki]

This is funny, given that a lot of your reply to me was calling me 'arrogant,' a 'Captain Obvious,' and a 'materialist.' The last one is a jab entire from your own admittance. I don't really get why creationists like to use that as an insult.

It's a symptom of the sanctimonious hubris of those who possess an unqualified certainty that they are right, because they can't be proven wrong about their imaginary superfriends.

A natural process would think to create genders to keep the human race going ? However on the other hand you need to explain how a non-intelligent non-thinking natural process would think of such a thing. That is design oh brilliant one.

You superstitious anthropomorphizing retard.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Well, if you had actually bothered to read through the last few pages of my responses to the intellectually dishonest, superstitious retards, you should have been able to surmise that you really didn't bring any new concept to the discussion--that really, you're just jumping on Youwerecreated's question-begging, special-pleading, negative-proof appeal to ignorance, strawman quote-mining bandwagon.

For example:Even a "house of cards" is more substantive in verifiable evidence and valid logic than the fairytales offered by the superstitious. It seems that only the intellectually dishonest and superstitious demand that if you can't claim unqualified certainty about everything, then you can't claim any certainty about anything. Really, what a bunch of retards.

Retards , what you really hate is logic and evidence that shows something as complex as life could not happen by random chance.

Wrong. I'd greatly enjoy seeing such logic and evidence, provided they are valid logic and valid verifiable evidence.

Language? Translate "This is proof that the genetic code is a language." into genetic code.

And we all know that the genetic code is not a language.

And that has proven to be you.

You just can't support your point without lies, can you?

I am looking for an answer still for three questions let me remind you. How by random mutations did non-intelligence create intelligence ? How by random chance did non-life create life ? How by random chance did the genetic code and DNA information come about ?

If you were really looking for these answers rather than asking for them just to deny I've answered them, you would have found them. I have responded to all of these specifically for, and directly to you several times--in fact, every time you have asked; just go back and read them ... they haven't changed.

Loki explain it in your own words since you make the claim to be qualified.

Where did I "... make the claim to be qualified," and for what?

You still deny the obvious,can you tell us the difference between the genetic code and the morsel code ? Are they both a form of communicating information that has to be decoded ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

It's a symptom of the sanctimonious hubris of those who possess an unqualified certainty that they are right, because they can't be proven wrong about their imaginary superfriends.

A natural process would think to create genders to keep the human race going ? However on the other hand you need to explain how a non-intelligent non-thinking natural process would think of such a thing. That is design oh brilliant one.

You superstitious anthropomorphizing retard.

Dodging again cupcake hostess ?

 

[LOki]

Retards , what you really hate is logic and evidence that shows something as complex as life could not happen by random chance.

Wrong. I'd greatly enjoy seeing such logic and evidence, provided they are valid logic and valid verifiable evidence.

Language? Translate "This is proof that the genetic code is a language." into genetic code.

And we all know that the genetic code is not a language.

And that has proven to be you.

You just can't support your point without lies, can you?

If you were really looking for these answers rather than asking for them just to deny I've answered them, you would have found them. I have responded to all of these specifically for, and directly to you several times--in fact, every time you have asked; just go back and read them ... they haven't changed.

Loki explain it in your own words since you make the claim to be qualified.

Where did I "... make the claim to be qualified," and for what?

You still deny the obvious,

No.

can you tell us the difference between the genetic code and the morsel code ?

Yes.

Are they both a form of communicating information that has to be decoded ?

No.

 

[LOki]

A natural process would think to create genders to keep the human race going ? However on the other hand you need to explain how a non-intelligent non-thinking natural process would think of such a thing. That is design oh brilliant one.

You superstitious anthropomorphizing retard.

Dodging again cupcake hostess ?

No.

 

[Youwerecreated]

It's a symptom of the sanctimonious hubris of those who possess an unqualified certainty that they are right, because they can't be proven wrong about their imaginary superfriends.

A natural process would think to create genders to keep the human race going ? However on the other hand you need to explain how a non-intelligent non-thinking natural process would think of such a thing. That is design oh brilliant one.

You superstitious anthropomorphizing retard.

When I return home I again will show you the science community and our definitions of our language supports my view over your view. But please provide this verified and observed evidence that supports your view on earlier questions you are avoiding.

 

[LOki]

A natural process would think to create genders to keep the human race going ? However on the other hand you need to explain how a non-intelligent non-thinking natural process would think of such a thing. That is design oh brilliant one.

You superstitious anthropomorphizing retard.

When I return home I again will show you the science community and our definitions of our language supports my view over your view.

You don't belong to the "science community"; your definitions of your language are meaningless.

But please provide this verified and observed evidence that supports your view on earlier questions you are avoiding.

Since I have avoided no questions you have ever asked, I have no idea what you are referring to.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Well, if you had actually bothered to read through the last few pages of my responses to the intellectually dishonest, superstitious retards, you should have been able to surmise that you really didn't bring any new concept to the discussion--that really, you're just jumping on Youwerecreated's question-begging, special-pleading, negative-proof appeal to ignorance, strawman quote-mining bandwagon.

For example:Even a "house of cards" is more substantive in verifiable evidence and valid logic than the fairytales offered by the superstitious. It seems that only the intellectually dishonest and superstitious demand that if you can't claim unqualified certainty about everything, then you can't claim any certainty about anything. Really, what a bunch of retards.

Retards , what you really hate is logic and evidence that shows something as complex as life could not happen by random chance.

Wrong. I'd greatly enjoy seeing such logic and evidence, provided they are valid logic and valid verifiable evidence.

Language? Translate "This is proof that the genetic code is a language." into genetic code.

And we all know that the genetic code is not a language.

And that has proven to be you.

You just can't support your point without lies, can you?

I am looking for an answer still for three questions let me remind you. How by random mutations did non-intelligence create intelligence ? How by random chance did non-life create life ? How by random chance did the genetic code and DNA information come about ?

If you were really looking for these answers rather than asking for them just to deny I've answered them, you would have found them. I have responded to all of these specifically for, and directly to you several times--in fact, every time you have asked; just go back and read them ... they haven't changed.

Loki explain it in your own words since you make the claim to be qualified.

Where did I "... make the claim to be qualified," and for what?

How many times must I say the same things before it sinks in, how do you think we can through genetics modify food and organisms if we can decode the the information. Until you start answering my questions and back up your claims I will ignore your posts.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Wrong. I'd greatly enjoy seeing such logic and evidence, provided they are valid logic and valid verifiable evidence.

Language? Translate "This is proof that the genetic code is a language." into genetic code.

And we all know that the genetic code is not a language.

And that has proven to be you.

You just can't support your point without lies, can you?

If you were really looking for these answers rather than asking for them just to deny I've answered them, you would have found them. I have responded to all of these specifically for, and directly to you several times--in fact, every time you have asked; just go back and read them ... they haven't changed.

Where did I "... make the claim to be qualified," and for what?

You still deny the obvious,

No.

can you tell us the difference between the genetic code and the morsel code ?

Yes.

Are they both a form of communicating information that has to be decoded ?

No.

You are still ducking the questions, and you still deny what scientist and and our definitions say con earning the genetic code. But like I said your posts will go ignored until you start presenting verified empirical evidence that refuted my claims by the questions I asked.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You superstitious anthropomorphizing retard.

When I return home I again will show you the science community and our definitions of our language supports my view over your view.

You don't belong to the "science community"; your definitions of your language are meaningless.

But please provide this verified and observed evidence that supports your view on earlier questions you are avoiding.

Since I have avoided no questions you have ever asked, I have no idea what you are referring to.

I have a degree that says otherwise. Not to mention I worked in the field for over 11 years. What makes you qualified to speak on these matters ?

 

[LOki]

Retards , what you really hate is logic and evidence that shows something as complex as life could not happen by random chance.

Wrong. I'd greatly enjoy seeing such logic and evidence, provided they are valid logic and valid verifiable evidence.

Language? Translate "This is proof that the genetic code is a language." into genetic code.

And we all know that the genetic code is not a language.

And that has proven to be you.

You just can't support your point without lies, can you?

If you were really looking for these answers rather than asking for them just to deny I've answered them, you would have found them. I have responded to all of these specifically for, and directly to you several times--in fact, every time you have asked; just go back and read them ... they haven't changed.

Loki explain it in your own words since you make the claim to be qualified.

Where did I "... make the claim to be qualified," and for what?

How many times must I say the same things before it sinks in, ...

As long as you assert superstition, what you say will not "sink in" as fact in reality.

... how do you think we can through genetics modify food and organisms if we can decode the the information.

First, as was pointed out to you clearly before, the term "code" as used by geneticists is not the same term that is used outside of genetics. NOT THE SAME! Got that now, retard?

And to answer you question, genetic code is used much the same way we use the "code" of the periodic table to manipulate atoms into molecules--e.g. C = carbon, H = hydrogen, etc...

Until you start answering my questions and back up your claims I will ignore your posts.

You have been ignoring my posts all along ... I have been answering you questions; you have not been answering mine.

Give each and every one of these a read before you declare that I'm the one not answering questions.

EVIDENCE that Youwercreated is full of shit:
See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

 

[Uncensored2008]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Now that right there is what we call a LEVEL 10 meltdown....

 

[LOki]

You still deny the obvious,

No.

Yes.

Are they both a form of communicating information that has to be decoded ?

No.

You are still ducking the questions, ...

No I'm not ...

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

See, you failed to note this.

... and you still deny what scientist and and our definitions say con earning the genetic code.

No, I don't.

But like I said your posts will go ignored until you start presenting verified empirical evidence that refuted my claims by the questions I asked.

I have refuted all your claims. THOROUGHLY!

 

[LOki]

When I return home I again will show you the science community and our definitions of our language supports my view over your view.

You don't belong to the "science community"; your definitions of your language are meaningless.

But please provide this verified and observed evidence that supports your view on earlier questions you are avoiding.

Since I have avoided no questions you have ever asked, I have no idea what you are referring to.

I have a degree that says otherwise.

You degree in Bible-Molecular Bible-Biology cannot be taken seriously.

Not to mention I worked in the field for over 11 years.

Until you got laughed out, right?

What makes you qualified to speak on these matters ?

I took actual science classes, from an actual university.

 

[UltimateReality]

What Youweredesigned is trying to express is that DNA is a quaternary digital code, not a language. It contains blueprints for the building of mulitple complex machines that make up a larger system.

wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_numeral_system

Just like binary code in my iPod can be translated into an analog signal using a D/A converter and produce a sound wave with a transducer, so can the quaternary digital code in DNA be translated to produce a protein. But not just a single protein, it produces multiple proteins that function together in a system. "Scientist" love to talk in simple terms when they speak of the cell or proteins or amino acids. They really try to avoid mention of the system. You see, every cell in the human body is connected, otherwise when the brain died, it would go on living. Somehow every cell in the body depends on respiration to live. Talk about irreducible complexity!!! No lungs, no life!

Loki, you can keep denying the ID movement hasn't come up with any concrete science, but Dr. Stephen Meyer has formulated a falsifiable hypothesis that goes something like this... all digital code on that we observe currently in action on the planet has an intelligent source, therefore, the best explanation for the digital code we find in DNA is that it had an intelligent source. Therefore, this hypothesis is falsifiable on several different levels. If you could find a digital code in the present that did not have an intelligent source, then you could prove his hypothesis wrong. If you could prove the source of the complex code in the cell occurred from random events then you could falsify the hypothesis. Once again, even the smartest materialist won't touch the origin of life. They have no clue. There is a whole chicken and egg problem when it comes to DNA replicating itself.

"When I was in my twenties, I read James D. Watson's "Molecular Biology of the Gene" and decided my high school experience had misled me. The understanding of life is a great subject. Biological information is the most important information we can discover, because over the next several decades it will revolutionize medicine. Human DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced then any software ever created." Bill Gates

I have also entertained some pretty bulletproof probability arguments on amino acids randomly floating into proteins. So far, none of the pathetic arguments against the massive unlikelihood that even one protein could occur randomly have failed. There are less protons in the known universe than 1 chance that a single protein self assembled. Back when Carl Sagan was spreading his lies about the Cosmos, materialists could get a warm and fuzzy about the fact that even massive probabilities were no problem if the "Cosmos was all there ever was, all there is, and all there ever will be". Einstein desperately wanted the universe to be infinite as well, so much so, that he refused to believe the evidence for the big bang even when it was staring him in the face. It is now pretty much widely accepted that the universe is around 14 billion years old, an incredibly small number compared to a 1 with 136 zero's behind it. Shrink that to 3.7 Billion years for the planet and then figure you had an extinction event 200 million years ago and the timeline starts getting really crushed.

wikipedia.org/wiki/Triassic%E2%80%93Jurassic_extinction_event

Or course then we have the fine tuning problem. But alas, Loki, you would buy into the multiple universe theory because it would support your anger with God. However, the multiple universe theory, if we can even elevate it to theory status, is less viable than the hypothesis laid out by Stephen Meyer above. That is where philosophy influences science. You have to deny God at all costs, even if it means coming up with supernatural, retarded stuff like string theory or multiple universe theory. For to accept that there might be a Designer, would shake you out of your blind denial and force a change in the way you are living.

 

[UltimateReality]

Loki, I actually clicked on one of your 25 you failed to note this. You were talking some jibberish about chimpanzee's. That made me think about what a joke the whole transitional species in the fossil record is. Here we have multiple humanoids alive on the planet, chimpanzees, gorilla's, monkey's, baboons, all distinct species and all still very much alive. Just simple logic would tell us there is something horribly wrong with this picture according to Darwidiot. If we consider Homo Sapien is the most advanced (duh, look around at us cockroaches spreading and taking over the planet) and that chimpanzees are our closest ancestor, one would have to logically assume that there was some step in there of a humanoid more advanced than chimpanzees and less advanced than humans. Now why isn't he still around??? Why didn't he survive and the chimps didn't? This presents some massive holes for NS!!! Now it is funny to watch the evolutionists waving their hands around and coming up with all kinds of nonsense to explain these hard questions away but bottomline, isn't the simplest explanation usually one of the best? I mean where is the logic in the fact that we have multiple distinct humanoid species alive on the planet today but none of the "inbetweeners" survived and none of their fossils survived. I hear your NS argument, but it just doesn't hold up if you have the ability to reason with regards to the evidence all around you.