Creationists

[Youwerecreated]

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

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.

Sorry to bust your bubble but the University of Arizona is an accredited school and has a good reputation in the fields of science.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

Well said.

 

[LOki]

What Youweredesigned is trying to express is that DNA is a quaternary digital code, not a language.

You are ignoring Youwerecreated's posts then. Despite every opportunity and suggestion provided to him that he means that the genetic code is analogous to a language, he insists otherwise.

It contains blueprints for the building of mulitple complex machines that make up a larger system.

wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_numeral_system

I am familiar with blueprints. It is one thing to say that what DNA contains is like blueprints; it's an entirely different thing to say that what DNA contains is blueprints--do you mean that DNA/the genetic code is analogous to blueprints?

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.

DNA-->Protein transcription is not in contention. Why do you idiots insist upon presenting such things as if they were?

I suppose your point might be to assert that DNA is a quaternary digital code ... or are you saying that DNA is analogous to a quaternary digital code?

"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.

No they don't.

You see, every cell in the human body is connected, otherwise when the brain died, it would go on living.

The cells actually DO go on living for an appreciable amount of time.

Somehow every cell in the body depends on respiration to live. Talk about irreducible complexity!!! No lungs, no life!

"Somehow"?!?!? WTF do you mean "somehow"?

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.

Before this post of yours, I had never heard of Dr. Stephen Meyer, or this "falsifiable hypothesis" you claim he has formulated. Why don't you look up this "falsifiable hypothesis," give it a careful perusal, and if you honestly determine that it is not yet another example of a Creationist question-begging appeal to ignorance, or a special-pleading appeal to ignorance, then link to it and I'll give it my sincere attention.

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.

Looks alot like this "falsifiable hypothesis" is really a special-pleading appeal to ignorance. My offer still stands.

Once again, even the smartest materialist won't touch the origin of life.

This is not true.

They have no clue.

Nor is this. Scientists make no claims with absolute certainty. Uncertainty or conditional certainty is not the same thing as being clueless. Again, 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.

There is a whole chicken and egg problem when it comes to DNA replicating itself.

And the Creationist alternative is uniformly a superstitious question-begging appeal to ignorance, or a special-pleading appeal to ignorance.

"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

Are you submitting this quote to assert that Human DNA is a computer program, or that Human DNA is analagous to a computer program? The distinction may not be terribly important in the imaginary realities of superstitions and fairytales, but it is actually important in objective reality.

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.

Well, that's just denial of reality talking there; unless you managed to wrangle "absolutely impossible" out of "massive unlikelihood." I'd be interested in seeing that.

There are less protons in the known universe than 1 chance that a single protein self assembled.

Oh. I see. This "massive unlikelihood" is a probability that you just made up, it's imaginary, like omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence.

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

You are failing to make a point here.

Or course then we have the fine tuning problem.

What "fine tuning problem"?

But alas, Loki, you would buy into the multiple universe theory because it would support your anger with God.

What anger? what God, Mr. Presumto?

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.

And here you tip your intellectually dishonest, pathologically projecting hand: the actual fact of reality is that science actually still allows for the existence of a creator who may be responsible for all of the universe as we understand it; the valid logic, applied objectively to the current evidence simply does not require, or point to such a creator. Yet religion, your religion maybe, the Christian religion as practiced by Creationists certainly, has a fundamental problem with this position--as it has with any position that does not agree with or advance the preconceived and very specific conclusions asserted as facts of reality on faith. Christian Creationists, without any basis in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, simply refuse to accept ANY theory that does not include the superstitious requirement of the existence of this "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" thing" of theirs.

 

[LOki]

Loki, I actually clicked on one of your 25 you failed to note this.

But you didn't spend time reading to get any facts straight, did you? You already had what I was talking about formulated in your presumptuous head beforehand, didn't you?

You were talking some jibberish about chimpanzee's.

Really? Was I? Or was I really responding to some gibberish about chimpanzees?

That made me think about what a joke the whole transitional species in the fossil record is.

Oh, here it comes ... "If humans are descended from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys" or some other similarly retarded non-sequitur.

Here we have multiple humanoids alive on the planet, chimpanzees, gorilla's, monkey's, baboons, all distinct species and all still very much alive.

Yes. Entirely predictable and consistent with Evolutionary Theory.

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.

And there is abundant evidence of such transitional species in the fossil record.

Now why isn't he still around???

The term you're looking for is "extinction."

Why didn't he survive and the chimps didn't?

The chimpanzee clearly DID survive, but I think I understand your point anyway. There is plenty of evidence of the co-existence of transitional species, so one likely explanation is that the transitional species were not so well suited to an environment where they had to compete directly with both chimpanzees AND later humanoids. That's just a rough sketch of one explanation.

This presents some massive holes for NS!!!

Really? It's funny that these holes are so "massive," yet you fail to actually point out their nature--you simply make the unconditional declaration that a hole exists. It's oddly reminiscent of another unconditional declaration that asshats in your superstitious camp make.

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 ...

What "hard questions"? Did you present a "hard question"? I didn't see a "hard question." I saw an easy question, and I presented a likely explanation as an answer.

... but bottomline, isn't the simplest explanation usually one of the best?

Sure, provided it involves at least some verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.

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.

Plenty of fossils of transitional humanoid species are evident.

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.

Correction:

"... it just doesn't hold up if you resolutely deny the evidence all around you."​

There, fixed that for you.

 

[Youwerecreated]

What Youweredesigned is trying to express is that DNA is a quaternary digital code, not a language.

You are ignoring Youwerecreated's posts then. Despite every opportunity and suggestion provided to him that he means that the genetic code is analogous to a language, he insists otherwise.

It contains blueprints for the building of mulitple complex machines that make up a larger system.

wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_numeral_system

I am familiar with blueprints. It is one thing to say that what DNA contains is like blueprints; it's an entirely different thing to say that what DNA contains is blueprints--do you mean that DNA/the genetic code is analogous to blueprints?

DNA-->Protein transcription is not in contention. Why do you idiots insist upon presenting such things as if they were?

I suppose your point might be to assert that DNA is a quaternary digital code ... or are you saying that DNA is analogous to a quaternary digital code?

No they don't.

The cells actually DO go on living for an appreciable amount of time.

"Somehow"?!?!? WTF do you mean "somehow"?

Before this post of yours, I had never heard of Dr. Stephen Meyer, or this "falsifiable hypothesis" you claim he has formulated. Why don't you look up this "falsifiable hypothesis," give it a careful perusal, and if you honestly determine that it is not yet another example of a Creationist question-begging appeal to ignorance, or a special-pleading appeal to ignorance, then link to it and I'll give it my sincere attention.

Looks alot like this "falsifiable hypothesis" is really a special-pleading appeal to ignorance. My offer still stands.

This is not true.

Nor is this. Scientists make no claims with absolute certainty. Uncertainty or conditional certainty is not the same thing as being clueless. Again, 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.

And the Creationist alternative is uniformly a superstitious question-begging appeal to ignorance, or a special-pleading appeal to ignorance.

Are you submitting this quote to assert that Human DNA is a computer program, or that Human DNA is analagous to a computer program? The distinction may not be terribly important in the imaginary realities of superstitions and fairytales, but it is actually important in objective reality.

Well, that's just denial of reality talking there; unless you managed to wrangle "absolutely impossible" out of "massive unlikelihood." I'd be interested in seeing that.

Oh. I see. This "massive unlikelihood" is a probability that you just made up, it's imaginary, like omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence.

You are failing to make a point here.

What "fine tuning problem"?

But alas, Loki, you would buy into the multiple universe theory because it would support your anger with God.

What anger? what God, Mr. Presumto?

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.

And here you tip your intellectually dishonest, pathologically projecting hand: the actual fact of reality is that science actually still allows for the existence of a creator who may be responsible for all of the universe as we understand it; the valid logic, applied objectively to the current evidence simply does not require, or point to such a creator. Yet religion, your religion maybe, the Christian religion as practiced by Creationists certainly, has a fundamental problem with this position--as it has with any position that does not agree with or advance the preconceived and very specific conclusions asserted as facts of reality on faith. Christian Creationists, without any basis in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, simply refuse to accept ANY theory that does not include the superstitious requirement of the existence of this "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" thing" of theirs.

Do blueprints have symbols giving instructions for structures ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Loki, I actually clicked on one of your 25 you failed to note this.

But you didn't spend time reading to get any facts straight, did you? You already had what I was talking about formulated in your presumptuous head beforehand, didn't you?

You were talking some jibberish about chimpanzee's.

Really? Was I? Or was I really responding to some gibberish about chimpanzees?


Oh, here it comes ... "If humans are descended from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys" or some other similarly retarded non-sequitur.

Yes. Entirely predictable and consistent with Evolutionary Theory.

And there is abundant evidence of such transitional species in the fossil record.

The term you're looking for is "extinction."


The chimpanzee clearly DID survive, but I think I understand your point anyway. There is plenty of evidence of the co-existence of transitional species, so one likely explanation is that the transitional species were not so well suited to an environment where they had to compete directly with both chimpanzees AND later humanoids. That's just a rough sketch of one explanation.

Really? It's funny that these holes are so "massive," yet you fail to actually point out their nature--you simply make the unconditional declaration that a hole exists. It's oddly reminiscent of another unconditional declaration that asshats in your superstitious camp make.

What "hard questions"? Did you present a "hard question"? I didn't see a "hard question." I saw an easy question, and I presented a likely explanation as an answer.

Sure, provided it involves at least some verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.

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.

Plenty of fossils of transitional humanoid species are evident.

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.

Correction:

"... it just doesn't hold up if you resolutely deny the evidence all around you."​

There, fixed that for you.

Same old rhetoric nothing of substance.

Still waiting for your facts through verified empirical evidence.

 

[LOki]

Still waiting for your facts through verified empirical evidence.

No you're not. You're just denying their existence.

 

[LOki]

Do blueprints have symbols giving instructions for structures ?

YES! Yes they do!

Go on dumbass! I've opened the door wide for you. Go on and assert your obvious logical fallacy--your incredible and unbelievable dumb; and expose yourself once again to be the retard we all know you are! I know you're just dying to do it! Please hurry!

 

[daws101]

Ok you are a liar,at some point in your meaningless life you have questioned whether God really exists or not.

another dodge!
but to answer your question, religion it's self gave me the first hints about why there is no god.

Not a dodge.

I will admit I am no fan of religion I don't believe God is either by what he says about it in the bible,especially what he says in the book of Revelations.

Abraham did not need an organized religion to have a relationship with the Almighty.

nice contradiction you are no fan of religion but you do belong to one.
Abraham: Joseph Blenkinsopp said that the Genesis story of Abraham has not been transmitted by oral traditions, but from literary circles of the 6th and 5th centuries BCE.[10] He said that it served to assure the Israelites in exile that despite the destruction of Jerusalem, the Temple and the Davidic kingship, Yahweh's dealings with their ancestors provided a historical foundation on which hope for the future could be built.[11] Abraham's association with Mamre and Hebron, in the south, in the territory of Jerusalem and Judah, suggests that this region was the original home of his cult

 

[UltimateReality]

Same old rhetoric nothing of substance.

Still waiting for your facts through verified empirical evidence.

That's what I was thinking. I've never encountered someone that can use so many words to say so little like Loki can. He purports to know things even accepted science has admitted they don't have evidence for.

 

[emilynghiem]

How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?

Meh. It baffles me.

I think it's a matter of
1. learning to interpret the Bible in a consistent manner
2. TRUSTING the source of an interpretation

many conflicts are about not trusting the group associated with the person offering the interpretation

If someone can trust me NOT to be deceiving them, but to be on the side of God's truth, then when I explain that the 6,000 year timeline in the Bible refers to the LINEAGE of Adam/Eve as representing a certain tribal line of humanity (the Hebrew lineage), and there are actually tribes OUTSIDE that timeline as well, then this does not negate the Bible.

However, if
1. someone comes at them with science with the INTENT of NEGATING the Bible
that will automatically cause rejection and clinging to the current interpretation
2. or if they don't trust this universal interpretation of the Bible as including creation and evolution equally, and the Hebrew/Adamic/Mosaic lineage equally as other tribes (including Buddhists, Constitutionalists and other secular humanists under the Gentile
fold and natural laws NOT spelled out specifically in the Bible)
that can cause rejection also

As long as there is fear of change or control by others, that factor can cause
rejection independent of what correction could have been made. That is how people stay stuck in their current or past thinking, the fear of change because they don't trust the source and fear that some outside authority is trying to deceive or control them.

 

[Dr Grump]

Same old rhetoric nothing of substance.

Still waiting for your facts through verified empirical evidence.

That's what I was thinking. I've never encountered someone that can use so many words to say so little like Loki can. He purports to know things even accepted science has admitted they don't have evidence for.

He has just kicked your arse every which way but sideways, and instead of skulking off and licking your wounds, you just write inane posts to your peanut gallery.

Your like-minded fool patting you on the back is not an indication that you are right, only that you are both just as misinformed/dumb/moronic/brain washed as the rest of them...

 

[koshergrl]

UR has come to the same conclusion I have.

Loki is a bad writer, besides being redundant. He doesn't say anything, but he sure loves to string those words together. He thinks people will read his garbage and think he's REALLY important and smart.

And apparently it worked with you.

 

[koshergrl]

I've edited copy. I can say with complete conviction...his writing is the sort of stuff that makes editors alternately laugh, and gag, and cry, then laugh again as they slog through it.

 

[UltimateReality]

Same old rhetoric nothing of substance.

Still waiting for your facts through verified empirical evidence.

That's what I was thinking. I've never encountered someone that can use so many words to say so little like Loki can. He purports to know things even accepted science has admitted they don't have evidence for.

He has just kicked your arse every which way but sideways, and instead of skulking off and licking your wounds, you just write inane posts to your peanut gallery.

Your like-minded fool patting you on the back is not an indication that you are right, only that you are both just as misinformed/dumb/moronic/brain washed as the rest of them...

Loki is all smoke and mirrors my friend. He likes to call ID Theorists superstitious and believing in fairytales but methinks he is merely projecting. It is a joke to me the tiny straws evolutionists get excited about. They point to the "whale" of "evidence" to support evolution but act like giddy school girls when they "think" they've found a gnat that supports their theory... "think" being the operative word. This is what I think about Loki's so called transitional evidence...

From CSC: In 1978, Gareth Nelson of the American Museum of Natural History wrote: “The idea that one can go to the fossil record and expect to empirically recover an ancestor-descendant sequence, be it of species, genera, families, or whatever, has been, and continues to be, a pernicious illusion.”13 Nature science writer Henry Gee wrote in 1999 that “no fossil is buried with its birth certificate.” When we call new fossil discoveries “missing links,” it is “as if the chain of ancestry and descent were a real object for our contemplation, and not what it really is a completely human invention created after the fact, shaped to accord with human prejudices.” Gee concluded: “To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”14

 

[koshergrl]

If by smoke, you are implying he is high, and by mirrors you mean he is redundant, I have to agree.

 

[Dr Grump]

That's what I was thinking. I've never encountered someone that can use so many words to say so little like Loki can. He purports to know things even accepted science has admitted they don't have evidence for.

He has just kicked your arse every which way but sideways, and instead of skulking off and licking your wounds, you just write inane posts to your peanut gallery.

Your like-minded fool patting you on the back is not an indication that you are right, only that you are both just as misinformed/dumb/moronic/brain washed as the rest of them...

Loki is all smoke and mirrors my friend. He likes to call ID Theorists superstitious and believing in fairytales but methinks he is merely projecting. It is a joke to me the tiny straws evolutionists get excited about. They point to the "whale" of "evidence" to support evolution but act like giddy school girls when they "think" they've found a gnat that supports their theory... "thinks" being the operative word. This is what I think about Loki's so called transitional evidence...

From CSC: In 1978, Gareth Nelson of the American Museum of Natural History wrote: “The idea that one can go to the fossil record and expect to empirically recover an ancestor-descendant sequence, be it of species, genera, families, or whatever, has been, and continues to be, a pernicious illusion.”13 Nature science writer Henry Gee wrote in 1999 that “no fossil is buried with its birth certificate.” When we call new fossil discoveries “missing links,” it is “as if the chain of ancestry and descent were a real object for our contemplation, and not what it really is a completely human invention created after the fact, shaped to accord with human prejudices.” Gee concluded: “To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”[

It's not so much that the theory of evolution is in question - there are many questions with that theory, some of which have been proven, others not so.

It's more that some equate creationism as science, or is in the same ball park. It is not. It is based on faith. Nothing more, nothing less...

 

[Dr Grump]

UR has come to the same conclusion I have.

Loki is a bad writer, besides being redundant. He doesn't say anything, but he sure loves to string those words together. He thinks people will read his garbage and think he's REALLY important and smart.

And apparently it worked with you.

Dunno about the importance. But he is smart (even if he is wrong about his stance on guns ). As stated, he is kicking these guys butts. I had to step away from this thread for a few weeks, I was cringing so much with embarassment for UR and YWC.

 

[UltimateReality]

UR has come to the same conclusion I have.

Loki is a bad writer, besides being redundant. He doesn't say anything, but he sure loves to string those words together. He thinks people will read his garbage and think he's REALLY important and smart.

And apparently it worked with you.

Dunno about the importance. But he is smart (even if he is wrong about his stance on guns ). As stated, he is kicking these guys butts. I had to step away from this thread for a few weeks, I was cringing so much with embarassment for UR and YWC.

Since my first post was only 3 days ago, I put about as much stake in you ability to know what embarrassment constitutes as I do in your ability to read a calendar.

 

[UltimateReality]

It is based on faith. Nothing more, nothing less...

Yes, evolution is based on faith and the flowery ability to make up stories that "sound" scientific. It is extrapolation gone wild.

Faith is pretty much required for any thing you believe that you were not present to witness, so yes, the majority of the theory of evolution is based on faith. We could argue there is just as much evidence for God as there is the god NS based on the "evidence" and our faith.

Natural selection acting on random mutations... since it is so amazing and common, it shouldn't be too hard to find one living example right? I mean out of the billions of random mutations, NS whittled them down to the traits we see now, right. Evolutionists are fond of pointing to negative mutations which occur at a single locus, but let's hear some examples of "positive" modern day mutations that occur at a single loki, I mean locus, in multi-cell species. There should be thousands of them... I'm waiting...