Creationists

[UltimateReality]

So here I am sitting in my office because my wife is entertaining her women's group at our house tonight and I have my dog with me because he is harassing them. I just tried to tell him to go get his bone in the corner. Then I pointed and said, "Go get your bone". Unfortunately, instead of looking where I am pointing, he just keeps hopelessly looking at my finger. Then the epiphany came to me that DAWS and Holly are alot like my puppy. They just can't seem to look where I am pointing, and only keep focusing on my finger.

Childish insults as a way to cover your tracks for not presenting a defendable argument.

How sad.

You know, since you've abandoned the religion of your youth, the right thing to do would be to give all your Christmas presents back.

 

[UltimateReality]

I think we should start a campaign to disqualify Darwin since he came up with a theory that was outside his field.

I agree, however Darwin was atleast honest in what he thought he observed and gave reasons that would make his theory invalid.

... and, all those scientists are wrong. You employ another logical fallacy: appeal to authority. it doesn't matter if every scientist on the planet eventually disagreed with evolution. If evolution still has empirical validity and can be demonstrated in repeatable fashion, then it still stands. There is one truth. Either a god exists or it doesn't. You two don't want to look at the evidence, because you can't swallow any worldview that doesn't include god, even though evolution and god are not mutually exclusive, unless your a fundie, in which case, you're simply regurgitating something that was indoctrinated into when you were little and haven't applied rational thought to your own beliefs. Instead, you continually point your finger at the outside world, instead of inward.

Wow, you too have succumb to Holly Jolly's Black and White disease and have once again mixed science with religion. Whether or not God exists is a metaphysical question, not a scientific one. Your religious belief that He does not exists drives your need to validate the TOE at all costs, even when it is crumbling before your very eyes. There is a third option you have not considered, since you are blinded by your Materialist world view (I didn't say religion because to want to get Jolly Holly in a wad), is to realize that the TOE is hopelessly flawed, and start to actually do some REAL SCIENCE, not speculative musings, and look for a different mechanism that could have resulted in the complex biological features we see in nature. It is this all or nothing way of thinking, that clouds the thinking of the Materialist scientist among us and keeps biology in the dark ages. Stop worrying that if you give up on Darwin it has religious implications and start doing some REAL SCIENCE. There are not just two options in this debate.

 

[Hollie]

Childish insults as a way to cover your tracks for not presenting a defendable argument.

How sad.

You know, since you've abandoned the religion of your youth, the right thing to do would be to give all your Christmas presents back.

That was pointless. If your intention is to spam the thread and make no effort to address posts directed at your comments you should avoid participating.

 

[UltimateReality]

You don't stray to far from your rhetoric do you ?

Ironic post is ironic.

If you had followed this thread, you would note that while YWC is driven by his belief in Creation, he can actually process information and respond to opposing viewpoints. Holleee just keeps posting the same thing over and over (she isn't the first and she won't be the last to stop by and dump the rehearsed anti-Christian canned attacks and arguments), which is totally irrelevant to the discussions at hand.

 

[UltimateReality]

unless your a fundie

Really? Now you're stealing Hollie's material? You are a sad, little man.

 

[Hollie]

You don't stray to far from your rhetoric do you ?

Ironic post is ironic.

If you had followed this thread, you would note that while YWC is driven by his belief in Creation, he can actually process information and respond to opposing viewpoints. Holleee just keeps posting the same thing over and over (she isn't the first and she won't be the last to stop by and dump the rehearsed anti-Christian canned attacks and arguments), which is totally irrelevant to the discussions at hand.

Your frustration is the result of an inability to defend crestionist claims to the supernatural. It's telling that you earlier objected to "attacks" against creationism and later, "attacks" against ID which you hoped to separate from both Christianity and creationism.

The problem you have is that you feel your claims are insulated from criticism or critique. When you post in a public discussion board, its naive to think that your opinions (and creationism / ID is only opinion) won't be subject to scrutiny.

 

[UltimateReality]

Ironic post is ironic.

Do you want a list of everything science I have discussed in this and other threads.

No, you're clearly right. The earth is 10,000 years old, man walked with the dinosaurs, and evolution is a satanic myth right from the pits of hell.



I figured out when you first appeared on this board that you weren't capable of anything but regurgitation of sources whose limitations you don't even understand. So, i treat you in the same way I do the crazy religious dude screaming on the street corner.

It is apparent you have entered the conversation really late. You would have noted that YWC and I disagree on several pertinent points, but can show mutual respect for each other. I subscribe to ID Theory, which does not mix religion and science and makes no metaphysical claims. My religious beliefs are, however, Christian, but I do not believe the Creation story in Genesis was ever meant to be taken literally, just like I don't actually think Christ meant for me to gouge out my eye if it causes me to sin, even though most translations would present this as a command that Christ gave. However, religiously speaking, I believe there are important principles that necessarily abide in the Creation story. They are: God created the Universe; the Spirit of God was present during Creation; God exists outside space, matter, time and energy; and Humans are fallen and are born sinful creatures.

This does not affect my ability to think logically about the science involved. What does continue to aggravate me is the arrogant thinking of Materialists that they aren't also driven by metaphysical beliefs. They cling to Darwinism not because it is good science, but because they mistakenly believe that to admit it is an EPIC FAIL, would mean they would have to alter their Materialist worldview to a Theistic one. This "religious belief" is the prime mover in the force fitting of science to the outcome of Darwinism. The disturbing thing is that, just like Holly, they deny their metaphysical motivations, which leaves them in blindness when attempting to find the truth about origins. "To be ignorant of ones ignorance is the malady of the ignorant." Until the Materialists begin to identify their metaphysical motivations, we will be hopelessly lost in clinging to a theory that is just flat out wrong and is not supported by REAL science.

 

[UltimateReality]

Ironic post is ironic.

If you had followed this thread, you would note that while YWC is driven by his belief in Creation, he can actually process information and respond to opposing viewpoints. Holleee just keeps posting the same thing over and over (she isn't the first and she won't be the last to stop by and dump the rehearsed anti-Christian canned attacks and arguments), which is totally irrelevant to the discussions at hand.

Your frustration is the result of an inability to defend crestionist claims to the supernatural. It's telling that you earlier objected to "attacks" against creationism and later, "attacks" against ID which you hoped to separate from both Christianity and creationism.

The problem you have is that you feel your claims are insulated from criticism or critique. When you post in a public discussion board, its naive to think that your opinions (and creationism / ID is only opinion) won't be subject to scrutiny.

Projecting.

 

[Hollie]

Wow, you too have succumb to Holly Jolly's Black and White disease and have once again mixed science with religion. Whether or not God exists is a metaphysical question, not a scientific one.
That is clearly false.

 

[UltimateReality]

... and, all those scientists are wrong. You employ another logical fallacy: appeal to authority. it doesn't matter if every scientist on the planet eventually disagreed with evolution. If evolution still has empirical validity and can be demonstrated in repeatable fashion, then it still stands. There is one truth. Either a god exists or it doesn't. You two don't want to look at the evidence, because you can't swallow any worldview that doesn't include god, even though evolution and god are not mutually exclusive, unless your a fundie, in which case, you're simply regurgitating something that was indoctrinated into when you were little and haven't applied rational thought to your own beliefs. Instead, you continually point your finger at the outside world, instead of inward.

Many of their assumptions and conclusions are clearly wrong yes.

Yes, the scientists who disagree with evolution are clearly wrong. I'm glad we can agree. I was responding you a post you made about 900 scientists who disagree with evolution, and where you tried to use that as evidence that evolution is false.

Your reading comprehension is off. I posted that. Your assumption above is incorrect. Therefore, you've wasted several posts trying to tear down the strawman. The reason I posted the list of 900, was not to prove evolution is false. Had you actually take the time to read the post, I was responding to Holly's assumption that ALL "real" scientists believe evolution is a fact, and that the ones who don't are not in the fields of anthropology and biology. The list of 900 Phd'd scientist with doctorates in anthropology and biology, obviously shows that Hollie's argument is incorrect. Real sorry you mis-read that and wasted your time.

 

[UltimateReality]

Do you want a list of everything science I have discussed in this and other threads.

No, you're clearly right. The earth is 10,000 years old, man walked with the dinosaurs, and evolution is a satanic myth right from the pits of hell.



I figured out when you first appeared on this board that you weren't capable of anything but regurgitation of sources whose limitations you don't even understand. So, i treat you in the same way I do the crazy religious dude screaming on the street corner.

Really,then maybe you will step up and answer these questions.

1.If everything is always evolving as evolutionist suggest because all organisms experience mutations,why do we have living fossils alive today and have fossils of their ancestors that were dated from way back in the past show no evolutionary change ?

2. Why do we not see new life forms constantly coming into existence ?

3. I know evolutionist don't like this question but it is tied to evolutionist even though they deny it. How did the first cell form from a natural process ?

4. Amino Acids combine to form proteins. Both right handed and left handed Amino Acids can easily combine. What would happen to the cell and the organism if the left and right handed Amino Acid would combine ? Why is it that only left handed Amino Acids are the only Amino Acids found in cells of living organisms ?

5. I asked you why over time the flies mutations I studied for 11 years and Darwins pigeons,and finches all of them after only a few generations returned to what they were ? Since they did return to what they were they did not evolve why does your side claim they evolved ?

These are questions I asked and they go ignored why ?

While they are at it, I still want to know where they consider abiogenisis to end and evolution to start? I also want to know what level of complexity the mythical common ancestor is believed to have.

 

[daws101]

This is also why peer-review is absent among the ID / creationism community.

Another false claim previously proven wrong a few posts back with substantiated info easily verifiable on the internet, one publication of which has been around since 1926, pre-dating the Creationists and ID Theory movements.

You poor thing.

If you science to offer that would be fine. However, "science" that is culled from creationist websites is not science. I've shown you repeatedly that the sites you link to have a predefined agenda of pressing supernaturalism and do so by falsifying and / or explicitly ignoring data that refuted their religious claims.

Funding creationist websites are promoting religion, not science. Your need to promote an agenda that is utterly hostile to science has been demonstrated within this thread.

So what of Newton, arguably one of the greatest scientist of all time? Will you discount his theories because he was a fundie? You ignorance of history is appalling. I should have stopped responding to you when I said I was going to before. You are so blind that it really reminds me of arguing with a drunk when I was a cop. Both are exercises in futility. I will waste no more time with you since you cannot even present, or follow, a logical thought. Have a nice fundamentalist Materialist purposeless existence.

YWC, I would suggest you don't entertain this any longer as well. Dust off your feet and head to the next town.

Yeah I pretty much did that with DAWS and Hollie is next on the list. The problem is neither one know enough to see the legitimacy of our questions put to them. It seems most of the time only montrovant and konradv are coherent and understand the questions and answers given them.

They can even be civil most of the time but Hollie and Daws forget it, they have an ax to grind for some reason and they are stuck on taking shots rather then focus on legitimate issues that are presented to them. I think mostly is they don';t have a clue how to respond.

and you'd be wrong, the only thing you done with me is amuse me.
when you post a legitimate issue I'll answer the best I can, so far all you've done is yammer dogma and misrepresent science.

 

[Youwerecreated]

My goodness but thegodsdidit’ist is on quite a cut and paste tear.
I’m afraid that cutting and pasting the entirety of fundie creationist websites (material you don’t understand and material… umm “created” by the Christianity addled folks at the ICR and other hack organizations is not going to help. The gargantuan text – now there’s a stroke of genius. Do you realize that you present yourself as a stereotypical screaming, bible thumping, hair-on-fire zealot?

You see, ultimately, you and the Christian creationist / zealot crowd have a credibility problem of your own… well… creation. When the fundies manufacture data, manipulate data, lie, cheat and steal in failed attempts to present a 6,000 year old earth, evolution as a fraud and science being subservient to bible teaching, your claims come crashing to the ground. These sad, diseased meanderings of scouring the bowels of the web and “quote mining” Christian creationist websites is a common tactic of fundies. It’s a common tactic of fundies to dump entire pages of cut and pasted nonsense and then walk away without any ability to defend their cutting and pasting.

It’s just a pathetic thing to see such that the Christian creationist / ID / young earth industry churning out false claims and lies is represented by such charlatans and the cut and paste crowd.

You don't stray to far from your rhetoric do you ?

I'm not surprised you offered spam as opposed to actually responding to the salient points. Your only contribution toward supporting creationist falsehoods is to cut and paste from websites which promote falsehoods to those gullible enough to accept it.

You are a Liar and just to stupid to grasp the questions put to you. These are clear problems for your precious theory that you don't understand yourself and with just a little thought and understanding of the subject anyone can see these problems.

 

[UltimateReality]

My goodness but thegodsdidit’ist is on quite a cut and paste tear.
I’m afraid that cutting and pasting the entirety of fundie creationist websites (material you don’t understand and material… umm “created” by the Christianity addled folks at the ICR and other hack organizations is not going to help. The gargantuan text – now there’s a stroke of genius. Do you realize that you present yourself as a stereotypical screaming, bible thumping, hair-on-fire zealot?

You see, ultimately, you and the Christian creationist / zealot crowd have a credibility problem of your own… well… creation. When the fundies manufacture data, manipulate data, lie, cheat and steal in failed attempts to present a 6,000 year old earth, evolution as a fraud and science being subservient to bible teaching, your claims come crashing to the ground. These sad, diseased meanderings of scouring the bowels of the web and “quote mining” Christian creationist websites is a common tactic of fundies. It’s a common tactic of fundies to dump entire pages of cut and pasted nonsense and then walk away without any ability to defend their cutting and pasting.

It’s just a pathetic thing to see such that the Christian creationist / ID / young earth industry churning out false claims and lies is represented by such charlatans and the cut and paste crowd.

You don't stray to far from your rhetoric do you ?

I'm not surprised you offered spam as opposed to actually responding to the salient points. Your only contribution toward supporting creationist falsehoods is to cut and paste from websites which promote falsehoods to those gullible enough to accept it.

I tire of this accusation. Especially since you never responded to plagiarizing a poster on another forum, after cutting and pasting his comments verbatim, and passing them off as your own.

For those of you that missed it, here are Hollies "own words" from page 312:

"As with many fundie creationists, you view the universe as a physical projection of a moral construct, the focus of which is, of course, themselves. "It's all about me." It's a singularly utilitarian form of narcissism in which concessions are grudgingly conceded to obvious human limitations and perfected selves imaged in the form of flawless gods with absolute moral standards to which the fallible must aspire.

When Kurt Vonnegut asked the seemingly seminal question, "What are people for?", he bypassed the significant possibility: People aren't for. However, Kurt's 'Great Commandment' of the Church of God the Utterly Indifferent which I paraphrase, "Take care of the People; let the Gods take care of Themselves" should be rendered in lapidary permanence outside every public building.

My suggestion: Eschew ill-fitting, off-the-rack hand-me-downs. You have equal access to a fancied spirit world and, thus, are entirely qualified to create your own fetching, custom-fitted, designer religion. Otherwise, Vonnegut's contribution to the religion business is well worth considering."

And here is a post from RuggedTouch's post from December 2010:

"Thumpers view the universe as a physical projection of a moral construct, the focus of which is, of course, themselves. "It's all about me." It's a singularly utilitarian form of narcissism in which concessions are grudgingly conceded to obvious human limitations and perfected selves imaged in the form of flawless gods with absolute moral standards to which the fallible must aspire.

When Kurt Vonnegut asked the seemingly seminal question, "What are people for?", he bypassed the significant possibility: People aren't for. However, Kurt's 'Great Commandment' of the Church of God the Utterly Indifferent which I paraphrase, "Take care of the People; let the Gods take care of Themselves" should be rendered in lapidary permanence outside every public building.

The thread's query "What religion should I follow and why?" might with equal validity be rendered "Whose religion..." since all religions were the constructs of other humans.

My suggestion: Eschew ill-fitting, off-the-rack hand-me-downs. You have equal access to a fancied spirit world and, thus, are entirely qualified to create your own fetching, custom-fitted, designer religion. Otherwise, Vonnegut's contribution to the religion business is well worth considering."

How can there be freewill? - Page 13

I think you can pretty much stop with the cut and paste accusation now. In fact, this pretty much negates anything you post as being a thought of your own, liar.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Yes, the scientists who disagree with evolution are clearly wrong. I'm glad we can agree. I was responding you a post you made about 900 scientists who disagree with evolution, and where you tried to use that as evidence that evolution is false. That is not evidence. That is an appeal to authority. The presence of those 900 does not invalidate evolution. It simply represents an opinion held by some and has no bearing on the truth of our universe.

That was weak NP.

No. It wasn't. Like your creationist cohort, you're really not well equipped to respond without the ability to cut and paste from creationist websites.

Shut up stupid.

 

[UltimateReality]

... and, all those scientists are wrong. You employ another logical fallacy: appeal to authority. it doesn't matter if every scientist on the planet eventually disagreed with evolution. If evolution still has empirical validity and can be demonstrated in repeatable fashion, then it still stands. There is one truth. Either a god exists or it doesn't. You two don't want to look at the evidence, because you can't swallow any worldview that doesn't include god, even though evolution and god are not mutually exclusive, unless your a fundie, in which case, you're simply regurgitating something that was indoctrinated into when you were little and haven't applied rational thought to your own beliefs. Instead, you continually point your finger at the outside world, instead of inward.

Many of their assumptions and conclusions are clearly wrong yes.

Yes, the scientists who disagree with evolution are clearly wrong. I'm glad we can agree. I was responding you a post you made about 900 scientists who disagree with evolution, and where you tried to use that as evidence that evolution is false. That is not evidence. That is an appeal to authority. The presence of those 900 does not invalidate evolution. It simply represents an opinion held by some and has no bearing on the truth of our universe.

By the way, you never responded to my post on Darwin and Meyer's methodology. Any comments??

 

[Youwerecreated]

Yes, the scientists who disagree with evolution are clearly wrong. I'm glad we can agree. I was responding you a post you made about 900 scientists who disagree with evolution, and where you tried to use that as evidence that evolution is false. That is not evidence. That is an appeal to authority. The presence of those 900 does not invalidate evolution. It simply represents an opinion held by some and has no bearing on the truth of our universe.

That was weak NP.

Okay. Do you actually have a response, or was that it? Because, that was weak.

You only opened up yourself to questions with your pos. Please demonstrate how scientists that disagree with macroevolution are wrong. No one denies change within a family so clearly you are talking about macroevolution.

 

[daws101]

Fusion and transfection are two examples of how DNA can gain information. If you're the scientist you say you are, you should know that.

Also, if a gene mutates the information isn't gone. It still resides in the other copy of the chromosome. Something you also should know!!!

ywc is not a scientist neither is ur....

That is correct but worked closely with them I was a lab Tech. Mr. Theatre guy probably havn't done well at that either have you.

I would be curious what you really do for a living.

lab tech so you did the grunt work?

it's a good thing I'm fluent in gibberish or this statement" Mr. Theatre guy probably havn't done well at that either have you."- ywc) would make no sense at all.
you been told what I do for a living ...Lighting/set design ,construction sound design,FX.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Childish insults as a way to cover your tracks for not presenting a defendable argument.

How sad.

You know, since you've abandoned the religion of your youth, the right thing to do would be to give all your Christmas presents back.

 

[UltimateReality]

Childish insults as a way to cover your tracks for not presenting a defendable argument.

How sad.

You know, since you've abandoned the religion of your youth, the right thing to do would be to give all your Christmas presents back.

That was pointless. If your intention is to spam the thread and make no effort to address posts directed at your comments you should avoid participating.

Projecting.