Creationists

[UltimateReality]

Truth be told, Youwerecornholed, you are too queer, to just go out and be gay, with your buddy, URanallyretarded. So you smear up USMB.

When you do THAT, you don't get to snit at somebody, who comments. Use the Private Message function, when you want to get crazy, with URanal or somebody, without getting pissed on, which you deserve, for suggesting the electronics or Hollie are down, when you and your blow-buddy are so obviously shitty down-boys.

I believe Hollie would be welcome, at any thread where I post. Normally, tards take up most of the pages. We need you, on the out and about, Hollie.

Creationists and their blow-buddies suck.

God loves you and sent his Son to die for you.

any non biblical corroborating evidence to back up that claim?

How about multiple eyewitness accounts?

 

[UltimateReality]

any non biblical corroborating evidence to back up that claim?

So you didn't watch the debate I posted and you said you did. Dawkins admitted that Jesus existed and was crucified.

You have this fascination with Richard Dawkins that seems to define your belief system.

Whether or not Jesus existed and whether or not he was crucified is immaterial in connection with proving your gods. Similarly, Dawkins admitting or not admitting to the above is immaterial. Crucifixion was not uncommon during the period when Jesus was said to be crucified. Let's take a leap of faith and allow you and Dawkins the positive assertion that a man named Jesus was crucified. Now what? You are still left with the irresolvable dilemma of an earth that has existed for billions of years and a biological / fossil record that is similarly in irresolvable conflict with a 6,000 year of earth.

Your best efforts to resolve these dilemmas involved posting YouTube videos hosted by people representing the ICR and similar groups who have, as a matter of their policy statements, that their representatives shall not produce data that is in conflict with Biblical teaching. That's just absurd.

You seem to hang on every word that Dawkins utters as though his words will define legitimacy for your belief.

Holly, you are clueless. Dawkins is YOUR high priest, not YWC's.

 

[Hollie]

God loves you and sent his Son to die for you.

any non biblical corroborating evidence to back up that claim?

How about multiple eyewitness accounts?

We also have multiple eyewitness accounts from people who have seen Bigfoot, UFO's, and images of Jesus in store windows.

They're all true, of course.

 

[Hollie]

So you didn't watch the debate I posted and you said you did. Dawkins admitted that Jesus existed and was crucified.

You have this fascination with Richard Dawkins that seems to define your belief system.

Whether or not Jesus existed and whether or not he was crucified is immaterial in connection with proving your gods. Similarly, Dawkins admitting or not admitting to the above is immaterial. Crucifixion was not uncommon during the period when Jesus was said to be crucified. Let's take a leap of faith and allow you and Dawkins the positive assertion that a man named Jesus was crucified. Now what? You are still left with the irresolvable dilemma of an earth that has existed for billions of years and a biological / fossil record that is similarly in irresolvable conflict with a 6,000 year of earth.

Your best efforts to resolve these dilemmas involved posting YouTube videos hosted by people representing the ICR and similar groups who have, as a matter of their policy statements, that their representatives shall not produce data that is in conflict with Biblical teaching. That's just absurd.

You seem to hang on every word that Dawkins utters as though his words will define legitimacy for your belief.

Holly, you are clueless. Dawkins is YOUR high priest, not YWC's.

You really don't know what you're writing about.

 

[UltimateReality]

ScienceMain article: Evolution
The theory of evolution states that species change over time via mutation and sexual reproduction. Since DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) can be modified only before birth, a mutation must have taken place at conception or within an egg such that an animal similar to a chicken, but not a chicken, laid the first chicken eggs. These eggs then hatched into chickens that inbred to produce a living population.[12][13] Hence, in this light, both the chicken and the structure of its egg evolved simultaneously from birds that, while not of the same exact species, gradually became more and more like present-day chickens over time.

Not any mutation in one individual can be considered as constituting a new species. A speciation event involves the separation of one population from its parent population, so that interbreeding ceases; this is the process whereby domesticated animals are genetically separated from their wild forebears. The whole separated group can then be recognized as a new species.

The modern chicken was believed to have descended from another closely related species of birds, the red junglefowl, but recently discovered genetic evidence suggests that the modern domestic chicken is a hybrid descendant of both the red junglefowl and the grey junglefowl.[14] Assuming the evidence bears out, a hybrid is a compelling scenario that the chicken egg, based on the second definition, came before the chicken.

This implies that the egg existed long before the chicken, but that the chicken egg did not exist until an arbitrary threshold was crossed that differentiates a modern chicken from its ancestors. Since this arbitrary distinction cannot be made until after the egg has hatched, one would have to first find the original chicken, then from this find the first egg it laid.

A simple view is that at whatever point the threshold was crossed and the first chicken was hatched, it had to hatch from an egg. The type of bird that laid that egg, by definition, was on the other side of the threshold and therefore not technically a chicken -- it may be viewed as a proto-chicken or ancestral chicken of some sort, from which a genetic variation or mutation occurred that thus resulted in the egg being laid containing the embryo of the first chicken. In this light, de facto, the argument is settled and the egg had to have come first

Chicken or the eggFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search
Illustration from Tacuina sanitatis, Fourteenth centuryThe chicken or the egg causality dilemma is commonly stated as "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" To ancient philosophers, the question about the first chicken or egg also evoked the questions of how life and the universe in general began.[1]

Cultural references to the chicken and egg intend to point out the futility of identifying the first case of a circular cause and consequence. It could be considered that in this approach lies the most fundamental nature of the question. A literal answer is somewhat obvious, as egg-laying species pre-date the existence of chickens. However, the metaphorical view sets a metaphysical ground to the dilemma. To better understand its metaphorical meaning, the question could be reformulated as: "Which came first, X that can't come without Y, or Y that can't come without X?"

An equivalent situation arises in engineering and science known as circular reference, in which a parameter is required to calculate that parameter itself. Examples are Van der Waals equation and the famous Colebrook equation
Chicken or the egg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Daws, did you actually read what you just quoted? And you think Creationists are smoking crack? Please tell me this post is your attempt at humor. The chicken/egg question is metaphorical to all species that employ eggs in reproduction. The underlying question is really, "How does a species reproduce itself before it is a species?" It is a paradox silly. A Chicken can't exist in the form we know it unless it was hatched from an egg. But you can't have an egg unless a chicken laid it. So the fact someone actually spent time to outline this argument tells me it must be a silly joke. An animal that wasn't a chicken laid the first chicken egg? Seriously, how do you buy into this stuff?

So what about the butterfly? How does evolution explain that away? How could it evolve inside the cocoon, when there are no forces of natural selection to act on it?

 

[UltimateReality]

You have this fascination with Richard Dawkins that seems to define your belief system.

Whether or not Jesus existed and whether or not he was crucified is immaterial in connection with proving your gods. Similarly, Dawkins admitting or not admitting to the above is immaterial. Crucifixion was not uncommon during the period when Jesus was said to be crucified. Let's take a leap of faith and allow you and Dawkins the positive assertion that a man named Jesus was crucified. Now what? You are still left with the irresolvable dilemma of an earth that has existed for billions of years and a biological / fossil record that is similarly in irresolvable conflict with a 6,000 year of earth.

Your best efforts to resolve these dilemmas involved posting YouTube videos hosted by people representing the ICR and similar groups who have, as a matter of their policy statements, that their representatives shall not produce data that is in conflict with Biblical teaching. That's just absurd.

You seem to hang on every word that Dawkins utters as though his words will define legitimacy for your belief.

Holly, you are clueless. Dawkins is YOUR high priest, not YWC's.

You really don't know what you're writing about.

And you didn't bother to watch the video, did you? You don't know the difference between Dawkins and Hawkins.

 

[UltimateReality]

I'm current with the thread. Your evidence for gods has some connection with chickens, eggs and a journalist named Malcolm Muggeridge

Oh boy, I could of had a V-8 moment.

... could have had...

You could have had an opportunity to offer more than a journalist as someone to corroborate your claims to gods... via chickens and eggs.

Malcolm Muggeridge just a journalist? Holly, where do you come up with this stuff?

 

[UltimateReality]

Well, that was predictable. When I followed your link, I was confronted with Malcolm Muggeridge, a journalist and convert to Christianity.

As is the case so frequently with the creationist crowd, the references you cite have a consistent lack of training, study or background in the subject they comment on.

I don't care what you think of the source I care about your responses. You can't save Daws from his stupidity.

You're getting frothy over chickens laying eggs?

I like mine scrambled. I'm just saying.

 

[UltimateReality]

Daws ? I never renounced atheism.

No but your buddy Dawkins has.

still wrong: agnosticefinition of AGNOSTIC
1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2: a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics>


proving ywc's willfull ignorance one post at a time.

Daws, I'm flattered. Really. But you can know me any time you want. Let's go grab a beer some time.

 

[Hollie]

The modern chicken was believed to have descended from another closely related species of birds, the red junglefowl, but recently discovered genetic evidence suggests that the modern domestic chicken is a hybrid descendant of both the red junglefowl and the grey junglefowl.[14] Assuming the evidence bears out, a hybrid is a compelling scenario that the chicken egg, based on the second definition, came before the chicken.

The above has a peculiar theme… something like… oh , I don’t know, descent with modification.

Those gods – they’re such kidders. They left all these clues demonstrating evolutionary concepts such as fitness for survival, adaptation and the gods even gave us DNA to confirm the above yet all along, they've just been snapping their magic digits and planting new species just to play tricks on us.

OK gods, good one, you got us.

 

[Hollie]

Holly, you are clueless. Dawkins is YOUR high priest, not YWC's.

You really don't know what you're writing about.

And you didn't bother to watch the video, did you? You don't know the difference between Dawkins and Hawkins.

You're confusing the two. Do a search on both names and report back to us what you find.

 

[UltimateReality]

You really don't know what you're writing about.

And you didn't bother to watch the video, did you? You don't know the difference between Dawkins and Hawkins.

You're confusing the two. Do a search on both names and report back to us what you find.

Here it is reaaaalll slow in plain English. YOU don't know the difference between the two men. YOU need to do the search and educate yourself.

 

[UltimateReality]

Daws, I can't believe you argued the same point YWC made back at him for 5 pages. I think Holly is rubbing off on you.

Post up all the definitions you want but the worldview is simple. The atheist says there is no God. The Agnostic is undecided and says, "I can't say there is. I can't say there isn't." This is much like the canned response Navy Seamen use when asked about Nuclear weapons on their boats. "I can neither confirm nor deny the presence of nuclear weapons aboard the USS Perkins." An atheist would say there absolutely are not any nuclear weapons on my boat.

 

[UltimateReality]

"Evolutionists could respond by arguing that the reason the natural code is universal and conserved is that other codes were displaced early on; then, the surviving code was optimized by natural selection over millions of years for efficiency and fidelity. Aside from the fact that there is no evidence for such a dodge, it begs the question of the origin of those codes. Without a code (and numerous functional molecular machines to read and translate it) DNA would be no more than a noisy scaffold of random base pairs, signifying nothing. Similarly, the new synthetic 5SICs-NaM base pair, even if copied with high fidelity, would be useless -- like an obstruction or mutation -- unless the engineers labored further to make it mean something, to assign it a function. Even then, the rest of the system would have to recognize the information and coordinate the function."

"DNA is just a molecule until it is put to use in an informational system. So it is with silicon, or with the steam-powered metal contraption Charles Babbage envisioned in the 19th century. Natural DNA was copying itself with high efficiency and greater than 99.9999% fidelity long before engineers applied their minds to the problem of autonomic information storage and retrieval. Our experience with designing information systems -- first in metal, then silicon, and now with DNA -- gives compelling force to the inference that natural "biological information storage and retrieval" is the product of intelligent design."

With New Research, the Genetic Code Looks More and More Like a Deliberate Choice - Evolution News & Views

 

[UltimateReality]

"The "molecular machine" revolution coincides with the rise of the intelligent design movement. In 1985, Michael Denton suggested the machine metaphor in Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Profoundly influenced by that book, Behe in Darwin's Black Box (1996) proposed the concept of irreducible complexity, giving a shot in the arm to those already questioning the adequacy of Darwinian mechanisms. By the time of the release of Unlocking in 2002, the cat was out of the bag. Everybody, ID supporter or not, had already been talking for years in terms of molecular machines. Even the anti-ID NAS president Bruce Alberts was telling his colleagues in 1998 that to prepare the next generation of molecular biologists, we need to teach them to view the cell as a collection of protein machines; it's the "biology of the future," he said."

Over time, it seems increasingly likely that exposure to the workings of cellular machines -- indeed, to their exquisite perfection -- will make clear to all that Darwinism was an unnecessary and useless historical distraction, to be discarded in the rush to understand and imitate the machinery of life.

Holly has it all bas ackwards. It is Darwinism that stifles science. My estimate is that in 20 years people will look back and wonder how so many could have been fooled by something so stupid as the TOE.

 

[UltimateReality]

People sometimes ask me if evolutionists are at all changing their minds given the overwhelming scientific evidence against their religious mandate. The answer of course is “no.” But there are some evolutionists, well one anyway, that at least acknowledges some of the evidence.

Darwin's God: The Evolutionist Speaks: Savor the Irony

 

[Hollie]

And you didn't bother to watch the video, did you? You don't know the difference between Dawkins and Hawkins.

You're confusing the two. Do a search on both names and report back to us what you find.

Here it is reaaaalll slow in plain English. YOU don't know the difference between the two men. YOU need to do the search and educate yourself.

You're just embarrassed at having confused the two.

 

[Hollie]

People sometimes ask me if evolutionists are at all changing their minds given the overwhelming scientific evidence against their religious mandate. The answer of course is “no.” But there are some evolutionists, well one anyway, that at least acknowledges some of the evidence.

Darwin's God: The Evolutionist Speaks: Savor the Irony

Evolution is science, not a religion. Yours is a common confusion shared by the science loathing, science illiterate crowd.

 

[Hollie]

"Evolutionists could respond by arguing that the reason the natural code is universal and conserved is that other codes were displaced early on; then, the surviving code was optimized by natural selection over millions of years for efficiency and fidelity. Aside from the fact that there is no evidence for such a dodge, it begs the question of the origin of those codes. Without a code (and numerous functional molecular machines to read and translate it) DNA would be no more than a noisy scaffold of random base pairs, signifying nothing. Similarly, the new synthetic 5SICs-NaM base pair, even if copied with high fidelity, would be useless -- like an obstruction or mutation -- unless the engineers labored further to make it mean something, to assign it a function. Even then, the rest of the system would have to recognize the information and coordinate the function."

"DNA is just a molecule until it is put to use in an informational system. So it is with silicon, or with the steam-powered metal contraption Charles Babbage envisioned in the 19th century. Natural DNA was copying itself with high efficiency and greater than 99.9999% fidelity long before engineers applied their minds to the problem of autonomic information storage and retrieval. Our experience with designing information systems -- first in metal, then silicon, and now with DNA -- gives compelling force to the inference that natural "biological information storage and retrieval" is the product of intelligent design."

With New Research, the Genetic Code Looks More and More Like a Deliberate Choice - Evolution News & Views

Creationism is religion, not science. Copying and pasting from websites that are pressing a religious agenda only devalues your claims.

 

[Hollie]

"The "molecular machine" revolution coincides with the rise of the intelligent design movement. In 1985, Michael Denton suggested the machine metaphor in Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Profoundly influenced by that book, Behe in Darwin's Black Box (1996) proposed the concept of irreducible complexity, giving a shot in the arm to those already questioning the adequacy of Darwinian mechanisms. By the time of the release of Unlocking in 2002, the cat was out of the bag. Everybody, ID supporter or not, had already been talking for years in terms of molecular machines. Even the anti-ID NAS president Bruce Alberts was telling his colleagues in 1998 that to prepare the next generation of molecular biologists, we need to teach them to view the cell as a collection of protein machines; it's the "biology of the future," he said."

Over time, it seems increasingly likely that exposure to the workings of cellular machines -- indeed, to their exquisite perfection -- will make clear to all that Darwinism was an unnecessary and useless historical distraction, to be discarded in the rush to understand and imitate the machinery of life.

Holly has it all bas ackwards. It is Darwinism that stifles science. My estimate is that in 20 years people will look back and wonder how so many could have been fooled by something so stupid as the TOE.

Michael Behe is a hack. Among the many reasons why religious zealots are subject to such ridicule is because of charlatans such as Behe.