What is your evidence that refutes my evidence showing complexity is not the result of a supermagical designer.
Creationists
- Thread starter cbirch2
- Start date
- Status
What is your evidence that refutes my evidence showing complexity is not the result of a supermagical designer.
daws101
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #6,762
it's not an act, I've stepped over better men then you to take a shit.there is no center so you have no point you ******* *****!If you can't act like a grown up, I am not going to respond to you. Internet courage is always such a joke.
Points from my post:
1. Big Bang did not originate at a specific point.
2. Scientist scoffed at Center of SOLAR SYSTEM theory. The solar system is different than the universe.
3. I state the earth is at the center of the universe and then quote several true observations for why it would appear to be at the center of the universe.
4. But then I asked the question: Is our earth at the original singularity point? Or is there something else going on? This was meant to expose your lack of knowledge on current big bang cosmology, but the whole thing went completely over your head. If you knew the answer, you would have immediately noted that although it appears we are at the center of the universe, it looks that way from just about every vantage point in space due to the way space is being stretched.
So everyone really is at the center of their own universe.
I posted the link so you could clue in but you TOTALLY missed the point and went off on some attack based on your twisted perception of what I was reallly trying to say.
Here you go Daws. This is geared for a child to understand what I am saying. This is actually pretty fun if you read the directions carefully. But I guess since it requires you to actually read something, I don't have alot of faith you and Holly can figure this out.
Exploratorium: Hubble: Where is the center of the Universe?
Hey knock the internet tough guy act off,you are not convincing at that either.
In my younger days I would have gleefully ripped out you tongue and shoved it up your ass, just to amuse myself.
but now I'm too busy laughing at your total ignorance of reality,anyone who claims the the Incas and dinosaurs lived together with a straight face has to have some misfiring synapses in his brain.
all your aguments for god fall short!
Youwerecreated
VIP Member
- Nov 29, 2010
- 13,273
- 167
- 83
Yep fits you like a glove. The invitation is still open when I play my next tournament in california for you to come over and introduce yourself and we can see just how tough you are.
thesaurus for internet tough guy:
trollinternetbutthurtdouchefagfat lionforumgayguylosertoughassbadassdouchebage penise-penisflamergeekidiotinternet badass more...
1.
internet tough guy
679 up, 87 down
Someone who constantly talks about how bad and "hardcore" they are over the connected phone lines called the internet. These people usually frequent chat rooms and online forums for the sole purpose of shit talking and gloating to complete strangers to fill the void in their life, something that dosen't impress someone in the REAL WORLD. They also like to troll areas in chat and forums that contain such topics as: Martial Arts, Boxing, Fighting, Excercise, Weight Lifting, Wrestling etc. so they can compete with other lifeless internet whores for the sole purpose of determining who is the biggest nerd of them all. These people talk about how much ass they kick and how they could take on the world single handedly, when in reality, quiver at such ideas of someone who dosen't like them finding them in their parents basement where they thought they were safe. Internet Tough Guys should be regarded as the lowest form of life on Earth. 99% of the time they are liars, who will make completely bogus claims of being 7 feet tall, 400 pounds of pure muscle, and bench 700. Often they have bullshit stories to accompany such shitty claims like "I've wrestled a bear and a lion at the same time, and I kicked both of their asses with ease!" or "I'm a pro boxer who beat Mike Tyson in a backyard brawl with no gloves!" They often reply with sayings such as "**** you", "i'll kick you ass", "your luckee that i cant get you", and the ever...
UltimateReality
Active Member
- Jan 13, 2012
- 2,790
- 15
- 36
Sometimes you don't always get what you want.
daws101
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #6,765
even funnier and Ironic
no theories in science require faith if they did they would no longer be science.but religion. (logic) Definition of LOGIC
1a (1) : a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning .)
below is the best description of the difference between faith in science and faith in religion
Francisco Ayala
First, the way in which the word "faith" is used by the person who poses the question is quite different in science and in religious beliefs. All scientific constructs or so-called theories are constructs of the mind. In that sense, we accept them just in terms of whatever evidence we can gather in their favor or against them. In the case of scientific theories, what we do is to formulate them in such a way that they can be used to make predictions about the states of affairs in the real world. And then we do confirm or corroborate the theories by making those observations or experiments that deal with predictions derived from the theories.
So if we have a theory, which is a construct of the mind, and we are able to corroborate it or reject it by subjecting it to verification or corroboration, as I said, we're confronting it with observations or experiments that we make. Religious faith belongs to a completely different realm of knowledge. In the case of faith, we are accepting revelation or teachings that we do not expect to corroborate in an empirical way. We corroborate them or accept them in terms of the implications they may have, the effects they may have for our own personal life and the life of other individuals. Evolution: Religion: Science and Faith
one last thing it's really ignorant of you to ask if I know what conjecture is ...IN THIS THREAD AS IN REALITY EVERYTHING YOU'VE POSTED IS CONJECTURE .
TO SAY IT'S NOT IS A LIE. you have no proof of god, just conjecture.
everything you've ever posted as evidence is not valid as it's base is a false premise I.e. "god did it" .which by definition is conjecture.
your evidence only proves that the things, actions, etc, described in your theory exist.
your conjecture in no way explains causation. (god did it) " In the case of faith, we are accepting revelation or teachings that we do not expect to corroborate in an empirical way." -Francisco Ayala
Scientific Creationism and Error
Scientific Creationism and Error by Robert Schadewald Copyright© 1986 Reprintedfrom Creation/Evolution (v. 6, n. 1, pp. 1-9) with permission from the author.
Scientific creationism differs from conventional science in numerous and substantial ways. One obvious difference is the way scientists and creationists deal with error.
Science is wedded, at least in principle, to the evidence. Creationism is unabashedly wedded to doctrine, as evidenced by the statements of belief required by various creationist organizations and the professions of faith made by individual creationists. Because creationism is first and foremost a matter of Biblical faith, evidence from the natural world can only be of secondary importance. Authoritarian systems like creationism tend to instill in their adherents a peculiar view of truth.
Many prominent creationists apparently have the same view of truth as political radicals: whatever advances the cause is true, whatever damages the cause is false. From this viewpoint, errors should be covered up where possible and only acknowledged when failure to do so threatens greater damage to the cause. If colleagues spread errors, it is better not to criticize them publicly. Better to have followers deceived than to have them question the legitimacy of their leaders. In science, fame accrues to those who overturn errors. In dogmatic systems, one who unnecessarily exposes an error to the public is a traitor or an apostate.
Ironically, creationists make much of scientific errors. The "Nebraska Man" fiasco, where the tooth of an extinct peccary was misidentified as belonging to a primitive human, is ubiquitous in creationist literature and debate presentations. So is the "Piltdown Man" hoax. Indeed, creationist propagandists often present these two scientific errors as characteristic of paleoanthropology. It is significant that these errors were uncovered and corrected from within the scientific community. In contrast,creationists rarely expose their own errors, and they sometimes fail to correct them when others expose them.
Scientific Creationism and Error by Robert Schadewald Copyright© 1986 Reprintedfrom Creation/Evolution (v. 6, n. 1, pp. 1-9) with permission from the author.
Scientific creationism differs from conventional science in numerous and substantial ways. One obvious difference is the way scientists and creationists deal with error.
Science is wedded, at least in principle, to the evidence. Creationism is unabashedly wedded to doctrine, as evidenced by the statements of belief required by various creationist organizations and the professions of faith made by individual creationists. Because creationism is first and foremost a matter of Biblical faith, evidence from the natural world can only be of secondary importance. Authoritarian systems like creationism tend to instill in their adherents a peculiar view of truth.
Many prominent creationists apparently have the same view of truth as political radicals: whatever advances the cause is true, whatever damages the cause is false. From this viewpoint, errors should be covered up where possible and only acknowledged when failure to do so threatens greater damage to the cause. If colleagues spread errors, it is better not to criticize them publicly. Better to have followers deceived than to have them question the legitimacy of their leaders. In science, fame accrues to those who overturn errors. In dogmatic systems, one who unnecessarily exposes an error to the public is a traitor or an apostate.
Ironically, creationists make much of scientific errors. The "Nebraska Man" fiasco, where the tooth of an extinct peccary was misidentified as belonging to a primitive human, is ubiquitous in creationist literature and debate presentations. So is the "Piltdown Man" hoax. Indeed, creationist propagandists often present these two scientific errors as characteristic of paleoanthropology. It is significant that these errors were uncovered and corrected from within the scientific community. In contrast,creationists rarely expose their own errors, and they sometimes fail to correct them when others expose them.
UltimateReality
Active Member
- Jan 13, 2012
- 2,790
- 15
- 36
I could do without Daws childish profanity and Holly's condescending attitude. But they do keep the thread interesting, even if they aren't really saying anything of substance.
UltimateReality
Active Member
- Jan 13, 2012
- 2,790
- 15
- 36
That's because He did. So what's your point again?
Aren't saying anything of substance?
That nonsensical claim is getting more and more tired when there are several posts just in the last few pages of this thread that you and the other fundie have made a point not to address.
As I noted before, fundies tend to run for the exits when confronted with facts that confound their subjective and unsubstantiated religious claims.
Another passel of creationist lies
Another passel of creationist lies | Bad Astronomy | Discover Magazine
Usually, when someone spouts creationist garbage, its because theyve been misled. We have a case of this, in spades, in the Evansville (Indiana) Courier Press, where a highly deluded creationist has written an editorial so full of crap Im tempted to call a septic cleaning crew.
To be clear, I think the author is just wrong, but he has clearly been heavily misled some would say lied to to by people from Answers in Genesis, a creationist (hahahahahah) think tank.
Check this out:
then a little more than a year ago, we again were privileged to hear lectures by former evolutionist and atheist Mike Riddle and astrophysicist Dr. Jason Lisle.
To be clear: Mike Riddle and Jason Lisle are from the evil, lying organization Answers in Genesis.
How can I assert this? Assuming the editorial writer is on the level
Riddle, a former Microsoft trainer, spoke of the Miller experiment, which produced amino acids inside a test tube. When oxygen was added, the experiment failed. Imagine, this key element to life prohibits any organic molecules from forming.
The Miller-Urey experiment put the contents of the Earths original atmosphere (methane, ammonia, hydrogen, water much like the present atmospheres of Jupiter and Saturn) into a chamber, and hit it with a spark representing lightning. Amino acids were produced. This shows that the building blocks of life were easy to produce in the primitive conditions on Earth. As the idea goes, later, once life took hold, it evolved to produce oxygen (which can provide a lot more energy to the life process). Oxygen is highly corrosive, and so that changed everything. Eventually, in the adapt-or-die conditions, life adapted to use the gas. But before it did, oxygen was essentially poison. So its no surprise that it would mess up the Miller-Urey experiment.
In other words, if Riddle used this to promote an anti-evolution stance, he is not telling the truth, when the truth is easy to find and has been accessible for decades. What does that make him?
Incidentally, the MU experiment was never meant to be the be-all and end-all of how life arose; it was the first of a long series of such experiments that are still ongoing. How life first arose is a fascinating question, and I guarantee that no creationist will be able to figure it out unless they follow the tenets of science. But scientific method to a young-Earth creationist is like holy water to a vampire.
To continue
According to Lisle, laser reflectors left behind on the moons surface by the Apollo astronauts revealed that our lunar neighbor moves a little over an inch farther away from us each year.
How many billions of years earlier was it scraping our mountaintops?
It doesnt work this way. The Moon recedes from the Earth due to tides, but the rate at which is recedes depends on many factors. In the past, it receded more slowly than it does today. It formed much closer in to the Earth, but there is no problem with it taking billions of years to get to its current distance. Typically, young Earth creationists take current values of things and extrapolate them billions of years into the past without considering that the values might have changed.
This argument has been debunked for many years. Decades. If Lisle really is an astrophysicist and he said this in a talk, he is either incompetent or a liar. Or both.
One of Lisles associates calculated the amount of emissions given off by the various belts of Jupiter shortly before the Voyager probe visited it in the early 80s. The data returned was in sync with the thousands of years that the mathematics Ph.D. had suggested. The spacecraft had no knowledge of the Bible.
This statement is a total mess, but what I think he means is the prediction by creationist Russel Humphries, before Voyager got to Uranus and Neptune, of their magnetic fields. But his guess was that they were intermediate in strength between Earths and Saturns, which is a pretty safe bet given their masses. Also, while its true that the magnetic fields of those two planets are weird, Humphreys model (that God made the planets from water which was then transformed into various other substances) doesnt predict any of the other odd features (like the tilt of the fields and that they are off-center). He claims it does, but his claim on how some of the odd features formed isnt really any different than a model assuming the planets are old; in other words, his model doesnt actually predict those features.
Even a randomly fired gun will sometimes hit the target by accident.
Another passel of creationist lies | Bad Astronomy | Discover Magazine
Usually, when someone spouts creationist garbage, its because theyve been misled. We have a case of this, in spades, in the Evansville (Indiana) Courier Press, where a highly deluded creationist has written an editorial so full of crap Im tempted to call a septic cleaning crew.
To be clear, I think the author is just wrong, but he has clearly been heavily misled some would say lied to to by people from Answers in Genesis, a creationist (hahahahahah) think tank.
Check this out:
then a little more than a year ago, we again were privileged to hear lectures by former evolutionist and atheist Mike Riddle and astrophysicist Dr. Jason Lisle.
To be clear: Mike Riddle and Jason Lisle are from the evil, lying organization Answers in Genesis.
How can I assert this? Assuming the editorial writer is on the level
Riddle, a former Microsoft trainer, spoke of the Miller experiment, which produced amino acids inside a test tube. When oxygen was added, the experiment failed. Imagine, this key element to life prohibits any organic molecules from forming.
The Miller-Urey experiment put the contents of the Earths original atmosphere (methane, ammonia, hydrogen, water much like the present atmospheres of Jupiter and Saturn) into a chamber, and hit it with a spark representing lightning. Amino acids were produced. This shows that the building blocks of life were easy to produce in the primitive conditions on Earth. As the idea goes, later, once life took hold, it evolved to produce oxygen (which can provide a lot more energy to the life process). Oxygen is highly corrosive, and so that changed everything. Eventually, in the adapt-or-die conditions, life adapted to use the gas. But before it did, oxygen was essentially poison. So its no surprise that it would mess up the Miller-Urey experiment.
In other words, if Riddle used this to promote an anti-evolution stance, he is not telling the truth, when the truth is easy to find and has been accessible for decades. What does that make him?
Incidentally, the MU experiment was never meant to be the be-all and end-all of how life arose; it was the first of a long series of such experiments that are still ongoing. How life first arose is a fascinating question, and I guarantee that no creationist will be able to figure it out unless they follow the tenets of science. But scientific method to a young-Earth creationist is like holy water to a vampire.
To continue
According to Lisle, laser reflectors left behind on the moons surface by the Apollo astronauts revealed that our lunar neighbor moves a little over an inch farther away from us each year.
How many billions of years earlier was it scraping our mountaintops?
It doesnt work this way. The Moon recedes from the Earth due to tides, but the rate at which is recedes depends on many factors. In the past, it receded more slowly than it does today. It formed much closer in to the Earth, but there is no problem with it taking billions of years to get to its current distance. Typically, young Earth creationists take current values of things and extrapolate them billions of years into the past without considering that the values might have changed.
This argument has been debunked for many years. Decades. If Lisle really is an astrophysicist and he said this in a talk, he is either incompetent or a liar. Or both.
One of Lisles associates calculated the amount of emissions given off by the various belts of Jupiter shortly before the Voyager probe visited it in the early 80s. The data returned was in sync with the thousands of years that the mathematics Ph.D. had suggested. The spacecraft had no knowledge of the Bible.
This statement is a total mess, but what I think he means is the prediction by creationist Russel Humphries, before Voyager got to Uranus and Neptune, of their magnetic fields. But his guess was that they were intermediate in strength between Earths and Saturns, which is a pretty safe bet given their masses. Also, while its true that the magnetic fields of those two planets are weird, Humphreys model (that God made the planets from water which was then transformed into various other substances) doesnt predict any of the other odd features (like the tilt of the fields and that they are off-center). He claims it does, but his claim on how some of the odd features formed isnt really any different than a model assuming the planets are old; in other words, his model doesnt actually predict those features.
Even a randomly fired gun will sometimes hit the target by accident.
The attached link is a good as it exposes many of the tactics of lies, deceit and alterations of "quotes" used by the creationist ministries.
Creationist Whoppers
Creationist Whoppers
This is a small sampler of creationist whoppers, gleaned from talk.origins in recent months. When I wrote that I had sent an unnamed creationist a small sampler of ICR whoppers, many people wrote and asked for a copy. I have much more distributed throughout my file system, and in books and on paper at home, but have not yet had a chance to gather them together.
[plus my @#$! mailer seems to be broken. Sorry to those who wrote me and got no reply...]
So many liars, so little time! Until then, here is what I had sent to the creationist in question..
If you would like to enter your favorite creationist lie, mendacious misquotation or attack of amnesia, please mail them to me here, and much honor and glory will accrue to your name.
Well, maybe a little.
Max Webb
Creationist Whoppers
Creationist Whoppers
This is a small sampler of creationist whoppers, gleaned from talk.origins in recent months. When I wrote that I had sent an unnamed creationist a small sampler of ICR whoppers, many people wrote and asked for a copy. I have much more distributed throughout my file system, and in books and on paper at home, but have not yet had a chance to gather them together.
[plus my @#$! mailer seems to be broken. Sorry to those who wrote me and got no reply...]
So many liars, so little time! Until then, here is what I had sent to the creationist in question..
If you would like to enter your favorite creationist lie, mendacious misquotation or attack of amnesia, please mail them to me here, and much honor and glory will accrue to your name.
Well, maybe a little.
Max Webb
Dispatches from the Creation Wars
Creationist Lies That Never Die – Dispatches from the Creation Wars
Anyone who has dealt with creationists can tell you about the game of creationist whack-a-mole. Whack-a-mole is that game where you have a mallet and these moles pop out of various holes and you have to whack them with the mallet, but as soon as you whack one of them, another one comes up in another hole. It never seems to end. That is exactly what its like dealing with creationists. No matter how many times you disprove a creationist claim, it simply pops up in another hole and you have to whack it all over again. I was reminded of this yet again when I came across this essay on a creationist webpage that rehashes the long-discredited moon dust argument.
The moon dust argument is sort of a creationist classic, first advanced by Henry Morris in the early 70s, just after the first manned moon landing in 1969. The argument goes like this: meteoritic dust accumulates at a particular rate on the Earth (Morris used a figure of 14 million tons per year). On the Earth, erosion and other processes makes this negligible, but on the moon, where there is no atmosphere, that dust would simply accumulate. At that rate of influx, if the moon is really 4 billion years old it should have hundreds of feet of meteoritic dust on the surface; however, we only find a few inches of dust on the moon, which means it must be only a few thousand years old.
There are lots and lots of problems with this claim, the simplest being that the rate of influx used to calculate how deep the dust should be was wildly off the mark. I mean not even in the ballpark. Morris got his figure from a scientist named Hans Pettersson, who tried to make an estimate of the rate of influx by measuring the amount of nickel collected in filters placed on mountaintops. He assumed that nickel was found only in meteoritic dust (which is not true) and extrapolated from that a range of possible figures. The 14 million tons per year was the high end of the estimate, and in fact Pettersson thought the rate was about 1/3 of that, or around 5 million tons per year.
Creationist Lies That Never Die – Dispatches from the Creation Wars
Anyone who has dealt with creationists can tell you about the game of creationist whack-a-mole. Whack-a-mole is that game where you have a mallet and these moles pop out of various holes and you have to whack them with the mallet, but as soon as you whack one of them, another one comes up in another hole. It never seems to end. That is exactly what its like dealing with creationists. No matter how many times you disprove a creationist claim, it simply pops up in another hole and you have to whack it all over again. I was reminded of this yet again when I came across this essay on a creationist webpage that rehashes the long-discredited moon dust argument.
The moon dust argument is sort of a creationist classic, first advanced by Henry Morris in the early 70s, just after the first manned moon landing in 1969. The argument goes like this: meteoritic dust accumulates at a particular rate on the Earth (Morris used a figure of 14 million tons per year). On the Earth, erosion and other processes makes this negligible, but on the moon, where there is no atmosphere, that dust would simply accumulate. At that rate of influx, if the moon is really 4 billion years old it should have hundreds of feet of meteoritic dust on the surface; however, we only find a few inches of dust on the moon, which means it must be only a few thousand years old.
There are lots and lots of problems with this claim, the simplest being that the rate of influx used to calculate how deep the dust should be was wildly off the mark. I mean not even in the ballpark. Morris got his figure from a scientist named Hans Pettersson, who tried to make an estimate of the rate of influx by measuring the amount of nickel collected in filters placed on mountaintops. He assumed that nickel was found only in meteoritic dust (which is not true) and extrapolated from that a range of possible figures. The 14 million tons per year was the high end of the estimate, and in fact Pettersson thought the rate was about 1/3 of that, or around 5 million tons per year.
And this coming from the gaggle of juvenile name-callers.
daws101
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #6,776
there is no proof he did or that he even exists or the he is even a he ....all of it is speculation without any evidence to bolster it.
in reality, that's called a fairy tale.
there is no need for you to rebut this, any rebuttal you give will be subjective.
Last edited:
Ge whiz. We actually have a gurantee by a goofy fundie.
the Complexity Brake guarantees that human minds will never be able to exhaustively describe biological complexity.
The fundies certainly won't ever describe biological complexity. That will conflict with the bible and a 6,000 year old earth.
I'm reminded of the story of the Director of the US Patents Office under President Taft who declared in the early part of this century: "No more new patents need be issued; everything mankind can possibly invent, he already has." Of course, Taft fired him, because of course, that Director was wrong.
Last edited:
UltimateReality
Active Member
- Jan 13, 2012
- 2,790
- 15
- 36
Pretty much anything you believe that you have not personally witnessed, touch, tasted, smelled, takes faith. So this is a silly question. For example: when the news guy tells you there was a shooting at a Theatre, you take it on faith that it really happened since you were not there to witness it, and from the footage, can't be sure it too is not a Hollywood production.
UltimateReality
Active Member
- Jan 13, 2012
- 2,790
- 15
- 36
More cutting and pasting from your fundie evo priest Will Provine's website.
- Status
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
-
Warning, when democrats are in charge of states, they do this to you- Started by Robert W
- Replies: 6
-
-
Trump hate is now the ONLY thing the Democratic Party stands for- Started by Doc7505
- Replies: 16
