Creationists

[Youwerecreated]

I wasn’t surprised you went slithering for the exits.
It’s just a fact that Christian creationism is a more recent creationist tale of gawds, supernatural / metaphysical beings who fundies demand we bend and scrape to.

While the sacred cows of Christianity are being heaped upon the altar of religious indoctrination, there are many more religions that would require representation if we're not to be accused of being biased or capricious toward lesser followed – but just as likely – religions and gods. There is absolutely nothing that better defines the Abrahamic god vs. the various polytheistic gods of Hinduism, for example. Unless someone can speak with authority regarding Vishnu as one of the true gods extant as opposed to Zeus or Isis, we shouldn't allow head count as the only basis for determining which religions are represented within a public school syllabus. Why not study the worship of Osiris?, or Isis, worshipped for 5,000 years. Using timeline as the criteria for a "real" religion, the worship of Isis far exceeds the more recent constructs and configurations of god and gods.

What fundie christian creationists need to account for is that as soon as they begin dismissing the claims of others' gods, they have inadvertently condemned the arguments for their own gods. The sectarian fundie Christian (supernatural), contention is dependent on claims of a particular god(s). As soon as one begins to approach any discussion of a specific sectarian version of gawd(s), you must hold that gawd(s) to the same standards of proof that all gawds must meet. To dismiss the Greek gods as an absurd claim while holding different gods to be extant supplies the Greek god did it'ists with all the necessary ammunition to shoot down in flames your version as absurd.

If you have evidence for the existence of a creator Gawd, then provide it. But please, stop pretending that there is logical parity between believing something for which there is no evidence and not believing it.

But what of the ICR and Haran Yahan? How do they fit into all of this?

Another mindless waste of time.

I've noticed that absent cutting and pasting from religious websites, you're hopeless at assembling words into coherent sentences.

Why do you continue to ignore question's put to you concerning science hollie?you can't find a rebuttal from your propagandist sites.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Ah yes. Cornelius Hunter, another creationist hack


If and only if Cornelius Hunter made sense, then…

If and only if Cornelius Hunter made sense, then... - The Panda's Thumb

I consider myself pretty well-educated about creationism, and of course I know it’s all silly, but I pride myself on usually being able to understand what argument the creationists are trying to make, even when they are doing it poorly. But I need help with this one.

Via the Discovery Institute Blog/Misinformation Service, I came across this post from Hunter, which is his Monday post. I also read Hunter’s Sunday post and got confused.

Starting on Sunday, we have: Cornelius Hunter, Sunday, July 25, 2010, speaking about shared errors in pseudogenes:


Science makes IF-THEN statements (if evolution is true, then species with recent common ancestors should have similarities between them). IF-AND-ONLY-IF statements (if and only if evolution is true, then species with recent common ancestors should have similarities between them) cannot be known from science. [italics original]

OK, so here he’s saying, I guess, that science can only make if-then statements, and test hypotheses on that basis. Science cannot formally say that X is the ONLY possible explanation of Y, because, I suppose, there always might be some other explanation out there.

He thinks this is important for evolution because sometimes evolutionists say Y (lanugo, shared errors in pseudogenes, etc.) can “only” be explained by common ancestry. Of course, any fair assessment of these sorts of statements would note that people use such language all the time (“the only explanation for the 20 identical paragraphs in these two students’ term papers is copying from each other or from a common source”), and they don’t mean that they can formally exclude, say, miraculous intervention by Thor or something. All people typically mean by these statements is “this is the only decent explanation of Y that has been put forward to date; if someone else comes up with a better explanation, fine, but until then X is what I’m going with.” But if creationists were fair about such things, they wouldn’t be creationists.

(Parenthetical, Hunter throws in some total bunkum:


Side rant: This is, basically, total crap. Hunter apparently has no idea that, in phylogenetics, it is trivial to test hypotheses like “there is no tree structure in the sequence data” or “these two phylogenies from two different genes agree/disagree with each other”, to quantify the amount of agreement/disagreement, etc. The amount of homoplasy (character states which evolved independently, as might occur occasionally with pseudogenes) can be estimated, and we can tell whether or not we are close or far from a situation in which there is so much homoplasy that no phylogenetic structure is statistically supported. And when this kind of thing is done, the result is typically *massive* statistical support for common ancestry. At least, it would be considered such in any other field of science, but Hunter wants to treat evolution differently from all other parts of science. For evolution, he wants to have the special privilege of pulling out a few characters that disagree with some pattern, and ignore the hundreds/thousands of other characters that support the pattern. Hunter complains and complains about the unscientific nature of evolutionists, but when it comes to doing an actual fair data analysis that actually looks at the statistical support for common ancestry, he’s totally at sea. OK, end of rant.)

(Not quite done. I should add that my first encounter with Hunter was in 2001 or so. Somehow or other we were in an argument about whether or not some genetic sequence data produced a tree structure. He had calculated the pairwise distances between the genes and done a histogram of the distances. The distribution of gene-gene distances had a number of separate humps. He claimed that this falsified tree structure. I pointed out that this pattern was exactly what you would expect from distances produced from a tree. After a lot of arguing, he eventually got it, but then said something irate about how he was sorry but just because he was totally wrong about this (I would say the definition of a surprising successful prediction is one where someone claims their data is good and a good falsification of a hypothesis, but then it turns out that their data has exactly the pattern they claimed it didn’t have), he wasn’t going to “genuflect” to evolution. Sadly I can’t find the email now and the only word I can remember is “genuflect”. Ah well.)

Anyway, so, everyone’s got his argument so far? Evolutionists shouldn’t use “IF-AND-ONLY-IF statements”, they should be real scientists and just use “IF-THEN statements” like other scientists, the good kind of scientists.

(By the way, if Hunter is right, he’s just nuked Stephen Meyer’s argument in Signature in the Cell, which relies almost entirely on the argument that intelligence is the ONLY source of genetic “information”. Oops. Of course, Meyer’s assertion is wrong, but that’s a different story.)

With that, I give you, Cornelius Hunter, Monday, July 26, 2010. He is complaining about an introductory biology textbook by Johnson & Lobos. After saying the authors “rehearse the usual lies”, Hunter really gets going on the fossil record:


But, did they use the word “only”? No! And they said nothing about “ultimate truths”, and nothing about whatever mysterious alternatives Hunter endlessly claims are out there, but which he shockingly, cravenly, scandalously never bothers to elucidate, as any real scientist would have to. All the authors did was make an if-then statement, like Hunter JUST FREAKING SAID scientists were supposed to do the day before! Instead of congratulating them on saying the right thing, Hunter convicts them of vast, grand metaphysical sins.

So I’m at a loss. If I had to guess, I’d say he’s just mad and letting emotion run his argumentation, under the cover of unsupported blather about metaphysics. Maybe this textbook is being used in his home town or something?

I'm sure Hunter is part of the ICR.

He might as well be. The creationist drivel he foams at the mouth with is in concert with the crackpots you worship at the ICR.

You are a joke Holiie. You should find a different thread since you can't discuss evidence concerning design or produce any kind of rebuttal in support of your religion.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

, hope you got the letter, and...
I pray you can make it better down here.
I don't mean a big reduction in the price of beer
But all the people that you made in your image, see
Them starving on their feet 'cause they don't get
Enough to eat from God, I can't believe in you

Dear God, sorry to disturb you, but... I feel that I should be heard
Loud and clear. We all need a big reduction in amount of tears
And all the people that you made in your image, see them fighting
In the street 'cause they can't make opinions meet about God,
I can't believe in you

Did you make disease, and the diamond blue? Did you make
Mankind after we made you? And the devil too!

, don't know if you noticed, but... your name is on
A lot of quotes in this book, and us crazy humans wrote it, you
Should take a look, and all the people that you made in your
Image still believing that junk is true. Well I know it ain't, and
So do you, dear God, I can't believe in I don't believe in

I won't believe in heaven and hell. No saints, no sinners, no
Devil as well. No pearly gates, no thorny crown. You're always
Letting us humans down. The wars you bring, the babes you
Drown. Those lost at sea and never found, and it's the same the
Whole world 'round. The hurt I see helps to compound that
Father, Son and Holy Ghost is just somebody's unholy hoax,
And if you're up there you'd perceive that my heart's here upon
My sleeve. If there's one thing I don't believe in

It's you....

Yep. This is just another proof of my claim there are no true atheists... only people angry at God. When faced with situations they can not reconcile in their lives, instead of turning to God, some decide to hate God, and go on a mission to try to destroy belief in him. If you don't believe in God, why do you care if others do? Why make it your personal mission to persecute those that choose to freely exercise their freedom of religion our country was founded on?

I've read a few bits and pieces of this gibberish but just had to comment on this ...

1) A poorly written and very sophomoric excuse for a poem is not "proof" of anything.
2) I don't care if others believe in a Magic Sky Fairy. All I really care about is that they not try to make be believe what they believe.
3) I don't speak for anyone but myself. Nor do you.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I will ask the questions that none of the evolutionist could pick up on in my posts.

Why is it that we are up to 6,000 genetic disorders that have been identified if they are eliminated easily from the population as evolutionist claim ? but evolutionist can point to very few so called beneficial mutations,why is that ?

Do evolutionist understand how many beneficial mutations there must have been without interruption from harmful mutations for evolution to happen as they claim ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

, hope you got the letter, and...
I pray you can make it better down here.
I don't mean a big reduction in the price of beer
But all the people that you made in your image, see
Them starving on their feet 'cause they don't get
Enough to eat from God, I can't believe in you

Dear God, sorry to disturb you, but... I feel that I should be heard
Loud and clear. We all need a big reduction in amount of tears
And all the people that you made in your image, see them fighting
In the street 'cause they can't make opinions meet about God,
I can't believe in you

Did you make disease, and the diamond blue? Did you make
Mankind after we made you? And the devil too!

, don't know if you noticed, but... your name is on
A lot of quotes in this book, and us crazy humans wrote it, you
Should take a look, and all the people that you made in your
Image still believing that junk is true. Well I know it ain't, and
So do you, dear God, I can't believe in I don't believe in

I won't believe in heaven and hell. No saints, no sinners, no
Devil as well. No pearly gates, no thorny crown. You're always
Letting us humans down. The wars you bring, the babes you
Drown. Those lost at sea and never found, and it's the same the
Whole world 'round. The hurt I see helps to compound that
Father, Son and Holy Ghost is just somebody's unholy hoax,
And if you're up there you'd perceive that my heart's here upon
My sleeve. If there's one thing I don't believe in

It's you....

Yep. This is just another proof of my claim there are no true atheists... only people angry at God. When faced with situations they can not reconcile in their lives, instead of turning to God, some decide to hate God, and go on a mission to try to destroy belief in him. If you don't believe in God, why do you care if others do? Why make it your personal mission to persecute those that choose to freely exercise their freedom of religion our country was founded on?

I've read a few bits and pieces of this gibberish but just had to comment on this ...

1) A poorly written and very sophomoric excuse for a poem is not "proof" of anything.
2) I don't care if others believe in a Magic Sky Fairy. All I really care about is that they not try to make be believe what they believe.
3) I don't speak for anyone but myself. Nor do you.

The feeling is mutual when your side can't provide a sound explanation according to observed evidence.

 

[Youwerecreated]

If modern man has been on the planet for 200,000 years as evolutionist claim and the populations were much smaller and these harmful mutations were happening why are we still here ? Does anyone understand what harmful mutations would do to smaller populations ?

 

[Hollie]

If modern man has been on the planet for 200,000 years as evolutionist claim and the populations were much smaller and these harmful mutations were happening why are we still here ? Does anyone understand what harmful mutations would do to smaller populations ?

You obviously don't understand the first thing about genetics.

 

[UltimateReality]

Ah yes. Cornelius Hunter, another creationist hack


If and only if Cornelius Hunter made sense, then…

If and only if Cornelius Hunter made sense, then... - The Panda's Thumb

I consider myself pretty well-educated about creationism, and of course I know it’s all silly, but I pride myself on usually being able to understand what argument the creationists are trying to make, even when they are doing it poorly. But I need help with this one.

Via the Discovery Institute Blog/Misinformation Service, I came across this post from Hunter, which is his Monday post. I also read Hunter’s Sunday post and got confused.

Starting on Sunday, we have: Cornelius Hunter, Sunday, July 25, 2010, speaking about shared errors in pseudogenes:


Science makes IF-THEN statements (if evolution is true, then species with recent common ancestors should have similarities between them). IF-AND-ONLY-IF statements (if and only if evolution is true, then species with recent common ancestors should have similarities between them) cannot be known from science. [italics original]

OK, so here he’s saying, I guess, that science can only make if-then statements, and test hypotheses on that basis. Science cannot formally say that X is the ONLY possible explanation of Y, because, I suppose, there always might be some other explanation out there.

He thinks this is important for evolution because sometimes evolutionists say Y (lanugo, shared errors in pseudogenes, etc.) can “only” be explained by common ancestry. Of course, any fair assessment of these sorts of statements would note that people use such language all the time (“the only explanation for the 20 identical paragraphs in these two students’ term papers is copying from each other or from a common source”), and they don’t mean that they can formally exclude, say, miraculous intervention by Thor or something. All people typically mean by these statements is “this is the only decent explanation of Y that has been put forward to date; if someone else comes up with a better explanation, fine, but until then X is what I’m going with.” But if creationists were fair about such things, they wouldn’t be creationists.

(Parenthetical, Hunter throws in some total bunkum:


Side rant: This is, basically, total crap. Hunter apparently has no idea that, in phylogenetics, it is trivial to test hypotheses like “there is no tree structure in the sequence data” or “these two phylogenies from two different genes agree/disagree with each other”, to quantify the amount of agreement/disagreement, etc. The amount of homoplasy (character states which evolved independently, as might occur occasionally with pseudogenes) can be estimated, and we can tell whether or not we are close or far from a situation in which there is so much homoplasy that no phylogenetic structure is statistically supported. And when this kind of thing is done, the result is typically *massive* statistical support for common ancestry. At least, it would be considered such in any other field of science, but Hunter wants to treat evolution differently from all other parts of science. For evolution, he wants to have the special privilege of pulling out a few characters that disagree with some pattern, and ignore the hundreds/thousands of other characters that support the pattern. Hunter complains and complains about the unscientific nature of evolutionists, but when it comes to doing an actual fair data analysis that actually looks at the statistical support for common ancestry, he’s totally at sea. OK, end of rant.)

(Not quite done. I should add that my first encounter with Hunter was in 2001 or so. Somehow or other we were in an argument about whether or not some genetic sequence data produced a tree structure. He had calculated the pairwise distances between the genes and done a histogram of the distances. The distribution of gene-gene distances had a number of separate humps. He claimed that this falsified tree structure. I pointed out that this pattern was exactly what you would expect from distances produced from a tree. After a lot of arguing, he eventually got it, but then said something irate about how he was sorry but just because he was totally wrong about this (I would say the definition of a surprising successful prediction is one where someone claims their data is good and a good falsification of a hypothesis, but then it turns out that their data has exactly the pattern they claimed it didn’t have), he wasn’t going to “genuflect” to evolution. Sadly I can’t find the email now and the only word I can remember is “genuflect”. Ah well.)

Anyway, so, everyone’s got his argument so far? Evolutionists shouldn’t use “IF-AND-ONLY-IF statements”, they should be real scientists and just use “IF-THEN statements” like other scientists, the good kind of scientists.

(By the way, if Hunter is right, he’s just nuked Stephen Meyer’s argument in Signature in the Cell, which relies almost entirely on the argument that intelligence is the ONLY source of genetic “information”. Oops. Of course, Meyer’s assertion is wrong, but that’s a different story.)

With that, I give you, Cornelius Hunter, Monday, July 26, 2010. He is complaining about an introductory biology textbook by Johnson & Lobos. After saying the authors “rehearse the usual lies”, Hunter really gets going on the fossil record:


But, did they use the word “only”? No! And they said nothing about “ultimate truths”, and nothing about whatever mysterious alternatives Hunter endlessly claims are out there, but which he shockingly, cravenly, scandalously never bothers to elucidate, as any real scientist would have to. All the authors did was make an if-then statement, like Hunter JUST FREAKING SAID scientists were supposed to do the day before! Instead of congratulating them on saying the right thing, Hunter convicts them of vast, grand metaphysical sins.

So I’m at a loss. If I had to guess, I’d say he’s just mad and letting emotion run his argumentation, under the cover of unsupported blather about metaphysics. Maybe this textbook is being used in his home town or something?

I'm sure Hunter is part of the ICR.

He might as well be. The creationist drivel he foams at the mouth with is in concert with the crackpots you worship at the ICR.

That's what I said.

 

[UltimateReality]

[All I really care about is that they not try to make be believe what they believe.

You mean like the Materialists who control our nanny state educational system and try to force the Darwin myth on our children against our will? Or do you mean the atheists that are trying to revise history by eliminating HISTORICAL Christian references in our government?

 

[UltimateReality]

If modern man has been on the planet for 200,000 years as evolutionist claim and the populations were much smaller and these harmful mutations were happening why are we still here ? Does anyone understand what harmful mutations would do to smaller populations ?

You obviously don't understand the first thing about genetics.

 

[UltimateReality]

By the way Hawly, those links I posted up were charities. I'm not sure you know what that is.

 

[Hollie]

By the way Hawly, those links I posted up were charities. I'm not sure you know what that is.

Juvenile name-caller, Is that supposed to suggest something meaningful?

Is there a charity established for the sexual abuse victims of catholic priests? The abuse was tolerated by the Christian church for decades.

 

[Hollie]

If modern man has been on the planet for 200,000 years as evolutionist claim and the populations were much smaller and these harmful mutations were happening why are we still here ? Does anyone understand what harmful mutations would do to smaller populations ?

You obviously don't understand the first thing about genetics.

The issue was addressed previously. The comment is ignorant and naive, much like your response.

 

[Youwerecreated]

If modern man has been on the planet for 200,000 years as evolutionist claim and the populations were much smaller and these harmful mutations were happening why are we still here ? Does anyone understand what harmful mutations would do to smaller populations ?

You obviously don't understand the first thing about genetics.

turd breath. I should I have a molecular biology degree what was your degree in again ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

You obviously don't understand the first thing about genetics.

The issue was addressed previously. The comment is ignorant and naive, much like your response.

No you don't have a clue what genetic disorders would do to small groups

 

[Hollie]

If modern man has been on the planet for 200,000 years as evolutionist claim and the populations were much smaller and these harmful mutations were happening why are we still here ? Does anyone understand what harmful mutations would do to smaller populations ?

You obviously don't understand the first thing about genetics.

turd breath. I should I have a molecular biology degree what was your degree in again ?

A 12 year old has a degree?

Of course you do.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You obviously don't understand the first thing about genetics.

turd breath. I should I have a molecular biology degree what was your degree in again ?

A 12 year old has a degree?

Of course you do.

If you consider 6,000 genetic disorders in large populations,just imagine what would happen from mutations in small populations.

I guess that is just hard for you to grasp. There is no way man was experiencing mutations for as long as evolutionist claim,nor were mutations as common 6 or 7,000 years ago when man had his beginning.

 

[Hollie]

turd breath. I should I have a molecular biology degree what was your degree in again ?

A 12 year old has a degree?

Of course you do.

If you consider 6,000 genetic disorders in large populations,just imagine what would happen from mutations in small populations.

I guess that is just hard for you to grasp. There is no way man was experiencing mutations for as long as evolutionist claim,nor were mutations as common 6 or 7,000 years ago when man had his beginning.

Your appalling lack of education in various sciences coupled with your literal belief in the biblical fable of genesis accounts for your factual errors and misstatements.

 

[daws101]

Researchers have identified more than 4,000 diseases that are caused by genetic variants.



The Basics on Genes and Genetic Disorders




There are over 6,000 genetic disorders that can be passed down through the generations, many of which are fatal or severely debilitating. Since 1997, the GDF has worked with Mount Sinai to help provide funding for research to improve early detection and treatment options for many of these disorders.

Genetic Disease Foundation: Hope Through Knowledge

It looks like the number of genetic disorders are on the rise.

again you dodge the statement :you have no proof that Adam lived any conclusion drawn from that false premise by defintion is false.
so my answer stands :there is no credible proof that genetic disorders are on the rise.
maybe I should have dumbed it down for you
since Adam never existed the so called rise in gentic disorder has to have another cause.

I followed your links neither one says anything about a rise in genetic diorders.
neither did the 10 more that I checked..
as always you're talking out your ass!

Let me dumb it down for you.

A genetic disorder is a disease caused in whole or in part by a change in the DNA sequence away from the normal sequence. Genetic disorders can be caused by a mutation in one gene (monogenic disorder), by mutations in multiple genes (multifactorial inheritance disorder), by a combination of gene mutations and environmental factors, or by damage to chromosomes (changes in the number or structure of entire chromosomes, the structures that carry genes).

As we unlock the secrets of the human genome (the complete set of human genes), we are learning that nearly all diseases have a genetic component. Some diseases are caused by mutations that are inherited from the parents and are present in an individual at birth, like sickle cell disease. Other diseases are caused by acquired mutations in a gene or group of genes that occur during a person's life. Such mutations are not inherited from a parent, but occur either randomly or due to some environmental exposure (such as cigarette smoke). These include many cancers, as well as some forms of neurofibromatosis.

FAQ About Genetic Disorders


You do know who Mendel is and what he is famous for right ? if not google him.


Their revolutionary concepts and findings point to the need for new principles and experimental approaches to understanding polygenic diseases. Mendel and his genetic gospel still hold true. It is now a matter of adapting these principles to explain phenomena of the modern world. The work of Alper and his group directs us to focus on the new approaches for intervention and prevention being developed that are genetically based, rather than diverting energy and resources to speculative environmental or other external causes that are, in some cases contributory, but not determining.

News - Polygenic Diseases on the Rise - News & Events | Immune Disease Institute

You once again are bloviating.

and once again you are dodging the question.
you have no proof that Adam ever existed.
you whole argument is predicated on this steaming pile of non evidence.

from post#6996 :What we have proof of is since the fall of adam lifespans of humans greatly decreased. Through research and medicine we increased lifespans but not near what it once was...ywc

yes genetic disorders exist.
however you have no proof that backs up your false statement .

 

[daws101]

No,how do you think genetic problems some are being headed off in the womb. Some there is nothing we can do about. Why do you think moms and dads are having gene screening before and during pregnancy ? Genetic disorders are a fact.

Life coming from nonliving matter is an opiion. Organisms evolving into destinctly new organisms ,not of the same family, is built on opinions. So what it comes down to does the evidence better support a designer or naturalism?

why do you keep going on about evidence you do not have!

So you have an answer for my questions or are you once again talking from ignorance ?

as stated before you have no evidence.
also since your questions are not really questions, because you falsely believe that you have the answers already. based on the no evidence fiction of your faith and not science you spew no answer is needed .