Creationists

[UltimateReality]

Loki, since you obviously want to believe in your materialist religion so bad that your judgement is seriously clouded, even if you don't admit to the seriously flawed entirety of the study, I would like for you to give me your take on just this one damning statement made:

"Moreover, even if there was some way that organic proto-cells could have assembled, it was necessary in the experiments outlined above to seed the organic vesicles with DNA itself."

What does the study even prove in light of this?

 

[Hollie]

You really are a buffoon. How can you prove something that is supernatural?

Try thinking through you own claim.

So… let's look at this from another perspective. When people say they believe in an entity that cannot be seen, cannot be felt, exists outside of the natural realm in an asserted supernatural realm, that has attributes we need to worship but cannot understand or even describe, who lives in eternity in both directions, who can create existence from nothing and is uncreated himself and uses methods and means we can never know or hope to understand, that stands outside proof which is exactly why it's for certain he exists-- I would say that qualifies as being under a delusion.

We can never prove what the supernatural cause for the universe is so I guess that means we don't really exist?

In your continued state of stupor, you fail to comprehend that making emphatic claims to supernatural entities which, having no basis in reality, means that your "because I say so" claims are quite silly.

 

[UltimateReality]

Try thinking through you own claim.

So… let's look at this from another perspective. When people say they believe in an entity that cannot be seen, cannot be felt, exists outside of the natural realm in an asserted supernatural realm, that has attributes we need to worship but cannot understand or even describe, who lives in eternity in both directions, who can create existence from nothing and is uncreated himself and uses methods and means we can never know or hope to understand, that stands outside proof which is exactly why it's for certain he exists-- I would say that qualifies as being under a delusion.

We can never prove what the supernatural cause for the universe is so I guess that means we don't really exist?

In your continued state of stupor, you fail to comprehend that making emphatic claims to supernatural entities which, having no basis in reality, means that your "because I say so" claims are quite silly.

You never answer the question. Your posts are just noise.

 

[Hollie]

We can never prove what the supernatural cause for the universe is so I guess that means we don't really exist?

In your continued state of stupor, you fail to comprehend that making emphatic claims to supernatural entities which, having no basis in reality, means that your "because I say so" claims are quite silly.

You never answer the question. Your posts are just noise.

Pretend you're a grown-up and see if you can cobbled together something worth responding to.

Somehow you missed it but you have admitted that your claims to gods are not open to proofs, yet you insist that they must be true... because you say so. You want your tales and fables to be true so you cut and paste the silliest nonsense from creationist ministries in shared attempts to vilify and denigrate the discipline of science.

You really do come across as a complete boob.

 

[LOki]

Real Science? You wouldn't know real science if it hit you in the face. Silly Loki, you have been so dumbed down by the pseudoscience of evolution and the bastardization of the scientific method that you have been duped into believing this garbage. Here are just a few excerpts from your "others seem to agree" link. Funny, even the term "seem to" is dripping with Darwin-speak. Why not just say others agree. For your consideration:

Information systems to govern replication could have developed penecontemporaneously in the same milieu.

Moreover, even if there was some way that organic proto-cells could have assembled, it was necessary in the experiments outlined above to seed the organic vesicles with DNA itself. Oh really???

The molecules could have primed the protocell for the production of further organic molecules. Why can't you test or prove this?

Neal and Stanger have suggested that, in prebiotic times, hydrogen in hot springs could have played a part in the synthesis of the first organic molecules.

We have argued that life may have originated at highly reduced alkaline submarine springs...

Nevertheless abiotic organic molecules could have been generated by hydrogenation of the carbon monoxide...

Loki, I really can't believe you are stupid enough to fall for this stuff so I am guessing you obviously didn't read the study before you copied the citation of the atheist website.

A search of the acrobat file revealed 25 "could haves" and 18 "may haves".

This is not science people!!! This is a fill in 43 blanks to get to the end result fairy tale.

Please try again with real science that actually proves the steps required to get from point A to point B are possible. Relying on 43 ASSumptions is proof??? Dude, come on!!!

Also, since you said I didn't ask for it, here you go: please show me the scientific proof on how the digital information code to build proteins originated????

You know real science hit you in the face, but you lack the honesty of intellectual integrity to admit it. Superstitious retards like yourself assert your baseless claims of absolute certainty, yet fail to provide ANY substantiation in verifiable evidence or valid logic for their claims. Why is that, Sis?

"Could have" is exactly right.

Unlike you--and your band of superstitious retards--who claim they are absolutely certain of what did happen, actual scientists express what "could have" happened because they have the intellectual honesty to admit that they could be wrong.

The brainwashing runs deep with this one. There is nothing wrong with speculation under the scientific method. That is how we come up with a testable hypothesis. But when your so called theory above has 43 (!!!!) untested gaps, please be intellectually honest enough to yourself to admit this is a fairytale, not real science. Evolutionary theory has bastardized science to the point you don't even know what it is. Even geophysicist know when they are making predictions about the distant past, to look to the present for NATURAL, observable phenomena as a basis for their predictions. They don't make up a bunch of crap about what might have or could have happened when their proposed methods have never been observed in nature. Real scientist test their might haves and could haves, and try to limit their variable to one or two unknowns, NOT 43!!!!

Also, I guess you have the right to remain silent on where the digital protein building instructions originated from.

Yes. I will remain silent on your logically invalid assertions based upon question-begging presumptions.

Superstitious retards like yourself assert your baseless claims of absolute certainty, yet fail to provide ANY substantiation in verifiable evidence or valid logic for their claims. Why is that, Sis?

 

[LOki]

Loki, since you obviously want to believe in your materialist religion so bad that your judgement is seriously clouded, even if you don't admit to the seriously flawed entirety of the study, I would like for you to give me your take on just this one damning statement made:

"Moreover, even if there was some way that organic proto-cells could have assembled, it was necessary in the experiments outlined above to seed the organic vesicles with DNA itself."

What does the study even prove in light of this?

Superstitious retards like yourself assert your baseless claims of absolute certainty, yet fail to provide ANY substantiation in verifiable evidence or valid logic for their claims. Why is that, Sis?

 

[LOki]

We can never prove what the supernatural cause for the universe is so I guess that means we don't really exist?

In your continued state of stupor, you fail to comprehend that making emphatic claims to supernatural entities which, having no basis in reality, means that your "because I say so" claims are quite silly.

You never answer the question. Your posts are just noise.

Superstitious retards like yourself assert your baseless claims of absolute certainty, yet fail to provide ANY substantiation in verifiable evidence or valid logic for their claims. Why is that, Sis?

 

[UltimateReality]

Loki, since you obviously want to believe in your materialist religion so bad that your judgement is seriously clouded, even if you don't admit to the seriously flawed entirety of the study, I would like for you to give me your take on just this one damning statement made:

"Moreover, even if there was some way that organic proto-cells could have assembled, it was necessary in the experiments outlined above to seed the organic vesicles with DNA itself."

What does the study even prove in light of this?

Superstitious retards like yourself assert your baseless claims of absolute certainty, yet fail to provide ANY substantiation in verifiable evidence or valid logic for their claims. Why is that, Sis?

Typical non-response. You don't even have a clue what you are cut and pasting from the atheist websites. When you are actually asked to have an opinion of your own, you clam up, Bro. You are reduced to repeating the same phrase over and over again as if no one will notice your absolute ignorance to the topic at hand.

What you have failed to grasp, which Hollie also conveniently ignores, is that I am not a Creationists, but an ID Theorist. I make no metaphysical claims about the identity of the designer because that would be outside the realm of science. I have, however, presented Stephen Meyers argument for a Designer numerous times here. Hollie just likes to ignore what has been presented in her bullying attempts to make others look foolish but any one who has followed this thread can see she is the real douche', constantly repeating the same tired dribble over and over again when evidence has been presented numerous times to the contrary. Now it looks like you are becoming one of her lackey's. So good luck with that and by the way, no one is falling for your flowery language cover either. Anyone can pick up a dictionary, but hard as you try, no amount of big words will every make you able to respond to a logical argument. I won't waste my time with your foolishness anymore.

 

[Hollie]

Loki, since you obviously want to believe in your materialist religion so bad that your judgement is seriously clouded, even if you don't admit to the seriously flawed entirety of the study, I would like for you to give me your take on just this one damning statement made:

"Moreover, even if there was some way that organic proto-cells could have assembled, it was necessary in the experiments outlined above to seed the organic vesicles with DNA itself."

What does the study even prove in light of this?

Superstitious retards like yourself assert your baseless claims of absolute certainty, yet fail to provide ANY substantiation in verifiable evidence or valid logic for their claims. Why is that, Sis?

Typical non-response. You don't even have a clue what you are cut and pasting from the atheist websites. When you are actually asked to have an opinion of your own, you clam up, Bro. You are reduced to repeating the same phrase over and over again as if no one will notice your absolute ignorance to the topic at hand.

What you have failed to grasp, which Hollie also conveniently ignores, is that I am not a Creationists, but an ID Theorist. I make no metaphysical claims about the identity of the designer because that would be outside the realm of science. I have, however, presented Stephen Meyers argument for a Designer numerous times here. Hollie just likes to ignore what has been presented in her bullying attempts to make others look foolish but any one who has followed this thread can see she is the real douche', constantly repeating the same tired dribble over and over again when evidence has been presented numerous times to the contrary. Now it looks like you are becoming one of her lackey's. So good luck with that and by the way, no one is falling for your flowery language cover either. Anyone can pick up a dictionary, but hard as you try, no amount of big words will every make you able to respond to a logical argument. I won't waste my time with your foolishness anymore.

As usual, dear, you spend an inordinate amount of time obsessing over my responses to your failed claims of supernaturalism. Further, let’s not pretend that your thinly veiled attempts at claims you’re an “ID theorist” is even one claim removed from religious fundamentalism; ie., a YEC’er.

Like all of the science loathing fundies, your singular contribution to this thread and others is to waste everyone’s time with cutting and pasting from fundie websites in flaccid attempts to vilify science.

It's a function of fundie creationist polemics to portray “ID” (rumor, speculation and hearsay), as "science". So-called “intelligent design” It's a cynical ploy of attempting to add the credibility of the scientific method – and the consensus it brings – to tales and fables that allege a supernatural being. “Intelligent design” is simply a new veneer slapped on “creation science” which has been rejected as nonsense by the scientific community.

The “evolutionary baggage” that all living organisms carry with them is among the most powerful evidence for evolution’s truth. And none of it is explicable if evolution had not occurred, and an “intelligent designer” had been involved. For why would an intelligent designer include anything that was “unnecessary” at all? It is only special creation that claims perfection. So you are actually arguing against your own beliefs here.

So, back to Harun Yahya you go... and the Ark you slithered in on.

 

[UltimateReality]

Superstitious retards like yourself assert your baseless claims of absolute certainty, yet fail to provide ANY substantiation in verifiable evidence or valid logic for their claims. Why is that, Sis?

Typical non-response. You don't even have a clue what you are cut and pasting from the atheist websites. When you are actually asked to have an opinion of your own, you clam up, Bro. You are reduced to repeating the same phrase over and over again as if no one will notice your absolute ignorance to the topic at hand.

What you have failed to grasp, which Hollie also conveniently ignores, is that I am not a Creationists, but an ID Theorist. I make no metaphysical claims about the identity of the designer because that would be outside the realm of science. I have, however, presented Stephen Meyers argument for a Designer numerous times here. Hollie just likes to ignore what has been presented in her bullying attempts to make others look foolish but any one who has followed this thread can see she is the real douche', constantly repeating the same tired dribble over and over again when evidence has been presented numerous times to the contrary. Now it looks like you are becoming one of her lackey's. So good luck with that and by the way, no one is falling for your flowery language cover either. Anyone can pick up a dictionary, but hard as you try, no amount of big words will every make you able to respond to a logical argument. I won't waste my time with your foolishness anymore.

As usual, dear, you spend an inordinate amount of time obsessing over my responses to your failed claims of supernaturalism. Further, let’s not pretend that your thinly veiled attempts at claims you’re an “ID theorist” is even one claim removed from religious fundamentalism; ie., a YEC’er.

Like all of the science loathing fundies, your singular contribution to this thread and others is to waste everyone’s time with cutting and pasting from fundie websites in flaccid attempts to vilify science.

It's a function of fundie creationist polemics to portray “ID” (rumor, speculation and hearsay), as "science". So-called “intelligent design” It's a cynical ploy of attempting to add the credibility of the scientific method – and the consensus it brings – to tales and fables that allege a supernatural being. “Intelligent design” is simply a new veneer slapped on “creation science” which has been rejected as nonsense by the scientific community.

The “evolutionary baggage” that all living organisms carry with them is among the most powerful evidence for evolution’s truth. And none of it is explicable if evolution had not occurred, and an “intelligent designer” had been involved. For why would an intelligent designer include anything that was “unnecessary” at all? It is only special creation that claims perfection. So you are actually arguing against your own beliefs here.

So, back to Harun Yahya you go... and the Ark you slithered in on.

You really need some new material...

I am a robot. I am a robot. Do do beep do do deet deet bop beep.

 

[UltimateReality]

For why would an intelligent designer include anything that was “unnecessary” at all? It is only special creation that claims perfection. So you are actually arguing against your own beliefs here.

I don't know, you have appointed yourself gawd of your life so why don't you share what the gawd Hollie would do since you know so much about how the Designer should behave. And please, not the version where you burn all the Christians at the stake, including your intolerant fundie parents, and the only humans that are left are lesbians with a masculine touch, oops, I meant rugged touch.

 

[LOki]

Loki, since you obviously want to believe in your materialist religion so bad that your judgement is seriously clouded, even if you don't admit to the seriously flawed entirety of the study, I would like for you to give me your take on just this one damning statement made:

"Moreover, even if there was some way that organic proto-cells could have assembled, it was necessary in the experiments outlined above to seed the organic vesicles with DNA itself."

What does the study even prove in light of this?

Superstitious retards like yourself assert your baseless claims of absolute certainty, yet fail to provide ANY substantiation in verifiable evidence or valid logic for their claims. Why is that, Sis?

Typical non-response. You don't even have a clue what you are cut and pasting from the atheist websites. When you are actually asked to have an opinion of your own, you clam up, Bro. You are reduced to repeating the same phrase over and over again as if no one will notice your absolute ignorance to the topic at hand.

What you have failed to grasp, which Hollie also conveniently ignores, is that I am not a Creationists, but an ID Theorist. I make no metaphysical claims about the identity of the designer because that would be outside the realm of science. I have, however, presented Stephen Meyers argument for a Designer numerous times here. Hollie just likes to ignore what has been presented in her bullying attempts to make others look foolish but any one who has followed this thread can see she is the real douche', constantly repeating the same tired dribble over and over again when evidence has been presented numerous times to the contrary. Now it looks like you are becoming one of her lackey's. So good luck with that and by the way, no one is falling for your flowery language cover either. Anyone can pick up a dictionary, but hard as you try, no amount of big words will every make you able to respond to a logical argument. I won't waste my time with your foolishness anymore.

Steven Myers?

Superstitious retards like yourself assert your baseless claims of absolute certainty, yet fail to provide ANY substantiation in verifiable evidence or valid logic for their claims. Why is that, Sis?

 

[Hollie]

For why would an intelligent designer include anything that was “unnecessary” at all? It is only special creation that claims perfection. So you are actually arguing against your own beliefs here.

I don't know, you have appointed yourself gawd of your life so why don't you share what the gawd Hollie would do since you know so much about how the Designer should behave. And please, not the version where you burn all the Christians at the stake, including your intolerant fundie parents, and the only humans that are left are lesbians with a masculine touch, oops, I meant rugged touch.

Your typical flaccid response. Not at all unusual for the self-hating fundie, insecure with his flaccid masculinity.

 

[UltimateReality]

Superstitious retards like yourself assert your baseless claims of absolute certainty, yet fail to provide ANY substantiation in verifiable evidence or valid logic for their claims. Why is that, Sis?

Typical non-response. You don't even have a clue what you are cut and pasting from the atheist websites. When you are actually asked to have an opinion of your own, you clam up, Bro. You are reduced to repeating the same phrase over and over again as if no one will notice your absolute ignorance to the topic at hand.

What you have failed to grasp, which Hollie also conveniently ignores, is that I am not a Creationists, but an ID Theorist. I make no metaphysical claims about the identity of the designer because that would be outside the realm of science. I have, however, presented Stephen Meyers argument for a Designer numerous times here. Hollie just likes to ignore what has been presented in her bullying attempts to make others look foolish but any one who has followed this thread can see she is the real douche', constantly repeating the same tired dribble over and over again when evidence has been presented numerous times to the contrary. Now it looks like you are becoming one of her lackey's. So good luck with that and by the way, no one is falling for your flowery language cover either. Anyone can pick up a dictionary, but hard as you try, no amount of big words will every make you able to respond to a logical argument. I won't waste my time with your foolishness anymore.

Steven Myers?

Superstitious retards like yourself assert your baseless claims of absolute certainty, yet fail to provide ANY substantiation in verifiable evidence or valid logic for their claims. Why is that, Sis?

You tell me, Bro.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Skimmed the last few pages. Big surprise... Hollie doesn't have any new material and daws is stil in the dark. Hollie has assumed yet another fake screen name Candy Homeslice in an attempt to lend some validation to her whacky posts and she and her other screen name praise each other for a post well done. Druggy Huggy, seeing the cop was gone felt safe to post again. The funniest thing of all is Rugged Touch having the hugest of balls to call YWC out on his credentials. Like she can call anyone out on their qualifications "oh one who conveniently ignores any questions about her false identities and education level". Yep, it's biz as usual.

Did you miss me?

Well hello UR,I was wondering when sanity would return to the thread. Good to see you back.

 

[Youwerecreated]

There is nothing absurd about the natural world. Every discovery by science has been shown to have a natural causation and natural explanation.

every discovery? You're funny! Like DNA and human consciousness. Please show me DNA's natural cause? The cell's natural cause? Gravity's natural cause? The cause of the universe? Yep Hollie you have it ALL figured out.

Not knowing all the answers STILL doen't mean that everything was made by an invisible superbeing in another dimension that no one has ever seen. That's not a logical conclusion, in an otherwise logical universe.

Well it most certainly don't support naturalism.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Not knowing all the answers STILL doen't mean that everything was made by an invisible superbeing in another dimension that no one has ever seen. That's not a logical conclusion, in an otherwise logical universe.

Good post.

I was hoping the fundie could explain what is supernatural about DNA, gravity or the universe but that would only prompt a lengthy cut and paste from Harun Yahya.

In the end, evidence, proof, valid logic, are all meaningless terms to him, to all Creationists in fact. It's just a better, and more useful expenditure of your time to expose them for the intellectually dishonest superstitious retards that they are; to point out vividly their intellectual and moral cretinism to children and those with childish intellects, so the Creationists' vain, mendacious, anti-reason, reality-denying hubris doesn't spread and kill every hope for a decent, thoughtful, just, and peaceful society.

He is not a creationist Loki.

 

[Youwerecreated]

In the end, evidence, proof, valid logic, are all meaningless terms to him, to all Creationists in fact. It's just a better, and more useful expenditure of your time to expose them for the intellectually dishonest superstitious retards that they are; to point out vividly their intellectual and moral cretinism to children and those with childish intellects, so the Creationists' vain, mendacious, anti-reason, reality-denying hubris doesn't spread and kill every hope for a decent, thoughtful, just, and peaceful society.

The only retards are the last three posters with terrible reading comprehension problems. Hollie's statement is a lie, and your materialist religion has blinded you to the foolishness of her lie. You speak of faith, but it is your faith that allows to to believe that the things I mentioned in my post have a natural cause, because you don't have a single shred of scientific evidence to prove otherwise. So it is by faith you believe, absent from any facts. This is where I ask you to put up or shut up for even one of the items, let's say, DNA for instance. Please show me the scientific "evidence" for a natural cause. I'm not talking about the "just so", "might have", "could have" evolution stories, but real, experimentally verifiable evidence for DNA's natural cause.

This is the point the crickets start chirping.

Not to imply that your anti-reason paradigm is in any way valid, but bhere's a whole world out there that runs on a natural process called chemistry. Perhaps you've heard of it?

Now what constructed that order to allow it to continue repeating itself ?

What put it into motion ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Again I see that reading concepts that don't exist into specific posts hasn't changed either. Please show me in the specific post above where I claimed supernatural causes. You won't find it so again you are with the strawman. I am assuming your post above, and NP's as well, was intended for the bully Hawly since it is she who made the claim "every discovery by science has been shown to have a natural caus...."

This is a lie, with not one shred of evidence to back it up, as pointed out in my post above. You have chosen to infer the rest.

Name one discovery by science that has a known supernatural cause, please. I would love to know.

I've asked that same question on several occasions only to be met with the standard fundie pattern of behavior to stutter, mumble and launch into a tirade of calling people liars.

I've never known a single, verifiable discovery in science that had a supernatural underpinning.

Why can't the fundies be honest and present evidence for their supernatural, supermagical realms?

I guess we could say how life came from non living matter.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Is an explanation from Berkeley ok?

Evolution 101: From Soup to Cells - the Origin of Life

If you are willing to fall for it. What a joke!!!!

I was talking about scientific evidence that can be replicated in a laboratory. Not "just so" stories and "might have" or "could have" hypothesis.

Please tell me you are not foolish enough to buy this as REAL SCIENCE?

Says the guy who thinks that the bible is proof that the world was made in 6 days.

At least scientists are trying to replicate this in a lab and are searching for answers. You on the other hand, have come to the scene of a crime, see someone dead on the ground and because you don't know how to look for real evidence, declare him murdered by an invisible being in another dimension. Any dumber and you could stop breathing. Watch out!

He is not a creationist. I repeat he is not a creationist.