Creationists

[Youwerecreated]

I suspect it's because superstitious retards like yourself CAN'T provide ANY substantiation in verifiable evidence or valid logic for your claims.

When are you gonna start backing up your claims with data ?

What kind of data for your lack of "verifiable evidence or valid logic" for your claims do you expect I should provide?

Data that supports your assumptions not conjecture.

 

[LOki]

Hollie give me one example in technology that was not the product of intelligence and why would you draw the line there and not assume at a biological level there was no intelligence needed to desing life ?

Funny as intelligent as scientist are even though they have tried they have not been able to design a cell that has the ability to replicate itself with all the technology and complicated machine and the proper enviornments to do so and they can't. Hmm your natural process is beyond our compreshension much like our creator.

Funnier still is how your alternative "theory" has at it's fundamental premise an obvious and fatal logical fallacy.

The logical fallacy is your reasoning.

Ahem. "When are you gonna start backing up your claims with data ?"

 

[LOki]

When are you gonna start backing up your claims with data ?

What kind of data for your lack of "verifiable evidence or valid logic" for your claims do you expect I should provide?

Data that supports your assumptions not conjecture.

It's not conjecture at all to progress with the assertion that there's no reason to believe that your god exists, when there is no verifiable evidence or valid logic that supports the assertion the it does.

 

[Hollie]

I just did, this would violate all known laws as we know them and evidence as we observe it.

Nonsense. You're addled with pressing a religious agenda that is frequently at odds with science fact.

Which you are unable to present.

True, I'm pressing no religious agenda. On the other hand, you presented nothing of substance in spite of your claim: "this would violate all known laws as we know them and evidence as we observe it."

Totally unsupported and without substantiation... as usual.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I suspect it's because superstitious retards like yourself CAN'T provide ANY substantiation in verifiable evidence or valid logic for your claims.

When are you gonna start backing up your claims with data ?

What kind of data for your lack of "verifiable evidence or valid logic" for your claims do you expect I should provide?

Really,how many times must I present it to you , How bout explaining how non living matter becomes life ?

How bout proof and not a vivid imagination as your proof.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Nonsense. You're addled with pressing a religious agenda that is frequently at odds with science fact.

Which you are unable to present.

True, I'm pressing no religious agenda. On the other hand, you presented nothing of substance in spite of your claim this would violate all known laws as we know them and evidence as we observe it.

Hollie you have not presented one viable piece of evidence for naturalism you only present conjecture.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Funnier still is how your alternative "theory" has at it's fundamental premise an obvious and fatal logical fallacy.

The logical fallacy is your reasoning.

Ahem. "When are you gonna start backing up your claims with data ?"

I have we know that life reproduces life not non life.

 

[Youwerecreated]

What kind of data for your lack of "verifiable evidence or valid logic" for your claims do you expect I should provide?

Data that supports your assumptions not conjecture.

It's not conjecture at all to progress with the assertion that there's no reason to believe that your god exists, when there is no verifiable evidence or valid logic that supports the assertion the it does.

Wrong, the evidence of design is overwhelming in our lives.

 

[LOki]

When are you gonna start backing up your claims with data ?

What kind of data for your lack of "verifiable evidence or valid logic" for your claims do you expect I should provide?

Really,how many times must I present it to you , How bout explaining how non living matter becomes life ?

How bout proof and not a vivid imagination as your proof.

I'm not the one imagining anything here.

An explanation for how non-living matter becomes life has been provided for you COUNTLESS times. We all understand that you find it insufficient to "PROVE" that life arose from non-living matter--we get that. Seriously.

But now it's your turn: Since you're so smugly asserting that life must--unconditionally, and ultimately--come from life, I would suppose you are now ready to provide your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this "Creator" that you say is the source of life on this planet.

Otherwise, it is patently clear that your beliefs regarding the subject have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.

Are you again going to put your little pink booties on and dodge?

The evidence says you most certainly will.

 

[LOki]

The logical fallacy is your reasoning.

Ahem. "When are you gonna start backing up your claims with data ?"

I have we know that life reproduces life not non life.

Good then. I would suppose you are now ready to provide your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this "Creator" that you say is the source of life on this planet.

Otherwise, it is patently clear that your beliefs regarding the subject have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.

 

[LOki]

Data that supports your assumptions not conjecture.

It's not conjecture at all to progress with the assertion that there's no reason to believe that your god exists, when there is no verifiable evidence or valid logic that supports the assertion the it does.

Wrong, the evidence of design is overwhelming in our lives.

The "overwhelming" evidence you have presented to support this claim has--WITHOUT EXCEPTION--requires the belief of this designer you posit to see it as evidence of this designer you posit. Hence, not valid.

 

[UltimateReality]

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.

Thanks, man.

 

[UltimateReality]

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.

I suspect it's because superstitious retards like yourself CAN'T provide ANY substantiation in verifiable evidence or valid logic for your claims.

I suspect it's because materialistic lost souls like yourself CAN'T provide ANY substantiation in verifiable evidence that doesn't require numerous "may haves", "might haves" or "could haves", or valid logic for your claims.

 

[UltimateReality]

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.

So... why can't fundies be honest and present evidence for their supernatural, supermagical realms?

Just because you continue to play stupid doesn't mean it hasn't been presented here. Why don't you pick up a copy of "Signature in the Cell"?

For a whole $13 you can actually study an opposing viewpoint instead of regurgitating and spewing rehearsed atheistic propaganda.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Signature-Cell-Evidence-Intelligent-Design/dp/0061472794/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1347989761&sr=8-1&keywords=signature+in+the+cell]Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design: Stephen C. Meyer: 9780061472794: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]

 

[LOki]

You tell me, Bro.

I suspect it's because superstitious retards like yourself CAN'T provide ANY substantiation in verifiable evidence or valid logic for your claims.

I suspect it's because materialistic lost souls like yourself CAN'T provide ANY substantiation in verifiable evidence that doesn't require numerous "may haves", "might haves" or "could haves", or valid logic for your claims.

Science ideally seeks unconditional certainty or "proof", but scientists never really claim such absolute certainty--they claim rather specifically qualified certainties. None of the conclusions made are asserted with unconditional certainty. Every single explanation made by scientists in their respective fields remains susceptible to scrutiny and invalidation in the light of better evidence and better understanding of the evidence. While every single explanation that posits some supernatural "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" thing is asserted on faith, with the conviction of unconditional certainty in the of the reality of the "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" thing and unqualified certainty in the of the truth of the explanation. There is no uncertainty in the faith that is the foundation of religion, because faith does not express uncertainty.

Science simply does not share the paradigm of starting from a position of unconditional certainty that religion or superstition does. The uncertainties understood in scientific explanations, working hypotheses, and speculations (expressed in, and as, assumptions) can obviously not be construed as faith. And while there may be no universally satisfying and agreed upon scientific explanation for the existence of the universe, none of those explanations are baseless in valid logic applied to verifiable evidence. Science actually still allows for the existence of a creator who may be responsible for all of the universe as we understand it; the valid logic, applied objectively to the current evidence simply does not require, or point to such a creator. Yet religion, your religion maybe, the Christian religion as practiced by Creationists certainly, has a fundamental problem with this position--as it has with any position that does not agree with or advance the preconceived and very specific conclusions asserted as facts of reality on faith. Christian Creationists, without any basis in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, simply refuse to accept ANY theory that does not include the superstitious requirement of the existence of this "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" thing" of theirs.

Beliefs consistent with reality that are validated by evidence in reality and valid logic, have entirely different foundations than beliefs validated by the strength of one's denial of evidence and denial of valid logic. The rational believe what they see. The faithful see what they believe. So while it is obvious that Creationists (among others of a faithful bent) equate science's working hypotheses, candidly asserted speculations, and conditional certainties to the exercise of faith, they are clearly no such thing--because they don't express unconditional certainty like faith does. Such arguments by the faithful ("beleivers", whatever) collapse upon their strawman foundations ... no surprise there.

 

[UltimateReality]

What kind of data for your lack of "verifiable evidence or valid logic" for your claims do you expect I should provide?

Really,how many times must I present it to you , How bout explaining how non living matter becomes life ?

How bout proof and not a vivid imagination as your proof.

I'm not the one imagining anything here.

An explanation for how non-living matter becomes life has been provided for you COUNTLESS times.

I guess if you count a series of 43 guesses with not one modern example of even one of the "so called" natural processes occurring in nature as an explanation then sure you have.

Here, maybe if I put it in Evolutionary pseudoscienc terminology, you can understand...

An Intelligent Being we can't comprehend might have engineered the universe. This Being could have visited the planet numerous times throughout history to seed the planet with new life forms. This Being could be the source of the life spark that has not been seen or occurred naturally for anywhere from 10,000 to 3.5 billion years, but instead requires a previous generation as its source for who knows how long. This Entity may have written the digital code in every cell.

SETI searchers for ET and no one seems to have a problem with believing other intelligent life exists elsehwere in our universe. No one seems to question the Multi-verses, all of which are "supernatural". Why is it so hard for you to believe in the possibility of a Master Alien that pre-dates the Big Bang? An Entity that is not constrained by time as we understand it? I will tell you why, because your materialist religion won't allow you to. To believe in something or someone greater would force a change in your miserable, Christian-hating, sour puss existence.

 

[Hollie]

Really,how many times must I present it to you , How bout explaining how non living matter becomes life ?

How bout proof and not a vivid imagination as your proof.

I'm not the one imagining anything here.

An explanation for how non-living matter becomes life has been provided for you COUNTLESS times.

I guess if you count a series of 43 guesses with not one modern example of even one of the "so called" natural processes occurring in nature as an explanation then sure you have.

Here, maybe if I put it in Evolutionary pseudoscienc terminology, you can understand...

An Intelligent Being we can't comprehend might have engineered the universe. This Being could have visited the planet numerous times throughout history to seed the planet with new life forms. This Being could be the source of the life spark that has not been seen or occurred naturally for anywhere from 10,000 to 3.5 billion years, but instead requires a previous generation as its source for who knows how long. This Entity may have written the digital code in every cell.

SETI searchers for ET and no one seems to have a problem with believing other intelligent life exists elsehwere in our universe. No one seems to question the Multi-verses, all of which are "supernatural". Why is it so hard for you to believe in the possibility of a Master Alien that pre-dates the Big Bang? An Entity that is not constrained by time as we understand it? I will tell you why, because your materialist religion won't allow you to. To believe in something or someone greater would force a change in your miserable, Christian-hating, sour puss existence.

My goodness. What an angry fundie.

It must be frustrating to propose arguments that rely on belief in magic and supernatural intervention and have others require you to support such nonsense.

No wonder you're so unpleasant.

 

[Hollie]

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

So... why can't fundies be honest and present evidence for their supernatural, supermagical realms?

Just because you continue to play stupid doesn't mean it hasn't been presented here. Why don't you pick up a copy of "Signature in the Cell"?

For a whole $13 you can actually study an opposing viewpoint instead of regurgitating and spewing rehearsed atheistic propaganda.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Signature-Cell-Evidence-Intelligent-Design/dp/0061472794/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1347989761&sr=8-1&keywords=signature+in+the+cell]Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design: Stephen C. Meyer: 9780061472794: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]

Meyer is a hack. Precisely why he shills for the creationist ministry you copy and paste from.

Would you care to describe for us the pre-qualifying agreement signed by those who shill for the ICR?

I posted it for you previously.

 

[UltimateReality]

I suspect it's because superstitious retards like yourself CAN'T provide ANY substantiation in verifiable evidence or valid logic for your claims.

I suspect it's because materialistic lost souls like yourself CAN'T provide ANY substantiation in verifiable evidence that doesn't require numerous "may haves", "might haves" or "could haves", or valid logic for your claims.

Science ideally seeks unconditional certainty or "proof", but scientists never really claim such absolute certainty--they claim rather specifically qualified certainties. None of the conclusions made are asserted with unconditional certainty. Every single explanation made by scientists in their respective fields remains susceptible to scrutiny and invalidation in the light of better evidence and better understanding of the evidence. While every single explanation that posits some supernatural "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" thing is asserted on faith, with the conviction of unconditional certainty in the of the reality of the "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" thing and unqualified certainty in the of the truth of the explanation. There is no uncertainty in the faith that is the foundation of religion, because faith does not express uncertainty.

Science simply does not share the paradigm of starting from a position of unconditional certainty that religion or superstition does. The uncertainties understood in scientific explanations, working hypotheses, and speculations (expressed in, and as, assumptions) can obviously not be construed as faith. And while there may be no universally satisfying and agreed upon scientific explanation for the existence of the universe, none of those explanations are baseless in valid logic applied to verifiable evidence. Science actually still allows for the existence of a creator who may be responsible for all of the universe as we understand it; the valid logic, applied objectively to the current evidence simply does not require, or point to such a creator. Yet religion, your religion maybe, the Christian religion as practiced by Creationists certainly, has a fundamental problem with this position--as it has with any position that does not agree with or advance the preconceived and very specific conclusions asserted as facts of reality on faith. Christian Creationists, without any basis in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, simply refuse to accept ANY theory that does not include the superstitious requirement of the existence of this "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" thing" of theirs.

Beliefs consistent with reality that are validated by evidence in reality and valid logic, have entirely different foundations than beliefs validated by the strength of one's denial of evidence and denial of valid logic. The rational believe what they see. The faithful see what they believe. So while it is obvious that Creationists (among others of a faithful bent) equate science's working hypotheses, candidly asserted speculations, and conditional certainties to the exercise of faith, they are clearly no such thing--because they don't express unconditional certainty like faith does. Such arguments by the faithful ("beleivers", whatever) collapse upon their strawman foundations ... no surprise there.

Any time you make up a fairy tale about what happened in the distant past on planet earth, with no evidence of naturally occurring processes witnessed presently, you are exhibiting IMMENSE FAITH. And you are liar when you say that science doesn't start from an unconditional certainty. It absolutely does. It originates from your materialist metaphysical belief that matter is the only reality. You start from the pretense of only looking for evidence that fits your worldview. Also, I think we need to differentiate between REAL SCIENCE, like mechanics and most of physics (all of which can be tested and verified by experimental evidence) and the pseudoscience of the "just so" stories of Darwinism. Here's how it works. We need to come up with a naturalistic reason that fits with natural selection for why Giraffe's look like they do. We come up with a "just so" story about how the giraffes with the long neck may have survived while the short neck ones didn't during times of drought with no low hanging fruit. Then, with a little Darwinian hocus pocus and a few Charles abra cadabra's: without a single shred of observable or testable evidence, poof!!! It is a FACT that the giraffe's long neck is due to natural selection. You see, Loki, you started from a position of unconditional certainty that Natural Selection has to be true!! Again, you are so brainwashed, you fail to see how preposterous it is for someone to take conjecture and speculation, and be so arrogant (or ignorant) and call it the "fact" of evolution. What an absolute joke!! Fact my ass. Get off your pompous high horse that you have so much intellectual honesty. Your whole theory of evolution is based on an unconditional certainty. Any evidence contrary to the just so story of natural selection is thrown out.

It is a FACT that I may have been dropped off on earth by aliens and I could have been raised by wolves before I might have grown three feet in a matter of 2 months. I could have been educated at Harvard before I may have taught Differential Equations to pygmies in what could have been the Australian Outback.

 

[UltimateReality]

So... why can't fundies be honest and present evidence for their supernatural, supermagical realms?

Just because you continue to play stupid doesn't mean it hasn't been presented here. Why don't you pick up a copy of "Signature in the Cell"?

For a whole $13 you can actually study an opposing viewpoint instead of regurgitating and spewing rehearsed atheistic propaganda.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Signature-Cell-Evidence-Intelligent-Design/dp/0061472794/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1347989761&sr=8-1&keywords=signature+in+the+cell]Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design: Stephen C. Meyer: 9780061472794: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]

Meyer is a hack. Precisely why he shills for the creationist ministry you copy and paste from.

Would you care to describe for us the pre-qualifying agreement signed by those who shill for the ICR?

I posted it for you previously.

You have never even read any opposing material so you can't even engage in the debate. I'm still waiting for you to post a logical response of your own.