Creationists

[koshergrl]

And anyone who puts faith in science knows that science frequently exposes some things that people never in a million years thought could be so....

And this is the problem with the committed atheists...they blind themselves to the possibilities of science. Anything is possible, including the existence of a supreme being. The fact that there's no evidence NOW is never an indication that it doesn't exist.

 

[daws101]

I have a question: is everything in the universe a natural product? Yes? Then anything they affect makes it a natural cause. In other words, there are no un-natural elements in the universe, so no un-natural causes either.

No. Everything in the universe does not have a natural cause including the universe itself. You are spewing your religious Dogma as if it is fact. It's called Materialism and the teaching of your religion that matter is the only reality, as stated above. You religion does not alleviate you from the burden of scientific proof when Hollie makes the bogus Materialist claim above that EVERY discovery has a natural cause. Prove it!! Show me by scientific method, how the first information in the DNA digital code originated and replicate the process in a laboratory.

This is the point where Hollie spews the same tired rhetoric of "Turtles all the way down" regarding who made God. The causal relationship is only valid for entities with a beginning. It is a widely held scientific belief the universe had a beginning, therefore, it must have had a cause. Since that cause could not have been "natural", the answer to Ima's question is a resounding "NO!", unless of course Ima, you believe in a supernatural force, that is, one outside of nature or the known universe.

The Judeo-Christian God claimed his name was "I AM". He has always existed, infinitely in the past. He has no beginning and therefore, no necessity of a cause.

I've corrected your nonsensical claim above:

The Easter Bunny claimed his name was "I AM". He has always existed, infinitely in the past. He has no beginning and therefore, no necessity of a cause.


The above is a boilerplate creationist claim. I suspect it was taken from Harun Yahya or one of the other YEC fundie sites.

In a bizarre attempt to justify the fraudulent claim that since gravity is an “invisible” force, that somehow supports the claim of one or more of the gods (a similarly “invisible’ force) must then also be true. The fundie apologist depends upon a pointless scam. Trying to make this nonsensical red herring relevant to his already hopeless argument, he applies this “concept” with gross incompetence of the most unsophisticated sort.

It’s a comical scam that the goofy fundies try repeatedly. What the fundies fail to address is that natural forces lend themselves to repeatable and verifiable testing. Even the fundies can test for the properties of gravity. How does anyone perform repeatable teats for the gods?
Call 'em hateful, call 'em backward, but don't call 'em unpredictable.

HI guys! the only provable historical figure to say "I AM" is POPEYE the full quote is "I AM WOT I AM"
carry on...

 

[daws101]

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 ?

still asking already answered questions!

 

[daws101]

read through the last few pages and YWC is STILL ASKING THE SAME QUESTIONS HE'S ALREADY ANSWERED
UR is still yammering about materialistic religion as the devil's handiwork (oxymoron).
KG flew in on her broom stick babbled something meaningless then flew away..
still wating for gods' barcode...

 

[Hollie]

And Loki, while you are at it, since it is based on so much "evidence", please post a link to a study with some observable and testable evidence that the giraffe's neck is the result of natural selection. It should be based on a modern day study of feeding patterns, rainfall measurements, and offspring neck length, not to mention a detailed dietary and migration analysis.

I'll be waiting...

Totally predictable, as usual. You should know that your arguments are stereotypical, boilerplate creationist attempts to vilify science.

You should be aware that your creationist ministries were debunked decades ago when they tried to float the "Giraffe Neck" conspiracy in attempts to discredit science.

But keep trying. With a bit more effort you can become the best little hater you can be.

Predictably, the creationist claims have been refuted by the elements we call knowledge, science and enlightenment. It’s just a shame that the fundies would hope to drag themselves and others back into the Dark Ages of fear and superstition.

Francis Hitching: Commonly Quoted by Creationists

The Neck of the Giraffe - The Panda's Thumb

CB325: Giraffe neck and blood pressure


There are many more refutations of your creationist ministry nonsense. Want more? Just ask.

 

[Hollie]

read through the last few pages and YWC is STILL ASKING THE SAME QUESTIONS HE'S ALREADY ANSWERED
UR is still yammering about materialistic religion as the devil's handiwork (oxymoron).
KG flew in on her broom stick babbled something meaningless then flew away..
still wating for gods' barcode...

I'm going from memory here, Daws, but I thought it was you who ripped the creationists a new one with a detailed response to the creationist "Giraffe Neck" conspiracy.

 

[daws101]

read through the last few pages and YWC is STILL ASKING THE SAME QUESTIONS HE'S ALREADY ANSWERED
UR is still yammering about materialistic religion as the devil's handiwork (oxymoron).
KG flew in on her broom stick babbled something meaningless then flew away..
still wating for gods' barcode...

I'm going from memory here, Daws, but I thought it was you who ripped the creationists a new one with a detailed response to the creationist "Giraffe Neck" conspiracy.

your memory is correct, but as always the facts never stop them from babbling.

 

[LOki]

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.

Hence, the assertion that your "God" thing is entirely faith. Thank you.

Also FYI, valid logic applied to "evidence of naturally occurring processes witnessed presently" counts as well. Something that your "God" thing assertion do not enjoy either.

No I'm not.

It does not, Mr. "Could-Have."

You should get out more. You should get out more and visit a library perhaps. You should get out more and visit a library perhaps, so that you might become acquainted with quantum-field theory.

It's a nice day, why don't you go out right now?

Quite right there. Folks like me begin with that far-fetched world-view notion that reality is not subject to our perceptions; that reality is objective; that no amount of believing in leprechauns, or unicorns, or invisible-white-fathers-who-live-in-the-sky will make them objectively real.

No. It's a hypothesis founded upon facts.

No. I didn't. Valid logic applied to verifiable evidence leads to a conclusion that does not require or suggest leprechauns of any description.

Not at all so. Scientists do not share in the absolute certainty that is so characteristic of faith.

The uncertainties candidly understood in scientific explanations, working hypotheses, and speculations (expressed in, and as, assumptions) can obviously not be construed to express absolute certainty. Your faith paradigm just does not apply.

Sorry about your retarded luck.

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.

Yes. And there exists an ultimate creator who lives in an ultimate reality. These are all certainly facts; but are they facts of reality? Does valid logic applied to any verifiable logically valid evidence support the assertion that those facts are consistent with objective reality? If not, then you're just talking fairy-tales, Count Chocula.

Loki, you can deny the truth about your so called "science" all day long but it won't make it so.

What are you talking about? It looks like you think you've made some kind of point, but this assertion is senseless from it premise to its conclusion.

Not at all surprising from someone who is so confused about reality that you went right from "25 "could haves" and 18 "may haves"" right to "you are liar when you say that science doesn't start from an unconditional certainty."

Darwinism is steeped in prejudice and purposeful outcomes. But I guess your version of reality is your version, regardless of whether or not you can see how skewed your view of it is from your twisted perception vantage point. You don't need to go outside, why, you can just alter realty and enjoy the outdoors right there at your computer. Later, you can say it is a fact that you may have gone outside.

"Prejudice" and "twisted perception vantage point" is evidenced by the cognitive dissonance of your incoherent attacks upon "Darwinism."

You clearly have no coherently principled issue with "Darwinism." Just as you've arbitrarily declared creationism to be "the truth," you've just arbitrarily declared evolution wrong--and you just pick ANY attack that you deem handy (rather than sensible or logically valid, for instance) in the moment.

You have provided prima-facie evidence of your close-minded prejudice against the theory of evolution.

 

[LOki]

The scientific argument for a Designer is presented in Signature of the Cell. Go read it and then get back to me with your views on what was presented.

No. I've read plenty of crappy creationist tracts, and they all follow the same lame format:

1) Discredit the theory of evolution as if doing so proves creationism.
2) Apply a special-pleading appeal to ignorance for why asserting a creator is valid.
3) Apply a question-begging argument that proves the existence of a creator and validates the evidence that a creator exists.
4) Declare that they cannot be "proven" wrong.
5) Ignore that their premises required no "proof" to begin with.
6) Commence with claims of victory that they refuse to substantiate.​

If this one is different, please present the argument yourself.

Done ad nauseum. Do a search on this thread. I'm done repeating myself for the slow ones.

Done never. If such evidence was ever actually presented, you'd at least provide a link to it.

But the fact of the matter is, you and your retarded tribe NEVER provide such links, because you cannot link to posts that do not exist.

 

[UltimateReality]

Hence, the assertion that your "God" thing is entirely faith. Thank you.

Also FYI, valid logic applied to "evidence of naturally occurring processes witnessed presently" counts as well. Something that your "God" thing assertion do not enjoy either.

No I'm not.

It does not, Mr. "Could-Have."

You should get out more. You should get out more and visit a library perhaps. You should get out more and visit a library perhaps, so that you might become acquainted with quantum-field theory.

It's a nice day, why don't you go out right now?

Quite right there. Folks like me begin with that far-fetched world-view notion that reality is not subject to our perceptions; that reality is objective; that no amount of believing in leprechauns, or unicorns, or invisible-white-fathers-who-live-in-the-sky will make them objectively real.

No. It's a hypothesis founded upon facts.

No. I didn't. Valid logic applied to verifiable evidence leads to a conclusion that does not require or suggest leprechauns of any description.

Not at all so. Scientists do not share in the absolute certainty that is so characteristic of faith.

The uncertainties candidly understood in scientific explanations, working hypotheses, and speculations (expressed in, and as, assumptions) can obviously not be construed to express absolute certainty. Your faith paradigm just does not apply.

Sorry about your retarded luck.

Yes. And there exists an ultimate creator who lives in an ultimate reality. These are all certainly facts; but are they facts of reality? Does valid logic applied to any verifiable logically valid evidence support the assertion that those facts are consistent with objective reality? If not, then you're just talking fairy-tales, Count Chocula.

Loki, you can deny the truth about your so called "science" all day long but it won't make it so.

What are you talking about? It looks like you think you've made some kind of point, but this assertion is senseless from it premise to its conclusion.

Not at all surprising from someone who is so confused about reality that you went right from "25 "could haves" and 18 "may haves"" right to "you are liar when you say that science doesn't start from an unconditional certainty."

Darwinism is steeped in prejudice and purposeful outcomes. But I guess your version of reality is your version, regardless of whether or not you can see how skewed your view of it is from your twisted perception vantage point. You don't need to go outside, why, you can just alter realty and enjoy the outdoors right there at your computer. Later, you can say it is a fact that you may have gone outside.

"Prejudice" and "twisted perception vantage point" is evidenced by the cognitive dissonance of your incoherent attacks upon "Darwinism."

You clearly have no coherently principled issue with "Darwinism." Just as you've arbitrarily declared creationism to be "the truth," you've just arbitrarily declared evolution wrong--and you just pick ANY attack that you deem handy (rather than sensible or logically valid, for instance) in the moment.

You have provided prima-facie evidence of your close-minded prejudice against the theory of evolution.

Hello, McFly??? I am not a Creationist. Evolution is wrong. Its a sham... pseudoscience not based in any semblance of the scientific method.

Still waiting on you giraffe study. Regarding the your "observable" cartoon, feel free to find a giraffe study that also includes some fossil evidence as well.

 

[LOki]

Even funnier is how Darwinism does the same thing.

Except you are too blind, or too stupid, to see it.

Despite the clearly obvious opportunity you have to demonstrate this, you fail to do so. Why is that, Cupcake?

Same reason all your cut and pasting is an EPIC FAIL, donut.

You can't call it my "EPIC FAIL" when you "EPIC FAIL" to demonstrate your assertion despite the clearly obvious opportunity to do so.

 

[LOki]

And Loki, while you are at it, since it is based on so much "evidence", please post a link to a study with some observable and testable evidence that the giraffe's neck is the result of natural selection. It should be based on a modern day study of feeding patterns, rainfall measurements, and offspring neck length, not to mention a detailed dietary and migration analysis.

I'll be waiting...

Apparently Hollie beat me to it.

 

[UltimateReality]

Facts and evidence leads the modern study of evolution, biological sciences, paleontology and related fields....

Suuuuuree. Facts and evidence. And the moon as made of cheese too isn't it Hollie? Doesn't the treatment facility your in have any other activities than sitting in front of a computer?

 

[LOki]

And anyone who puts faith in science knows that science frequently exposes some things that people never in a million years thought could be so....

And this is the problem with the committed atheists...they blind themselves to the possibilities of science. Anything is possible, including the existence of a supreme being. The fact that there's no evidence NOW is never an indication that it doesn't exist.

Yes it is.

Not conclusively so--with the absolute certainty of undeniable proof you asshats demand--but the fact that there's no evidence NOW is certainly an indication that this "supreme being" of yours doesn't exist.

 

[UltimateReality]

And Loki, while you are at it, since it is based on so much "evidence", please post a link to a study with some observable and testable evidence that the giraffe's neck is the result of natural selection. It should be based on a modern day study of feeding patterns, rainfall measurements, and offspring neck length, not to mention a detailed dietary and migration analysis.

I'll be waiting...

Totally predictable, as usual. You should know that your arguments are stereotypical, boilerplate creationist attempts to vilify science.

You should be aware that your creationist ministries were debunked decades ago when they tried to float the "Giraffe Neck" conspiracy in attempts to discredit science.

But keep trying. With a bit more effort you can become the best little hater you can be.

Predictably, the creationist claims have been refuted by the elements we call knowledge, science and enlightenment. It’s just a shame that the fundies would hope to drag themselves and others back into the Dark Ages of fear and superstition.

Francis Hitching: Commonly Quoted by Creationists

The Neck of the Giraffe - The Panda's Thumb

CB325: Giraffe neck and blood pressure


There are many more refutations of your creationist ministry nonsense. Want more? Just ask.

Holllie, did you actually read the links you just posted? I did, and I'm not sure where they refuted the "just so" giraffe neck natural selection story you Darwinists are so fond of putting in textbooks. You probably should actually read the stuff you cut and paste from now on so you don't look even more like a complete idiot than you already do.

 

[UltimateReality]

And Loki, while you are at it, since it is based on so much "evidence", please post a link to a study with some observable and testable evidence that the giraffe's neck is the result of natural selection. It should be based on a modern day study of feeding patterns, rainfall measurements, and offspring neck length, not to mention a detailed dietary and migration analysis.

I'll be waiting...

Apparently Hollie beat me to it.

HA! HA! HA! You obviously didn't read the links either. Careful who you put your trust in, cheesecake, because Hollie just made you look like a complete fool.

 

[Hollie]

And Loki, while you are at it, since it is based on so much "evidence", please post a link to a study with some observable and testable evidence that the giraffe's neck is the result of natural selection. It should be based on a modern day study of feeding patterns, rainfall measurements, and offspring neck length, not to mention a detailed dietary and migration analysis.

I'll be waiting...

Apparently Hollie beat me to it.

I didn't mean to cut in line, Loki. I just find creationist supernaturalism-speak to be so much babble.

 

[UltimateReality]

Hence, the assertion that your "God" thing is entirely faith. Thank you.

Also FYI, valid logic applied to "evidence of naturally occurring processes witnessed presently" counts as well. Something that your "God" thing assertion do not enjoy either.

No I'm not.

It does not, Mr. "Could-Have."

You should get out more. You should get out more and visit a library perhaps. You should get out more and visit a library perhaps, so that you might become acquainted with quantum-field theory.

It's a nice day, why don't you go out right now?

Quite right there. Folks like me begin with that far-fetched world-view notion that reality is not subject to our perceptions; that reality is objective; that no amount of believing in leprechauns, or unicorns, or invisible-white-fathers-who-live-in-the-sky will make them objectively real.

No. It's a hypothesis founded upon facts.

No. I didn't. Valid logic applied to verifiable evidence leads to a conclusion that does not require or suggest leprechauns of any description.

Not at all so. Scientists do not share in the absolute certainty that is so characteristic of faith.

The uncertainties candidly understood in scientific explanations, working hypotheses, and speculations (expressed in, and as, assumptions) can obviously not be construed to express absolute certainty. Your faith paradigm just does not apply.

Sorry about your retarded luck.

Yes. And there exists an ultimate creator who lives in an ultimate reality. These are all certainly facts; but are they facts of reality? Does valid logic applied to any verifiable logically valid evidence support the assertion that those facts are consistent with objective reality? If not, then you're just talking fairy-tales, Count Chocula.

Loki, you can deny the truth about your so called "science" all day long but it won't make it so.

What are you talking about? It looks like you think you've made some kind of point, but this assertion is senseless from it premise to its conclusion.

Not at all surprising from someone who is so confused about reality that you went right from "25 "could haves" and 18 "may haves"" right to "you are liar when you say that science doesn't start from an unconditional certainty."

Darwinism is steeped in prejudice and purposeful outcomes. But I guess your version of reality is your version, regardless of whether or not you can see how skewed your view of it is from your twisted perception vantage point. You don't need to go outside, why, you can just alter realty and enjoy the outdoors right there at your computer. Later, you can say it is a fact that you may have gone outside.

"Prejudice" and "twisted perception vantage point" is evidenced by the cognitive dissonance of your incoherent attacks upon "Darwinism."

You clearly have no coherently principled issue with "Darwinism." Just as you've arbitrarily declared creationism to be "the truth," you've just arbitrarily declared evolution wrong--and you just pick ANY attack that you deem handy (rather than sensible or logically valid, for instance) in the moment.

You have provided prima-facie evidence of your close-minded prejudice against the theory of evolution.

Oooooh, prima facie. Now you are speaking my cop language. By the way, are you a charter member of Thesaurus.com?

 

[LOki]

Loki, you can deny the truth about your so called "science" all day long but it won't make it so.

What are you talking about? It looks like you think you've made some kind of point, but this assertion is senseless from it premise to its conclusion.

Not at all surprising from someone who is so confused about reality that you went right from "25 "could haves" and 18 "may haves"" right to "you are liar when you say that science doesn't start from an unconditional certainty."

Darwinism is steeped in prejudice and purposeful outcomes. But I guess your version of reality is your version, regardless of whether or not you can see how skewed your view of it is from your twisted perception vantage point. You don't need to go outside, why, you can just alter realty and enjoy the outdoors right there at your computer. Later, you can say it is a fact that you may have gone outside.

"Prejudice" and "twisted perception vantage point" is evidenced by the cognitive dissonance of your incoherent attacks upon "Darwinism."

You clearly have no coherently principled issue with "Darwinism." Just as you've arbitrarily declared creationism to be "the truth," you've just arbitrarily declared evolution wrong--and you just pick ANY attack that you deem handy (rather than sensible or logically valid, for instance) in the moment.

You have provided prima-facie evidence of your close-minded prejudice against the theory of evolution.

Hello, McFly??? I am not a Creationist.

You certainly are. Call yourself what you like, but there is no substantive difference between ID-Theorists and Creationists ... except for the greater integrity of intellectual honesty Creationists enjoy over ID-Theorists.

Evolution is wrong. Its a sham... pseudoscience not based in any semblance of the scientific method.

If you had anything but strawman arguments to discredit evolution you'd have brought them long ago.

If you had ANY alternative theory that was not a special-pleading, question-begging appeal-to-ignorance, you'd have produced it long ago.

You have nothing but your superstition inspired hatred for anything that doesn't advance the glorification of your God.

Still waiting on you giraffe study. Regarding the your "observable" cartoon, feel free to find a giraffe study that also includes some fossil evidence as well.

I trust that Hollie has you covered, apparently daws101 took care of you too. I see no point in piling upon the suffering of dumb animals.

 

[Hollie]

And Loki, while you are at it, since it is based on so much "evidence", please post a link to a study with some observable and testable evidence that the giraffe's neck is the result of natural selection. It should be based on a modern day study of feeding patterns, rainfall measurements, and offspring neck length, not to mention a detailed dietary and migration analysis.

I'll be waiting...

Totally predictable, as usual. You should know that your arguments are stereotypical, boilerplate creationist attempts to vilify science.

You should be aware that your creationist ministries were debunked decades ago when they tried to float the "Giraffe Neck" conspiracy in attempts to discredit science.

But keep trying. With a bit more effort you can become the best little hater you can be.

Predictably, the creationist claims have been refuted by the elements we call knowledge, science and enlightenment. It’s just a shame that the fundies would hope to drag themselves and others back into the Dark Ages of fear and superstition.

Francis Hitching: Commonly Quoted by Creationists

The Neck of the Giraffe - The Panda's Thumb

CB325: Giraffe neck and blood pressure


There are many more refutations of your creationist ministry nonsense. Want more? Just ask.

Holllie, did you actually read the links you just posted? I did, and I'm not sure where they refuted the "just so" giraffe neck natural selection story you Darwinists are so fond of putting in textbooks. You probably should actually read the stuff you cut and paste from now on so you don't look even more like a complete idiot than you already do.

I did read the links. That's why I posted them. If you had read through them you might have discovered that there is nothing at all supernatural about Giraffe necks.

As noted, daws has already addressed your silly claim. Why raise an issue again, you already slithered away from.

As we have seen consistently, you have this insensate need to denigrate the science of evolution believing that denigrating science will somehow prove your creationist gods.

What we see in nature is not design but numerous starts and stops, and sometimes utter dead ends. God's "talents" as a designer are in fact horrible in that systems collapse easily, they can go extinct easily in numerous cases if one element a species relies on is destroyed, they are woefully susceptible to diseases (which were also "designed" apparently-- a round of thanks for the smallpox and AIDS blueprints!) and the general amount of waste is magnificent in its scope. The point is that it's inefficient because nature isn't intellectually directed. It's happenstance, using the best possible way available. Evolution also sometimes retains things it no longer needs, like vestigial bones (whales and snakes have useless leg bones) which are direct clues as to the start-and stop nature of evolution.

The whole point is, an Intelligent Designer would have no need for such things as vestigial bones yet they are there. Either god sucks as an engineer, or he purposely makes things look like they are not designed, which of course creates conflicts in interpretation. Why? Why purposely make it look like evolution, when you want everyone to believe in Creation?