Creationists

[UltimateReality]

If the development of living organisms DID NOT generally progress from less complex organisms to more complex organisms, then I have no idea why Evolutionists would say that it did.

That's really funny!!! When I made the claim this was a tenant of evolutionary theory, I was told it was a strawman. Me thinks someone is a little loose with the fallacy accusations.

I had no idea that a general observation meant a person or group that rents and occupies land, a house, an office, or the like, from another for a period of time; lessee.

I'm not even sure that such a general observation could even be considered a tenet ... period.

BTW, Mr. "3rd Grade Reading Comprehension," claiming that a tenet of evolutionary is that the development of living organisms DID NOT generally progress from less complex organisms to more complex organisms, is in fact, a strawman argument.

Communication takes two people and obviously we aren't communicating. To clarify, I claimed that evolutionist claim living organisms progress from less complex organisms to more complex organisms and that the so called common ancestor was a single cell organism. I was told this was a strawman.

And by the way, I happened on a grammar mistake of yours last night but I wasn't so immature to actually make an issue of it. You're a child. And how do you know that I may have meant the claim was paying evolution rent??? Or I could have just not noticed that spellcheck was correcting incorrectly.

 

[UltimateReality]

UltimateReality, I was surprised to hear you declare that you are not a young earth creationist, as I assumed you were. Would you mind re-iterating what is your belief about how humans came to be? How old do you believe the earth is, what is your justification for this, and what mechanism do you think caused humans to exist? Do you deny evolutionary theory entirely, or just certain parts of it? How much do you suppose god is responsible for, and how did he do it?

Youwerecreated, the same questions go to you, if you don't mind. I'm interested to know. Thanks.

YWC and my religious beliefs are pretty much the same. I believe God created the heavens and the earth. And I pretty much believe everything contained in the Creation story, but I believe it is metaphorical, like many stories in the Bible, meant to convey a deeper meaning, but not actually to be taken literally. I believe in an old universe and a 4 billion-year-old earth. I believe the designer has acted throughout history to "seed" the planet. I believe Homo Sapien to be a new design, seeded on earth from the designer within the last 20,000 years. But I also believe Homo Sapien was infused with attributes of the designer, making him like no other animal the earth had ever seen. I believe consciousness, the will to create, and self awareness to be among these attributes. I also believe at some point in early Homo Sapien history, by his choice, evil entered into his makeup. And by makeup, I mean his dna. This brought Homo Sapien into conflict internally, at once battling against his animal urges but also infused with God's awareness of good and evil. The Christianese concept for this is that every human is born into sin. Post Modernist Humanist teach that man is essentially good. Homo Sapien may have started this way, but not now after "the fall". I also believe at the fall, ALL of Creation was corrupted. I believe "sin" is anything contrary to the Designer's intent, but also, anything contrary to the Designer's nature. Whether the fall of man happened in an actual geographically place called Eden, chosen by a real man named Adam, or is metaphorical, I still believe the principles of the fall necessarily abide. I also believe the fall was when copying errors were introduced, giving man an expiration date. I don't believe man is purely material. I believe there is a "spirit" "contained" within his material shell that can't be understood or measured by matter or material sciences.

I believe the Designer crammed his "spirit" into a material body and lived on the earth as a man named Jesus Christ. I believe Christ was the "Son" of God only in the way that humans would understand this relationship. (Obviously, son is an earthly term which applies to human offspring, not God). I also believe Christ is the only Begotten son, meaning he actually came from the Being we believe is God "the Father". This just means that Christ was not part of the Creation, was not a Created or Designed being, and like the "Father" has on beginning and no end. Jesus was 100% God, but on earth, he was also 100% man. I believe he came to earth, lived a sinless life, and then died for our sins. I believe He was resurrected and taken up into heaven (a term used to describe our existence outside of space, time, matter and energy.) I believe Christ, God, and God's Spirit existed prior to the Big Bang. The Bible says the Designer has no beginning and no end. Since Hawkins now admits that even time began at the Big Bang, I don't consider it a huge leap of logic to believe the Designer is not subject to the constraints of time or matter. He exists outside the Cosmos. This is why philosophically, there is no necessity for Him (I don't believe God has a penis by the way) to have a beginning. He is infinite forwards and backwards, outside of time, even though our universe is finite and subject to time.

As far as Creationists go, I really don't see their need to put humans and dinosaurs in the same epoch. I'm not sure why they think Christ's genealogy in the Bible locks them into a specific amount of years for the earth. I know Hollie is always calling me a fundie to get a rise out of me but I am far from a fundamentalist Christian. No where in the Bible does it teach one has to "invite Jesus into your heart." This a phrase coined in the last century by protestant "fundies" but I think really causes people to miss what it really means to be a Christ follower. I am cautious about taking any portion of the Bible too literally or listening to some preacher tell me which parts are literal and which aren't. It is funny to me that Creationists get so caught up in a strict interpretation of the 7 day story. Yet I don't see too many one eyed Creationists walking around. Christ clearly commands if your eye makes you sin you should "gouge it out". Now do I think Christ meant that literally? No, I don't. But I also don't under stand Creationists that would say of course Christ didn't REALLY mean to gouge your eye out. Then why do they believe Moses, regularly credited with being the author of Genesis, was telling a literal story of Creation? How do they pick and choose what is metaphorically and what isn't? I have also heard fundies state that you must believe every single word in the Bible or you have to throw the whole thing out. This stance lacks logic, since it assumes that the decisions mere mortal men made at the council of Trent on what books would be contained in the collection known as the Bible somehow had a more direct line to God than we as modern Christians can have. This may sound cliche', but my God is much bigger than the Bible. Fundamentalists like for things to be black and white and they don't want to have to deal with the hard questions, like, "Did God really tell the Israelites to kill babies???" I don't mind wrestling with those hard questions. I also don't think you can compartmentalize the Being that the Bible tells us "spat stars out of his mouth" in the pages of the same tiny book. God won't be constrained by anything, not religion, and yes, not even the Bible. I still believe the core beliefs and principles of Christianity are simple. God set up rules which He Himself would abide by, because he cannot go against his Godly nature. Man violated those rules, the penalty for which was death (expiration of your dna and an end to your existence-consciousness). However, God loved us so much that he sent his only begotten son to die in our place. He complied with the laws and rules of the universe, at a great price I might add, so that we might live. So get confused about the death the Bible refers to but it is merely the death of your existence, of your consciousness. Even though my body will die, my faith in Christ will allow my existence, my consciousness, to continue on outside of matter, and not constrained by the time of this finite universe. Many have posed questions of Christianity throughout the ages. It always strikes me as funny that folks like Hollie and Loki believe they are wrestling with new concepts. One of those is if God is all knowing, and knows the future, why would he go ahead and create the world anyways, knowing what a mess it would turn into? Theologians have wrestled with this question and many others for centuries. If you are interested in some of these concepts, I can refer you to some very NON Fundie books. One of my favorites is Velvet Elvis by Rob Bell. Another one of Bell's works, Love Wins, has caused quite the stir in fundie circles because it proposes that eventually, we all make it to heaven, or at least some point have the choice too. I'm not sure I agree with Bell on all his points but I am at least open enough to consider them. Hard questions about Christianity don't freak me out. I also really enjoy CS Lewis perspectives. He is a great Theologian, and wrestles with these questions, usually used to attack Christianity, in such a deeply thoughtful and wise way. Hey, even if you don't get anything out of reading them, at least you have educated yourself a little more on the enemy.

[ame]http://www.amazon.com/Complete-C-S-Lewis-Signature-Classics/dp/0060506083/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1348120042&sr=8-1&keywords=cs+lewis+collection[/ame]

[ame]http://www.amazon.com/Love-Wins-About-Heaven-Person/dp/0062049658/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1348120275&sr=1-1&keywords=love+wins+Rob+Bell[/ame]


And one of my all time favorite books on Christianity:

[ame]http://www.amazon.com/Velvet-Elvis-Repainting-Christian-Faith/dp/B0057D8RU0/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1348120306&sr=1-1&keywords=velvet+elvis+Rob+Bell[/ame]

 

[UltimateReality]

I try to limit scientific discussions to science, which is the mantra of the ID movement. Although ID believes the cause of life on this planet was intelligence, they make no religious or metaphysical claims about the identity of the designer (little d). However, my religious belief is that the identity of the designer is the Judeo Christian God of the Bible and I refer to that Entity as the Designer (capital D). I haven't tried to keep my religious beliefs a secret, as the atheistic agenda folks want to pretend is happening. They are accusatory if we are keeping religion out of the discussion and accusatory if we allow it in. Here is a response from Meyer on the movement:

It seems like the idea or inference of anything supernatural scares scientists away. Do you agree?

Well, all we are inferring is intelligence. Whether it is supernatural or natural is a matter for further deliberation. I don’t even like the term “supernatural.” I think the better philosophical distinction is between transcendent and immanent. Are we talking about an intelligence within the cosmos or an intelligence that is in some way beyond it? And that’s a theological distinction. I think it is possible to reason about that, and whether you call it a philosophical deliberation or not, it doesn’t really matter. All the theory of intelligent design is doing is establishing that intelligence was responsible for certain features of life. We recognize intelligence all the time, and we have scientific methods for it. If you’re an archaeologist and you’re looking at the Rosetta Stone, are you duty-bound to continue looking for naturalistic explanations even though you know full well that wind and erosion and everything else you can imagine is not capable of making those inscriptions? No, you’re not. You really ought to conclude the obvious, which is that a scribe was involved. There was an intelligence behind it.

Meyer also readily admits he is a Christian. He is not hiding it. He is just keeping it out of ID Theory. He differentiates between concepts that can be proven by empirical science and philosophical and religious concepts that can't be "proven". For all the arguing and strawmanning that goes on here, it is more about bashing than it is about actually trying to think logically about what is being proposed. I get totally sucked in to the debate and attacks and behave very non-Christian at times. The anonymity of the internet does that to people. But it also frees people if they really want to be free, to admit things they wouldn't normally admit. Like I can admit I am obsessed with fitness and my body image. I also tend to lash out when I feel I am being attacked. Both these issues can be traced back to childhood wounds. I was relentlessly bullied pretty much from kindergarten until the 11th grade for being overweight at a time when only one or two kids in the whole school were fat. (now the skinny kid is the freak ) I have surrendered this to Christ and have forgiven the abusers, but I tend to take it back at times. I think that is a common struggle Christians face, giving the wounds over to Christ, but then sinning as we make ourselves the God of our lives again, taking all of our garbage back. That doesn't mean we give up, but it is a struggle to deny self and strive to be more Christ like. Christ said "my yoke is easy and my burden is light". I hear atheists talk a lot about Christians not living life to the fullest because they are counting on heaven. This is not a tenet (you happy Loki) of Christianity. Christ said that he came so we could have life and live it to the fullest. The atheistic viewpoint that life on this earth can somehow be lived immune from tragedy, brokenness and disappointment comes from Humanism, and it is not reality. No matter how much you believe this is your only shot, it won't prevent you from succumbing to the pitfalls of this fallen earth. How can you make sense of the person that is cut off before ever exiting the womb? What about the six year old girl that is accidentally killed by her father when he drives over her? How do atheists reconcile this using only the law of the jungle?

 

[newpolitics]

UltimateReality, I was surprised to hear you declare that you are not a young earth creationist, as I assumed you were. Would you mind re-iterating what is your belief about how humans came to be? How old do you believe the earth is, what is your justification for this, and what mechanism do you think caused humans to exist? Do you deny evolutionary theory entirely, or just certain parts of it? How much do you suppose god is responsible for, and how did he do it?

Youwerecreated, the same questions go to you, if you don't mind. I'm interested to know. Thanks.

YWC and my religious beliefs are pretty much the same. I believe God created the heavens and the earth. And I pretty much believe everything contained in the Creation story, but I believe it is metaphorical, like many stories in the Bible, meant to convey a deeper meaning, but not actually to be taken literally. I believe in an old universe and a 4 billion-year-old earth. I believe the designer has acted throughout history to "seed" the planet. I believe Homo Sapien to be a new design, seeded on earth from the designer within the last 20,000 years. But I also believe Homo Sapien was infused with attributes of the designer, making him like no other animal the earth had ever seen. I believe consciousness, the will to create, and self awareness to be among these attributes. I also believe at some point in early Homo Sapien history, by his choice, evil entered into his makeup. And by makeup, I mean his dna. This brought Homo Sapien into conflict internally, at once battling against his animal urges but also infused with God's awareness of good and evil. The Christianese concept for this is that every human is born into sin. Post Modernist Humanist teach that man is essentially good. Homo Sapien may have started this way, but not now after "the fall". I also believe at the fall, ALL of Creation was corrupted. I believe "sin" is anything contrary to the Designer's intent, but also, anything contrary to the Designer's nature. Whether the fall of man happened in an actual geographically place called Eden, chosen by a real man named Adam, or is metaphorical, I still believe the principles of the fall necessarily abide. I also believe the fall was when copying errors were introduced, giving man an expiration date. I don't believe man is purely material. I believe there is a "spirit" "contained" within his material shell that can't be understood or measured by matter or material sciences.

I believe the Designer crammed his "spirit" into a material body and lived on the earth as a man named Jesus Christ. I believe Christ was the "Son" of God only in the way that humans would understand this relationship. (Obviously, son is an earthly term which applies to human offspring, not God). I also believe Christ is the only Begotten son, meaning he actually came from the Being we believe is God "the Father". This just means that Christ was not part of the Creation, was not a Created or Designed being, and like the "Father" has on beginning and no end. Jesus was 100% God, but on earth, he was also 100% man. I believe he came to earth, lived a sinless life, and then died for our sins. I believe He was resurrected and taken up into heaven (a term used to describe our existence outside of space, time, matter and energy.) I believe Christ, God, and God's Spirit existed prior to the Big Bang. The Bible says the Designer has no beginning and no end. Since Hawkins now admits that even time began at the Big Bang, I don't consider it a huge leap of logic to believe the Designer is not subject to the constraints of time or matter. He exists outside the Cosmos. This is why philosophically, there is no necessity for Him (I don't believe God has a penis by the way) to have a beginning. He is infinite forwards and backwards, outside of time, even though our universe is finite and subject to time.

As far as Creationists go, I really don't see their need to put humans and dinosaurs in the same epoch. I'm not sure why they think Christ's genealogy in the Bible locks them into a specific amount of years for the earth. I know Hollie is always calling me a fundie to get a rise out of me but I am far from a fundamentalist Christian. No where in the Bible does it teach one has to "invite Jesus into your heart." This a phrase coined in the last century by protestant "fundies" but I think really causes people to miss what it really means to be a Christ follower. I am cautious about taking any portion of the Bible too literally or listening to some preacher tell me which parts are literal and which aren't. It is funny to me that Creationists get so caught up in a strict interpretation of the 7 day story. Yet I don't see too many one eyed Creationists walking around. Christ clearly commands if your eye makes you sin you should "gouge it out". Now do I think Christ meant that literally? No, I don't. But I also don't under stand Creationists that would say of course Christ didn't REALLY mean to gouge your eye out. Then why do they believe Moses, regularly credited with being the author of Genesis, was telling a literal story of Creation? How do they pick and choose what is metaphorically and what isn't? I have also heard fundies state that you must believe every single word in the Bible or you have to throw the whole thing out. This stance lacks logic, since it assumes that the decisions mere mortal men made at the council of Trent on what books would be contained in the collection known as the Bible somehow had a more direct line to God than we as modern Christians can have. This may sound cliche', but my God is much bigger than the Bible. Fundamentalists like for things to be black and white and they don't want to have to deal with the hard questions, like, "Did God really tell the Israelites to kill babies???" I don't mind wrestling with those hard questions. I also don't think you can compartmentalize the Being that the Bible tells us "spat stars out of his mouth" in the pages of the same tiny book. God won't be constrained by anything, not religion, and yes, not even the Bible. I still believe the core beliefs and principles of Christianity are simple. God set up rules which He Himself would abide by, because he cannot go against his Godly nature. Man violated those rules, the penalty for which was death (expiration of your dna and an end to your existence-consciousness). However, God loved us so much that he sent his only begotten son to die in our place. He complied with the laws and rules of the universe, at a great price I might add, so that we might live. So get confused about the death the Bible refers to but it is merely the death of your existence, of your consciousness. Even though my body will die, my faith in Christ will allow my existence, my consciousness, to continue on outside of matter, and not constrained by the time of this finite universe. Many have posed questions of Christianity throughout the ages. It always strikes me as funny that folks like Hollie and Loki believe they are wrestling with new concepts. One of those is if God is all knowing, and knows the future, why would he go ahead and create the world anyways, knowing what a mess it would turn into? Theologians have wrestled with this question and many others for centuries. If you are interested in some of these concepts, I can refer you to some very NON Fundie books. One of my favorites is Velvet Elvis by Rob Bell. Another one of Bell's works, Love Wins, has caused quite the stir in fundie circles because it proposes that eventually, we all make it to heaven, or at least some point have the choice too. I'm not sure I agree with Bell on all his points but I am at least open enough to consider them. Hard questions about Christianity don't freak me out. I also really enjoy CS Lewis perspectives. He is a great Theologian, and wrestles with these questions, usually used to attack Christianity, in such a deeply thoughtful and wise way. Hey, even if you don't get anything out of reading them, at least you have educated yourself a little more on the enemy.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Complete-C-S-Lewis-Signature-Classics/dp/0060506083/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1348120042&sr=8-1&keywords=cs+lewis+collection]The Complete C.S. Lewis Signature Classics: C. S. Lewis: 9780060506087: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Love-Wins-About-Heaven-Person/dp/0062049658/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1348120275&sr=1-1&keywords=love+wins+Rob+Bell]Love Wins: A Book About Heaven,Hell,and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived: Rob Bell: 9780062049650: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]


And one of my all time favorite books on Christianity:

[ame]http://www.amazon.com/Velvet-Elvis-Repainting-Christian-Faith/dp/B0057D8RU0/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1348120306&sr=1-1&keywords=velvet+elvis+Rob+Bell[/ame]

I very much appreciate your responding to my questions in such an honest manner, especially towards the end when you relate your early experiences getting made of. I can relate to this well, but I am too afraid to disclose certain things, even online, so I respect you for that. You seem like a smart guy, and I understand everything you said. One more question: How long have you been a christian, and has the strength of your faith changed over the course of you're being a christian, and for what reasons? Or, have your beliefs regarding the nature of god and the nature and interpretation of scripture changed at all? What brought about these changes, if any?

I realize this is a lot. Answer as much as you feel comfortable doing. While I will admit I don't think I could ever be a christian, I did try for a long time to be one, sincerely. During college, I would talk to ministers on campus, and go do christian social events, but the story never really made sense to me. Namely, if god is all powerful, why did he need to send his son to forgive us? He can do what he wants, and would know what is in our hearts. Believing in Jesus just seems like a technicality without any substance behind it, demonstrated by the fact that people vindicate terrible acts of evil by appealing to this aspect of the christian god, and feel truly absolved. Of course, you might chastise these kinds of people and claim they are not christian, which brings me to my last and most important question: How do you know that you're synthesis of scripture and scientific explanation is correct? I derive this question from some of your claims as, "humans came about 20,000 years ago." I'm not asking you to defend this claim specifically, but more generally, whether you're interpretation was something you deduced yourself, or was inspired by someone else.

 

[ima]

I try to limit scientific discussions to science, which is the mantra of the ID movement. Although ID believes the cause of life on this planet was intelligence, they make no religious or metaphysical claims about the identity of the designer (little d). However, my religious belief is that the identity of the designer is the Judeo Christian God of the Bible and I refer to that Entity as the Designer (capital D). I haven't tried to keep my religious beliefs a secret, as the atheistic agenda folks want to pretend is happening. They are accusatory if we are keeping religion out of the discussion and accusatory if we allow it in. Here is a response from Meyer on the movement:

It seems like the idea or inference of anything supernatural scares scientists away. Do you agree?

Well, all we are inferring is intelligence. Whether it is supernatural or natural is a matter for further deliberation. I don’t even like the term “supernatural.” I think the better philosophical distinction is between transcendent and immanent. Are we talking about an intelligence within the cosmos or an intelligence that is in some way beyond it? And that’s a theological distinction. I think it is possible to reason about that, and whether you call it a philosophical deliberation or not, it doesn’t really matter. All the theory of intelligent design is doing is establishing that intelligence was responsible for certain features of life. We recognize intelligence all the time, and we have scientific methods for it. If you’re an archaeologist and you’re looking at the Rosetta Stone, are you duty-bound to continue looking for naturalistic explanations even though you know full well that wind and erosion and everything else you can imagine is not capable of making those inscriptions? No, you’re not. You really ought to conclude the obvious, which is that a scribe was involved. There was an intelligence behind it.

Meyer also readily admits he is a Christian. He is not hiding it. He is just keeping it out of ID Theory. He differentiates between concepts that can be proven by empirical science and philosophical and religious concepts that can't be "proven". For all the arguing and strawmanning that goes on here, it is more about bashing than it is about actually trying to think logically about what is being proposed. I get totally sucked in to the debate and attacks and behave very non-Christian at times. The anonymity of the internet does that to people. But it also frees people if they really want to be free, to admit things they wouldn't normally admit. Like I can admit I am obsessed with fitness and my body image. I also tend to lash out when I feel I am being attacked. Both these issues can be traced back to childhood wounds. I was relentlessly bullied pretty much from kindergarten until the 11th grade for being overweight at a time when only one or two kids in the whole school were fat. (now the skinny kid is the freak ) I have surrendered this to Christ and have forgiven the abusers, but I tend to take it back at times. I think that is a common struggle Christians face, giving the wounds over to Christ, but then sinning as we make ourselves the God of our lives again, taking all of our garbage back. That doesn't mean we give up, but it is a struggle to deny self and strive to be more Christ like. Christ said "my yoke is easy and my burden is light". I hear atheists talk a lot about Christians not living life to the fullest because they are counting on heaven. This is not a tenet (you happy Loki) of Christianity. Christ said that he came so we could have life and live it to the fullest. The atheistic viewpoint that life on this earth can somehow be lived immune from tragedy, brokenness and disappointment comes from Humanism, and it is not reality. No matter how much you believe this is your only shot, it won't prevent you from succumbing to the pitfalls of this fallen earth. How can you make sense of the person that is cut off before ever exiting the womb? What about the six year old girl that is accidentally killed by her father when he drives over her? How do atheists reconcile this using only the law of the jungle?

You have a concept of a designer for yourself because it makes the universe make sense to you, which is what religion has always been about, trying to make people less afraid of death (and in olden times thunder, earthquakes and the like). Personally, as an agnostic (I don't believe any proof has actually been put forward that a god exists, but if some ever is, I can change my mind), the theory you lay out is a possibility, but what I can't do is to stop considering and looking for other possibilities, since I'm a beyond-reasonable-doubt kind of person. And you definitely couldn't win a court case with what you plead above, and actually, I believe it's already been tried.

 

[Hollie]

Please point out the lie.

"Actually, your fundie parents twisted the Christian religion when they failed to accept you and they will have to answer to God for that. The Bible teaches there is no condemnation in Christ."- UR
you have no proof hollie is gay lie#1
" " that hollie's parents were fundies
" " of god
" that the bible is accurate..

I'll borrow this from your camp.... prove I have no proof.

Ironically, your admission to being totally comfortable with lying is one of the few points of honest discussion you have offered.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Evolution and the Illusion of Randomness

Your Giraffe'ism conspiracy theory was addressed and refuted earlier.

I will show you how ignorant your view is. If the giraffe slowly evolved he would have went extinct from either bending over and the blood rushing to his head and blowing out his brain or raising his head to fast and passing out when predators appear.

What is so amazing is this little sponge like thing in the brain that stores blood to prevent him from passing out and this valve that restricts blood flow so he don't blow his brain out.

The fundie giraffe conspiracy has been debunked earlier.

Your silly explanation of blood pressure was addressed by link that debunked a boilerplate creationist claim.

How embarrassing for you.

This post shows a fundie and that you lack the ability to reason.

A nonintelligent process would think to develop this valve or this sponge in the brain. Yeah right it was debunked

 

[Youwerecreated]

Not in connection with the fundie creationist tag you're hoping to assign to it.

I believe you and the other fundie had tried earlier to add the label "digital machines" to DNA code. Those terms are lifted from creationist ministries.

It was a comparison,they possess the same ability.

No, they do not. This was addressed earlier and your goofy comparisons were shown to be fraudulent.

Hollie why do you lie ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Evolution and the Illusion of Randomness

Your Giraffe'ism conspiracy theory was addressed and refuted earlier.

I will show you how ignorant your view is. If the giraffe slowly evolved he would have went extinct from either bending over and the blood rushing to his head and blowing out his brain or raising his head to fast and passing out when predators appear.

What is so amazing is this little sponge like thing in the brain that stores blood to prevent him from passing out and this valve that restricts blood flow so he don't blow his brain out.

It wasn't so terribly amazing when you posted this before, why is it now?

Where you had no rebuttal got ya.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I'm under no obligation to "refute" your endless cutting and pasting. You and the other creationist have similar habits. You cut and paste volumes of material from fundie creationist websites (material and concepts you don't understand), and then expect others to "refute" that material.

It's not surprising that you failed to address my earlier posts because that would have required you to actually defend your creationist fantasies.

Speaking of "Ad Hollimen" attacks, I note that your best efforts amount not to cutting and pasting but juvenile name-calling.

That is why you are a naturalist ,you don't like obligations, responsibility and accountability.

As is so often the case, you make comments that are pointless, irrelevant and false. I just can't express my revulsion for religion when represented by people such as you and the other death-cult fundie. You represent the very worst of superstitious, hateful and cult promoting David Koresh / Jim Jones type psychopaths.

The more we learn about our universe, the clearer it becomes that the fundamental laws of existence are constant with time. The ability to see events that took place millions or billions of years ago verify that even as the universe evolved, is has expanded within the framework of the same natural law that guides it today.

From this, we can derive that the universe does not need your angry, psychopathic gods; that the universe holds to consistent natural laws; your gods do not change or break “the rules” at whim, and no gods perform “miracles” which would be violations of the natural laws governing the universe.

As the extremes of the universe become more clearly visible with the creation of larger telescopes of all kinds, we see that all other galaxies in existence appear to follow the same laws as this one. There is only one set of laws and those same laws function everywhere in the universe without variation.

From this we can derive that the universe is omnipresent, unitary and holds to consistent universal physical laws.

Natural law does not vary with biology. All of nature remains subject to the same natural constraints and capabilities. All of nature consists of organisms with varying environmental and biological potential but no disparity of biology renders any organism or individual more or less subject to natural law than any other.

The above will be difficult for you as you choose to use your religion to threaten, intimidate and scare those who don't believe as you do. You will find it difficult to accept that your gods are simply a reinvention of earlier gods.

Therefore, you now have good reason to act like a grown-up and cease and desist being an ignorant Harun Yahya groupie.

Just admit it,you do not like limits placed on you.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You seriously don't know your gods.

Sure he does our God has many names but only one God.

Your gods have many names because they were taken from many gods before them.

To the back of the line you go with your angry, hateful gods.

You lie.

 

[ima]

Sure he does our God has many names but only one God.

Your gods have many names because they were taken from many gods before them.

To the back of the line you go with your angry, hateful gods.

You lie.

If man was created on purpose by someone, then the creator must be one stupid, messed up douchesack. So maybe my beef is with whomever created our creator?

 

[Hollie]

That is why you are a naturalist ,you don't like obligations, responsibility and accountability.

As is so often the case, you make comments that are pointless, irrelevant and false. I just can't express my revulsion for religion when represented by people such as you and the other death-cult fundie. You represent the very worst of superstitious, hateful and cult promoting David Koresh / Jim Jones type psychopaths.

The more we learn about our universe, the clearer it becomes that the fundamental laws of existence are constant with time. The ability to see events that took place millions or billions of years ago verify that even as the universe evolved, is has expanded within the framework of the same natural law that guides it today.

From this, we can derive that the universe does not need your angry, psychopathic gods; that the universe holds to consistent natural laws; your gods do not change or break “the rules” at whim, and no gods perform “miracles” which would be violations of the natural laws governing the universe.

As the extremes of the universe become more clearly visible with the creation of larger telescopes of all kinds, we see that all other galaxies in existence appear to follow the same laws as this one. There is only one set of laws and those same laws function everywhere in the universe without variation.

From this we can derive that the universe is omnipresent, unitary and holds to consistent universal physical laws.

Natural law does not vary with biology. All of nature remains subject to the same natural constraints and capabilities. All of nature consists of organisms with varying environmental and biological potential but no disparity of biology renders any organism or individual more or less subject to natural law than any other.

The above will be difficult for you as you choose to use your religion to threaten, intimidate and scare those who don't believe as you do. You will find it difficult to accept that your gods are simply a reinvention of earlier gods.

Therefore, you now have good reason to act like a grown-up and cease and desist being an ignorant Harun Yahya groupie.

Just admit it,you do not like limits placed on you.

That doesn't make any sense.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Good. Now we know you are thoroughly dissociated from reality. It's like magic! "Dna could contain jibberish or complex instructions to build a complex organism". It doesn't matter which, because with "the magic code of DNA" (being "chemically independent from the informational code it carries"), you could replace the bases in DNA with any random reactive chemical, and nothing about "informational code" it carries would change. Good. Just great.

WOW! You're retarded.

I never said any of that!!! You can't replace the coded information and have it mean the same thing!! Just like you can't alter 0's and 1's in a computer program and get the same outcome. Why is this so hard for you to figure out? Your the special needs buffoon that insists on building caricatures and then accusing everyone else of doing it.

I won't waste my time with you anymore. Seriously, it reminds me of trying to argue with a drunk when I was a cop. Pointless!!!!!

What I really find so hard to believe is they can actually believe an undirected and a nonintelligent process would think to develop a place where life could thrive. Then it would develop living organisms and develop everything that is a necessity for for living things to come into existence.

What they really hate is they can't prove a natural process could have produced all the life and order we do see in nature while denying this precision in nature.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Sure he does our God has many names but only one God.

Hollie totally missed the joke on her when she claimed she was of "the male persuasion" posing as Rugged Touch.

I'll take this to mean that you can't find anything to cut and paste so you're left to childish attempts at personal attacks.

There's a good christian boy.

Your ignorance is on display in most cases no response is necessary.

 

[Hollie]

Sure he does our God has many names but only one God.

Your gods have many names because they were taken from many gods before them.

To the back of the line you go with your angry, hateful gods.

You lie.

Piffle.

There were many conceptions of gods before the invention of your gods. If you disagree, then feel free to make a compelling case that your gods are true and extant as opposed to... oh, say... the Greek gods. Remember to present supporting evidence for your claim and provide relevant examples comparing and contrasting the claims to these supernatural entities to make the case that your gods are true to the exclusion of other gods.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

No he is not a hack,he is bringing to you reality.

ahahahahaha... this coming from the man who believes that Mayans had pet dinosaurs...

I have never suggested this how ever the Asians did.

 

[Hollie]

Hollie totally missed the joke on her when she claimed she was of "the male persuasion" posing as Rugged Touch.

I'll take this to mean that you can't find anything to cut and paste so you're left to childish attempts at personal attacks.

There's a good christian boy.

Your ignorance is on display in most cases no response is necessary.

Resigning before you're fired is always a good course of action.

Shuffle away until you're prepared to be scolded for your childish behavior.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

No he is not a hack,he is bringing to you reality.

ahahahahaha... this coming from the man who believes that Mayans had pet dinosaurs...

What does your comment have to do with my assertion ?

 

[Hollie]

No he is not a hack,he is bringing to you reality.

ahahahahaha... this coming from the man who believes that Mayans had pet dinosaurs...

I have never suggested this how ever the Asians did.

Of course they did.

Whack job.