Creationists

[UltimateReality]

You're lacking the ability to function in the rational world.

Yeah, because I am the one on disability spending my days supporting my "campaign of hate" against all religious folk on my computer, not even stopping to take care of my basic hygeine like my rugged touch. Right, man-hands?

 

[UltimateReality]

All the above has been addressed previously.

Are you somehow under the impression that hey-Zeus is going to make you a General Field Marshall in charge of whacking people with your bible?

You are an ignorant liar. I know your theory better then you do. I am waiting for your answer so i can expose your BS answers.

Honestly I don't think you can answer my questions,you are a troll.

The "angry fundie" thing is cute but getting old. As far as you knowing theory, you have demonstrated a definite lack of ability to write with any intelligence on matters of science ir biology.

Oh, you poor dear. You keep calling YWC and me angry fundies, but please stay in the present, stay in the present. We are not your parents. I repeat, YWC and I are not your angry, spit slinging, gay-hating, fundie, Oral Roberts/Jim Baker-loving parents.

 

[UltimateReality]

Poor Hollie,you don't have a clue do you ? You can't copy and paste answers for these questions Hollie because you can only answer these questions if you actually ever taken a college genetics class and worked in a lab as I did.

You give yourself credit for things we have no reason to believe you have a background in.

It's just a shame that you continually sidestep from addressing the issues presented to you. Then again, you're a cut and paster who, absent any ability to address questions on your own, needs to scour Harun Yahya for responses.

YWC, isn't this almost exactly the same thing you just said to her? Hollie, from now on your new nickname is Parrot. Or should we call you Rugged Talon.

 

[Hollie]

Poor Hollie,you don't have a clue do you ? You can't copy and paste answers for these questions Hollie because you can only answer these questions if you actually ever taken a college genetics class and worked in a lab as I did.

You give yourself credit for things we have no reason to believe you have a background in.

It's just a shame that you continually sidestep from addressing the issues presented to you. Then again, you're a cut and paster who, absent any ability to address questions on your own, needs to scour Harun Yahya for responses.

YWC, isn't this almost exactly the same thing you just said to her? Hollie, from now on your new nickname is Parrot. Or should we call you Rugged Talon.

Even 12 year olds find your juvenile banter embarrassing.

 

[Hollie]

You're lacking the ability to function in the rational world.

Yeah, because I am the one on disability spending my days supporting my "campaign of hate" against all religious folk on my computer, not even stopping to take care of my basic hygeine like my rugged touch. Right, man-hands?

You sound like a total mess.

 

[LOki]

Both creationism and ID infer a designer...

Correction: "Both creationism and ID PRESUME a designer..."

Sure they do. It's not CONCLUSIVE evidence, but there is indeed evidence that a designer was not needed.

First, "proof" is NOT the standard applied--verifiable evidence and/or valid logic is the standard applied.

Secondly, there is no evidence, that is validated with even BASIC intellectual rigor, that petitions for the existence of this designer that creationism and intelligent-design PRESUMES.

We don't! We apply the exact same standard for both! EXACTLY the same.

In contrast, no evidence (of an intellectually rigorous nature) OR "proof" was required for you to hold your belief in the existence of this "designer" you posit--yet you demand "proof" (i.e.; conclusive and irrefutable evidence) for refuting your assertion of this "designer"--as if it should be considered valid in the first place. You (as typical of creationists and intelligent-design promoters) hold "materialism" or "naturalism" or "Darwinism" to an ENTIRELY different standard than you hold your own PREASSUMPTION.

Why is that? Why do YOU require a higher standard from "naturalism" than you do for this "designer" of yours and creationism?

Anyone who looks at the evidence knows complexity is the result of intelligence.

This is just presumptive nonsense. It is a point that has been refuted a thousand times.

For the same reasons you've refused to address where the "life" of your "creator" came from, I predict that you'll just as resolutely refuse to address where the intelligence that accounts for the "complexity" of your designer came from.

"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"--Douglas Adams​

Right,evolutionist infer natural processes are responsible for life but they lack evidence.

There's far more evidence that natural processes are responsible for life than there is for your Designer/Creator/God. FAR MORE.

The rest of your post is not worthy of a response.

Just as I successfully predicted that you'd refuse to address where the "life" of your "creator" came from, I have accurately predicted that you'd just as resolutely refuse to address where the intelligence that accounts for the "complexity" of your designer came from.

Why do you demand "proof" (i.e.; conclusive and irrefutable evidence) for refuting your assertion of this "designer," when you required no evidence (of an intellectually rigorous nature) OR "proof" to hold your belief in the existence of this "designer" you posit?

Why do you hold "materialism" or "naturalism" or "Darwinism" to an ENTIRELY different standard than you hold your own PREASSUMPTION?

Why do you (indeed, why do ALL creationists) refuse to answer these questions?

 

[The Irish Ram]

Well, to answer your first question, we'll know when we get there.
God gave us all the information we humans need for our life on earth. He did not give us all the information.
But we'll be sure to ask Him for you while we are sitting around His dinner table in a dimension He has always occupied, that we just discovered.

Now you:
Put nothing in one hand, and nothing in the other, then clap, and show me 'something'.

2. We know by faith, but we enjoy corroborating evidence, which scientists are constantly providing. The Bible knew dimensions. and now we know them, and so on.
If God didn't understand dimensions (before Hawking), he could have never described them. I know for instance, that not only are they there, I know they can be rolled up, stretched, burnt up, torn.... Scientists don't know that yet.

And prophecy is something that non believers run from and call vague, or lucky, but they can't reproduce the process.
6,000 years ago, we were given a perfect description of a group of people's demeanor. 6,000 years later, the daily news records that demeanor every night on your TV.

Now you:
What will the interest be on T-bills in the year 2018?

3. We don't. We hold them to the same standards. Presumption is Einstein's "vigorous math" and Darwin asking us to "overlook" the very links necessary to prove his THEORY.

Now you:
Show me the monkeyman.........

 

[UltimateReality]

You give yourself credit for things we have no reason to believe you have a background in.

It's just a shame that you continually sidestep from addressing the issues presented to you. Then again, you're a cut and paster who, absent any ability to address questions on your own, needs to scour Harun Yahya for responses.

YWC, isn't this almost exactly the same thing you just said to her? Hollie, from now on your new nickname is Parrot. Or should we call you Rugged Talon.

Even 12 year olds find your juvenile banter embarrassing.

what is your personal background regarding science? What education or training do you have to qualify you to make such statements? Do you think folks are so stupid on here that they don't notice your continual asinine responses that don't have anything to do with the topics at hand?

 

[UltimateReality]

You're lacking the ability to function in the rational world.

Yeah, because I am the one on disability spending my days supporting my "campaign of hate" against all religious folk on my computer, not even stopping to take care of my basic hygeine like my rugged touch. Right, man-hands?

You sound like a total mess.

what is your personal background regarding science? What education or training do you have to qualify you to make such statements? Do you think folks are so stupid on here that they don't notice your continual asinine responses that don't have anything to do with the topics at hand?

 

[UltimateReality]

Correction: "Both creationism and ID PRESUME a designer..."

Sure they do. It's not CONCLUSIVE evidence, but there is indeed evidence that a designer was not needed.

First, "proof" is NOT the standard applied--verifiable evidence and/or valid logic is the standard applied.

Secondly, there is no evidence, that is validated with even BASIC intellectual rigor, that petitions for the existence of this designer that creationism and intelligent-design PRESUMES.

We don't! We apply the exact same standard for both! EXACTLY the same.

In contrast, no evidence (of an intellectually rigorous nature) OR "proof" was required for you to hold your belief in the existence of this "designer" you posit--yet you demand "proof" (i.e.; conclusive and irrefutable evidence) for refuting your assertion of this "designer"--as if it should be considered valid in the first place. You (as typical of creationists and intelligent-design promoters) hold "materialism" or "naturalism" or "Darwinism" to an ENTIRELY different standard than you hold your own PREASSUMPTION.

Why is that? Why do YOU require a higher standard from "naturalism" than you do for this "designer" of yours and creationism?

This is just presumptive nonsense. It is a point that has been refuted a thousand times.

For the same reasons you've refused to address where the "life" of your "creator" came from, I predict that you'll just as resolutely refuse to address where the intelligence that accounts for the "complexity" of your designer came from.

"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"--Douglas Adams​

Right,evolutionist infer natural processes are responsible for life but they lack evidence.

There's far more evidence that natural processes are responsible for life than there is for your Designer/Creator/God. FAR MORE.

The rest of your post is not worthy of a response.

Just as I successfully predicted that you'd refuse to address where the "life" of your "creator" came from, I have accurately predicted that you'd just as resolutely refuse to address where the intelligence that accounts for the "complexity" of your designer came from.

Why do you demand "proof" (i.e.; conclusive and irrefutable evidence) for refuting your assertion of this "designer," when you required no evidence (of an intellectually rigorous nature) OR "proof" to hold your belief in the existence of this "designer" you posit?

Why do you hold "materialism" or "naturalism" or "Darwinism" to an ENTIRELY different standard than you hold your own PREASSUMPTION?

Why do you (indeed, why do ALL creationists) refuse to answer these questions?

We "could have" answered them before. It "might have happened" a few pages back, lollipop.

 

[UltimateReality]

Where is the best place to find low-cost, easy-to-produce, natural, robust and non toxic antibiotics? Easy, in our own bodies. Nature so often provides the solutions we are looking for and, as an aside, that is why the preservation of species from extinction is so important. In this case the solution is natural antibiotics which University of California at Berkeley researchers have confirmed to exist in the tails of certain proteins called cytokeratins. These proteins help our eyes, for example, ward off infections. The eye’s cornea is remarkably free of pathogens and the research reveals something about how these wonderful proteins work. Once again, however, the research was not motivated by evolutionary theory.

This new research is important for what it tells us about antibiotics and for what it tells us about science. Rationalists [Hollie, Loki] maintain that scientists must operate from a theory of origins in order to do science and that, in particular, that theory must be evolution. But science itself demonstrates that there is no such requirement.

Darwin's God: Evolution (Not) Crucial in Antibiotics Breakthrough: How Science is Actually Done

 

[Hollie]

Yeah, because I am the one on disability spending my days supporting my "campaign of hate" against all religious folk on my computer, not even stopping to take care of my basic hygeine like my rugged touch. Right, man-hands?

You sound like a total mess.

what is your personal background regarding science? What education or training do you have to qualify you to make such statements? Do you think folks are so stupid on here that they don't notice your continual asinine responses that don't have anything to do with the topics at hand?

So you have returned to using gargantuan fonts. How cute.

Your blistering above is comical considering your posts are nothing but childish name-calling.

 

[LOki]

Well, to answer your first question, we'll know when we get there.

This is an answer to a question? What question is this an actual answer to? One that I asked?

God gave us all the information we humans need for our life on earth. He did not give us all the information.

Who? What? God? What are you talking about?

But we'll be sure to ask Him for you while we are sitting around His dinner table in a dimension He has always occupied, that we just discovered.

Now you:
Put nothing in one hand, and nothing in the other, then clap, and show me 'something'.

What is the point of this exercise?

Please do not tell me that you submit that as your summary of the big-bang theory.

2. We know by faith, ...

Which LITERALLY means that you "know" because you believe you know; and you "know" you're right because you believe you're right.

but we enjoy corroborating evidence, ...

No, you don't.

... which scientists are constantly providing.

Evidence which has absolutely no bearing what-so-ever upon what you believe.

The Bible knew dimensions.

The Bible knows nothing.

... and now we know them, and so on.

Right. Because you believe you know.

If God didn't understand dimensions (before Hawking), he could have never described them.

You keep referencing this "God" thing. I have no idea what you're talking about. You've gone on, and on about this "God" thing of yours, but have yet to explain what it is.

Now, I have been exposed to literally hundreds of self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts of some "God."

Those clearly don't count, right? Those "God" things are obviously fraudulent. So help me out here, and explain this "God" thing you keep referencing.

I know for instance, that not only are they there, I know they can be rolled up, stretched, burnt up, torn.... Scientists don't know that yet.

So tell me, how do you "know" this?

And prophecy is something that non believers run from and call vague, or lucky, but they can't reproduce the process.

Oh, they most certainly can.

6,000 years ago, we were given a perfect description of a group of people's demeanor. 6,000 years later, the daily news records that demeanor every night on your TV.

No it doesn't. Shows you what you actually "know."

Now you:
What will the interest be on T-bills in the year 2018?

I don't know. Should I enlist the assistance of a leprechaun?

3. We don't. We hold them to the same standards. Presumption is Einstein's "vigorous math" and Darwin asking us to "overlook" the very links necessary to prove his THEORY.

What "presumption"? What "overlook"? WTF are you talking about?

Now you:
Show me the monkeyman.........

What "monkeyman" are you talking about?

Try cogent rational thought on for size.

 

[LOki]

Right,evolutionist infer natural processes are responsible for life but they lack evidence.

There's far more evidence that natural processes are responsible for life than there is for your Designer/Creator/God. FAR MORE.

The rest of your post is not worthy of a response.

Just as I successfully predicted that you'd refuse to address where the "life" of your "creator" came from, I have accurately predicted that you'd just as resolutely refuse to address where the intelligence that accounts for the "complexity" of your designer came from.

Why do you demand "proof" (i.e.; conclusive and irrefutable evidence) for refuting your assertion of this "designer," when you required no evidence (of an intellectually rigorous nature) OR "proof" to hold your belief in the existence of this "designer" you posit?

Why do you hold "materialism" or "naturalism" or "Darwinism" to an ENTIRELY different standard than you hold your own PREASSUMPTION?

Why do you (indeed, why do ALL creationists) refuse to answer these questions?

We "could have" answered them before. It "might have happened" a few pages back, lollipop.

And typical of your form, you provide no verifiable evidence of such answer. No quote. No link.

No answer. As predicted.

 

[Hollie]

Where is the best place to find low-cost, easy-to-produce, natural, robust and non toxic antibiotics? Easy, in our own bodies. Nature so often provides the solutions we are looking for and, as an aside, that is why the preservation of species from extinction is so important. In this case the solution is natural antibiotics which University of California at Berkeley researchers have confirmed to exist in the tails of certain proteins called cytokeratins. These proteins help our eyes, for example, ward off infections. The eye’s cornea is remarkably free of pathogens and the research reveals something about how these wonderful proteins work. Once again, however, the research was not motivated by evolutionary theory.

This new research is important for what it tells us about antibiotics and for what it tells us about science. Rationalists [Hollie, Loki] maintain that scientists must operate from a theory of origins in order to do science and that, in particular, that theory must be evolution. But science itself demonstrates that there is no such requirement.

Darwin's God: Evolution (Not) Crucial in Antibiotics Breakthrough: How Science is Actually Done

Is there anything you could cut and paste for us on your gods' design of the cancer cell?

What a masterstroke of design.

 

[Hollie]

Cornelius Hunter - another creationist quack from the Discovery Institute .

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

 

[The Irish Ram]

Loki, my post that you line item vetoed was in response to your question posted directly above mine, so, to refresh:

Why do you (indeed, why do ALL creationists) refuse to answer these questions?

So:

I don't refuse.

This is an answer to a question? What question is this an actual answer to? One that I asked?

Yes, refreshment above.

Who? What? God? What are you talking about?

El Shadday, Creator of heaven and earth.

Please do not tell me that you submit that as your summary of the big-bang theory.

Ok, I'll do it your way:
0 + 0 =

Which LITERALLY means that you "know" because you believe you know; and you "know" you're right because you believe you're right.

Actually I like the C.S. Lewis def. better:
"Faith is merely the virtue by which we hold to our reasoned ideas, despite moods to the contrary."
With no proof, I would know Him. With proof I know Him better.

No, you don't.

Yes, I do.

Evidence which has absolutely no bearing what-so-ever upon what you believe.

Of course it does. If God said the earth was triangular, and then later we found out it was round, I would be skeptical about the Word. Luckily, it is the other way around. Human's are constantly changing their opinions. God doesn't. God said round. We said flat, then round.
He described dimensions before we ever figured out there were dimensions. We made Einstein a hero for finding a 4th.

The Bible knows nothing.

The Bible knows everything. You know nothing about the Bible.

Right. Because you believe you know.

No, because science and the Bible tell me the same thing. Then I know the scientists are starting to "get it." Hawking has convinced me that there are more than 4 dimensions. No wait, the Bible convinced me of that long before Hawking figured it out.
The Bible tells me what those other dimensions can do! Still waiting for Hawking to get back to me on that.........
But just for fun, remember what God told us first. Dimensions can bend, tear, be rolled up, burned up, shaken. Then, when our brightest make the announcement, you'll remember where you first became aware of that knowledge.

You keep referencing this "God" thing. I have no idea what you're talking about. You've gone on, and on about this "God" thing of yours, but have yet to explain what it is.

The Bible is an excellent source of answers to your question. In fact it is mandatory if you plan on discussing Him with any degree of intellectual information concerning Him.

So help me out here, and explain this "God" thing you keep referencing.

I have, you just keep rewinding.........

So tell me, how do you "know" this?

The God thing......

Oh, they most certainly can.

Then do it.

I don't know.

Exactly.

What "presumption"? What "overlook"? WTF are you talking about?

Einstein's rigorous math, that he asked his colleagues to ignore, and the complete lack of missing links that Darwin said should be in the millions.
DARWIN HAD NO PROOF, but said, that shouldn't stop you from believing:

Darwin> "With respect to the absence of fossil remains serving to connect man with his ape-like progenitors, no one will lay much stress on this fact . . . those regions which are the most likely to afford remains connecting man with some extinct apelike creature, have not as yet been searched by geologists."
Yeah, ^ that's it.
And he admitted once more: “The great break in the organic chain between man and his nearest allies,which cannot be bridged over by any extinct or living species, has often been advanced as a grave objection to the belief that man is descended from some lower animal."
And that, "this lack of evidence for his theory would not trouble anyone who believes in evolution."
Seems your belief is merely Darwin's belief with no proof to back it up.

What "monkeyman" are you talking about?

The one there is no proof of...........

 

[UltimateReality]

You sound like a total mess.

what is your personal background regarding science? What education or training do you have to qualify you to make such statements? Do you think folks are so stupid on here that they don't notice your continual asinine responses that don't have anything to do with the topics at hand?

So you have returned to using gargantuan fonts. How cute.

Your blistering above is comical considering your posts are nothing but childish name-calling.

Asking a legitimate question related to accusation you made is name calling? Oh you poor dear. Always playing the victim aren't you.

What is your background? Please share. Crickets getting deafening.

 

[UltimateReality]

Cornelius Hunter - another creationist quack from the Discovery Institute .

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

Always with the Panda's thumb. Yeah, cause there's an unbiased website...

Seriously, you must have missed my question... What are your credentials? What formal science training do you have?

 

[UltimateReality]

There's far more evidence that natural processes are responsible for life than there is for your Designer/Creator/God. FAR MORE.

Just as I successfully predicted that you'd refuse to address where the "life" of your "creator" came from, I have accurately predicted that you'd just as resolutely refuse to address where the intelligence that accounts for the "complexity" of your designer came from.

Why do you demand "proof" (i.e.; conclusive and irrefutable evidence) for refuting your assertion of this "designer," when you required no evidence (of an intellectually rigorous nature) OR "proof" to hold your belief in the existence of this "designer" you posit?

Why do you hold "materialism" or "naturalism" or "Darwinism" to an ENTIRELY different standard than you hold your own PREASSUMPTION?

Why do you (indeed, why do ALL creationists) refuse to answer these questions?

We "could have" answered them before. It "might have happened" a few pages back, lollipop.

And typical of your form, you provide no verifiable evidence of such answer. No quote. No link.

No answer. As predicted.

Oh there's an answer there, Little Debbie. You just refuse to acknowledge it. I have presented the same proof that your pathetic Darwinian myth is entirely based on. Based on what I have stated above, we now have the FACT of the Creator. What of your origins fairy tale 43 might haves and could haves are verifiable by any corroborative evidence from the distant past??? Absolutely none, Drumstick.

You still have not responded to my comments regarding your inability to use the scientific method to prove any of your might have/could have just so stories about the distant past. Why do you ignore it? Because to respond would be to admit that your belief system requires just as much faith as theism. Really convenient how you passed over that one.