Creationists

[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

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

What a masterstroke of design.

My God didn't invent the cancer cell. That was your god Hollie...

 

[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.

My God didn't invent the cancer cell. That was your god.

So then, you selectively choose what your gawds have designed?

How convenient.

 

[Hollie]

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.

No kidding, we now have the "fact" of your creator gawds?

You're a strange little fundie.

 

[LOki]

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.

Pro Tip: Responding is not the same as answering.

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

Yes, refreshment above.

Excellent non-answer. BRAVO!

El Shadday, Creator of heaven and earth.

This is meaningless.

You keep referencing this "God" thing--this "Creator; what are you talking about?

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

What is this?

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.

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

Yes, I do.

2 things:

1) There is no intellectually rigorous evidence that corroborates faith;
2) If there was, the belief would no longer be faith, but rather a rational belief.

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.

• Your God thing says a body of water that's identical to the sea sitting above the heavens. See Genesis
• Your God thing says the world is flat. See Proverbs, Isaiah.
• Your God thing says that hares are ruminants. See Leviticus and Deuteronomy.
• Your God thing says that the planet is stationary. See Psalms, Job, Samuel, Joshua, Corinthians.

So it does indeed appear that evidence has absolutely no bearing what-so-ever upon what you believe.

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.

Your God thing says the world is circular; flat like a pancake. We believed it, and then discovered it is spherical.

He described dimensions before we ever figured out there were dimensions.

Made up nonsense.

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

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.

No. You validate your belief with the Bible. You then rationalize the validity of the Bible with anything you can find. You ignore EVERYTHING that invalidates the Bible. You "know" because you believe you know; and you "know" you're right because you believe you're right.

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.

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

Unless your question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance account of this "God" thing is the explanation you're talking about, you have NOT explained to me what this "God" thing of yours is.

The God thing......

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.

Then do it.

I don't engage in astrology, psychic power, long cons, or any other frauds.

Exactly.

Yes, exactly. I do not engage in the practice of first "knowing" because I believe I know; and then "knowing" I'm right because I believe I'm right. That's intellectual hubris.

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

Einstein's rigorous math, that he asked his colleagues to ignore, ...

Yes. I read this the first time. WHAT math are you claiming Einstein 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.

First, only the faithful assert the requirement of proof in the intellectually dishonest manner you do.

There is BOATLOADS of evidence supporting the theory of evolution, and NONE that support biblical creation tales.

Secondly, your quote-mining expedition fails to point out ANY instance that Darwin requested that lack of evidence be overlooked.

What "monkeyman" are you talking about?

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

Why am I obligated to show you a "monkeyman" that "there is no proof of"?

 

[Hollie]

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?

I understand you feel threatened by science because it tends to provide rational explanations to what you hold to be acts by the supermagical gawds. That is why you lash out like a petulant child when the religious hacks you worship are exposed as frauds.

Remember that I'm only trying to help you out of the darkness and ignorance of idol worship.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Under Christian thought, humans have free will, which made it possible for them to choose sin, not God. Under evolutionary philosophy, there is no free will for humans.

That doesn't make any sense. I'm guessing the logic is that if life evolves then it doesn't have free will? You lost me.

I don't support evolutionary philosophy. You will have to look elsewhere to substantiate the logical outcome of darwinian thought. You can start here...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9W1Y_PmhSI]Darwinism: Science or Naturalistic Philosophy (5 of 11) - YouTube[/ame]

I didn't ask you what you supported. I asked you to clarify a statement that I didn't understand. Are you saying that evolutionary belief/philosophy/theory, whatever you deem to call it, establishes that humans don't have free will? I don't know yet if I would have an issue with whatever your logic might be, but I might.

 

[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?

I understand you feel threatened by science because it tends to provide rational explanations to what you hold to be acts by the supermagical gawds. That is why you lash out like a petulant child when the religious hacks you worship are exposed as frauds.

Remember that I'm only trying to help you out of the darkness and ignorance of idol worship.

What are your credentials? What formal science training do you have?

 

[Hollie]

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?

I understand you feel threatened by science because it tends to provide rational explanations to what you hold to be acts by the supermagical gawds. That is why you lash out like a petulant child when the religious hacks you worship are exposed as frauds.

Remember that I'm only trying to help you out of the darkness and ignorance of idol worship.

What are your credentials? What formal science training do you have?

Remember that I'm only trying to help you out of the darkness and ignorance of idol worship

 

[Youwerecreated]

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?

I understand you feel threatened by science because it tends to provide rational explanations to what you hold to be acts by the supermagical gawds. That is why you lash out like a petulant child when the religious hacks you worship are exposed as frauds.

Remember that I'm only trying to help you out of the darkness and ignorance of idol worship.

What are your credentials? What formal science training do you have?

You notice they ignored my mutation questions ? It's true we know the theory they defend better then they do or they were afraid of my rebuttals if they answered my questions correctly.

I don't believe any of them have taken much college science. Their hate for believers is the only reason they are here. What I find funny is when they copy and paste articles they think answer my questions.

Their copy and paste jobs won't help them on this issue. If they lack such a background in science why do they defend a theory they can't defend,interesting. Why are they so convinced we don't know what we are talking about?Talk about arrogance through ignorance.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I understand you feel threatened by science because it tends to provide rational explanations to what you hold to be acts by the supermagical gawds. That is why you lash out like a petulant child when the religious hacks you worship are exposed as frauds.

Remember that I'm only trying to help you out of the darkness and ignorance of idol worship.

What are your credentials? What formal science training do you have?

Remember that I'm only trying to help you out of the darkness and ignorance of idol worship

Another rhetoric filled post and nothing of substance.

 

[Hollie]

What are your credentials? What formal science training do you have?

Remember that I'm only trying to help you out of the darkness and ignorance of idol worship

Another rhetoric filled post and nothing of substance.

It was an appropriate response to your typical "rhetoric filled post and nothing of substance."

 

[UltimateReality]

That doesn't make any sense. I'm guessing the logic is that if life evolves then it doesn't have free will? You lost me.

I don't support evolutionary philosophy. You will have to look elsewhere to substantiate the logical outcome of darwinian thought. You can start here...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9W1Y_PmhSI]Darwinism: Science or Naturalistic Philosophy (5 of 11) - YouTube[/ame]

I didn't ask you what you supported. I asked you to clarify a statement that I didn't understand. Are you saying that evolutionary belief/philosophy/theory, whatever you deem to call it, establishes that humans don't have free will? I don't know yet if I would have an issue with whatever your logic might be, but I might.

No free will is a pretty strong tenet of evolutionary philosophy. It has to do with genetic determinism. Since your responses to stimuli are pre-programed by evolution, choice and free will are really just illusions. Instinct and your genes drive all your decisions.

Genetic determinism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Hollie]

I don't support evolutionary philosophy. You will have to look elsewhere to substantiate the logical outcome of darwinian thought. You can start here...

Darwinism: Science or Naturalistic Philosophy (5 of 11) - YouTube

I didn't ask you what you supported. I asked you to clarify a statement that I didn't understand. Are you saying that evolutionary belief/philosophy/theory, whatever you deem to call it, establishes that humans don't have free will? I don't know yet if I would have an issue with whatever your logic might be, but I might.

No free will is a pretty strong tenet of evolutionary philosophy. It has to do with genetic determinism. Since your responses to stimuli are pre-programed by evolution, choice and free will are really just illusions. Instinct and your genes drive all your decisions.

Genetic determinism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nonsense. Free will is a religious concept. It has nothing to do with evolutionary theory.

 

[Hollie]

Federal Court Rejects Intelligent Design Curriculum | CNSNews.com

(CNSNews.com) - A Pennsylvania school system may not include intelligent design in its science curriculum, a federal court ruled Tuesday. U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III said intelligent design is not a scientific concept.

The ruling is a victory for the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania and Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which argued that intelligent design is religion in disguise.

"This is a tremendous victory for public schools and religious freedom," said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director. "It means that school board members have no right to impose their personal religious beliefs on students through the school curriculum."

The ACLU and Americans United sued the Dover Area School Board on behalf of parents who objected to having intelligent design taught as an alternative to the theory of evolution. Intelligent design says an intelligent cause rather than natural selection explains the origins of life.

In his ruling, Jones agreed with both groups, saying the Dover school board violated the so-called separation of church and state by voting to introduce intelligent design (ID) into science classes by requiring students to listen to a disclaimer that was critical of the theory of evolution

 

[UltimateReality]

Remember that I'm only trying to help you out of the darkness and ignorance of idol worship

Another rhetoric filled post and nothing of substance.

It was an appropriate response to your typical "rhetoric filled post and nothing of substance."

Hollie, it really is pretty pathetic how you dodge relevant questions. There are two things possibly here at play: Either you are not smart enough to figure out why the argument went here, or you are smart enough to figure you are intellectually outgunned and so you ignore, ignore, ignore and hope that it will eventually go away. So just in case the first possibility exist, let me explain it to you. You made the accusation that I didn't have a background in science, inferring that you did and that you were somehow more qualified than I am to make statements pertinent to this discussion. That is why I am hassling you and you continue to ignore. I guess I don't know why you won't share anything remotely personal about yourself. What are you afraid of? Do you think someone is going to figure out who you are? So what! I have posted pics of myself and shared personal details. Anyone who knows me would be able to know it was me instantly from this thread.

What are you hiding??? Oh and just in case you thought this was over...

What is your science background?

 

[Hollie]

Another rhetoric filled post and nothing of substance.

It was an appropriate response to your typical "rhetoric filled post and nothing of substance."

Hollie, it really is pretty pathetic how you dodge relevant questions. There are two things possibly here at play: Either you are not smart enough to figure out why the argument went here, or you are smart enough to figure you are intellectually outgunned and so you ignore, ignore, ignore and hope that it will eventually go away. So just in case the first possibility exist, let me explain it to you. You made the accusation that I didn't have a background in science, inferring that you did and that you were somehow more qualified than I am to make statements pertinent to this discussion. That is why I am hassling you and you continue to ignore. I guess I don't know why you won't share anything remotely personal about yourself. What are you afraid of? Do you think someone is going to figure out who you are? So what! I have posted pics of myself and shared personal details. Anyone who knows me would be able to know it was me instantly from this thread.

What are you hiding??? Oh and just in case you thought this was over...

What is your science background?

You have announced that you're a stalker. Good for you.

What s shame that your responses are nothing but cutting and pasting from fundie religious websites. That being the case, you should expect to be taken to task for cutting and pasting nonsense.

 

[UltimateReality]

Federal Court Rejects Intelligent Design Curriculum | CNSNews.com

(CNSNews.com) - A Pennsylvania school system may not include intelligent design in its science curriculum, a federal court ruled Tuesday. U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III said intelligent design is not a scientific concept.

The ruling is a victory for the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania and Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which argued that intelligent design is religion in disguise.

"This is a tremendous victory for public schools and religious freedom," said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director. "It means that school board members have no right to impose their personal religious beliefs on students through the school curriculum."

The ACLU and Americans United sued the Dover Area School Board on behalf of parents who objected to having intelligent design taught as an alternative to the theory of evolution. Intelligent design says an intelligent cause rather than natural selection explains the origins of life.

In his ruling, Jones agreed with both groups, saying the Dover school board violated the so-called separation of church and state by voting to introduce intelligent design (ID) into science classes by requiring students to listen to a disclaimer that was critical of the theory of evolution

Hollie, how many times can you post up the same thing about Dover??

"First, the new trend in science toward enlisting the political and judicial system to help one side to prevail in a scientific dispute is highly injurious to the health of science itself, to say nothing of the polity, and it must be stopped. If a scientific consensus is so insecure that it has to have its claims imposed on the public by court order—as happened in the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover decision in Pennsylvania with respect to the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution—it can scarcely expect to command the respect of that public, and it forfeits whatever intellectual authority it might otherwise be entitled to. Similar efforts are now afoot to impose an artificial consensus on the subject of climate change. They are equally to be deplored."

"But people understand the difference between the truth standards of knowledge and the truth standards of power. Physicists have demonstrated the former by resting content with the current uncertainty until better data shall arrive; Darwinists have demonstrated the latter in abundance by relying on courts to enforce their dogmas."

Dear Darwin lobby: The Dover trial is WHY people don

"But federal judges cannot settle scientific debates, and a court ruling has no ability to negate the evidence for design in nature. Spend a day in law school, and you'll quickly learn that judges are not inerrant. In this instance, the Kitzmiller v. Dover ruling contains many factual and legal mistakes, including that Judge Jones:

Adopted a false definition of ID by claiming that ID requires "supernatural creation" and is merely a negative argument against evolution;

Denied the existence of pro-ID, peer-reviewed, scientific publications and research that were testified about in his courtroom;

Adopted an unfair double-standard of legal analysis where religious implications, beliefs, and motives count against ID but never against materialist theories of origins;

Presumed it is permissible for a federal judge to try to define science, settle controversial scientific questions, and explain the proper relationship between evolution and religion;

Attempted to turn science into a voting contest by claiming that popularity is required for an idea to be scientific."

It's Time for Some Folks to Get Over Dover - Evolution News & Views

Bottom line, Man Hands, you can stop cut and pasting Dover articles incessantly. In this case, Might does NOT make right.

 

[UltimateReality]

It was an appropriate response to your typical "rhetoric filled post and nothing of substance."

Hollie, it really is pretty pathetic how you dodge relevant questions. There are two things possibly here at play: Either you are not smart enough to figure out why the argument went here, or you are smart enough to figure you are intellectually outgunned and so you ignore, ignore, ignore and hope that it will eventually go away. So just in case the first possibility exist, let me explain it to you. You made the accusation that I didn't have a background in science, inferring that you did and that you were somehow more qualified than I am to make statements pertinent to this discussion. That is why I am hassling you and you continue to ignore. I guess I don't know why you won't share anything remotely personal about yourself. What are you afraid of? Do you think someone is going to figure out who you are? So what! I have posted pics of myself and shared personal details. Anyone who knows me would be able to know it was me instantly from this thread.

What are you hiding??? Oh and just in case you thought this was over...

What is your science background?

You have announced that you're a stalker. Good for you.

What s shame that your responses are nothing but cutting and pasting from fundie religious websites. That being the case, you should expect to be taken to task for cutting and pasting nonsense.

Well this proves beyond a shadow of a doubt you're a total dimwit. Responding to you is like arguing with a drunk.

Oh and by the way...

What is your science and educational background? What are you so afraid of?

 

[Hollie]

Hollie, it really is pretty pathetic how you dodge relevant questions. There are two things possibly here at play: Either you are not smart enough to figure out why the argument went here, or you are smart enough to figure you are intellectually outgunned and so you ignore, ignore, ignore and hope that it will eventually go away. So just in case the first possibility exist, let me explain it to you. You made the accusation that I didn't have a background in science, inferring that you did and that you were somehow more qualified than I am to make statements pertinent to this discussion. That is why I am hassling you and you continue to ignore. I guess I don't know why you won't share anything remotely personal about yourself. What are you afraid of? Do you think someone is going to figure out who you are? So what! I have posted pics of myself and shared personal details. Anyone who knows me would be able to know it was me instantly from this thread.

What are you hiding??? Oh and just in case you thought this was over...

What is your science background?

You have announced that you're a stalker. Good for you.

What s shame that your responses are nothing but cutting and pasting from fundie religious websites. That being the case, you should expect to be taken to task for cutting and pasting nonsense.

Well this proves beyond a shadow of a doubt you're a total dimwit. Responding to you is like arguing with a drunk.

Oh and by the way...

What is your science and educational background? What are you so afraid of?

An Index to Creationist Claims

Creationist claims are numerous and varied, so it is often difficult to track down information on any given claim. Plus,creationists constantly come up with new claims which need addressing. This site attempts, as much as possible, to make it easy to find rebuttals and references from the scientific community to any and all of the various creationist claims. It is updated frequently; see the What's New page for the latest changes.

Since most creationism is folklore, the claims are organized in an outline format following that of Stith Thompson's Motif-Index of Folk-Literature. Sections CA through CG deal with claims against conventional science, and sections CH through CJ contain claims about creationism itself.

 

[Hollie]

Remember that I'm only trying to help you out of the darkness and ignorance of idol worship

Court Upholds Denial of ICR Degrees – Dispatches from the Creation Wars

A federal court in Texas has upheld a decision by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board to deny the Institute for Creation Research Graduate School a certificate of authority to offer master’s degrees in science. The ICR moved from California to Texas but now cannot offer MS programs at its school because of this decision. You can see the full ruling here.

This is a ruling for summary judgment, which means both sides agreed to a basic set of facts and legal questions and there was no substantive disagreement on those facts and therefore no need to proceed to a full trial. And the facts here are pretty clear; it’s the legal questions that the court had to decide.

A panel of science education experts who visited the ICRGS to evaluate the program concluded that “much of the course content was outside the realm of science and lacked potential to help students understand the nature of science and the history and nature of the natural world.” The board therefore denied the request for authority to grant master’s degrees and the ICRGS filed suit.