Creationists

[Hollie]

"The data show that birds and mammals at Rancho La Brea show complete stasis and were unresponsive to the major climate change that occurred at 20 ka, consistent with other studies of Pleistocene animals and plants. Most explanations for such stasis (stabilizing selection, canalization) fail in this setting where climate is changing. One possible explanation is that most large birds and mammals are very broadly adapted and relatively insensitive to changes in their environments, although even the small mammals of the Pleistocene show stasis."

"I work at the other end of the size spectrum, on protein molecules rather than whole animals. It’s interesting that attempts to catch evolution in the act of doing the amazing things that the textbooks attribute to it seem to fail at both ends of the spectrum."

Douglas Axe: “Tar Pit Study Shows Complete Absence of Evolutionary Change” | Uncommon Descent

As you have already admitted that creationism is nothing more than stealth religion, cutting and pasting from goofy Christian creationist websites is nothing more than failed attempts at slandering of science.

 

[UltimateReality]

"The data show that birds and mammals at Rancho La Brea show complete stasis and were unresponsive to the major climate change that occurred at 20 ka, consistent with other studies of Pleistocene animals and plants. Most explanations for such stasis (stabilizing selection, canalization) fail in this setting where climate is changing. One possible explanation is that most large birds and mammals are very broadly adapted and relatively insensitive to changes in their environments, although even the small mammals of the Pleistocene show stasis."

"I work at the other end of the size spectrum, on protein molecules rather than whole animals. It’s interesting that attempts to catch evolution in the act of doing the amazing things that the textbooks attribute to it seem to fail at both ends of the spectrum."

Douglas Axe: “Tar Pit Study Shows Complete Absence of Evolutionary Change” | Uncommon Descent

As you have already admitted that creationism is nothing more than stealth religion, cutting and pasting from goofy Christian creationist websites is nothing more than failed attempts at slandering of science.

Typical uneducated response.

 

[Hollie]

"The data show that birds and mammals at Rancho La Brea show complete stasis and were unresponsive to the major climate change that occurred at 20 ka, consistent with other studies of Pleistocene animals and plants. Most explanations for such stasis (stabilizing selection, canalization) fail in this setting where climate is changing. One possible explanation is that most large birds and mammals are very broadly adapted and relatively insensitive to changes in their environments, although even the small mammals of the Pleistocene show stasis."

"I work at the other end of the size spectrum, on protein molecules rather than whole animals. It’s interesting that attempts to catch evolution in the act of doing the amazing things that the textbooks attribute to it seem to fail at both ends of the spectrum."

Douglas Axe: “Tar Pit Study Shows Complete Absence of Evolutionary Change” | Uncommon Descent

As you have already admitted that creationism is nothing more than stealth religion, cutting and pasting from goofy Christian creationist websites is nothing more than failed attempts at slandering of science.

Typical uneducated response.

Typical uneducated cut and paste.

Why would you expect anyone to take "creation science" / ID cut and paste seriously?

The agenda of creationism is clear: to press a religious viewpoint. The charlatans who run the creationist ministries don't perform actual peer reviewed science. As we see from your rabid cutting and pasting, your agenda is only to vilify science and attempt to make the hopeless case that any gap in science or knowkedge somehow translates into proof of your gods. It's silly and pointless. It's as silly and pointless as ywc cutting and pasting falsified "quotes" that were debunked in this very thread. That is so typical of the lies and sleazy tactics used by Christian creationists to further their religious agenda.

Creation ministries aren't performing experimentation and tests to validate your gods because science can't test for supernatural / invented / metaphysical gods. What they do is offer lies and misinformation in failed attempts to vilify science.

 

[UltimateReality]

As you have already admitted that creationism is nothing more than stealth religion, cutting and pasting from goofy Christian creationist websites is nothing more than failed attempts at slandering of science.

Typical uneducated response.

Typical uneducated cut and paste.

Why would you expect anyone to take "creation science" / ID cut and paste seriously?

The agenda of creationism is clear: to press a religious viewpoint. The charlatans who run the creationist ministries don't perform actual peer reviewed science. As we see from your rabid cutting and pasting, your agenda is only to vilify science and attempt to make the hopeless case that any gap in science or knowkedge somehow translates into proof of your gods. It's silly and pointless. It's as silly and pointless as ywc cutting and pasting falsified "quotes" that were debunked in this very thread. That is so typical of the lies and sleazy tactics used by Christian creationists to further their religious agenda.

Creation ministries aren't performing experimentation and tests to validate your gods because science can't test for supernatural / invented / metaphysical gods. What they do is offer lies and misinformation in failed attempts to vilify science.

Yawn.

 

[Hollie]

"The data show that birds and mammals at Rancho La Brea show complete stasis and were unresponsive to the major climate change that occurred at 20 ka, consistent with other studies of Pleistocene animals and plants. Most explanations for such stasis (stabilizing selection, canalization) fail in this setting where climate is changing. One possible explanation is that most large birds and mammals are very broadly adapted and relatively insensitive to changes in their environments, although even the small mammals of the Pleistocene show stasis."

"I work at the other end of the size spectrum, on protein molecules rather than whole animals. It’s interesting that attempts to catch evolution in the act of doing the amazing things that the textbooks attribute to it seem to fail at both ends of the spectrum."

Douglas Axe: “Tar Pit Study Shows Complete Absence of Evolutionary Change” | Uncommon Descent

Douglas Axe is a shill for the Disco ' tute who admits there is no verifiable data to support ID.

Why do you insist on cutting and pasting links to creationist ministries when both they and you admit that creationism and ID are nothing more than appeals to religion.


Encyclopedia of American Loons: #8: Douglas Axe

 

[Hollie]

Typical uneducated response.

Typical uneducated cut and paste.

Why would you expect anyone to take "creation science" / ID cut and paste seriously?

The agenda of creationism is clear: to press a religious viewpoint. The charlatans who run the creationist ministries don't perform actual peer reviewed science. As we see from your rabid cutting and pasting, your agenda is only to vilify science and attempt to make the hopeless case that any gap in science or knowkedge somehow translates into proof of your gods. It's silly and pointless. It's as silly and pointless as ywc cutting and pasting falsified "quotes" that were debunked in this very thread. That is so typical of the lies and sleazy tactics used by Christian creationists to further their religious agenda.

Creation ministries aren't performing experimentation and tests to validate your gods because science can't test for supernatural / invented / metaphysical gods. What they do is offer lies and misinformation in failed attempts to vilify science.

Yawn.

Quitting before it's your turn to be fired was a prudent choice.

 

[LOki]

Still waiting.

For what?

Identify the strawman.

Here you go...

Why do I have to explain or validate your strawman?

Good.

That was a response to this:

So if man is no more fit than E coli, how did we ever get from a microbe to a man?

This question is founded upon a number of fatuously bullshit premises that the reader is implicitly required identify and refute, or accept--premises that the theory of evolution by natural selection does not assert. Such fatuously bullshit premises would include:

• Humans were descended from E. Coli.
• If E. coli is an ancestor to humans, then E. coli should be extinct.
• E. Coli and humans directly compete for the same survival resources.
• The single-celled ancestors of human beings directly competed with E. coli for the same survival resources.
• E. coli does not share any common ancestry with humans.
• In order for E. coli and humans to have common ancestry, one must cause the extinction of the other.
• If E. coli is more fit for it's environment than humans, then humans should be extinct.
• If humans are more fit for their environment than E. coli, then E. coli should be extinct.

This list of possible bullshit premises just doesn't end. And there are no valid premises to your question, because there is nothing about the fitness of either E. coli or humans that calls into question human evolution, or the notion of a single-celled common ancestor for both E. coli and humans.

So, the patently presumptive assertion of ANY of the bullshit premises, that your question is necessarily founded upon, as being an actual assertion made by the theory of evolution by natural selection would be what? What would you call your ignoring actual assertions of the theory of evolution by natural selection and substituting your own distorted, exaggerated, misrepresented, and demonstrably bullshit versions of it's assertions?

 

[UltimateReality]

That was a response to this:

So if man is no more fit than E coli, how did we ever get from a microbe to a man?

This question is founded upon a number of fatuously bullshit premises that the reader is implicitly required identify and refute, or accept--premises that the theory of evolution by natural selection does not assert. Such fatuously bullshit premises would include:

• Humans were descended from E. Coli.
• If E. coli is an ancestor to humans, then E. coli should be extinct.
• E. Coli and humans directly compete for the same survival resources.
• The single-celled ancestors of human beings directly competed with E. coli for the same survival resources.
• E. coli does not share any common ancestry with humans.
• In order for E. coli and humans to have common ancestry, one must cause the extinction of the other.
• If E. coli is more fit for it's environment than humans, then humans should be extinct.
• If humans are more fit for their environment than E. coli, then E. coli should be extinct.

• 
  
  Ahhh Loki, you poor dear. Once again your lack of education and reading comprehension fail you miserably. Why not quote me in entirety??? Had you read on for another sentence, you would have seen how predictable and silly I made you look then, but even more foolish now that you would waste your time claiming all the strawman inferences above above when I had already refuted them in anticipation of your intellectually dishonest overuse of fallacy accusations. There is no strawman here...only your vivid imagination.
  
  

  So if man is no more fit than E coli, how did we ever get from a microbe to a man? How did the soup become the soup nazi? Before you whine, STRAWMAN!! STRAWMAN! I am not falling for your semantics tricks. I am not making the claim that man's ancestor is E coli. I am merely drawing an example for argumentative purposes, which in your ignorance you fail to grasp, or you resort to playing word games. No, evolution does not teach that humans came from mice or amoeba's, or elephants came from lizards, but in principle, this is what it claims. The TOE claims that Humans could have come from an "amoeba-LIKE" organism, or an amoeba like organism could be a distant ancestor.

 

[UltimateReality]

Typical uneducated cut and paste.

Why would you expect anyone to take "creation science" / ID cut and paste seriously?

The agenda of creationism is clear: to press a religious viewpoint. The charlatans who run the creationist ministries don't perform actual peer reviewed science. As we see from your rabid cutting and pasting, your agenda is only to vilify science and attempt to make the hopeless case that any gap in science or knowkedge somehow translates into proof of your gods. It's silly and pointless. It's as silly and pointless as ywc cutting and pasting falsified "quotes" that were debunked in this very thread. That is so typical of the lies and sleazy tactics used by Christian creationists to further their religious agenda.

Creation ministries aren't performing experimentation and tests to validate your gods because science can't test for supernatural / invented / metaphysical gods. What they do is offer lies and misinformation in failed attempts to vilify science.

Yawn.

Quitting before it's your turn to be fired was a prudent choice.

Only in your vivid fantasies.

 

[Hollie]

Yawn.

Quitting before it's your turn to be fired was a prudent choice.

Only in your vivid fantasies.

Your descent to flaccid and gratuitous one-liners is noted. That you would abandon your earlier claims to "creation science" for mere superstition / supermagicalism does not provide much assurance that you will even continue to try and support your claims to magic.

 

[LOki]

That was a response to this:

So if man is no more fit than E coli, how did we ever get from a microbe to a man?

This question is founded upon a number of fatuously bullshit premises that the reader is implicitly required identify and refute, or accept--premises that the theory of evolution by natural selection does not assert. Such fatuously bullshit premises would include:

• Humans were descended from E. Coli.
• If E. coli is an ancestor to humans, then E. coli should be extinct.
• E. Coli and humans directly compete for the same survival resources.
• The single-celled ancestors of human beings directly competed with E. coli for the same survival resources.
• E. coli does not share any common ancestry with humans.
• In order for E. coli and humans to have common ancestry, one must cause the extinction of the other.
• If E. coli is more fit for it's environment than humans, then humans should be extinct.
• If humans are more fit for their environment than E. coli, then E. coli should be extinct.

Ahhh Loki, you poor dear. Once again your lack of education and reading comprehension fail you miserably. Why not quote me in entirety???

I quoted the entire statement that I responded to. If you thought there should have been more, you should have brought it up in your challenge.

Had you read on for another sentence, you would have seen how predictable and silly I made you look then, but even more foolish now that you would waste your time claiming all the strawman inferences above above when I had already refuted them in anticipation of your intellectually dishonest overuse of fallacy accusations.

You see, this is the hilarious part ... you did no such thing.

There is no strawman here...only your vivid imagination.

Yeah. There actually is. It was ... how did you put it precisely? Oh, yes! It was " ... drawing an example for argumentative purposes."

That's right. You said it was what evolution claimed ... what were your exact words? Oh yes! You said, "evolution does not teach that humans came from mice or amoeba's, or elephants came from lizards, but in principle, this is what it claims."

So if man is no more fit than E coli, how did we ever get from a microbe to a man? How did the soup become the soup nazi? Before you whine, STRAWMAN!! STRAWMAN! I am not falling for your semantics tricks. I am not making the claim that man's ancestor is E coli. I am merely drawing an example for argumentative purposes, which in your ignorance you fail to grasp, or you resort to playing word games. No, evolution does not teach that humans came from mice or amoeba's, or elephants came from lizards, but in principle, this is what it claims. The TOE claims that Humans could have come from an "amoeba-LIKE" organism, or an amoeba like organism could be a distant ancestor.

Why did you edit out the following?

So I'm not falling for your black and white explanation denials, for the fact of the matter is, the TOE makes some preposterous generalized claims, but then says, but we really don't know the actual players.

Why didn't you "quote [yourself] in entirety???"

Ah yes, because I had a response to the dopey endgame of your string of bullshit, which was your perennial complaint regarding the uncertainties understood in scientific explanations, working hypotheses, and speculations (expressed in, and as, assumptions).

 

[UltimateReality]

That was a response to this:This question is founded upon a number of fatuously bullshit premises that the reader is implicitly required identify and refute, or accept--premises that the theory of evolution by natural selection does not assert. Such fatuously bullshit premises would include:

• Humans were descended from E. Coli.
• If E. coli is an ancestor to humans, then E. coli should be extinct.
• E. Coli and humans directly compete for the same survival resources.
• The single-celled ancestors of human beings directly competed with E. coli for the same survival resources.
• E. coli does not share any common ancestry with humans.
• In order for E. coli and humans to have common ancestry, one must cause the extinction of the other.
• If E. coli is more fit for it's environment than humans, then humans should be extinct.
• If humans are more fit for their environment than E. coli, then E. coli should be extinct.

Ahhh Loki, you poor dear. Once again your lack of education and reading comprehension fail you miserably. Why not quote me in entirety???

I quoted the entire statement that I responded to. If you thought there should have been more, you should have brought it up in your challenge.

You see, this is the hilarious part ... you did no such thing.

Yeah. There actually is. It was ... how did you put it precisely? Oh, yes! It was " ... drawing an example for argumentative purposes."

That's right. You said it was what evolution claimed ... what were your exact words? Oh yes! You said, "evolution does not teach that humans came from mice or amoeba's, or elephants came from lizards, but in principle, this is what it claims."

So if man is no more fit than E coli, how did we ever get from a microbe to a man? How did the soup become the soup nazi? Before you whine, STRAWMAN!! STRAWMAN! I am not falling for your semantics tricks. I am not making the claim that man's ancestor is E coli. I am merely drawing an example for argumentative purposes, which in your ignorance you fail to grasp, or you resort to playing word games. No, evolution does not teach that humans came from mice or amoeba's, or elephants came from lizards, but in principle, this is what it claims. The TOE claims that Humans could have come from an "amoeba-LIKE" organism, or an amoeba like organism could be a distant ancestor.

Why did you edit out the following?

So I'm not falling for your black and white explanation denials, for the fact of the matter is, the TOE makes some preposterous generalized claims, but then says, but we really don't know the actual players.

Why didn't you "quote [yourself] in entirety???"

Ah yes, because I had a response to the dopey endgame of your string of bullshit, which was your perennial complaint regarding the uncertainties understood in scientific explanations, working hypotheses, and speculations (expressed in, and as, assumptions).

Guess you missed the part "in principle". Definition: [adverb] with regard to fundamentals although not concerning details; Synonyms: In essence, in theory.

You still loose, cantelope. Your whole response is an EPIC FAIL.

So since you have claimed evolution is such a fact, what single cell organism is man's ancestor?

 

[UltimateReality]

Quitting before it's your turn to be fired was a prudent choice.

Only in your vivid fantasies.

Your descent to flaccid and gratuitous one-liners is noted. That you would abandon your earlier claims to "creation science" for mere superstition / supermagicalism does not provide much assurance that you will even continue to try and support your claims to magic.

I'm confused. Do you mean the superstition and supermagicalism of the TOE? Or your hallucinations about where you went to college??

 

[LOki]

Ahhh Loki, you poor dear. Once again your lack of education and reading comprehension fail you miserably. Why not quote me in entirety???

I quoted the entire statement that I responded to. If you thought there should have been more, you should have brought it up in your challenge.

You see, this is the hilarious part ... you did no such thing.

Yeah. There actually is. It was ... how did you put it precisely? Oh, yes! It was " ... drawing an example for argumentative purposes."

That's right. You said it was what evolution claimed ... what were your exact words? Oh yes! You said, "evolution does not teach that humans came from mice or amoeba's, or elephants came from lizards, but in principle, this is what it claims."

Why did you edit out the following?

So I'm not falling for your black and white explanation denials, for the fact of the matter is, the TOE makes some preposterous generalized claims, but then says, but we really don't know the actual players.

Why didn't you "quote [yourself] in entirety???"

Ah yes, because I had a response to the dopey endgame of your string of bullshit, which was your perennial complaint regarding the uncertainties understood in scientific explanations, working hypotheses, and speculations (expressed in, and as, assumptions).

Guess you missed the part "in principle". Definition: [adverb] with regard to fundamentals although not concerning details; Synonyms: In essence, in theory.

prin·ci·ple   [prin-suh-puhl]
noun

1. an accepted or professed rule of action or conduct: a person of good moral principles.
2. a fundamental, primary, or general law or truth from which others are derived: the principles of modern physics.
3. a fundamental doctrine or tenet; a distinctive ruling opinion: the principles of the Stoics.
4. principles, a personal or specific basis of conduct or management: to adhere to one's principles; a kindergarten run on modern principles.
5. guiding sense of the requirements and obligations of right conduct: a person of principle.

Idioms
14. in principle, in essence or substance; fundamentally: to accept a plan in principle.​

Ah. So you're hanging your hat on idiomatic usage. Grand.

Even in essence or substance, the theory of evolution does not assert that humans came from mice or amoeba's, or elephants came from lizards.

And let's not forget that there are no valid premises to your question ("So, if man is no more fit than E coli, how did we ever get from a microbe to a man?"), because there is nothing about the fitness of either E. coli or humans that calls into question human evolution, or the notion of a single-celled common ancestor for both E. coli and humans.

Let's not forget all the possible bullshit premises involved in asking that question as you desperately try to keep the whole reading world focused only on one of them.

You still loose, cantelope. Your whole response is an EPIC FAIL.

Whatever you say Mr. Adverb.</sarcasm>

So since you have claimed evolution is such a fact, ...

And it is. No rational person denies it. Even the intellectually dishonest retards at the Discovery Institute accepts this; the ******* POPE accepts this.

... what single cell organism is man's ancestor?

How the **** should I know? Besides, the Theory of Evolution is not a theory on the identity of the common ancestor of all life.

So now why is it that you refuse to explain this "God" thing of yours?

I admitted that I have no idea what you're talking about. You've brought up this "God" thing of yours, but have yet to explain what it is. WHY IS THAT?

Now, I have been exposed--presumably by intellects of such small stature that they are dwarfed by mental midgets--to literally hundreds of self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts of some "God."

Even a mental midget can see that those clearly don't count, right? Even a mental midget can see that those logically fallacious accounts "God" things are obviously fraudulent.

So help me out here, and finally explain this "God" thing you reference in terms that even a mental midget can understand.

 

[Hollie]

Only in your vivid fantasies.

Your descent to flaccid and gratuitous one-liners is noted. That you would abandon your earlier claims to "creation science" for mere superstition / supermagicalism does not provide much assurance that you will even continue to try and support your claims to magic.

I'm confused. Do you mean the superstition and supermagicalism of the TOE? Or your hallucinations about where you went to college??

The science community has no doubts about the veracity of the theory of evolution or the science fact supporting it. Typically, it is fundamentalist Christians who have an inability to accept the science.

I was simply pointing out that your rants are of the puerile sort that serve no pragmatic purpose other than to let the fundie blow off steam. It was absolutely not of any positive contribution to the thread, and certainly would do nothing more than further reduce your nearly non-existent credibility.

As to your lack of college degree, that is evident in your really appalling lack of ability to present a coherent argument.

 

[ima]

Your descent to flaccid and gratuitous one-liners is noted. That you would abandon your earlier claims to "creation science" for mere superstition / supermagicalism does not provide much assurance that you will even continue to try and support your claims to magic.

I'm confused. Do you mean the superstition and supermagicalism of the TOE? Or your hallucinations about where you went to college??

The science community has no doubts about the veracity of the theory of evolution or the science fact supporting it. Typically, it is fundamentalist Christians who have an inability to accept the science.

I was simply pointing out that your rants are of the puerile sort that serve no pragmatic purpose other than to let the fundie blow off steam. It was absolutely not of any positive contribution to the thread, and certainly would do nothing more than further reduce your nearly non-existent credibility.

As to your lack of college degree, that is evident in your really appalling lack of ability to present a coherent argument.

The church needed science to tell them that the world was not flat.

 

[UltimateReality]

I quoted the entire statement that I responded to. If you thought there should have been more, you should have brought it up in your challenge.

You see, this is the hilarious part ... you did no such thing.

Yeah. There actually is. It was ... how did you put it precisely? Oh, yes! It was " ... drawing an example for argumentative purposes."

That's right. You said it was what evolution claimed ... what were your exact words? Oh yes! You said, "evolution does not teach that humans came from mice or amoeba's, or elephants came from lizards, but in principle, this is what it claims."

Why did you edit out the following?Why didn't you "quote [yourself] in entirety???"

Ah yes, because I had a response to the dopey endgame of your string of bullshit, which was your perennial complaint regarding the uncertainties understood in scientific explanations, working hypotheses, and speculations (expressed in, and as, assumptions).

Guess you missed the part "in principle". Definition: [adverb] with regard to fundamentals although not concerning details; Synonyms: In essence, in theory.

prin·ci·ple&#8194; &#8194;[prin-suh-puhl]
noun

1. an accepted or professed rule of action or conduct: a person of good moral principles.
2. a fundamental, primary, or general law or truth from which others are derived: the principles of modern physics.
3. a fundamental doctrine or tenet; a distinctive ruling opinion: the principles of the Stoics.
4. principles, a personal or specific basis of conduct or management: to adhere to one's principles; a kindergarten run on modern principles.
5. guiding sense of the requirements and obligations of right conduct: a person of principle.

Idioms
14. in principle, in essence or substance; fundamentally: to accept a plan in principle.​

Ah. So you're hanging your hat on idiomatic usage. Grand.

Even in essence or substance, the theory of evolution does not assert that humans came from mice or amoeba's, or elephants came from lizards.

And let's not forget that there are no valid premises to your question ("So, if man is no more fit than E coli, how did we ever get from a microbe to a man?"), because there is nothing about the fitness of either E. coli or humans that calls into question human evolution, or the notion of a single-celled common ancestor for both E. coli and humans.

Let's not forget all the possible bullshit premises involved in asking that question as you desperately try to keep the whole reading world focused only on one of them.

Whatever you say Mr. Adverb.</sarcasm>

So since you have claimed evolution is such a fact, ...

And it is. No rational person denies it. Even the intellectually dishonest retards at the Discovery Institute accepts this; the ******* POPE accepts this.

... what single cell organism is man's ancestor?

How the **** should I know? Besides, the Theory of Evolution is not a theory on the identity of the common ancestor of all life.

So now why is it that you refuse to explain this "God" thing of yours?

I admitted that I have no idea what you're talking about. You've brought up this "God" thing of yours, but have yet to explain what it is. WHY IS THAT?

Now, I have been exposed--presumably by intellects of such small stature that they are dwarfed by mental midgets--to literally hundreds of self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts of some "God."

Even a mental midget can see that those clearly don't count, right? Even a mental midget can see that those logically fallacious accounts "God" things are obviously fraudulent.

So help me out here, and finally explain this "God" thing you reference in terms that even a mental midget can understand.

The "God thing" you refer to has been explained to you numerous times in the past 600 pages. If you don't understand the concept that has been explained to you numerous times by now, then you will probably never be able to grasp the religious and philosophical notions of the Creator. Your lack of understanding also brings to light your failure to grasp your OWN Darwinian religious beliefs as well.

Let's look at your quote, "How the %^&$ should I know? Besides, the Theory of Evolution is not a theory on the identity of the common ancestor of all life."

From Wiki:
"In evolutionary biology, a group of organisms share common descent if they have a common ancestor. There is strong quantitative support for the theory that all living organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor.[1][2]"

"The last universal ancestor (LUA) (also called the last universal common ancestor, LUCA), that is, the most recent common ancestor of all currently living organisms,[1] is believed to have appeared about 3.9 billion years ago."

"Considering what we know of the offspring groups (see phylogenetic bracketing), the LUA was a small, single-cell organism. It would have had a cell wall and a ring-shaped coil of DNA floating freely within the cell, like modern bacteria."

"Charles Darwin proposed the theory of universal common descent through an evolutionary process in his book On the Origin of Species, saying, "Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed."

It is no wonder you struggle with the religious concept of God when you have so blatantly demonstrated your total lack of understanding of the very metaphysical beliefs on origins you espouse. Digging deeper into the LUA, we come across the concept of horizontal gene transfer. If there was ever an example of evolutionary biologists making up "just so" stories to force the evidence to fit their theory, this is it. Your denial of the presupposition of the Darwinian party line when it comes to evidence just demonstrates your blind faith in the concept. Evolutionary biologists presuppose Darwinism is true and force fit the evidence to the theory. Their response when genetic evidence didn't add up??? Evolution has to be true so the genes must have transferred. What an absolute joke!!! And you call this science? Yeah, whatever.

I suppose I can try and explain God to you one more time. If we just assume for a second all the made up BS about evolution is true, ID theory's hypothesis could easily be applied to Darwin's statement above as the intelligent agent (lower case) responsible for "breathing life" into the so called LUA. However, ID goes farther because there is evidence that the same intelligent agent returned to earth several times since it's formation to "seed" new life forms. ID makes no references to the intelligent agent's identity, only hypothesizes that there is ample evidence that he/she/it predates the universe. MY religious belief is that the intelligent agent is the Intelligent Agent (upper case) described in the collection of 66 books known as the Bible. This Agent as identified as the God Jehovah or Yahweh.

Finally, trying to detract from the concept of God by continually referring to him as invisible just demonstrates your mental midgetry. Gravity is invisible. So is the wind. Your ignorant use of the adjective infers that just because something is invisible to the human eye, it doesn't exist. Yet we know that the wind and gravity are real.

 

[Hollie]

Guess you missed the part "in principle". Definition: [adverb] with regard to fundamentals although not concerning details; Synonyms: In essence, in theory.

prin·ci·ple&#8194; &#8194;[prin-suh-puhl]
noun

1. an accepted or professed rule of action or conduct: a person of good moral principles.
2. a fundamental, primary, or general law or truth from which others are derived: the principles of modern physics.
3. a fundamental doctrine or tenet; a distinctive ruling opinion: the principles of the Stoics.
4. principles, a personal or specific basis of conduct or management: to adhere to one's principles; a kindergarten run on modern principles.
5. guiding sense of the requirements and obligations of right conduct: a person of principle.

Idioms
14. in principle, in essence or substance; fundamentally: to accept a plan in principle.​

Ah. So you're hanging your hat on idiomatic usage. Grand.

Even in essence or substance, the theory of evolution does not assert that humans came from mice or amoeba's, or elephants came from lizards.

And let's not forget that there are no valid premises to your question ("So, if man is no more fit than E coli, how did we ever get from a microbe to a man?"), because there is nothing about the fitness of either E. coli or humans that calls into question human evolution, or the notion of a single-celled common ancestor for both E. coli and humans.

Let's not forget all the possible bullshit premises involved in asking that question as you desperately try to keep the whole reading world focused only on one of them.

Whatever you say Mr. Adverb.</sarcasm>

And it is. No rational person denies it. Even the intellectually dishonest retards at the Discovery Institute accepts this; the ******* POPE accepts this.

... what single cell organism is man's ancestor?

How the **** should I know? Besides, the Theory of Evolution is not a theory on the identity of the common ancestor of all life.

So now why is it that you refuse to explain this "God" thing of yours?

I admitted that I have no idea what you're talking about. You've brought up this "God" thing of yours, but have yet to explain what it is. WHY IS THAT?

Now, I have been exposed--presumably by intellects of such small stature that they are dwarfed by mental midgets--to literally hundreds of self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts of some "God."

Even a mental midget can see that those clearly don't count, right? Even a mental midget can see that those logically fallacious accounts "God" things are obviously fraudulent.

So help me out here, and finally explain this "God" thing you reference in terms that even a mental midget can understand.

The "God thing" you refer to has been explained to you numerous times in the past 600 pages. If you don't understand the concept that has been explained to you numerous times by now, then you will probably never be able to grasp the religious and philosophical notions of the Creator. Your lack of understanding also brings to light your failure to grasp your OWN Darwinian religious beliefs as well.

Let's look at your quote, "How the %^&$ should I know? Besides, the Theory of Evolution is not a theory on the identity of the common ancestor of all life."

From Wiki:
"In evolutionary biology, a group of organisms share common descent if they have a common ancestor. There is strong quantitative support for the theory that all living organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor.[1][2]"

"The last universal ancestor (LUA) (also called the last universal common ancestor, LUCA), that is, the most recent common ancestor of all currently living organisms,[1] is believed to have appeared about 3.9 billion years ago."

"Considering what we know of the offspring groups (see phylogenetic bracketing), the LUA was a small, single-cell organism. It would have had a cell wall and a ring-shaped coil of DNA floating freely within the cell, like modern bacteria."

"Charles Darwin proposed the theory of universal common descent through an evolutionary process in his book On the Origin of Species, saying, "Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed."

It is no wonder you struggle with the religious concept of God when you have so blatantly demonstrated your total lack of understanding of the very metaphysical beliefs on origins you espouse. Digging deeper into the LUA, we come across the concept of horizontal gene transfer. If there was ever an example of evolutionary biologists making up "just so" stories to force the evidence to fit their theory, this is it. Your denial of the presupposition of the Darwinian party line when it comes to evidence just demonstrates your blind faith in the concept. Evolutionary biologists presuppose Darwinism is true and force fit the evidence to the theory. Their response when genetic evidence didn't add up??? Evolution has to be true so the genes must have transferred. What an absolute joke!!! And you call this science? Yeah, whatever.

I suppose I can try and explain God to you one more time. If we just assume for a second all the made up BS about evolution is true, ID theory's hypothesis could easily be applied to Darwin's statement above as the intelligent agent (lower case) responsible for "breathing life" into the so called LUA. However, ID goes farther because there is evidence that the same intelligent agent returned to earth several times since it's formation to "seed" new life forms. ID makes no references to the intelligent agent's identity, only hypothesizes that there is ample evidence that he/she/it predates the universe. MY religious belief is that the intelligent agent is the Intelligent Agent (upper case) described in the collection of 66 books known as the Bible. This Agent as identified as the God Jehovah or Yahweh.

Finally, trying to detract from the concept of God by continually referring to him as invisible just demonstrates your mental midgetry. Gravity is invisible. So is the wind. Your ignorant use of the adjective infers that just because something is invisible to the human eye, it doesn't exist. Yet we know that the wind and gravity are real.

The above is just a reiteration of the boilerplate, science loathing diatribe we’ve read before.

Purely superficially, if one takes the time to briefly read their history, one will quickly realize that gods are a convenience, usually for politically motivated reasons. In ancient times to the present, it is quite simple to whip up a populace into agreeing with a specific idea if you can convince that populace that there is an unseen being that is resolutely on their side. This is an extension of our tribal instincts, wherein we place the mantle of superiority upon a person or persons, providing they can deliver the things we have convinced ourselves we want. No mere mortal can come close to instilling a sense of loyalty and duty that a god can, especially as over the millennia god's powers have been enhanced and expanded.

It’s odd that evidences of the gods would take the form of a book that we know was created by men and which we know was changed, edited and revised such that we have no way of knowing the original contents. In practice, this is the egregious sin of idolatry - specifically, worshiping a book - and a book containing no eyewitness reportage re: the religious traditions that were the basis for the religion, an arbitrary compilation of writings from murky sources collected and edited centuries after the alleged occurrence of the events for which the believers would maintain it provides an infallible account, thus readily attributing divinity to writers unknown (and not to those haphazardly excluded), the compilers, editors, translators, scribes, etc., who had a hand, literally or figuratively, in the literary project. To err is human - unless you are amongst the legions of book worshippers upon whom the believers bestow godhead.

 

[UltimateReality]

prin·ci·ple&#8194; &#8194;[prin-suh-puhl]
noun

1. an accepted or professed rule of action or conduct: a person of good moral principles.
2. a fundamental, primary, or general law or truth from which others are derived: the principles of modern physics.
3. a fundamental doctrine or tenet; a distinctive ruling opinion: the principles of the Stoics.
4. principles, a personal or specific basis of conduct or management: to adhere to one's principles; a kindergarten run on modern principles.
5. guiding sense of the requirements and obligations of right conduct: a person of principle.

Idioms
14. in principle, in essence or substance; fundamentally: to accept a plan in principle.​

Ah. So you're hanging your hat on idiomatic usage. Grand.

Even in essence or substance, the theory of evolution does not assert that humans came from mice or amoeba's, or elephants came from lizards.

And let's not forget that there are no valid premises to your question ("So, if man is no more fit than E coli, how did we ever get from a microbe to a man?"), because there is nothing about the fitness of either E. coli or humans that calls into question human evolution, or the notion of a single-celled common ancestor for both E. coli and humans.

Let's not forget all the possible bullshit premises involved in asking that question as you desperately try to keep the whole reading world focused only on one of them.

Whatever you say Mr. Adverb.</sarcasm>

And it is. No rational person denies it. Even the intellectually dishonest retards at the Discovery Institute accepts this; the ******* POPE accepts this.

How the **** should I know? Besides, the Theory of Evolution is not a theory on the identity of the common ancestor of all life.

So now why is it that you refuse to explain this "God" thing of yours?

I admitted that I have no idea what you're talking about. You've brought up this "God" thing of yours, but have yet to explain what it is. WHY IS THAT?

Now, I have been exposed--presumably by intellects of such small stature that they are dwarfed by mental midgets--to literally hundreds of self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts of some "God."

Even a mental midget can see that those clearly don't count, right? Even a mental midget can see that those logically fallacious accounts "God" things are obviously fraudulent.

So help me out here, and finally explain this "God" thing you reference in terms that even a mental midget can understand.

The "God thing" you refer to has been explained to you numerous times in the past 600 pages. If you don't understand the concept that has been explained to you numerous times by now, then you will probably never be able to grasp the religious and philosophical notions of the Creator. Your lack of understanding also brings to light your failure to grasp your OWN Darwinian religious beliefs as well.

Let's look at your quote, "How the %^&$ should I know? Besides, the Theory of Evolution is not a theory on the identity of the common ancestor of all life."

From Wiki:
"In evolutionary biology, a group of organisms share common descent if they have a common ancestor. There is strong quantitative support for the theory that all living organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor.[1][2]"

"The last universal ancestor (LUA) (also called the last universal common ancestor, LUCA), that is, the most recent common ancestor of all currently living organisms,[1] is believed to have appeared about 3.9 billion years ago."

"Considering what we know of the offspring groups (see phylogenetic bracketing), the LUA was a small, single-cell organism. It would have had a cell wall and a ring-shaped coil of DNA floating freely within the cell, like modern bacteria."

"Charles Darwin proposed the theory of universal common descent through an evolutionary process in his book On the Origin of Species, saying, "Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed."

It is no wonder you struggle with the religious concept of God when you have so blatantly demonstrated your total lack of understanding of the very metaphysical beliefs on origins you espouse. Digging deeper into the LUA, we come across the concept of horizontal gene transfer. If there was ever an example of evolutionary biologists making up "just so" stories to force the evidence to fit their theory, this is it. Your denial of the presupposition of the Darwinian party line when it comes to evidence just demonstrates your blind faith in the concept. Evolutionary biologists presuppose Darwinism is true and force fit the evidence to the theory. Their response when genetic evidence didn't add up??? Evolution has to be true so the genes must have transferred. What an absolute joke!!! And you call this science? Yeah, whatever.

I suppose I can try and explain God to you one more time. If we just assume for a second all the made up BS about evolution is true, ID theory's hypothesis could easily be applied to Darwin's statement above as the intelligent agent (lower case) responsible for "breathing life" into the so called LUA. However, ID goes farther because there is evidence that the same intelligent agent returned to earth several times since it's formation to "seed" new life forms. ID makes no references to the intelligent agent's identity, only hypothesizes that there is ample evidence that he/she/it predates the universe. MY religious belief is that the intelligent agent is the Intelligent Agent (upper case) described in the collection of 66 books known as the Bible. This Agent as identified as the God Jehovah or Yahweh.

Finally, trying to detract from the concept of God by continually referring to him as invisible just demonstrates your mental midgetry. Gravity is invisible. So is the wind. Your ignorant use of the adjective infers that just because something is invisible to the human eye, it doesn't exist. Yet we know that the wind and gravity are real.

The above is just a reiteration of the boilerplate, science loathing diatribe we&#8217;ve read before.

Purely superficially, if one takes the time to briefly read their history, one will quickly realize that gods are a convenience, usually for politically motivated reasons. In ancient times to the present, it is quite simple to whip up a populace into agreeing with a specific idea if you can convince that populace that there is an unseen being that is resolutely on their side. This is an extension of our tribal instincts, wherein we place the mantle of superiority upon a person or persons, providing they can deliver the things we have convinced ourselves we want. No mere mortal can come close to instilling a sense of loyalty and duty that a god can, especially as over the millennia god's powers have been enhanced and expanded.

It&#8217;s odd that evidences of the gods would take the form of a book that we know was created by men and which we know was changed, edited and revised such that we have no way of knowing the original contents. In practice, this is the egregious sin of idolatry - specifically, worshiping a book - and a book containing no eyewitness reportage re: the religious traditions that were the basis for the religion, an arbitrary compilation of writings from murky sources collected and edited centuries after the alleged occurrence of the events for which the believers would maintain it provides an infallible account, thus readily attributing divinity to writers unknown (and not to those haphazardly excluded), the compilers, editors, translators, scribes, etc., who had a hand, literally or figuratively, in the literary project. To err is human - unless you are amongst the legions of book worshippers upon whom the believers bestow godhead.

Interesting. Please tell me more about the Koran.

 

[Hollie]

The "God thing" you refer to has been explained to you numerous times in the past 600 pages. If you don't understand the concept that has been explained to you numerous times by now, then you will probably never be able to grasp the religious and philosophical notions of the Creator. Your lack of understanding also brings to light your failure to grasp your OWN Darwinian religious beliefs as well.

Let's look at your quote, "How the %^&$ should I know? Besides, the Theory of Evolution is not a theory on the identity of the common ancestor of all life."

From Wiki:
"In evolutionary biology, a group of organisms share common descent if they have a common ancestor. There is strong quantitative support for the theory that all living organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor.[1][2]"

"The last universal ancestor (LUA) (also called the last universal common ancestor, LUCA), that is, the most recent common ancestor of all currently living organisms,[1] is believed to have appeared about 3.9 billion years ago."

"Considering what we know of the offspring groups (see phylogenetic bracketing), the LUA was a small, single-cell organism. It would have had a cell wall and a ring-shaped coil of DNA floating freely within the cell, like modern bacteria."

"Charles Darwin proposed the theory of universal common descent through an evolutionary process in his book On the Origin of Species, saying, "Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed."

It is no wonder you struggle with the religious concept of God when you have so blatantly demonstrated your total lack of understanding of the very metaphysical beliefs on origins you espouse. Digging deeper into the LUA, we come across the concept of horizontal gene transfer. If there was ever an example of evolutionary biologists making up "just so" stories to force the evidence to fit their theory, this is it. Your denial of the presupposition of the Darwinian party line when it comes to evidence just demonstrates your blind faith in the concept. Evolutionary biologists presuppose Darwinism is true and force fit the evidence to the theory. Their response when genetic evidence didn't add up??? Evolution has to be true so the genes must have transferred. What an absolute joke!!! And you call this science? Yeah, whatever.

I suppose I can try and explain God to you one more time. If we just assume for a second all the made up BS about evolution is true, ID theory's hypothesis could easily be applied to Darwin's statement above as the intelligent agent (lower case) responsible for "breathing life" into the so called LUA. However, ID goes farther because there is evidence that the same intelligent agent returned to earth several times since it's formation to "seed" new life forms. ID makes no references to the intelligent agent's identity, only hypothesizes that there is ample evidence that he/she/it predates the universe. MY religious belief is that the intelligent agent is the Intelligent Agent (upper case) described in the collection of 66 books known as the Bible. This Agent as identified as the God Jehovah or Yahweh.

Finally, trying to detract from the concept of God by continually referring to him as invisible just demonstrates your mental midgetry. Gravity is invisible. So is the wind. Your ignorant use of the adjective infers that just because something is invisible to the human eye, it doesn't exist. Yet we know that the wind and gravity are real.

The above is just a reiteration of the boilerplate, science loathing diatribe we’ve read before.

Purely superficially, if one takes the time to briefly read their history, one will quickly realize that gods are a convenience, usually for politically motivated reasons. In ancient times to the present, it is quite simple to whip up a populace into agreeing with a specific idea if you can convince that populace that there is an unseen being that is resolutely on their side. This is an extension of our tribal instincts, wherein we place the mantle of superiority upon a person or persons, providing they can deliver the things we have convinced ourselves we want. No mere mortal can come close to instilling a sense of loyalty and duty that a god can, especially as over the millennia god's powers have been enhanced and expanded.

It’s odd that evidences of the gods would take the form of a book that we know was created by men and which we know was changed, edited and revised such that we have no way of knowing the original contents. In practice, this is the egregious sin of idolatry - specifically, worshiping a book - and a book containing no eyewitness reportage re: the religious traditions that were the basis for the religion, an arbitrary compilation of writings from murky sources collected and edited centuries after the alleged occurrence of the events for which the believers would maintain it provides an infallible account, thus readily attributing divinity to writers unknown (and not to those haphazardly excluded), the compilers, editors, translators, scribes, etc., who had a hand, literally or figuratively, in the literary project. To err is human - unless you are amongst the legions of book worshippers upon whom the believers bestow godhead.

Interesting. Please tell me more about the Koran.

Your worshipping at the altar of Harun Yahya should have given you some insight into the koran.

Pretending that the bibles are materially different is wishful thinking. The classic argument against the proposed attributes of the gods (the omni's) show that the triune characteristics define gods that cannot possibly exist. One cannot be all good, all powerful and all knowing in any logical sense, at least not within the strictures of our present existence. The fact that there is suffering, death, and evil (if one is compelled to believe in things such as good and evil as concepts that exist as realities and not simply as human conventions), establishes that a god, if he is to have created all, has allowed such things to exist in the first place. This is not consistent with omnibenvolence. If a thing is all good, then by definition there can be nothing evil about it; certainly it is incapable of creating anything that in and of itself can be considered evil.

But of course for fundies, logic and rational thinking doesn't account for much.