Creationists

[daws101]

Typical evo fundie response.

An appropriate response to an angry, self-hating Christian zealot who offers nothing but cutting and pasting from fundie Christian ministries.

Ah, the self-hating accusation. I can assure that I have a healthy self image and am a contrubuting, functioning member of society. By a strictly materialistic viewpoint, I have every thing the world puts value on... Fat custom house in a gated lake community, sweet car, every iGadget made, and a beautiful wife (all of which came to me by God's blessing for sure). However, the world has proven over and over again how miserable most people are who achieve any semblance of wealth. They run on the hamster wheel towards more and more STUFF and nothing satisfies. Nope, my peace and self-worth come from Christ and his amazing love for me. God's love is lasting, through eternity in fact, and not fleeting like so many things the world offers.

I guess the real point is I was self-hating to some extent, but that was BEFORE I gave my life to Christ. Hollie, it is evident to all you're still stuck there.

the above sales pitch for "what god gave U.R."
is prime example of talking out of both sides of your mouth .
it makes all clams U.R. has made about the evils of materialism void.
I'm positive that he'd go bat shit if any of his toys were lost, just like any other materialist.
what U.R and all other faux Christians forget "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.
35For whoever would save his life will lose it; and whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel's will save it.
36For what does it profit a man, to gain the whole world and forfeit his life? (Mark 8:34-36)

4. The rich will regret their wealth.

btw I've made and spent more money then U.R. EVER WILL

 

[daws101]

Here lets clarify for the third grader among us. The specific reference above is referring to genetic "evidence" that neanderthal and homo sapien diverge approximately 600,000 years ago. However, there just isn't enough time for the changes required to differentiate N for HS according to Darwin's theory to occur in that relatively short time. So if Loki was the legend in his own mind that he likes to try and convince everyone else of, he would be aware of this facts and he would have know that this was inferred from my statement above. Let's refer back to my un-Loki-polluted statement:

"Furthermore, evolution would ask us to believe that for evolution to occur [in the time periods claimed], it needs to "work" in small populations. Based on dna evidence, a small band of Neanderthals would have to have separated from the group and then lived in total isolation for 600,000 years."

And Loki's typical response??? Just yell Strawman and maybe no one will notice what an incompetent moron you are. Please Loki, explain this strawman...

"Evidence from sequencing mitochondrial DNA indicated that no significant gene flow occurred between H. neanderthalensis and H. sapiens, and, therefore, the two were separate species that shared a common ancestor about 660,000 years ago.[95][96][97] However, the 2010 sequencing of the Neanderthal genome indicated that Neanderthals did indeed interbreed with anatomically modern humans circa 45,000 to 80,000 years ago (at the approximate time that modern humans migrated out from Africa, but before they dispersed into Europe, Asia and elsewhere).[98] Nearly all modern non-African humans have 1% to 4% of their DNA derived from Neanderthal DNA,[98] and this finding is consistent with recent studies indicating that the divergence of some human alleles dates to one Ma, although the interpretation of these studies has been questioned."

"Current research has established that humans are genetically highly homogenous; that is, the DNA of individuals is more alike than usual for most species, which may have resulted from their relatively recent evolution or the possibility of a population bottleneck resulting from cataclysmic natural events such as the Toba catastrophe.[112][113][114] Distinctive genetic characteristics have arisen, however, primarily as the result of small groups of people moving into new environmental circumstances. These adapted traits are a very small component of the Homo sapiens genome, but include various characteristics such as skin color and nose form, in addition to internal characteristics such as the ability to breathe more efficiently at high altitudes."

Speciation events are important in the theory of punctuated equilibrium, which accounts for the pattern in the fossil record of short "bursts" of evolution interspersed with relatively long periods of stasis, where species remain relatively unchanged.[231] In this theory, speciation and rapid evolution are linked, with natural selection and genetic drift acting most strongly on organisms undergoing speciation in novel habitats or small populations. As a result, the periods of stasis in the fossil record correspond to the parental population and the organisms undergoing speciation and rapid evolution are found in small populations or geographically restricted habitats and therefore rarely being preserved as fossils.

Allopatric speciation suggests that species with large central populations are stabilized by their large volume and the process gene flow. New and even beneficial mutations are diluted by the population's large size and are unable to reach fixation, due to such factors as constantly changing environments.[15] If this is the case, then the transformation of whole lineages should be rare, as the fossil record indicates. Smaller populations on the other hand, which are isolated from the parental stock, are decoupled from the homogenizing effects of gene flow. In addition, pressure from natural selection is especially intense, as peripheral isolated populations exist at the outer edges of ecological tolerance.

Human evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Genetic drift - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Punctuated equilibrium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

the bullshit to fact ratio rises when UR is compelled to use bold and oversized type,

Says the man who doesn't even understand the exchange between Loki and myself, nor the fact that I used the atheist-sympathizing Wiki to prove him wrong. Bold type is the fact he denied for emphasis. And where is Loki? As it typical of Loki, rather than admit he was wrong, he has tucked his tail and skedaddled.

JUST KEEP TELLING YOURSELF THAT LIE, It proves my point for me!

 

[LOki]

Loki there is not enough evidence to suggest a theory for the origins of life.

But there's enough evidence to suggest that a magical being in another dimension that no one has ever been to, has made everything we see?

The way this planet is set up and all the necessary organs and blood so on and so on yes I believe there is plenty of evidence of a designer.

I don't believe in miracles that are caused by naturalism.

I'm surprised. Such self-contradicting concepts are just the kind of unprovable bullshit folks like you like to trot out as tautological truths.

I believe all miracles are the result of a life force.

“A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.” ― Friedrich Nietzsche​

Chance does not pass the smell test.

Nor do miracles, leprechauns, the Easter Bunny, or your God.

 

[daws101]

Prove what you are saying.

She doesn't need to. You can learn about this yourself. Look it up. You have the internet. If you choose not to accept facts, then this debate should be over. You don't simply get to deny facts in order to continue your ridiculous assertions about a 6,000 year old earth that DEFIES ALL EVIDENCE we have. You're personal incredulity should not be made into anyone else's problem. How selfish and narcissistic can you be?!

Earlier in this thread I made the argument how mutation fixation can never happen the way evolutionist claim. I could not find it but I found an article discussing the same nine reasons why evolution through mutations can never happen. Now if you guys wish to go down this road read this article and let's get to it. In other words poop or get off the pot.



THE REMAINDER OF THIS POST WAS DELETED AS THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE CLAIMS MADE THEREIN
THE SOURCE MATERIAL Mutation Fixation: A Dead End for Macro-evolution IS HIGHLY BIAS AND SPECULATIVE.

ALSO THE REFERENCE MATERIAL ON WHICH THE ARTICLE IS BASED HAS BEEN PROVEN ERRONEOUS AND OUT OF DATE...

 

[ima]

Does ID mean that god created gay people and animals?

No.

So who did?

 

[daws101]

god is not science. God does not have to test study and observe to understand how things work.

assumption not fact

 

[LOki]

You can't prove that chemicals came together undirected and produced life can you ?

I don't have to.

Regardless of how incomplete and uncertain such explanations might prove to be, explanations founded upon, and validated with, verifiable evidence and/or valid logic are certainly better explanations for the origin of life than this quite obviously imaginary "God" of yours.

Science can only show these chemicals are needed for life.

The evidence is so overwhelming that life consists of, propagates by, and sustains itself through, "perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions," that there is no reason to exclude the hypothesis that life originated from similar chemical reactions.

Then I don't have to prove we were created.

I never said you did. As a matter of fact, I distinctly remember explaining to you that that I do not require you to prove we were created.

So what's your point here?

Show me evidence of amino acids forming naturally outside a living organism ?

Why? Tell me exactly why I have to show you evidence of amino acids forming naturally outside a living organism; and tell me what the result will be when I do.

I am insisting upon this because I am tired of meeting every one of your fatuous requests, and being rewarded with your refusal to meet any of mine. You still owe me answers; your intellectual integrity account is bankrupt, and I now find carrying and refuting your retarded rhetoric to be boring.

 

[daws101]

god is not science. God does not have to test study and observe to understand how things work.

god is fiction. Want proof? You first heard about him from a book.

books are full of nonfictional characters you must try again. :d

yes, other books are, the same cannot be said for the bible.

 

[daws101]

god is not science. God does not have to test study and observe to understand how things work.

the gods work by magic.... And by preying upon the ignorant and the gullible.

god is greater then man and you are putting your faith in falliable man but should i be surprised.

assumption not fact.

 

[daws101]

your "detecting" is simply making nonsensical claims that appeal to superstition.

hmm you can't tell when something has been designed

hollie believes this was the result of wind and erosion. If you squint your eyes just right it almost looks like...

erroneous comparison

 

[LOki]

Nonsense loki.

Great you turn to a theory that has no data backing the theory once again.

This statement from you is entirely meaningless. You simply have no basis for making this statement. You have chosen to disqualify yourself from being a valid judge of what constitutes the data and evidence that supports the theory.

Loki there is no evidence supporting the thought of abiogenesis, zero, none.

You are wrong. You simply have no basis for making this statement. You have chosen to disqualify yourself from being a valid judge of what constitutes the data and evidence that supports abiogenesis.

The evidence is so weak abiogenesis should even be considered a theory.

The way you retards conflate evolution and abiogenesis, it becomes difficult to keep track of what you are currently disputing.

That said, I'm not at all certain that abiogenesis is considered to be a scientific theory. My impression is that there are several hypotheses of abiogenesis.

If the evidence is overwhelming for abiogenesis then you should be able to provide some and explain it.

The evidence is so overwhelming that life consists of, propagates by, and sustains itself through, "perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions," that there is no reason to exclude the hypothesis that life originated from similar chemical reactions.

 

[ima]

god is fiction. Want proof? You first heard about him from a book.

books are full of nonfictional characters you must try again. :d

yes, other books are, the same cannot be said for the bible.

Without the bible to tell you so, you wouldn't even know that a god exists.

 

[daws101]

nope,tell me how detecting design in nature is nonscientific ?

the method you use presumes the existence of the designer you posit, to validate the presence of the design you "detect," that validates the designer you posit, which demonstrates the design you "detect."

every bit of "design" you present requires belief in the designer you posit is the author of the design you present.

what you determine happened by chance and luck i see that it was designed with a purpose and it was needed for something to function properly.

assumption not fact.
You have no proof of a designer .
If and until quantifiable evidence of said designer is presented, any claims made on the appearance of design, will be for lack of proof be deemed false.

 

[daws101]

I really don't think anyone here, including YWC, is claiming Creationism is anything but religion. And I would disagree that creationists avoid scientific scrutiny. In fact, the exact opposite is true.

HOLY SHIT! I AGREE WITH YOU!

Well, this is complete bullshit.

The superstitious, like you, are always so keen to challenge folks like me to "prove" you wrong, and you are always disappointed when we merely bring verifiable evidence and/or valid logic to support our assertions. Denying evidence is like breathing air for you retards--but if we were to provide absolute and unqualified "proof," then we would have finally brought a real test of your faith--if you manage to maintain your retarded superstition in the face absolute and unqualified "proof" that it's nothing but your delusional imagination, then you would "know"--you would finally have that certainty in yourself that you have in your magical imaginary friends--that you can claim some kind of intellectual and moral superiority over your fellows.

Creationists have no interest what-so-ever in demonstrating what they believe has any basis in objective reality. Science for you asshats is a test of your denial of reality; it is a test of your belief based upon nothing but your belief; it is a test of your faith.

And they don't.

Pathological projection.

Evolutionists do not subscribe to the intellectually dishonest Creationist paradigm that Hovindists assign to them.

Just alot of made-up nonsense.

The existence of God is just as easty to believe AND prove, as the belief that natural selection acting on random mutation is responsible for the complex life forms on the planet.

Oh good!

This "God" thing you reference. I have no idea what you're talking about. You say the existence of this "God" thing of yours is easy prove.

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 prove this "God" thing you reference.

The lies are strong with this one.

PARAPHRASING STAR WARS AND MONTY PYTHON ....CAN ONLY MEAN u.r. IS BEREFT OF ORIGINALITY AND INTEGRITY

 

[UltimateReality]

But there's enough evidence to suggest that a magical being in another dimension that no one has ever been to, has made everything we see?

The way this planet is set up and all the necessary organs and blood so on and so on yes I believe there is plenty of evidence of a designer.

I'm surprised. Such self-contradicting concepts are just the kind of unprovable bullshit folks like you like to trot out as tautological truths.

I believe all miracles are the result of a life force.

“A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.” ― Friedrich Nietzsche​

Chance does not pass the smell test.

Nor do miracles, leprechauns, the Easter Bunny, or your God.

I have physically seen the easter bunny with my own eyes. My daughter took a picture with him.

 

[UltimateReality]

An appropriate response to an angry, self-hating Christian zealot who offers nothing but cutting and pasting from fundie Christian ministries.

Ah, the self-hating accusation. I can assure that I have a healthy self image and am a contrubuting, functioning member of society. By a strictly materialistic viewpoint, I have every thing the world puts value on... Fat custom house in a gated lake community, sweet car, every iGadget made, and a beautiful wife (all of which came to me by God's blessing for sure). However, the world has proven over and over again how miserable most people are who achieve any semblance of wealth. They run on the hamster wheel towards more and more STUFF and nothing satisfies. Nope, my peace and self-worth come from Christ and his amazing love for me. God's love is lasting, through eternity in fact, and not fleeting like so many things the world offers.

I guess the real point is I was self-hating to some extent, but that was BEFORE I gave my life to Christ. Hollie, it is evident to all you're still stuck there.

the above sales pitch for "what god gave U.R."
is prime example of talking out of both sides of your mouth .
it makes all clams U.R. has made about the evils of materialism void.
I'm positive that he'd go bat shit if any of his toys were lost, just like any other materialist.
what U.R and all other faux Christians forget "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.
35For whoever would save his life will lose it; and whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel's will save it.
36For what does it profit a man, to gain the whole world and forfeit his life? (Mark 8:34-36)

4. The rich will regret their wealth.

btw I've made and spent more money then U.R. EVER WILL

Of course you have.

 

[UltimateReality]

books are full of nonfictional characters you must try again. :d

yes, other books are, the same cannot be said for the bible.

Without the bible to tell you so, you wouldn't even know that a god exists.

That's not what the Founding Fathers thought. They believed in the Natural Law, that is, that God's law is written on every man's heart. Many cultures around the world that don't have a Holy Book believe in a god.

 

[UltimateReality]

loki, yahweh of mischief, speaking of your primal-facial evidence of your sanctimonious hubris, why have you not responded to the question I posed about abiogenesis? If you have theory which includes a bunch of actual processes, why don't you test it by doing an experiment that produces a living cell?? Oh wait, you mean to tell me your "just so" story isn't falsifiable??? Where did the information in DNA come from?

 

[Hollie]

yes, other books are, the same cannot be said for the bible.

Without the bible to tell you so, you wouldn't even know that a god exists.

That's not what the Founding Fathers thought. They believed in the Natural Law, that is, that God's law is written on every man's heart. Many cultures around the world that don't have a Holy Book believe in a god.

It’s more than just a little presumptuous for you to assign your fundie religious beliefs to the FF’s. Not all the FF’s were Christian and we have no reason to believe that you speak authoritatively on their behalf. Your nonsense claim that “God's law is written on every man's heart”, is obviously false. It’s a common theme of fundies to attempt to force their religious beliefs on others but we have historical fact to refute your hysterical claims.

Certainly many cultures didn't have a Holy Book and those cultures often believed in many gods but certainly not your gods. Many cultures have invented gods to perform the function that was served by the Judeo-Christian gods: to provide answers to natural phenomenon not understood at the time. That is precisely why your currently configured gods are fading in terms of importance and relevance. That is why the fundie creationists find it impossible to construct a theoretical model that would test the integrity of the creation hypothesis. It would clearly be shown to be a hoax, as creationism has repeatedly shown itself to be.

That is why creationists sidestep the problem altogether by stating, without any evidence offered in support, that some creator gawd(s) made the stars, galaxies and all of existence appearing in it’s present configuration. All this was done, we’re to believe, to give the appearance of a very old and vast universe, and to therefore mislead scientists and the rest of the rational world to the false conclusion of a big bang that happened about 15 billion years ago.

Kind of a strange thing to do for a God who is "a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he." (Deut. 32:4) Also, Numbers 23:19- "God is not a man, that he should lie..." Also it is said that "Every word of God is flawless." Proverbs 30:5. Are His actions not like His words?
Those gods – they’re such kidders.

 

[emilynghiem]

Re: proving the existence of God by consensus on meaning
I should clarify that "presenting evidence" is not the pr'oof in itself.
I find most proof of God works by eliminating the objections or conflicts
preventing agreement on what we are talking about and
what we "mean" by God and Jesus, etc. (It is almost like presenting
the conclusion, and then working backwards to eliminate
anything to the contrary. We don't know what people's objections
are until they are presented with something that conflicts,
so these issues are brought out to be addressed and resolved.)

So I can "present" a meaning to God/Jesus as universal truth, but the proof process
lies in resolving all the objections and reasons for
rejection that people have. So again the proof will
work as long as participants agree to RESOLVE all
the issues that come up in the process. If they don't
agree, those people can observe and give input and
work in separate groups, and join in later when they
can make the commitment to resolve all issues and conflicts.

This way, everyone can be included directly or indirectly.