Creationists

[UltimateReality]

Good stuff Hollie. Where do you find these cretins??

At the Clearwater revival. Duh.

Duh sums you up very nicely. Your name calling and nonsense relegates you to the level of non-intellectual. You are easily overlooked.

You just revealed your age and immaturity as that joke went right over your head. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creedence_Clearwater_Revival

Hollie, is that you? Yeah, because talking about masturbation, calling people 12-year-olds, and referring to scientists that don't agree with you as loons is really intellectual.

 

[Hollie]

At the Clearwater revival. Duh.

Duh sums you up very nicely. Your name calling and nonsense relegates you to the level of non-intellectual. You are easily overlooked.

Hollie, is that you? Yeah, because talking about masturbation, calling people 12-year-olds, and referring to scientists that don't agree with you as loons is really intellectual.

Oh my, it's the angry stalker.

 

[UltimateReality]

As for Darwins discoveries, it would be helpful to remember that Darwin specifically said he didn't know where the original cell or cells came from and he wasn't going to guess.

Let's do a little fact check and look at Darwin's guess:

“It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are present, which could ever have been present. But if (and Oh! what a big if!) we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, etc., present, that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.” Charles Darwin in a letter to Joseph Hooker-1871

He said... USELESS MADE UP COMMENTARY DELETED FOR BREVITY ...why not just lay it off on the Creator and let it go at that?

Keep in mind, the origin of the species and the origins of life are two entirely different concepts.

Says who? Modern Atheist? The scientists of the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries certainly didn't view them as such.

"The problem of the nature of life and the problem of its origin have become inseparable." Aleksandr Oparin

Darwin was not a neuro-scientist. His knowledge of the human brain was primitive at best. He knew nothing of genetics even though they were discovered by a contemporary of his, an Austrian monk named Gregor Johann Mendel- whose work strengthens the case for evolution tremendously. But Darwin did something more fundamental. He obliterated the cardinal distinction between Man and the beasts of the field. It had always been a truism that Man was a rational being and the beasts operated on 'instinct'. But what is instinct? It's what we now know to be the genetic code an animal is born with.

If man is an animal to what extent does his genetic code govern his life? Here we get into the realm of spiirtualism---or perhaps a little help from a higher life form, possibly from outside this universe (Pan Spermia?)
The ancient Sumerians plainly state in their texts that the 'Gods' bred us, as we are today--more or less, so we could function as slaves for those higher beings.
Strange stuff but it does answer a few basic questions and I don't think any discussion on this subject can go very far without considering our 'true' origins.

And this doesn't go against the concept of God at all. It merely makes Him bigger. No matter, if you will, who created US, SOMEBODY created THEM.

This statement has be repeated over and over by Hollie but it is NOT a logical requirement of Theism. This atheist "cut and paste" argument is the fallacious application of the statement "A BEGINNING necessitates a CAUSE." However, the Christian form of Theism teaches that the Judeo-Christian God has always existed, and predates the Big Bang. Since the Judeo-Christian God exists eternally backwards and forwards, and has no beginning, there is no logical reason that He should require a cause, and therefore, he also does not require a creator. The Christian God has always existed and was never created. Atheists seem to ignore this fact continually. We are talking about religious theology. And these claims about God's pre-existence and having no beginning are outlined in the Christian Holy Book the Bible. So obviously, when atheist refer to a god that requires a creator, they cannot logically be referring to the Christian God as described in the Bible. This is what happens when folks on the internet cut and paste statements from atheist propaganda websites without a full understanding of the logic behind the arguments they are cutting and pasting.

 

[UltimateReality]

Duh sums you up very nicely. Your name calling and nonsense relegates you to the level of non-intellectual. You are easily overlooked.

Hollie, is that you? Yeah, because talking about masturbation, calling people 12-year-olds, and referring to scientists that don't agree with you as loons is really intellectual.

Oh my, it's the angry stalker.

Stalker??? How is it that you can be gone for 24 hours but the second I post, you jump in. Okay pot, remind me again who the stalker is?

I like your alter ego Candyslice better. Or maybe Rugged Touch should make an appearance here.

 

[Hollie]

This statement has be repeated over and over by Hollie but it is NOT a logical requirement of Theism. This atheist cut and paste argument in the fallacious application of the statement "A BEGINNING necessitates a CAUSE." However, the Christian form of Theism teaches that the Judeo-Christian God has always existed, and predates the Big Bang. Since the Judeo-Christian God exists eternally backwards and forwards, and has no beginning, there is no logical reason that He should require a cause, and therefore, he also does not require a creator. The Christian God has always existed and was never created. Atheists seem to ignore this fact continually. We are talking about religious theology. And these claims about God's pre-existence and having no beginning are outlined in the Christian Holy Book the Bible. So obviously, when atheist refer to a god that requires a creator, they cannot logically be referring to the Christian God as described in the Bible. This is what happens when folks on the internet cut and paste statements from atheist propaganda websites without a full understanding of the logic behind the arguments they are cutting and pasting.

The appeals to supernaturalism are cut and asted over and over by my stalker. He will make claims to his gods being uncaused, existing eternally, etc., etc., because it excuses the fundies from the discipline of reason and rationality.

Instead of the "christian god" as used by my stalker, substitute "The Easter Bunny".

According to my stalker, a "logical requirement" for "The Easter Bunny" flows along the lines of: Since "The Easter Bunny" exists eternally backwards and forwards, and has no beginning, there is no logical reason that He ("The Easter Bunny" -ed.) should require a cause, and therefore, he also does not require a creator. The "The Easter Bunny" has always existed and was never created.

It's all very logical in the weird and twisted world of "The Easter Bunny'ists"

 

[Hollie]

Hollie, is that you? Yeah, because talking about masturbation, calling people 12-year-olds, and referring to scientists that don't agree with you as loons is really intellectual.

Oh my, it's the angry stalker.

Stalker??? How is it that you can be gone for 24 hours but the second I post, you jump in. Okay pot, remind me again who the stalker is?

I like your alter ego Candyslice better. Or maybe Rugged Touch should make an appearance here.

A stalker with paranoid delusions. Never saw that one comin".

 

[Hollie]

More lying creationists, now with Biblical justification « Why Evolution Is True

More lying creationists, now with Biblical justification

There seems to be no limit to the duplicity of creationists when trying to sell their snake oil to the public. The latest example involves the movie “The Voyage That Shook the World,” (http://www.thevoyage.tv/a) movie that looks very like a historical documentary, produced by the Australian Company “Fathom Media”. But this company turns out to be a front for Creation Ministries International. (Creation - Creation Ministries International)

“Fathom” secured the participation of three eminent historians of science, Sandra Herbert, Peter Bowler, and Janet Browne, who appear as talking heads in the movie. None of these people knew who was really backing that movie nor that it would have a creationist slant.

Now the familiar story unfolds: these interviews were subsequently edited to paint a denigrating picture of Darwin and evolution. Herbert, Bowler, and Browne report how they were taken in and bowdlerized in a short piece in the History of Science Society’s newsletter:
The interviews filmed with us have been edited to highlight certain aspects of Darwin’s views and character. Janet Browne’s remarks about his childhood delight in making up stories to impress people is used to imply that the same motive may have driven his scientific thinking. Peter Bowler’s description of Darwin’s later views on racial inequality is used in the film, but not Bowler’s account of Adrian Desmond and James Moore’s thesis that Darwin was inspired by his opposition to racism and slavery. Sandra Herbert’s comment that Darwin’s theory required explanation of many aspects of life was edited down to imply that his theory required explanation of all aspects of life. The overall impression is given that Darwin had an enquiring mind but was led astray by his theoretical preconceptions, a view backed up through interviews with several scientists, including one who expresses open doubts about evolution. The film also suggests that what is ultimately at stake is a clash of world views rather than the resolution of scientific questions.

The producers admit that they were duplicitous, but claim that this lying was for the greater good. As William Crawley, a blogger for the BBC, reports:
Phil Bell, CEO of Creation Ministries UK, acknoweged [sic] that his organisation established a “front company” called Fathom Media, because they were concerned that experts such as Peter Bowler would not agree to take part in the film if they realised it was an “overtly Creationist” production. “At the end of the day,” he said, “[when] people see ‘Creationist’, instantly the shutters go up and that would have shut us off from talking to the sort of experts, such as Professor Bowler, that we wanted to get to.”

 

[CandySlice]

At the Clearwater revival. Duh.

Duh sums you up very nicely. Your name calling and nonsense relegates you to the level of non-intellectual. You are easily overlooked.

You just revealed your age and immaturity as that joke went right over your head. Creedence Clearwater Revival - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hollie, is that you? Yeah, because talking about masturbation, calling people 12-year-olds, and referring to scientists that don't agree with you as loons is really intellectual.

Was that supposed t be a joke? I didn't get any further into your mindset than 'Duh'. As for CCR, what does that have to do with anything?

 

[CandySlice]

Oh my, it's the angry stalker.

Stalker??? How is it that you can be gone for 24 hours but the second I post, you jump in. Okay pot, remind me again who the stalker is?

I like your alter ego Candyslice better. Or maybe Rugged Touch should make an appearance here.

A stalker with paranoid delusions. Never saw that one comin".

HOLLIE, since you are me now, why don't you pay the electric this month? Im tapped How dumb is this guy anyway?? I guess when you play those childish games you expect everyone else to do it too. What a pity.
By the way, Hol, if I HAD to be somebody else, you wouldn't be a bad choice. I sure don't want to be that corn nugget Ultimate Embarassment, THAT'S for sure.

 

[konradv]

Can we all agree to end this thread at 10,000 posts? Hasn't it all been said hundreds of times already?

 

[CandySlice]

As for Darwins discoveries, it would be helpful to remember that Darwin specifically said he didn't know where the original cell or cells came from and he wasn't going to guess.

Let's do a little fact check and look at Darwin's guess:

“It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are present, which could ever have been present. But if (and Oh! what a big if!) we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, etc., present, that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.” Charles Darwin in a letter to Joseph Hooker-1871

He said... USELESS MADE UP COMMENTARY DELETED FOR BREVITY ...why not just lay it off on the Creator and let it go at that?

Keep in mind, the origin of the species and the origins of life are two entirely different concepts.

Says who? Modern Atheist? The scientists of the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries certainly didn't view them as such.

"The problem of the nature of life and the problem of its origin have become inseparable." Aleksandr Oparin

Darwin was not a neuro-scientist. His knowledge of the human brain was primitive at best. He knew nothing of genetics even though they were discovered by a contemporary of his, an Austrian monk named Gregor Johann Mendel- whose work strengthens the case for evolution tremendously. But Darwin did something more fundamental. He obliterated the cardinal distinction between Man and the beasts of the field. It had always been a truism that Man was a rational being and the beasts operated on 'instinct'. But what is instinct? It's what we now know to be the genetic code an animal is born with.

If man is an animal to what extent does his genetic code govern his life? Here we get into the realm of spiirtualism---or perhaps a little help from a higher life form, possibly from outside this universe (Pan Spermia?)
The ancient Sumerians plainly state in their texts that the 'Gods' bred us, as we are today--more or less, so we could function as slaves for those higher beings.
Strange stuff but it does answer a few basic questions and I don't think any discussion on this subject can go very far without considering our 'true' origins.

And this doesn't go against the concept of God at all. It merely makes Him bigger. No matter, if you will, who created US, SOMEBODY created THEM.

This statement has be repeated over and over by Hollie but it is NOT a logical requirement of Theism. This atheist "cut and paste" argument is the fallacious application of the statement "A BEGINNING necessitates a CAUSE." However, the Christian form of Theism teaches that the Judeo-Christian God has always existed, and predates the Big Bang. Since the Judeo-Christian God exists eternally backwards and forwards, and has no beginning, there is no logical reason that He should require a cause, and therefore, he also does not require a creator. The Christian God has always existed and was never created. Atheists seem to ignore this fact continually. We are talking about religious theology. And these claims about God's pre-existence and having no beginning are outlined in the Christian Holy Book the Bible. So obviously, when atheist refer to a god that requires a creator, they cannot logically be referring to the Christian God as described in the Bible. This is what happens when folks on the internet cut and paste statements from atheist propaganda websites without a full understanding of the logic behind the arguments they are cutting and pasting.

Cut and paste? Those are MY words. Get over yourself you self aggrandizing little putz. I aimed that statement at people MUCH wiser than you but thanks for your repetitive, sophomoric input none-the-less.:clap
The funny part is you missed the entire point.

 

[CandySlice]

Duh sums you up very nicely. Your name calling and nonsense relegates you to the level of non-intellectual. You are easily overlooked.

Hollie, is that you? Yeah, because talking about masturbation, calling people 12-year-olds, and referring to scientists that don't agree with you as loons is really intellectual.

Oh my, it's the angry stalker.

I figured it was something like that. A hold-over from the old AOL message boards. Childish to say the least and totally unable to come up with any new material after all this time.

 

[UltimateReality]

This statement has be repeated over and over by Hollie but it is NOT a logical requirement of Theism. This atheist cut and paste argument in the fallacious application of the statement "A BEGINNING necessitates a CAUSE." However, the Christian form of Theism teaches that the Judeo-Christian God has always existed, and predates the Big Bang. Since the Judeo-Christian God exists eternally backwards and forwards, and has no beginning, there is no logical reason that He should require a cause, and therefore, he also does not require a creator. The Christian God has always existed and was never created. Atheists seem to ignore this fact continually. We are talking about religious theology. And these claims about God's pre-existence and having no beginning are outlined in the Christian Holy Book the Bible. So obviously, when atheist refer to a god that requires a creator, they cannot logically be referring to the Christian God as described in the Bible. This is what happens when folks on the internet cut and paste statements from atheist propaganda websites without a full understanding of the logic behind the arguments they are cutting and pasting.

The appeals to supernaturalism are cut and asted over and over by my stalker. He will make claims to his gods being uncaused, existing eternally, etc., etc., because it excuses the fundies from the discipline of reason and rationality.

Instead of the "christian god" as used by my stalker, substitute "The Easter Bunny".

According to my stalker, a "logical requirement" for "The Easter Bunny" flows along the lines of: Since "The Easter Bunny" exists eternally backwards and forwards, and has no beginning, there is no logical reason that He ("The Easter Bunny" -ed.) should require a cause, and therefore, he also does not require a creator. The "The Easter Bunny" has always existed and was never created.

It's all very logical in the weird and twisted world of "The Easter Bunny'ists"

I guess when you are in it, you don't see how foolish you really look. Your argument about a creator begetting a creator assumes a creator. So you choose to assume whose creator? If you are going to argue against the Christian Creator, then follow the common teachings about the Christian Creator, i.e., he has ALWAYS existed. This really isn't that hard. If you want to argue about the Easter Bunny, then you need to pick which Easter Bunny you are going to argue against and then for that Easter Bunny, attack the tenets and teachings widely accepted for that particular Easter Bunny. Please tell me you really aren't this stupid to apply the Easter Bunny logic to a Christian Creationist argument that you are attempting to dismantle? Your continued ignorance in this realm just shows your unfamiliarity with the four commonly accepted worldviews: Materialism, Theism, Deism, and Pantheism. Your creator of the creator argument can only logically be applied to Deism or Pantheism.

I just started to read Stephen Meyer's Signature In The Cell again and I am amazed at what a thoughtful and accurate account it is of the current schools of thought regarding origins. Again, what amazes me about you, Daws, and Loki is the fact that you are so brainwashed in your worldview that you don't take the time to actually read an opposing viewpoint. Your ramblings trying to tear down ID sound like a child, because you have never actually explored what it is you are fighting against. I study current evolutionary thought quite regularly, devoting as much time reading about it as I do reading about ID. I have embarrassed Loki with is ignorance of what modern evolutionary theory teaches. Like you, he is hopelessly left cutting and pasting from wiki and atheist websites, but isn't familiar with many new claims of current evolutionary thought. It's not surprising that he hasn't read a book on ID like Signature In The Cell. You and he rely on what others with an agenda have to say about it, and like sheep, you put your blind trust in internet atheist haters rather than exploring things on your own.

Pathetic.

 

[UltimateReality]

More lying creationists, now with Biblical justification « Why Evolution Is True

More lying creationists, now with Biblical justification

There seems to be no limit to the duplicity of creationists when trying to sell their snake oil to the public. The latest example involves the movie “The Voyage That Shook the World,” (http://www.thevoyage.tv/a) movie that looks very like a historical documentary, produced by the Australian Company “Fathom Media”. But this company turns out to be a front for Creation Ministries International. (Creation - Creation Ministries International)

“Fathom” secured the participation of three eminent historians of science, Sandra Herbert, Peter Bowler, and Janet Browne, who appear as talking heads in the movie. None of these people knew who was really backing that movie nor that it would have a creationist slant.

Now the familiar story unfolds: these interviews were subsequently edited to paint a denigrating picture of Darwin and evolution. Herbert, Bowler, and Browne report how they were taken in and bowdlerized in a short piece in the History of Science Society’s newsletter:
The interviews filmed with us have been edited to highlight certain aspects of Darwin’s views and character. Janet Browne’s remarks about his childhood delight in making up stories to impress people is used to imply that the same motive may have driven his scientific thinking. Peter Bowler’s description of Darwin’s later views on racial inequality is used in the film, but not Bowler’s account of Adrian Desmond and James Moore’s thesis that Darwin was inspired by his opposition to racism and slavery. Sandra Herbert’s comment that Darwin’s theory required explanation of many aspects of life was edited down to imply that his theory required explanation of all aspects of life. The overall impression is given that Darwin had an enquiring mind but was led astray by his theoretical preconceptions, a view backed up through interviews with several scientists, including one who expresses open doubts about evolution. The film also suggests that what is ultimately at stake is a clash of world views rather than the resolution of scientific questions.

The producers admit that they were duplicitous, but claim that this lying was for the greater good. As William Crawley, a blogger for the BBC, reports:
Phil Bell, CEO of Creation Ministries UK, acknoweged [sic] that his organisation established a “front company” called Fathom Media, because they were concerned that experts such as Peter Bowler would not agree to take part in the film if they realised it was an “overtly Creationist” production. “At the end of the day,” he said, “[when] people see ‘Creationist’, instantly the shutters go up and that would have shut us off from talking to the sort of experts, such as Professor Bowler, that we wanted to get to.”

More cutting and pasting from stalker man(persuasion). Double Yawn.

 

[UltimateReality]

Duh sums you up very nicely. Your name calling and nonsense relegates you to the level of non-intellectual. You are easily overlooked.

You just revealed your age and immaturity as that joke went right over your head. Creedence Clearwater Revival - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hollie, is that you? Yeah, because talking about masturbation, calling people 12-year-olds, and referring to scientists that don't agree with you as loons is really intellectual.

Was that supposed t be a joke? I didn't get any further into your mindset than 'Duh'. As for CCR, what does that have to do with anything?

It has to do with your obvious lack of understanding of the joke that was presented as a play on words. Geez, do I have to spell it out for you?

 

[UltimateReality]

Stalker??? How is it that you can be gone for 24 hours but the second I post, you jump in. Okay pot, remind me again who the stalker is?

I like your alter ego Candyslice better. Or maybe Rugged Touch should make an appearance here.

A stalker with paranoid delusions. Never saw that one comin".

HOLLIE, since you are me now, why don't you pay the electric this month? Im tapped How dumb is this guy anyway?? I guess when you play those childish games you expect everyone else to do it too. What a pity.
By the way, Hol, if I HAD to be somebody else, you wouldn't be a bad choice. I sure don't want to be that corn nugget Ultimate Embarassment, THAT'S for sure.

Okay, give it up Hollie. Now we know this is you. Pathetic.

 

[UltimateReality]

As for Darwins discoveries, it would be helpful to remember that Darwin specifically said he didn't know where the original cell or cells came from and he wasn't going to guess.

Let's do a little fact check and look at Darwin's guess:

“It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are present, which could ever have been present. But if (and Oh! what a big if!) we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, etc., present, that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.” Charles Darwin in a letter to Joseph Hooker-1871

Says who? Modern Atheist? The scientists of the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries certainly didn't view them as such.

"The problem of the nature of life and the problem of its origin have become inseparable." Aleksandr Oparin

Darwin was not a neuro-scientist. His knowledge of the human brain was primitive at best. He knew nothing of genetics even though they were discovered by a contemporary of his, an Austrian monk named Gregor Johann Mendel- whose work strengthens the case for evolution tremendously. But Darwin did something more fundamental. He obliterated the cardinal distinction between Man and the beasts of the field. It had always been a truism that Man was a rational being and the beasts operated on 'instinct'. But what is instinct? It's what we now know to be the genetic code an animal is born with.

If man is an animal to what extent does his genetic code govern his life? Here we get into the realm of spiirtualism---or perhaps a little help from a higher life form, possibly from outside this universe (Pan Spermia?)
The ancient Sumerians plainly state in their texts that the 'Gods' bred us, as we are today--more or less, so we could function as slaves for those higher beings.
Strange stuff but it does answer a few basic questions and I don't think any discussion on this subject can go very far without considering our 'true' origins.

And this doesn't go against the concept of God at all. It merely makes Him bigger. No matter, if you will, who created US, SOMEBODY created THEM.

This statement has be repeated over and over by Hollie but it is NOT a logical requirement of Theism. This atheist "cut and paste" argument is the fallacious application of the statement "A BEGINNING necessitates a CAUSE." However, the Christian form of Theism teaches that the Judeo-Christian God has always existed, and predates the Big Bang. Since the Judeo-Christian God exists eternally backwards and forwards, and has no beginning, there is no logical reason that He should require a cause, and therefore, he also does not require a creator. The Christian God has always existed and was never created. Atheists seem to ignore this fact continually. We are talking about religious theology. And these claims about God's pre-existence and having no beginning are outlined in the Christian Holy Book the Bible. So obviously, when atheist refer to a god that requires a creator, they cannot logically be referring to the Christian God as described in the Bible. This is what happens when folks on the internet cut and paste statements from atheist propaganda websites without a full understanding of the logic behind the arguments they are cutting and pasting.

Cut and paste? Those are MY words. Get over yourself you self aggrandizing little putz. I aimed that statement at people MUCH wiser than you but thanks for your repetitive, sophomoric input none-the-less.:clap
The funny part is you missed the entire point.

Whatever Hollie. Are you talking about the point where you blatantly misrepresented two very important historical facts in order to prove it? Or the fact that your ad hominem attack against me says nothing about how your statements about Darwin and origins are totally made up?

 

[UltimateReality]

Hollie, is that you? Yeah, because talking about masturbation, calling people 12-year-olds, and referring to scientists that don't agree with you as loons is really intellectual.

Oh my, it's the angry stalker.

I figured it was something like that. A hold-over from the old AOL message boards. Childish to say the least and totally unable to come up with any new material after all this time.

More like a holdover from the Islamic Forums instead of AOL. Yeah, new material would be nice, but you, I mean, Hollie thought those poor Muslim boys were obsessed with her back then too. She also liked accusing adults of being teenagers. Seems Rugged Hollie Touch is the one who is delusional...

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

 

[UltimateReality]

Hmmm... does this sound familiar? Somewhere along the way Rugged Hollie failed to make the transition to the Creationist forum and brought all her muslim put downs with her.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

 

[lloollwwuutt]

if it doesnt hurt you why does it matter use a little empathy and dont be a douchebag how would you feel if creationists were the status quo and they were bashing on your evolution besides if you look real deep into science you will see godlike phenomina i forget why at the moment but ive known before im just tryna get to 15 posts so i can post this shit on the war on drugs with links cause that is seriously fucked. but i digress ... let it be it do you no harm you will only cause hate by ridiculing a minority thats all tight knit like creationalists