Creationists

[Youwerecreated]

VS​

If Youwerecreated cannot prove Linus wrong, then Youwerecreated is wrong!

Your childish games reveal a lot about you loki.

Like what? That like child I can see that the emperors new clothes are a fraud? The same as the "Designer" you posit is so wonderful?

Face it you believe life began through chance that needed miracles.

NO SALE!

I believe life began because a brilliant designer.

But you can't disprove the Great Pumpkin; therefore according to your argumentative paradigm, you are wrong.

Then Loki you are hanging your hat on purposeful chance.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Why don't you paint a more specific picture for me, of what you think should have happened? Try to describe exactly what traits you think humans should have, and how and why this would have come about. If you can't describe this, then don't put it down.

1. Land speed
2. vision
3. sense of smell
4. strength

To name a few but this went with only one attempt and a poor attempt to explain why these traits did not get passed to humans. We can agree according to natural selection these are traits that would aid in survival of any group that possessed them.

Yours are the claims of a simpleton.

Those traits that are valuable as adaptive to the environment would most likely be passed from generation to generation.

Land speed is valuable to a plains dwelling creature but is much less valuable to a forest dweller.

Even your cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya (which is dumbfounding) is more precise than you left to your own devices.

You could not be more wrong

 

[Hollie]

1. Land speed
2. vision
3. sense of smell
4. strength

To name a few but this went with only one attempt and a poor attempt to explain why these traits did not get passed to humans. We can agree according to natural selection these are traits that would aid in survival of any group that possessed them.

Yours are the claims of a simpleton.

Those traits that are valuable as adaptive to the environment would most likely be passed from generation to generation.

Land speed is valuable to a plains dwelling creature but is much less valuable to a forest dweller.

Even your cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya (which is dumbfounding) is more precise than you left to your own devices.

You could not be more wrong

I fully expected a nonsense answer. That's perfectly fine. The true poverty of the creationist worldview is the inability of its adherents to present cogent facts. Even the simplest terms and concepts of biology confound the argument of supernatural creation. That is why the creationist position is one of special pleading, exemption from nature and natural laws that are largely understood and a perceived exemption from presenting a rational argument.

That's to be expected when the worldview is encapsulated by supernaturalism, fear and superstition.

 

[LOki]

The logical argument is true based on presently observable truths:
All presently observable information with specificity has an intelligent agent as it source.

Contentious premise.

So does everything else.

Therefore, DNA has an intelligent agent as its source.

Question begging conclusion.

No,it's logical to infer a designer...

Using fallacious logic.

... not blind chance and miracles being the cause.

So what?

Not question begging, ...

You're just denying the obvious reality just demonstrated to you.

... it's question begging to suggest DNA information came about in the way you believe it came about.

Yet despite the obvious opportunity you had to demonstrate this, you have refused to do so. Why is that?

 

[LOki]

Your childish games reveal a lot about you loki.

Like what? That like child I can see that the emperors new clothes are a fraud? The same as the "Designer" you posit is so wonderful?

NO SALE!

I believe life began because a brilliant designer.

But you can't disprove the Great Pumpkin; therefore according to your argumentative paradigm, you are wrong.

Then Loki you are hanging your hat on purposeful chance.

Really? Is that what I'm doing? Or is it just what you believe I am doing; and since you won't be convinced I'm doing something else, there is no way to "prove" to you I'm doing something else?

 

[UltimateReality]

The logical argument is true based on presently observable truths:
All presently observable information with specificity has an intelligent agent as it source.

Contentious premise.

So if the premise is in contention, please provide an example of this presentable observable source of specified information.

DNA contains information with specificity.

So does everything else.

Again, I'm sure you can list numerous examples. The one I am looking for is the presently observable source that isn't an intelligent agent.

Therefore, DNA has an intelligent agent as its source.

Question begging conclusion.

Typical false fallacy accusation without any backup.

Dang. I wish I hadn't waded through so much of your semantics trickery (equivocation) and just cut to the chase long ago. In doing so, we have seen your epic fail in response to the argument. And we see how you ignore questions that would back you into a corner as usual. Let's try again...

For claims to have any merit, you need to list the specific ways the genetic code in a cell differs in execution from the binary code in a computer, because you are really arguing they shouldn't be compared to each other. How do the systems of dna storage and retrieval functional differ from a machine language and binary code when it comes to information storage and retrieval, error correction, translation, and transcription?

If Darwinism doesn't cover origins as Hollie claims, why do you so vehemently attempt to discredit the truth about information in the cell? Why do you deviate from the Darwinism party line?

Find a presently observable source for information, that when stored, transmitted, translated, and transcribed, performs a specific function, that doesn't come from an intelligent agent and I will renounce by belief in ID Theory.

 

[Hollie]

Like what? That like child I can see that the emperors new clothes are a fraud? The same as the "Designer" you posit is so wonderful?

NO SALE!

But you can't disprove the Great Pumpkin; therefore according to your argumentative paradigm, you are wrong.

Then Loki you are hanging your hat on purposeful chance.

Really? Is that what I'm doing? Or is it just what you believe I am doing; and since you won't be convinced I'm doing something else, there is no way to "prove" to you I'm doing something else?

"Purposeful chance".

I often shrug my shoulders and wince at the contradictory, inane and just plain juvenile comments that emanate from the creationist / IDiot crowd but the well of IDiosy just gets deeper and deeper.

 

[UltimateReality]

I don't have anything backwards ... except (apparently) when you wish to accuse me of attacking a strawman.

I said 0's and 1's ARE symbols in computer code.

Hence, the 1's and 0's are ACTUALLY (as I have clearly stated) symbols! "They represent on or off, or in the case of flash memory, the presence of an electron or no electron."

If you substitute electrical and physical properties of a computer with something else, the symbols you posit become irrelevant; you just get a null product. Just as with DNA in a living thing.

This sounds like the instances you agree with me solely for the purposes of accusing me of attacking a strawman; after which, you resume promoting the precise argument you claimed was the strawman.

You're still equivocating, as well as using a false analogy. The function of computer "code" is the manipulation of any symbols that can represent any information, such that any information can be (and is) stored as symbols.

The specific arrangement of bases determines the amino acid used in the "word" for a specific protein. Manipulation of the bases and their order results in information for a different protein being stored. I guess instead of your endless gibberish attacks, you need to list the specific ways the genetic code in a cell differs in execution from the binary code in a computer, because you are really arguing they shouldn't be compared to each other. The real point you are desperately trying to make is that the information in DNA happened by chance. This is the source of your semantics trickery and intellectual dishonesty in your feeble attempt to distract from a truth you can't logically deny.

The logical argument is true based on presently observable truths:
All presently observable information with specificity has an intelligent agent as it source.
DNA contains information with specificity.
Therefore, DNA has an intelligent agent as its source.

Before you engage in your typical intellectually dishonest behavior and scream non sequitur, you must realize you would be falsely accusing me of the fallacy of the undistributed middle. But for that to be applicable, there would have to be other sources of information with specificity that I have left out. This is your mission, and so far no one has been able to, not even Dawkins with his computer program trickery: Find a presently observable source for information, that when stored, transmitted, translated, and transcribed, performs a specific function, other than an intelligent agent and I will renounce by belief in ID Theory.

Finally, if Darwinism doesn't cover origins as Hollie claims, why do you so vehemently attempt to discredit the truth about information in the cell? Because to admit it would cause you to have to concede the only known sources of information with specificity we presently observe has an intelligent agent as it source?

I'm afraid my stalker is simply cutting and pasting from Stephen Meyer and propaganda taken from creationist ministries with his silly cliches' and slogans that follow the creationist politburo party line: "the cell is complicated, therefore it must have been designed". Throughout the thread, that is the crestionist agenda: to "prove" their gods with the "god of the gaps", fallacy. One would think that evidence and facts as used by science to support knowledge would be the mechanism to support the proposal for gods but as we see with consistency, evidence for supernaturalism is not in the creationist agenda.

That truly is the reality of the Christian creationist agenda. It's just a shame that creationists don't understand that employing the science they despise in intellectually dishonest attempts to refute science only further weakens their arguments. For all the false analogies, ridiculous comparisons and logical errors: "the only known sources of information with specificity we presently observe has an intelligent agent as it source"? we're left with fundie Christians using lies and deceit in desperate attempts to press their religious agenda.

What I find interesting about fundies is just how arbitrary their "belief" really is. The two fundies in this thread are are Christian for no reason other than parentage. Let's be honest and conclude that for the overwhelming majority of people, their religious affiliation is nothing more than accepting the religion of their parents or the majority religion. Had the two fundies in this thread been raised in Middle East, they would be muhammud worshippers insisting man was made from clay. That is precisely why (aside from the ridiculous analogies and false assumptions noted above), the boilerplate creationist polemics are cut and pasted from creationist ministries.

If you raise a child in the middle of a remote jungle with no exposure to concepts relating to gods, there's no reason to suspect the child will arbitrarily and spontaneously generate theism. All theistic beliefs are externally brought to human beings. No humans display inherent theism. Has any child ever suddenly generated belief in or knowledge of Amun Ra or allah? If you raise a baby in a Buddhist culture, it will almost certainly embrace Buddhism; if in a Christian home, Christianity. Those religious beliefs are learned behavior.


Here is a portion of an article from a 2009 review about religion published in Science (On the Origion of Religion, Elizabeth Culotta; very interesting by the way):

On the Origin of Religion - Origins


From the article: "Barrett and others see the roots of religion in our sophisticated social cognition. Humans, they say, have a tendency to see signs of "agents" minds like our own at work in the world. "We have a tremendous capacity to imbue even inanimate things with beliefs, desires, emotions, and consciousness, and this is at the core of many religious beliefs," says Yale psychologist Paul Bloom.

Notice the roots of religion: "our sophisticated social cognition". No mention of gods. Further, the comment regarding we humans "imbue even inanimate things with beliefs, desires, emotions, and consciousness...and this is at the core of many religious beliefs". Here again, no mention of gods but rather attaching human-based desires to inanimate objects such as idols, golden icons, plastic effigies and other symbols.

As this thread becomes more and more technical, it just reveals how totally ill equipped you are to keep up with the discussion. You aren't going to be able to play with cut and pastes. You are going to have to put some logical thought into your responses or risk total irrelevancy.

 

[Hollie]

The logical argument is true based on presently observable truths:
All presently observable information with specificity has an intelligent agent as it source.

Contentious premise.

So if the premise is in contention, please provide an example of this presentable observable source of specified information.
Again, I'm sure you can list numerous examples. The one I am looking for is the presently observable source that isn't an intelligent agent.

Therefore, DNA has an intelligent agent as its source.

Question begging conclusion.

Typical false fallacy accusation without any backup.

Dang. I wish I hadn't waded through so much of your semantics trickery (equivocation) and just cut to the chase long ago. In doing so, we have seen your epic fail in response to the argument. And we see how you ignore questions that would back you into a corner as usual. Let's try again...

For claims to have any merit, you need to list the specific ways the genetic code in a cell differs in execution from the binary code in a computer, because you are really arguing they shouldn't be compared to each other. How do the systems of dna storage and retrieval functional differ from a machine language and binary code when it comes to information storage and retrieval, error correction, translation, and transcription?

If Darwinism doesn't cover origins as Hollie claims, why do you so vehemently attempt to discredit the truth about information in the cell? Why do you deviate from the Darwinism party line?

Find a presently observable source for information, that when stored, transmitted, translated, and transcribed, performs a specific function, that doesn't come from an intelligent agent and I will renounce by belief in ID Theory.

What "observable source" is the result of your gods, ie: this " agent" you are unable to define?

 

[UltimateReality]

Perhaps if I imagined that a leprechaun caused it to happen, and then demanded that you had to prove it wrong would be more convincing to you.

False analogy.

Not even an analogy.

...Says the intellectually dishonest poster.

Definition of ANALOGY:

-inference that if two or more things agree with one another in some respects they will probably agree in others

-A comparison between two things, typically on the basis of their structure and for the purpose of explanation or clarification.

-A correspondence or partial similarity.

Please deny that you are comparing the Leprechaun to the Christian God or to the Designer and strawmanning my and YWC's challenge for proof....

LIAR.

 

[UltimateReality]

Contentious premise.

So if the premise is in contention, please provide an example of this presentable observable source of specified information.
Again, I'm sure you can list numerous examples. The one I am looking for is the presently observable source that isn't an intelligent agent.

Question begging conclusion.

Typical false fallacy accusation without any backup.

Dang. I wish I hadn't waded through so much of your semantics trickery (equivocation) and just cut to the chase long ago. In doing so, we have seen your epic fail in response to the argument. And we see how you ignore questions that would back you into a corner as usual. Let's try again...

For claims to have any merit, you need to list the specific ways the genetic code in a cell differs in execution from the binary code in a computer, because you are really arguing they shouldn't be compared to each other. How do the systems of dna storage and retrieval functional differ from a machine language and binary code when it comes to information storage and retrieval, error correction, translation, and transcription?

If Darwinism doesn't cover origins as Hollie claims, why do you so vehemently attempt to discredit the truth about information in the cell? Why do you deviate from the Darwinism party line?

Find a presently observable source for information, that when stored, transmitted, translated, and transcribed, performs a specific function, that doesn't come from an intelligent agent and I will renounce by belief in ID Theory.

What "observable source" is the result of your gods, ie: this " agent" you are unable to define?

What we've been talking about for the last 50 pages. DNA silly.

 

[UltimateReality]

Why don't you paint a more specific picture for me, of what you think should have happened? Try to describe exactly what traits you think humans should have, and how and why this would have come about. If you can't describe this, then don't put it down.

1. Land speed
2. vision
3. sense of smell
4. strength

To name a few but this went with only one attempt and a poor attempt to explain why these traits did not get passed to humans. We can agree according to natural selection these are traits that would aid in survival of any group that possessed them.

Yours are the claims of a simpleton.

Those traits that are valuable as adaptive to the environment would most likely be passed from generation to generation.

Land speed is valuable to a plains dwelling creature but is much less valuable to a forest dweller.

Even your cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya (which is dumbfounding) is more precise than you left to your own devices.

You just keep repeating the slogans over and over

 

[UltimateReality]

Like what? That like child I can see that the emperors new clothes are a fraud? The same as the "Designer" you posit is so wonderful?

NO SALE!

But you can't disprove the Great Pumpkin; therefore according to your argumentative paradigm, you are wrong.

Then Loki you are hanging your hat on purposeful chance.

Really? Is that what I'm doing? Or is it just what you believe I am doing; and since you won't be convinced I'm doing something else, there is no way to "prove" to you I'm doing something else?

Equivocation

 

[Hollie]

The specific arrangement of bases determines the amino acid used in the "word" for a specific protein. Manipulation of the bases and their order results in information for a different protein being stored. I guess instead of your endless gibberish attacks, you need to list the specific ways the genetic code in a cell differs in execution from the binary code in a computer, because you are really arguing they shouldn't be compared to each other. The real point you are desperately trying to make is that the information in DNA happened by chance. This is the source of your semantics trickery and intellectual dishonesty in your feeble attempt to distract from a truth you can't logically deny.

The logical argument is true based on presently observable truths:
All presently observable information with specificity has an intelligent agent as it source.
DNA contains information with specificity.
Therefore, DNA has an intelligent agent as its source.

Before you engage in your typical intellectually dishonest behavior and scream non sequitur, you must realize you would be falsely accusing me of the fallacy of the undistributed middle. But for that to be applicable, there would have to be other sources of information with specificity that I have left out. This is your mission, and so far no one has been able to, not even Dawkins with his computer program trickery: Find a presently observable source for information, that when stored, transmitted, translated, and transcribed, performs a specific function, other than an intelligent agent and I will renounce by belief in ID Theory.

Finally, if Darwinism doesn't cover origins as Hollie claims, why do you so vehemently attempt to discredit the truth about information in the cell? Because to admit it would cause you to have to concede the only known sources of information with specificity we presently observe has an intelligent agent as it source?

I'm afraid my stalker is simply cutting and pasting from Stephen Meyer and propaganda taken from creationist ministries with his silly cliches' and slogans that follow the creationist politburo party line: "the cell is complicated, therefore it must have been designed". Throughout the thread, that is the crestionist agenda: to "prove" their gods with the "god of the gaps", fallacy. One would think that evidence and facts as used by science to support knowledge would be the mechanism to support the proposal for gods but as we see with consistency, evidence for supernaturalism is not in the creationist agenda.

That truly is the reality of the Christian creationist agenda. It's just a shame that creationists don't understand that employing the science they despise in intellectually dishonest attempts to refute science only further weakens their arguments. For all the false analogies, ridiculous comparisons and logical errors: "the only known sources of information with specificity we presently observe has an intelligent agent as it source"? we're left with fundie Christians using lies and deceit in desperate attempts to press their religious agenda.

What I find interesting about fundies is just how arbitrary their "belief" really is. The two fundies in this thread are are Christian for no reason other than parentage. Let's be honest and conclude that for the overwhelming majority of people, their religious affiliation is nothing more than accepting the religion of their parents or the majority religion. Had the two fundies in this thread been raised in Middle East, they would be muhammud worshippers insisting man was made from clay. That is precisely why (aside from the ridiculous analogies and false assumptions noted above), the boilerplate creationist polemics are cut and pasted from creationist ministries.

If you raise a child in the middle of a remote jungle with no exposure to concepts relating to gods, there's no reason to suspect the child will arbitrarily and spontaneously generate theism. All theistic beliefs are externally brought to human beings. No humans display inherent theism. Has any child ever suddenly generated belief in or knowledge of Amun Ra or allah? If you raise a baby in a Buddhist culture, it will almost certainly embrace Buddhism; if in a Christian home, Christianity. Those religious beliefs are learned behavior.


Here is a portion of an article from a 2009 review about religion published in Science (On the Origion of Religion, Elizabeth Culotta; very interesting by the way):

On the Origin of Religion - Origins


From the article: "Barrett and others see the roots of religion in our sophisticated social cognition. Humans, they say, have a tendency to see signs of "agents" minds like our own at work in the world. "We have a tremendous capacity to imbue even inanimate things with beliefs, desires, emotions, and consciousness, and this is at the core of many religious beliefs," says Yale psychologist Paul Bloom.

Notice the roots of religion: "our sophisticated social cognition". No mention of gods. Further, the comment regarding we humans "imbue even inanimate things with beliefs, desires, emotions, and consciousness...and this is at the core of many religious beliefs". Here again, no mention of gods but rather attaching human-based desires to inanimate objects such as idols, golden icons, plastic effigies and other symbols.

As this thread becomes more and more technical, it just reveals how totally ill equipped you are to keep up with the discussion. You aren't going to be able to play with cut and pastes. You are going to have to put some logical thought into your responses or risk total irrelevancy.

I see you are forced to retreat from offering a cogent response absent cutting and pasting. As the thread becomes more technical, your deficiencies become more glaring. In defense of your gods, you are becoming more strident in your rhetoric, retreating to employing meaningless analogies and being reduced to deeper levels of special pleading.

Yours is basically the last resort of IDiots. As your false claims are stripped way and your arguments crumble before you, you're reduced to frantic "because I say so" argument.

 

[Hollie]

1. Land speed
2. vision
3. sense of smell
4. strength

To name a few but this went with only one attempt and a poor attempt to explain why these traits did not get passed to humans. We can agree according to natural selection these are traits that would aid in survival of any group that possessed them.

Yours are the claims of a simpleton.

Those traits that are valuable as adaptive to the environment would most likely be passed from generation to generation.

Land speed is valuable to a plains dwelling creature but is much less valuable to a forest dweller.

Even your cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya (which is dumbfounding) is more precise than you left to your own devices.

You just keep repeating the slogans over and over

Emoticons comprise your best responses. It relieves you of the need to scour the web for cut and paste material.

It's just constantly amazing how little knowledge fundies actually possess in connection with material knowledge they hope to refute with little more than "the gods did it".

 

[Hollie]

Then Loki you are hanging your hat on purposeful chance.

Really? Is that what I'm doing? Or is it just what you believe I am doing; and since you won't be convinced I'm doing something else, there is no way to "prove" to you I'm doing something else?

Equivocation

Repeating slogans. IDiots delight.

 

[LOki]

The logical argument is true based on presently observable truths:
All presently observable information with specificity has an intelligent agent as it source.

Contentious premise.

So if the premise is in contention, please provide an example of this presentable observable source of specified information.

Walk outside. Pick up anything you think is not a source of specified information, come back and tell us about it, and realize you are wrong.

DNA contains information with specificity.

So does everything else.

Again, I'm sure you can list numerous examples. The one I am looking for is the presently observable source that isn't an intelligent agent.

Your contentious tautological notions of specific information do not allow for such, based on your purely ontological refusal to accept the absense of an intelligent source of information.

Therefore, DNA has an intelligent agent as its source.

Question begging conclusion.

Typical false fallacy accusation without any backup.

Just another expression of your denialism. It's a symptom of the sanctimonious hubris of your unconditional certainty that you are right, because you can't be proven wrong about your imaginary superfriend.

Dang. I wish I hadn't waded through so much of your semantics trickery (equivocation) and just cut to the chase long ago. In doing so, we have seen your epic fail in response to the argument. And we see how you ignore questions that would back you into a corner as usual. Let's try again...

For claims to have any merit, you need to list the specific ways the genetic code in a cell differs in execution from the binary code in a computer, because you are really arguing they shouldn't be compared to each other. How do the systems of dna storage and retrieval functional differ from a machine language and binary code when it comes to information storage and retrieval, error correction, translation, and transcription?

IF I accept you bullshit premises, then your conclusions certainly follow--I just am not obliged to accept your bullshit premises in order to prove your conclusions wrong.

And I have made it abundantly clear how your premises are bullshit.

If Darwinism doesn't cover origins as Hollie claims, why do you so vehemently attempt to discredit the truth about information in the cell? Why do you deviate from the Darwinism party line?

What you claim via equivocation is "the truth about information in the cell" is a bullshit premise.

Find a presently observable source for information, that when stored, transmitted, translated, and transcribed, performs a specific function, that doesn't come from an intelligent agent and I will renounce by belief in ID Theory.

Your contentious tautological notions of specific information do not allow for such, based on you purely ontological refusal to accept the absense of an intelligent source of information.

Based on your purely ontological refusal to accept the absense of an intelligent source of information, there is no reason anyone should expect you to renounce your belief in Intelligent Design Theory for any rational reason.

That's why I'm not trying to convince you that you're wrong; I wouldn't try if I could.

 

[LOki]

False analogy.

Not even an analogy.

...Says the intellectually dishonest poster.

Definition of ANALOGY:

-inference that if two or more things agree with one another in some respects they will probably agree in others

-A comparison between two things, typically on the basis of their structure and for the purpose of explanation or clarification.

-A correspondence or partial similarity.

Please deny that you are comparing the Leprechaun to the Christian God or to the Designer and strawmanning my and YWC's challenge for proof....

I am saying that your Christian God, nor your Designer, is by any means verifiable by valid logic applied to evidence, not a leprechaun ...

and that simple fact of that reality is enough to send the intellectually dishonest into further fits of denial.

LIAR.

I clearly am not.

 

[LOki]

Then Loki you are hanging your hat on purposeful chance.

Really? Is that what I'm doing? Or is it just what you believe I am doing; and since you won't be convinced I'm doing something else, there is no way to "prove" to you I'm doing something else?

Equivocation

Yours? Youwerecreated's? Certainly.

Thank you again for your candid confession that your entire point has traction only in logical fallacy.

 

[Hollie]

So if the premise is in contention, please provide an example of this presentable observable source of specified information.
Again, I'm sure you can list numerous examples. The one I am looking for is the presently observable source that isn't an intelligent agent.
Typical false fallacy accusation without any backup.

Dang. I wish I hadn't waded through so much of your semantics trickery (equivocation) and just cut to the chase long ago. In doing so, we have seen your epic fail in response to the argument. And we see how you ignore questions that would back you into a corner as usual. Let's try again...

For claims to have any merit, you need to list the specific ways the genetic code in a cell differs in execution from the binary code in a computer, because you are really arguing they shouldn't be compared to each other. How do the systems of dna storage and retrieval functional differ from a machine language and binary code when it comes to information storage and retrieval, error correction, translation, and transcription?

If Darwinism doesn't cover origins as Hollie claims, why do you so vehemently attempt to discredit the truth about information in the cell? Why do you deviate from the Darwinism party line?

Find a presently observable source for information, that when stored, transmitted, translated, and transcribed, performs a specific function, that doesn't come from an intelligent agent and I will renounce by belief in ID Theory.

What "observable source" is the result of your gods, ie: this " agent" you are unable to define?

What we've been talking about for the last 50 pages. DNA stupid.

You have presented nothing that would lead anyone to be convinced that there are designer gods. You therefore compound a logical fallacy by presuming there are designer gods who have designed DNA.

Why would you expect anyone not sharing your preconceptions and biases favoring christianity to accept your foolish assumptions?

Stupid assumptions on your part are shared only by those with your preconceptions and biases.