Creationists

[Hollie]

Please clarify. Are you describing the Darwin Myth and the fact that atheist use it to force their beliefs on others?

Reference to phrase; As before:

Whatever you call it, barring differences in what the term is referencing or is defined, and how words in descriptions of it are defined; Whether you say it's a myth, [...] it is, at the very, very least, likely. Assuming you're talking about 'Biological History' as I've written of before.

Repeating the same phrase over and over won't make it come true. It is NOT very, very, very likely and while it makes for a nice story, there is not a single modern example of natural selection acting on a POSITIVE or ADDITIVE mutation to bring about a change in a particular species phenotype. And there certainly isn't a shred of evidence to support that new species result from such a process. Before you quote the Ecoli experiments, you should know that the citrate digestion mutation came from a reduction in genetic information, not an additive one.

As usual, you're simply repeating slogans from bible thumping creationist ministries.

 

[Hollie]

That is your opinion, but it comes from a denial of the science involved. The only ignorance is your unfamiliarity with the merits of the arguments. Please read Signature in the Cell and then get back to me. You will see your ignorant statement above totally exposed for the lie which you've obviously bought hook line and sinker from the atheist websites you frequent. Only a truly ignorant person would attempt to discredit something they have never actually read.

You are being presumptuous.

In any case, regardless of how anyone words this idea, "Signature in the Cell" does not establish that there was a designer, and that it did create or influence the development of certain aspects of what one might call proto-life, which is the issue most would be concerned with regarding the book, and which is what 'newpolitics' is getting at.

This is not to say that the book is simply a long collection of falsified statements, if, in writing something which objects to a statement by the user known as 'newpolitics,' stating that what he has written is in conflict with "the science," you refer to that most of the book takes the form of a history of various aspects of chemistry and biology, in particular the discovery of the various chemical forms through which life is maintained and given anchor, so to speak, and that all these facts are true.

However, the book does not justify that there is an intelligent designer, and to say so is not to contradict the chronological succession of facts contained in the book, even if, as you apparently make reference to, these are facts gathered by scientific means.

Ignorant poster #2. You obviously haven't read the book based on both your completely false, bolded comments above, so your claims are just as preposterous and ignorant as NP's. Instead of surfing atheist websites for your misinformation, if you really want to speak intelligently on the topic, you need to have read it. If you are truly interested in the truth, which I seriously doubt you are, then take a cue from the author Meyer, who rigorously investigated all the opposing viewpoints and weighs in on each one. The fact he has examined the current materialistic thinking on origins lends just that much more credibility to his argument when he finally presents the argument for intelligent agent as the best possible explanation for the source of dna. His scientific theory has yet to be falsified, and provides the "best explanation" for dna since it is directly related to observable phenomena we see today, not some as of yet not proven 43 step magical process proposed by materialists. The book absolutely makes a case for an intelligent agent being responsible for the digital code in dna. It refutes both the chance and necessity arguments for the origins of dna.

Perhaps you don't quite understand. The first cell containing replicating code originated some 3 to 4 billion years ago. This was an event of tremendous significance and occurred in the distant past. It no longer occurs today. We do not see life spontaneously arising in "warm little ponds". What we do find is intelligent agent after intelligent agent producing digital code. So falsifiability is fairly simple. Find a specifiable, functional digital code originating spontaneously somewhere, anywhere, on earth right now, that does not have an intelligent agent as its source. You buddy Dawkins has tried and failed with his little computer code that knows the outcome before it begins but so far no one has even come close. Deny all you want, but the theory posited by Meyer is a legitimate, testable and falsifiable scientific theory, and if you are to remain intellectually honest, you must absolutely admit it as so. Scientists even continue to bolster the theory and provide more evidence, not less, of the similarity of dna to flash memory and binary information storage. In fact, Harvard students have effectively used dna as a digital storage medium.

Go actually read the book and then get back to me with your thoughtful rebuttals.

Yours are same ignorant claims made by Behe, later stolen by Meyer and now part of the bible thumpers frantic boilerplate. The entirety of the thumper argument resolves to "it couldn't possibly have occured by natural means, therefore the gods did it". That is simplistic, naive and nothing more than appeals to ignorance and Christian apologetics.

The thumpers agenda has become so desperate that you are reduced to nonsensical proclamations that others must accept your religious views with the same authority as peer-reviewed science.

Your desperation is noted.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Bailing out when the questions are difficult, as usual. That's a common tactic of fundies. It's a simple matter to make grandiose claims and cut and paste alleged bible prophesies but when you're pressed to defend such silliness, you head for the exits in panic.

I will admit to an inability to discuss supernaturalism, your alleged spirit world, magic and a litany of creationist claims to magic in a rational fashion when creationists are unable to themselves discuss such silliness in a rational manner.

What is rational about supermagicalism?

I've answered your questions. And I haven't bailed out on or dodged any of them with the exception of the strawmen arguments you created. Those are not worth my time.

You haven't challenged any prophecies for me to have to defend. Oh but that's just yet another strawman of your creation.

Supermagicalism isn't even a word. Just another creation of your own delusional thinking.

I think to be fair, what you have answered was more a matter of posting creationist boilerplate.

I think that only zealots and/or the foolish would make the claim that they're partisan religious beliefs alone possess some ultimate "truth" that derives from belief in the supernatural. When someone has 100% conviction in a belief system supported by 0% facts, we have very valid reasons to suspect fraud. Blind and unthinking devotion to ancient myths may be acceptable when it's internal but as we’re aware, such unquestioning and literal acceptances of ancient myths can too often be used as a bloody truncheon to force that belief on others.

I think that the problem most people have with rationality is that they perceive that it doesn't address human intangible issues such as emotions; hence they feel reason and rationality is somehow inadequate. It's this lack of reason that causes zealots to maintain that the entire body of knowledge regarding the physical sciences is a grand conspiracy. Since there is no quantifiable way to prove when one's faith is "true" or not, then you have no way of knowing your faith is not totally false.

Faith is dangerous when it insists against evidence that shows it contrary. Then it tends to be blind fanaticism, wherein unsupported claims take on immutable law. In human beings, in the extreme, this leads to flying airplanes full of innocent people into buildings full of other innocent people or it can lead to fundie christian zealots believing in worldwide conspiracies..

All you have are insults and marginalizing what you don't understand.

I'll pray for you.

 

[Hollie]

I've answered your questions. And I haven't bailed out on or dodged any of them with the exception of the strawmen arguments you created. Those are not worth my time.

You haven't challenged any prophecies for me to have to defend. Oh but that's just yet another strawman of your creation.

Supermagicalism isn't even a word. Just another creation of your own delusional thinking.

I think to be fair, what you have answered was more a matter of posting creationist boilerplate.

I think that only zealots and/or the foolish would make the claim that they're partisan religious beliefs alone possess some ultimate "truth" that derives from belief in the supernatural. When someone has 100% conviction in a belief system supported by 0% facts, we have very valid reasons to suspect fraud. Blind and unthinking devotion to ancient myths may be acceptable when it's internal but as we’re aware, such unquestioning and literal acceptances of ancient myths can too often be used as a bloody truncheon to force that belief on others.

I think that the problem most people have with rationality is that they perceive that it doesn't address human intangible issues such as emotions; hence they feel reason and rationality is somehow inadequate. It's this lack of reason that causes zealots to maintain that the entire body of knowledge regarding the physical sciences is a grand conspiracy. Since there is no quantifiable way to prove when one's faith is "true" or not, then you have no way of knowing your faith is not totally false.

Faith is dangerous when it insists against evidence that shows it contrary. Then it tends to be blind fanaticism, wherein unsupported claims take on immutable law. In human beings, in the extreme, this leads to flying airplanes full of innocent people into buildings full of other innocent people or it can lead to fundie christian zealots believing in worldwide conspiracies..

All you have are insults and marginalizing what you don't understand.

I'll pray for you.

What you object to is an uncompromising assessment of creationist claims. As to my understanding, I understand very well creationist appeals to supernaturalism and ignorance. I just see no reason to believe those things are advancing of humanity.

I'll offer hope for you.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I think to be fair, what you have answered was more a matter of posting creationist boilerplate.

I think that only zealots and/or the foolish would make the claim that they're partisan religious beliefs alone possess some ultimate "truth" that derives from belief in the supernatural. When someone has 100% conviction in a belief system supported by 0% facts, we have very valid reasons to suspect fraud. Blind and unthinking devotion to ancient myths may be acceptable when it's internal but as we’re aware, such unquestioning and literal acceptances of ancient myths can too often be used as a bloody truncheon to force that belief on others.

I think that the problem most people have with rationality is that they perceive that it doesn't address human intangible issues such as emotions; hence they feel reason and rationality is somehow inadequate. It's this lack of reason that causes zealots to maintain that the entire body of knowledge regarding the physical sciences is a grand conspiracy. Since there is no quantifiable way to prove when one's faith is "true" or not, then you have no way of knowing your faith is not totally false.

Faith is dangerous when it insists against evidence that shows it contrary. Then it tends to be blind fanaticism, wherein unsupported claims take on immutable law. In human beings, in the extreme, this leads to flying airplanes full of innocent people into buildings full of other innocent people or it can lead to fundie christian zealots believing in worldwide conspiracies..

All you have are insults and marginalizing what you don't understand.

I'll pray for you.

What you object to is an uncompromising assessment of creationist claims. As to my understanding, I understand very well creationist appeals to supernaturalism and ignorance. I just see no reason to believe those things are advancing of humanity.

I'll offer hope for you.

You understand your own bigotry. That is all.

 

[Hollie]

All you have are insults and marginalizing what you don't understand.

I'll pray for you.

What you object to is an uncompromising assessment of creationist claims. As to my understanding, I understand very well creationist appeals to supernaturalism and ignorance. I just see no reason to believe those things are advancing of humanity.

I'll offer hope for you.

You understand your own bigotry. That is all.

You further your religiously inspired hate. There is more.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

What you object to is an uncompromising assessment of creationist claims. As to my understanding, I understand very well creationist appeals to supernaturalism and ignorance. I just see no reason to believe those things are advancing of humanity.

I'll offer hope for you.

You understand your own bigotry. That is all.

You further your religiously inspired hate. There is more.

Thanks for proving me right.

 

[Hollie]

You understand your own bigotry. That is all.

You further your religiously inspired hate. There is more.

Thanks for proving me right.

You proved the dangers of religious bigotry in dramatic fashion.

 

[Intense]

You further your religiously inspired hate. There is more.

Thanks for proving me right.

You proved the dangers of religious bigotry in dramatic fashion.

I think you are confusing Religion with Human Nature.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

You further your religiously inspired hate. There is more.

Thanks for proving me right.

You proved the dangers of religious bigotry in dramatic fashion.

You're pathetic. You can't even come up with an original argument.

 

[Hollie]

Thanks for proving me right.

You proved the dangers of religious bigotry in dramatic fashion.

You're pathetic. You can't even come up with an original argument.

The "angry fundie", persona is getting old.

Your arguments are not arguments at all but juvenile tactics to defend your claims to supernaturalism. Cutting and pasting from creationist ministries really defines a total departure from an original argument as creationist arguments require a predefined conclusion.

I understand your frustration at being unable to present a defendable argument for your gawds, but your anger needs to be directed elsewhere.

 

[UltimateReality]

You are being presumptuous.

In any case, regardless of how anyone words this idea, "Signature in the Cell" does not establish that there was a designer, and that it did create or influence the development of certain aspects of what one might call proto-life, which is the issue most would be concerned with regarding the book, and which is what 'newpolitics' is getting at.

This is not to say that the book is simply a long collection of falsified statements, if, in writing something which objects to a statement by the user known as 'newpolitics,' stating that what he has written is in conflict with "the science," you refer to that most of the book takes the form of a history of various aspects of chemistry and biology, in particular the discovery of the various chemical forms through which life is maintained and given anchor, so to speak, and that all these facts are true.

However, the book does not justify that there is an intelligent designer, and to say so is not to contradict the chronological succession of facts contained in the book, even if, as you apparently make reference to, these are facts gathered by scientific means.

Ignorant poster #2. You obviously haven't read the book based on both your completely false, bolded comments above, so your claims are just as preposterous and ignorant as NP's. Instead of surfing atheist websites for your misinformation, if you really want to speak intelligently on the topic, you need to have read it. If you are truly interested in the truth, which I seriously doubt you are, then take a cue from the author Meyer, who rigorously investigated all the opposing viewpoints and weighs in on each one. The fact he has examined the current materialistic thinking on origins lends just that much more credibility to his argument when he finally presents the argument for intelligent agent as the best possible explanation for the source of dna. His scientific theory has yet to be falsified, and provides the "best explanation" for dna since it is directly related to observable phenomena we see today, not some as of yet not proven 43 step magical process proposed by materialists. The book absolutely makes a case for an intelligent agent being responsible for the digital code in dna. It refutes both the chance and necessity arguments for the origins of dna.

Perhaps you don't quite understand. The first cell containing replicating code originated some 3 to 4 billion years ago. This was an event of tremendous significance and occurred in the distant past. It no longer occurs today. We do not see life spontaneously arising in "warm little ponds". What we do find is intelligent agent after intelligent agent producing digital code. So falsifiability is fairly simple. Find a specifiable, functional digital code originating spontaneously somewhere, anywhere, on earth right now, that does not have an intelligent agent as its source. You buddy Dawkins has tried and failed with his little computer code that knows the outcome before it begins but so far no one has even come close. Deny all you want, but the theory posited by Meyer is a legitimate, testable and falsifiable scientific theory, and if you are to remain intellectually honest, you must absolutely admit it as so. Scientists even continue to bolster the theory and provide more evidence, not less, of the similarity of dna to flash memory and binary information storage. In fact, Harvard students have effectively used dna as a digital storage medium.

Go actually read the book and then get back to me with your thoughtful rebuttals.

Yours are same ignorant claims made by Behe, later stolen by Meyer and now part of the bible thumpers frantic boilerplate. The entirety of the thumper argument resolves to "it couldn't possibly have occured by natural means, therefore the gods did it". That is simplistic, naive and nothing more than appeals to ignorance and Christian apologetics.

The thumpers agenda has become so desperate that you are reduced to nonsensical proclamations that others must accept your religious views with the same authority as peer-reviewed science.

Your desperation is noted.

That is not the argument at all. You are obviously not familiar with the book at all and are speaking from a point of total ignorance. You have proven repeatedly you are not interested in the truth. You are just here to harass Christians and spew hate. But Jesus still loves you even in your bigotry.

 

[UltimateReality]

I think to be fair, what you have answered was more a matter of posting creationist boilerplate.

I think that only zealots and/or the foolish would make the claim that they're partisan religious beliefs alone possess some ultimate "truth" that derives from belief in the supernatural. When someone has 100% conviction in a belief system supported by 0% facts, we have very valid reasons to suspect fraud. Blind and unthinking devotion to ancient myths may be acceptable when it's internal but as we’re aware, such unquestioning and literal acceptances of ancient myths can too often be used as a bloody truncheon to force that belief on others.

I think that the problem most people have with rationality is that they perceive that it doesn't address human intangible issues such as emotions; hence they feel reason and rationality is somehow inadequate. It's this lack of reason that causes zealots to maintain that the entire body of knowledge regarding the physical sciences is a grand conspiracy. Since there is no quantifiable way to prove when one's faith is "true" or not, then you have no way of knowing your faith is not totally false.

Faith is dangerous when it insists against evidence that shows it contrary. Then it tends to be blind fanaticism, wherein unsupported claims take on immutable law. In human beings, in the extreme, this leads to flying airplanes full of innocent people into buildings full of other innocent people or it can lead to fundie christian zealots believing in worldwide conspiracies..

All you have are insults and marginalizing what you don't understand.

I'll pray for you.

What you object to is an uncompromising assessment of creationist claims. As to my understanding, I understand very well creationist appeals to supernaturalism and ignorance. I just see no reason to believe those things are advancing of humanity.

I'll offer hope for you.

You are fabulous at attacking the religious aspects of Creationism, which you and I both know will not be proven by science. However, you continue to ignore the valid scientific points of ID Theory, which you have proven you don't have a real understanding of. I would buy the book for you and send it to you if you have an alias and a friends address you would like to supply me in a PM.

 

[ima]

Jesus was probably gay: he only hung around with guys, wore a dress, only banged a girl once to see if he'd like it (he didn't), looks effeminite in all the drawings or paintings, and he rode that gay pride symbol, the donkey!

 

[UltimateReality]

You proved the dangers of religious bigotry in dramatic fashion.

You're pathetic. You can't even come up with an original argument.

The "angry fundie", persona is getting old. ....

I would agree. YOUR angry, evo-fundie, hate rhetoric is totally exhausting.

 

[UltimateReality]

Jesus was probably gay: he only hung around with guys, wore a dress, only banged a girl once to see if he'd like it (he didn't), looks effeminite in all the drawings or paintings, and he rode that gay pride symbol, the donkey!

You think you are being funny and offending Christians here but you are just fulfilling prophecy and you don't even realize it.

Just FYI, I am not offended. I just feel quite sorry for you. You could spit in Jesus' face in person and he would still stretch out his arms and die for you. In fact, Jesus carried the sin of the whole world to the Cross. Can you imagine the horror of that? Carrying the images of the acts of people like Jeffrey Dahmer or the atheist nazi's running the death camps? But yes, Jesus died for everyone's sins, past and future.

 

[Hollie]

All you have are insults and marginalizing what you don't understand.

I'll pray for you.

What you object to is an uncompromising assessment of creationist claims. As to my understanding, I understand very well creationist appeals to supernaturalism and ignorance. I just see no reason to believe those things are advancing of humanity.

I'll offer hope for you.

You are fabulous at attacking the religious aspects of Creationism, which you and I both know will not be proven by science. However, you continue to ignore the valid scientific points of ID Theory, which you have proven you don't have a real understanding of. I would buy the book for you and send it to you if you have an alias and a friends address you would like to supply me in a PM.

You have the false impression that creationism is anything but a thin veneer covering your religious belief. Religion is not science and to suggest that science can illuminate the supernatural is nonsense. Similarly, there are no valid scientific points of IDiocy (relabeled Christian fundamentalism). You have proven that you don't have an understanding of science theory or the scientific method which is why you continue to represent your religious belief as meeting the standards of peer reviewed science, which it does not.

I have no intention of giving someone like you names or addresses for myself or anyone I know.

 

[Hollie]

Jesus was probably gay: he only hung around with guys, wore a dress, only banged a girl once to see if he'd like it (he didn't), looks effeminite in all the drawings or paintings, and he rode that gay pride symbol, the donkey!

You think you are being funny and offending Christians here but you are just fulfilling prophecy and you don't even realize it.

Just FYI, I am not offended. I just feel quite sorry for you. You could spit in Jesus' face in person and he would still stretch out his arms and die for you. In fact, Jesus carried the sin of the whole world to the Cross. Can you imagine the horror of that? Carrying the images of the acts of people like Jeffrey Dahmer or the atheist nazi's running the death camps? But yes, Jesus died for everyone's sins, past and future.

Atheist Nazi's?

The confused fundie should learn history and will realize that Hitler was Christian. The Nazi's wore belt buckles with the inscription "Gott mit Uns' (god with us).

 

[newpolitics]

Hollie, why is that you never discuss the evidence presented from ID Theory? You continue to attack religious beliefs as a substitute for a scientific discussion. Is it because you don't feel comfortable debating the matter on its scientific merit?

If I may step in here and venture to guess: it is probably because there is no evidence for the ID hypothesis. It is not a theory. It is an argument from ignorance.

That is your opinion, but it comes from a denial of the science involved. The only ignorance is your unfamiliarity with the merits of the arguments. Please read Signature in the Cell and then get back to me. You will see your ignorant statement above totally exposed for the lie which you've obviously bought hook line and sinker from the atheist websites you frequent. Only a truly ignorant person would attempt to discredit something they have never actually read.

ID is itself, a denial of science. My unfamiliarity of the arguments? You mean the ones that say:

1.) DNA is a binary code
2.) Binary Code is designed
3.) DNA is designed

DNA is not binary code as we know it, it is a bunch of chemicals, and you can't use inductive reasoning here to conclude that because we have made binary code, and DNA resembles a binary code, DNA must also have been designed. Sorry. That's a logical fallacy.

This nonsense is not a sound argument. Or how about the one where Michael Behe looks at the innards of a cell, and can't believe how incredible it is, so there MUST be an intelligent designer, because this just isn't possible without one.

How wonderfully scientific.

No thanks on your little reading list. I'm not going to waste my time. I've seen enough of the ID arguments and they all fail to be science.

 

[Hollie]

If I may step in here and venture to guess: it is probably because there is no evidence for the ID hypothesis. It is not a theory. It is an argument from ignorance.

That is your opinion, but it comes from a denial of the science involved. The only ignorance is your unfamiliarity with the merits of the arguments. Please read Signature in the Cell and then get back to me. You will see your ignorant statement above totally exposed for the lie which you've obviously bought hook line and sinker from the atheist websites you frequent. Only a truly ignorant person would attempt to discredit something they have never actually read.

ID is itself, a denial of science. My unfamiliarity of the arguments? You mean the ones that say:

1.) DNA is a binary code
2.) Binary Code is designed
3.) DNA is designed

DNA is not binary code as we know it, it is a bunch of chemicals, and you can't use inductive reasoning here to conclude that because we have made binary code, and DNA resembles a binary code, DNA must also have been designed. Sorry. That's a logical fallacy.

This nonsense is not a sound argument. Or how about the one where Michael Behe looks at the innards of a cell, and can't believe how incredible it is, so there MUST be an intelligent designer, because this just isn't possible without one.

How wonderfully scientific.

No thanks on your little reading list. I'm not going to waste my time. I've seen enough of the ID arguments and they all fail to be science.

I'm fond of the creationist argument such that:

1.) DNA is a "digital machine"
2.) All machines are designed
3.) DNA is therefore the product of a designer
4.) Ba dum bump *cymbals*