Creationists

[UltimateReality]

Atheist Nazi's?

The confused fundie should learn history and will realize that Hitler was Christian. ...

Hollie, thanks for the comic relief. I've read the atheist propaganda websites making this revisionist claim. It figures you would fall for it.

I don't say that if Jesus existed, he likely would have been gay just to piss people off, I say it because of the evidence, even though the last one about the donkey is funny, real men rode horses back them, usually it was only the women and children who rode donkeys.

As for Hitler being Christian, he was. He was brought up catholic and developed an admiration for Martin Luther.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler
Religious views of Adolf Hitler - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Daws was brought up Catholic but that doesn't make him a Christian. You logic is completely flawed. This is a historical revisionistic atheist claim in response to the fact that millions of people were slaughtered in the 20th century by atheistic regimes, nothing more.

 

[UltimateReality]

ID has never been a theory. It is a belief. In dozens of court cases all over the country, most all with conservative Republican appointed or elected judges, ID has been proven over and over and over again as re-packaged creationism. They were made damn fools of and liars in open court in the Dover v. Kitzmiller case.
If the case for ID is so strong why do they have to lie in court?
I was glad to see that they were not charged with perjury though. The school board members admitted their lies as they were coached into doing so by the national ID movement that was there for the trial.
Liars, frauds, repackaging the frauds, hiding behind the lies is all part of their game plan.
Wake the hell up folks. Admit it and move on.

Where have you been? You think the courts can determine the legitimacy of science?? And please tell me the specific person and what they specifically said that was a lie. I've heard this atheistic propaganda over and over and no one can ever back it up.

Meyer's theory is most certainly a valid, scientific theory. Saying it isn't over and over won't make it come true. Wake the heck up and actually get out of the house more often. You might actually want to read some literary works that are part of your atheistic propaganda websites.

If the courts can't determine the legitimacy of science, then why did the courts not let ID into science class?

Are you talking about the same court system that advocates the murder of unborn babies? Or the one that wants to strip us of our First and Second Amendment rights? Maybe you are talking about the court system that let's criminals who are injured during the commission of a crime sue the victim. I think you can figure that out.

 

[ima]

Where have you been? You think the courts can determine the legitimacy of science?? And please tell me the specific person and what they specifically said that was a lie. I've heard this atheistic propaganda over and over and no one can ever back it up.

Meyer's theory is most certainly a valid, scientific theory. Saying it isn't over and over won't make it come true. Wake the heck up and actually get out of the house more often. You might actually want to read some literary works that are part of your atheistic propaganda websites.

If the courts can't determine the legitimacy of science, then why did the courts not let ID into science class?

I think you can figure that out.

Because ID isn't science, more like philosophy?

 

[ima]

Hollie, thanks for the comic relief. I've read the atheist propaganda websites making this revisionist claim. It figures you would fall for it.

I don't say that if Jesus existed, he likely would have been gay just to piss people off, I say it because of the evidence, even though the last one about the donkey is funny, real men rode horses back them, usually it was only the women and children who rode donkeys.

As for Hitler being Christian, he was. He was brought up catholic and developed an admiration for Martin Luther.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler
Religious views of Adolf Hitler - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Daws was brought up Catholic but that doesn't make him a Christian. You logic is completely flawed. This is a historical revisionistic atheist claim in response to the fact that millions of people were slaughtered in the 20th century by atheistic regimes, nothing more.

He was a vegetarian, not an atheist. Link please?

 

[ima]

And I think Jesus was incontinent, that's why they nailed him to the cross in a diaper.

 

[Gadawg73]

NO scientific community ANYWHERE approved ID as science to be taught as science.
It was threats from the religious right against long term teachers that got this into the courts.
Teach ID as science as dictated by a school board member with a 9th grade education was the mandate.

And the SCIENCE teachers rebelled and wanted to TEACH SCIENCE
And science won.
One only has to look at the EVIDENCE to see that all ID is is re-packaged creationism.
Sore losers.

 

[Hollie]

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.

Hollie, sometimes I wonder about you. I just got through saying religion isn't science and you repeated my phrase over like it was a rebuttal. Are you actually reading the posts?

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

Of course you wouldn't accept a free book!! Then you would have no excuse for you inability to present a logical rebuttal!!

Again, you apparently didn't read the post. Do you know what an alias is?? Have you ever heard of general delivery?

You have a difficult time understanding what you have posted in earlier threads. It has been explained to you repeatedly that religion is not science yet you continue to insist that your religious views supplant scientific knowledge. You will even insist that the methide of science are flawed and that there is a vast, global conspiracy of scientists and educators evo have somehow been duped into following the discipline of science as opposed to blindly accepting your partisan religious claims, totally unsupported and relying only on appeals to fear and superstition.

As to your book offer which is a continuation of your creepy pattern of stalking, what part of NO are you having trouble understanding?

 

[Hollie]

Where have you been? You think the courts can determine the legitimacy of science?? And please tell me the specific person and what they specifically said that was a lie. I've heard this atheistic propaganda over and over and no one can ever back it up.

Meyer's theory is most certainly a valid, scientific theory. Saying it isn't over and over won't make it come true. Wake the heck up and actually get out of the house more often. You might actually want to read some literary works that are part of your atheistic propaganda websites.

If the courts can't determine the legitimacy of science, then why did the courts not let ID into science class?

Are you talking about the same court system that advocates the murder of unborn babies? Or the one that wants to strip us of our First and Second Amendment rights? Maybe you are talking about the court system that let's criminals who are injured during the commission of a crime sue the victim. I think you can figure that out.

Actually, we're talking about the courts that uphold the constitution in regard to disallowing religion to be taught in public schools.

You, of course would prefer an exception to the law when it suits your desire to force your religious beliefs on others. However, the courts have ruled consistently that Christian creationism or the falsely labeled ID nonsense is nothing more than a guise for religion.

Peddle your religion by thumping on street corners if you wish but your religion is not allowed in schools.

 

[Hollie]

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.

ID has never been a theory. It is a belief. In dozens of court cases all over the country, most all with conservative Republican appointed or elected judges, ID has been proven over and over and over again as re-packaged creationism. They were made damn fools of and liars in open court in the Dover v. Kitzmiller case.
If the case for ID is so strong why do they have to lie in court?
I was glad to see that they were not charged with perjury though. The school board members admitted their lies as they were coached into doing so by the national ID movement that was there for the trial.
Liars, frauds, repackaging the frauds, hiding behind the lies is all part of their game plan.
Wake the hell up folks. Admit it and move on.

Where have you been? You think the courts can determine the legitimacy of science?? And please tell me the specific person and what they specifically said that was a lie. I've heard this atheistic propaganda over and over and no one can ever back it up.

Meyer's theory is most certainly a valid, scientific theory. Saying it isn't over and over won't make it come true. Wake the heck up and actually get out of the house more often. You might actually want to read some literary works that are part of your atheistic propaganda websites.

Meyers' propaganda is nothing more than a re-packaging of Behe's silly slogans which resolve to nothing more than "...it's complicated, therefore the gods did it".

 

[Hollie]

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.

Of course not. You are not interested in the truth. You just rather make up stuff about what you "think" the book says. This is a common personality trait among evolutionists.

This is the core of the creationist argument: "all of science is a conspiracy".

 

[Hollie]

Stop projecting.

Stop whining.

I have no reason to "project". The science truths are defendable without recourse to supernatural causes. Scientific investigation might be described as a progressive layering of evidence built around a competition for repeatable test results. Where are the religious ones? There aren't any!

What I find remarkable is how consistent the religious /creationist / IDiot, “the gods did it” arguments really are. They are not just similar, they are identical. And since so many of them are identically false, it is almost inconceivable that creationists continue to make the false claim that creationism is science or is in any way supportable.

There is a reason why the process of science deserves so much credibility in comparison to the claimed but factually absent “absolute truths” of creationism. Science, to include chemistry and biology etc., provides evidence that entitles them to qualifications for rational testing. There is a reason why science has proven to be a positively impactful and influential of human endeavor. That is because science formally recognizes the fluid nature of all our human knowledge and will flex and adjust as new knowledge is gained. That stands in stark contrast to the never changing, unalterable "twoofs" of gods and magic.

Asserting supernaturalism as the core if existence means there are questions we can never hope to attain true knowledge about, and that means true understanding of the universe is hopelessly and forever beyond us. This creates a hopeless point of view, and creationists don't connect the dots to this inescapable conclusion. The Dead End remains forever in place-- "The Gods did it, and that's that."

Tangent. Please stick the the discussion at hand and refrain from reposting the same thing over and over again.

Your comment is off topic.

It's important to make a distinction between the rigorous methods of science and the spirit world of supernaturalism that Christian creationists propose. You react with pith and vinegar when anyone challenges your belief in spirits and magic but inventing conspiracy theories involving global participation by scientists and universities makes you appear quite desperate and, well, a little dangerous to yourself and others.

 

[Hollie]

The Fruitlessness of ID “Research”

The Fruitlessness of ID "Research" - The Panda's Thumb

By Jeffrey Shallit on November 30, 2009 8:37 AM | 81 Comments

Scientists point out, quite rightly, that the religio-political charade known as “intelligent design” (ID) is not good science. But how do we know this?

One of the hallmarks of science is that it is fruitful. A good scientific paper will usually lead to much work along the same lines, work that confirms and extends the results, and work that produces more new ideas inspired by the paper. Although citation counts are not completely reliable metrics for evaluating scientific papers, they do give some general information about what papers are considered important.

ID advocates like to point to lists of “peer-reviewed publications” advocating their position. Upon closer examination, their lists are misleading, packed with publications that are either not in scientific journals, or that appeared in venues of questionable quality, or papers whose relationship to ID is tangential at best. Today, however, I’d like to look at a different issue: the fruitfulness of intelligent design. Let’s take a particular ID publication, one that was trumpeted by ID advocates as a “breakthrough”, and see how much further scientific work it inspired.

The paper I have in mind is Stephen Meyer’s paper “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories”, which was published, amid some controversy, in the relatively obscure journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington in 2004. Critics pointed out that the paper was not suited to the journal, which is usually devoted to taxonomic issues, and that the paper was riddled with mistakes and misleading claims. In response, the editors of the journal issued a disclaimer repudiating the paper.

Putting these considerations aside, what I want to do here is look at every scientific publication that has cited Meyer’s paper to determine whether his work can fairly said to be “fruitful”. I used the ISI Web of Science Database to do a “cited reference” search on his article. This database, which used to be called Science Citation Index, is generally acknowledged to be one of the most comprehensive available. The search I did included Science Citation Index Expanded, Social Sciences Citation Index, and Arts & Humanities Citation Index. Even such a search will miss some papers, of course, but it will still give a general idea of how much the scientific community has been inspired by Meyer’s work.

I found exactly 9 citations to Meyer’s paper in this database. Of these, counting generously, exactly 1 is a scientific research paper that cites Meyer approvingly.

 

[daws101]

Yours are the standard cut and paste misrepresentations from creationist ministries.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1


Because fundie Christians continue to be confused and/or choose to lie about evolution, its important to teach them that evolution and the beginning of life are separate issues.

Do all Christian fundies avoid knowledge and an education in science?

Actually it was from the Discovery Channel.

Tell me when did evolution begin if not at the origin of life?

Funny, the first cell didn't evolve they have no answer for it their copout is origins had nothing to do with evolution.

what's funny is you making a declarative statement with no basis in fact or evidence to support it .

 

[daws101]

I believe we are living the final act to which you will get your answer.

what you believe is not relevant..it's also a non answer.

Oh but it is an answer and a warning.

YWC's grip on reality loosens

 

[daws101]

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.

Omigosh, your second post is even more ignorant than your first. First, let's just clear this up. DNA is not a binary code. It is a quaternary code. Second, your description of the argument above is not accurate. Darwin and Lyell both believed the present is the key to the past. We can observe the present and make predictions or theories about events occurring in the past. The only source for digital code in the present is an intelligent agent. DNA contains digital code that no naturalistic methodology can explain. The best explanation for its origin, based on presently observable processes, is that it had an intelligent agent as it source. However, the argument presented in the book goes much deeper than that.

From your favorite source:

Genetics

Parallels can be drawn between quaternary numerals and the way genetic code is represented by DNA. The four DNA nucleotides in alphabetical order, abbreviated A, C, G and T, can be taken to represent the quaternary digits in numerical order 0, 1, 2, and 3. With this encoding, the complementary digit pairs 0↔3, and 1↔2 (binary 00↔11 and 01↔10) match the complementation of the base pairs: A↔T and C↔G and can be stored as data in DNA sequence.[2]

For example, the nucleotide sequence GATTACA can be represented by the quaternary number 2033010 (= decimal 9156).

Quaternary numeral system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Capabilities

DNA computing is fundamentally similar to parallel computing in that it takes advantage of the many different molecules of DNA to try many different possibilities at once.[8] For certain specialized problems, DNA computers are faster and smaller than any other computer built so far. Furthermore, particular mathematical computations have been demonstrated to work on a DNA computer. As an example, Aran Nayebi[9] has provided a general implementation of Strassen's matrix multiplication algorithm on a DNA computer, although there are problems with scaling. In addition, Caltech researchers have created a circuit made from 130 unique DNA strands, which is able to calculate the square root of numbers up to 15.[10]

DNA computing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Harvard cracks DNA storage, crams 700 terabytes of data into a single gram | ExtremeTech

so what? none of it is an argument for or proof of Id..
it does prove however ,with stunning clarity the power of obsessive delusions

 

[daws101]

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.

Of course not. You are not interested in the truth. You just rather make up stuff about what you "think" the book says. This is a common personality trait among evolutionists.

lo0k who's talking about made up shit

your "version" of "truth" lacks several vital characteristics ..the most important is :CoherenceSee also: Coherence theory of truth
Coherence refers to a consistent and overarching explanation for all facts. To be coherent, all pertinent facts must be arranged in a consistent and cohesive fashion as an integrated whole. The theory which most effectively reconciles all facts in this fashion may be considered most likely to be true. Coherence is the most potentially effective test of truth because it most adequately addresses all elements. The main limitation lies not in the standard, but in the human inability to acquire all facts of an experience. Only an omniscient mind could be aware of all of the relevant information. A scholar must accept this limitation and accept as true the most coherent explanation for the available facts. Coherence is difficult to dispute as a criterion of truth, since arguing against coherence is validating incoherence, which is inherently illogical.[5]

Criteria of truth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

also since all religious writing is what the authors thought not actual, on scene, breaking news or corroborated fact ,your accusation is just as "true" about you.
slap dick...

 

[daws101]

Wow. That went right over your head. It only took me 7 words to post my educational background. I was commenting that instead of dodging the question with 13 words, wouldn't have been easier just to post up what you studied and where you went to school?

as stated before you know where I WENT TO SCHOOL AND MY DEGREES.
AND, NO NOTHING YOU POST "GOES OVER MY HEAD" Beneath notice ,not worthy of an answer, yes. but goes over my head? never!
it just another one of your masturbatory fantasies..
besides for my to list just my degrees would be 7 letters.

You have never posted up where you went to school or your degrees. Nice try.

So you are not only incredibly wealthy, but you have 7 degrees? Isn't the internet great??? You can say or be anything you want and no one can prove you wrong. I will say that for someone with 7 degrees it is a curious thing that your writing style is that of a 3rd grader.

Ur again proves just how powerful obsession is...
never said I was incredibility wealthy (you created that)
never said I had seven degrees (I have three) , I have on more then one occasion ,posted my educational background.
your obsessive complusive insistence that I have not is just another ploy in your ongoing saga of dumbfuckery and chicken shit character assassination.

this statement :"Isn't the internet great??? You can say or be anything you want and no one can prove you wrong." -UR
JUST SCREAMS HUBRIS..
IT'S THE BASIS OF EVERY LIE, SPIN, INTENTIONALY IGNORANT STEAMING PILE YOU POST.

 

[daws101]

Hollie, thanks for the comic relief. I've read the atheist propaganda websites making this revisionist claim. It figures you would fall for it.

I don't say that if Jesus existed, he likely would have been gay just to piss people off, I say it because of the evidence, even though the last one about the donkey is funny, real men rode horses back them, usually it was only the women and children who rode donkeys.

As for Hitler being Christian, he was. He was brought up catholic and developed an admiration for Martin Luther.Adolf Hitler - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Religious views of Adolf Hitler - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Daws was brought up Catholic but that doesn't make him a Christian. You logic is completely flawed. This is a historical revisionistic atheist claim in response to the fact that millions of people were slaughtered in the 20th century by atheistic regimes, nothing more.

another lie from UR ... I was not brought up catholic TRY TO HAVE THE BALLS TO POST ME DIRECTLY IF YOU'RE LIE ABOUT ME...
ANYTHING ELSE IS COWARDICE..... OOPS THAT'S STATING THE OBVIOUS!

 

[daws101]

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.

ID has never been a theory. It is a belief. In dozens of court cases all over the country, most all with conservative Republican appointed or elected judges, ID has been proven over and over and over again as re-packaged creationism. They were made damn fools of and liars in open court in the Dover v. Kitzmiller case.
If the case for ID is so strong why do they have to lie in court?
I was glad to see that they were not charged with perjury though. The school board members admitted their lies as they were coached into doing so by the national ID movement that was there for the trial.
Liars, frauds, repackaging the frauds, hiding behind the lies is all part of their game plan.
Wake the hell up folks. Admit it and move on.

Where have you been? You think the courts can determine the legitimacy of science?? And please tell me the specific person and what they specifically said that was a lie. I've heard this atheistic propaganda over and over and no one can ever back it up.

Meyer's theory is most certainly a valid, scientific theory. Saying it isn't over and over won't make it come true. Wake the heck up and actually get out of the house more often. You might actually want to read some literary works that are part of your atheistic propaganda websites.

From the mid-1990s, intelligent design proponents were supported by the Discovery Institute, which, together with its Center for Science and Culture, planned and funded the "intelligent design movement".[16][n 1] They advocated inclusion of intelligent design in public school biology curricula, leading to the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, where U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents", and that the school district's promotion of it therefore violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.[17]

U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents",

GAME, SET, MATCH !

 

[pjnlsn]

The book absolutely makes a case for an intelligent agent being responsible for the digital code in dna.

And certainly not [does DNA have] any significant similarity to digital curcuitry, of storage devices or otherwise.

Maybe you should get out of the house more often:

"Scientists have been eyeing up DNA as a potential storage medium for a long time, for three very good reasons: It’s incredibly dense (you can store one bit per base, and a base is only a few atoms large); it’s volumetric (beaker) rather than planar (hard disk); and it’s incredibly stable — where other bleeding-edge storage mediums need to be kept in sub-zero vacuums, DNA can survive for hundreds of thousands of years in a box in your garage.

It is only with recent advances in microfluidics and labs-on-a-chip that synthesizing and sequencing DNA has become an everyday task, though. While it took years for the original Human Genome Project to analyze a single human genome (some 3 billion DNA base pairs), modern lab equipment with microfluidic chips can do it in hours. Now this isn’t to say that Church and Kosuri’s DNA storage is fast — but it’s fast enough for very-long-term archival.

Just think about it for a moment: One gram of DNA can store 700 terabytes of data. That’s 14,000 50-gigabyte Blu-ray discs… in a droplet of DNA that would fit on the tip of your pinky. To store the same kind of data on hard drives — the densest storage medium in use today — you’d need 233 3TB drives, weighing a total of 151 kilos. In Church and Kosuri’s case, they have successfully stored around 700 kilobytes of data in DNA — Church’s latest book, in fact — and proceeded to make 70 billion copies (which they claim, jokingly, makes it the best-selling book of all time!) totaling 44 petabytes of data stored."

Harvard cracks DNA storage, crams 700 terabytes of data into a single gram | ExtremeTech

None of the this contradicts the above. Regardless of it's potential uses, it bears no significant similarity to (e.g.) networks of copper/iron alloyed pathways etched in silicon, be they part of, say, a flash memory device, or any particular example of digital circuitry.

But again, you appeared to be using the word merely for embellishment, anyway.