Creationists

[UltimateReality]

ID is a theory, and is certainly not actual proof, because there is none.

Im sure somewhere in this 700 page thread/novel this was already covered but in the event that you missed it... A scientific theory is a falsifiable hypothesis that explains a set of observations and has been rigorously scrutinised and tested. Evolution would fall under this category. However ID is considered something quite different, a joke.

Please enlighten me on how you have tested natural selection acting on a random mutation which results in an organism having increased fitness? I think the joke is on you.

 

[UltimateReality]

No, its because abiogenesis and evolution are categorically distinct. It's that simple. One has nothing to do with the other ontologically.

Just keep telling yourself that and maybe it will come true.

Right back at you. The thing is that I actually have logic and reason on my side. You just have blind assertion and wishful thinking.

If you think abiogenesis and evolution are somehow blurred or interchangeable points in time, demonstrate this. Show me how this is possible.

Abiogenesis came before Evolution. You can't evolution without a self-replicating life form to work with, and abiogenesis is the process that produced that self-replicating life form from organic materials present on earth, and highly abundant throughout the universe.

Your ignorance is astounding. The ID theory is absolutely logical and is more reasonable as the best explanation for the self-replicating life form. All the naturalistic explanations for Abiogenesis are an utter and complete joke. If you had actually studied any of them, you would know this. Why don't you stick to discussing things you have read up on?

 

[UltimateReality]

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.

And still no education info. Typical wordy DODGE!

your obsessive complusive insistence that I have not is just another ploy in your ongoing saga of dumbfuckery and chicken shit character assassination.

And you silence persists. Still no admission of your lack of education.

 

[UltimateReality]

How nice. An opportunity for your self-serving proselytizing.

Please explain how noting history is self-serving.

everything you post is self serving. you do for self aggrandizement not for the glory of gawd but to "get over" all this ego must be compensation for other huge flaws ...

Projecting... again.

 

[UltimateReality]

I doubt any intelligent person can deny that there are a lot of some really stupid and scared people on the planet with many people such as yourself that "pray/prey" on them.

I don't prey on people I pray for people. I don't force my views on anyone I tell them what I do know and I try and get them to reason on the evidence that I have been exposed to. How can you accept your views as a fact in your own mind without putting it to the test ?

Remember, I was once on your side of the argument until I reasoned and put the theory to the test by reasoning on the evidence. It was no magical pastor that convinced me my beliefs on thetheory were wrong ,it was the Lord himself that exposed the lies and his word that did it for me. I just others will do the same and not let themselves to be lead down the wrong road.

I do not believe you. No one "reasons" their way to believing in a god. What I believe is that you are not telling the whole story. People are weak so when something traumatic occurs in their life or in the life of someone close to them or just about any tragedy that happens can push some people to looking past what they find impossible to understand and look for justification in the "mysterious ways" of a god.

You were never like me. You were obviously "on the fence" about it and something pushed you over to the "faith" excuse.

I have never believed in a god. I had all the usual religious upbringing and found the bible laughable. I saw people in church praying and saw that they did it because they were indoctirnated to do so. Telling a child to put his or her hands together and kneel down, close their eyes and do what? Nigga...please... You have been bleating your case on this thread thousands of times and you have moved the LOS no closer to the goal line.

It's simple...go have a heart to heart pow wow with your sky fairy and tell him/she/it that he will get lots of followers if it will just show up in person and stop treating human beings like idiots.

You might want to check out CS Lewis' biography before you make such silly absolute statements not founded in reality.

 

[newpolitics]

Just keep telling yourself that and maybe it will come true.

Right back at you. The thing is that I actually have logic and reason on my side. You just have blind assertion and wishful thinking.

If you think abiogenesis and evolution are somehow blurred or interchangeable points in time, demonstrate this. Show me how this is possible.

Abiogenesis came before Evolution. You can't evolution without a self-replicating life form to work with, and abiogenesis is the process that produced that self-replicating life form from organic materials present on earth, and highly abundant throughout the universe.

Your ignorance is astounding. The ID theory is absolutely logical and is more reasonable as the best explanation for the self-replicating life form. All the naturalistic explanations for Abiogenesis are an utter and complete joke. If you had actually studied any of them, you would know this. Why don't you stick to discussing things you have read up on?

This little side-debate isn't about the merits of abiogenesis, its about whether abiogenesis is categorically distinct from evolution. Let's stick to one topic at a time.

As for you opinions on the merits of ID and abiogenesis, I disagree with your point on ID entirely (whether it is logical or not is irrelevant), and it is clear you know nothing about abiogenesis, because the science behind abiogenesis is not clear or set it stone, and NO ONE IS CLAIMING IT IS. Though, they have many promising leads, and despite your incredulity on the matter, the Miller-Urey experiments were valuable insights into how organic compounds could be produced naturally. Even though you will claim the gaseous mixture used in the experiments were inaccurate in depicting early earth conditions, and you'd be right, in correcting for this mistake, they found that even more organic compounds could be produced naturally. So, it seems very plausible that given enough time, which we had, and enough energy (lightning), of which there was plenty, that organic compounds would inevitably be produced. To write off abiogenesis because it is "naturalistic" is simply biased towards a supernaturalistic explanation, just as you accuse metaphysical naturalists of doing when dealing with creation.

 

[UltimateReality]

You’re angry because your claims to gawds and supermagicalism ring hollow and do nothing more than promote fear and ignorance.

I am continually amazed at the insistence of YEC’ers to think that their Christian fundamentalist beliefs can be applied to refute evolutionary science. I'm also amazed at the derogatory implications of the word "religion" when used by religionists in reference to evolution.

The fundies have been suffered humiliating defeats in the courts with their attempts to push Christianity into the school system. Academia has refuted creationism / IDiosy for failing to provide testable methods for supernaturalism. To say that evolution is a fact is merely acknowledging the sheer weight of testable and verifiable evidence. Christian Fundies can only counter the facts with conspiracy theories which is irresponsible in any sense. Paraphrasing Daniel Dennett in Darwin's Dangerous Idea, the hope by Christian fundies that evolution will someday be refuted by some shattering new breakthrough is about as reasonable as the hope that we will return to an earth centered universe and abandon Copernicus.

To reiterate for the Christian fundies: creation "science" / IDiocy is not science. Fundies may insist otherwise but Christian creationism / supermagicalism is a fact only to fundies. Certainly, “magic” does not deserve equal time in a public school classroom as proponents of Creationism / IDiosy would like to see.

What is there to be angry about ? you have the right to choose your own path to follow. The only thing that might anger me is your inability to dicuss things like an adult and insult people who clearly know more on the subject the thread is about.

You and the other fundie really do define the "angry fundie" persona. Your hateful attitude toward anyone who disagrees with your claims to supernaturalism is palpable, even on a text based message board. As to discussing things like an adult, why don't you read back through the thread and report back to us who is posting gargantuan fonts with juvenile name-calling through twenty pages of this thread.

I will also note that this thread is about creationism. I fully reject your claim to knowing more about creationism than me of anyone else. I have no reason to believe that you or anyone else knows more about creationism than alliowed by the four words "the gods did it"

Hollie, your ignorance is astounding. You are a pathological denier. How many times have you questioned someone else's education while remaining silent about your own qualifications? You know exactly why the large fonts were used, to call you out on your continual BS. You choose to remain in denial. Either that, or you are really, really incompetent.

 

[UltimateReality]

Gotta love the crazy Christians.. Up is down..Black is white.. Fantasy is logical.. Reason is nonsense.

Do you really think in all these thousands of posts that you have convinced anyone to believe in your make believe?

Good observation. On the contrary, I think the worst examples of religious fanaticism and belligerent ignorance is demonstrated by the fundies in this thread.

Naw... these idiots are just persistant. I don't think there are any snake handlers hanging around USMB.

You both have been presented with valid scientific evidence proving an intelligent agent was the best explanation for the digital code in dna and you both have been presented with numerous, serious flaws in evolutionary theory. You just choose to ignore the truth because of your commitment to your atheistic religion.

 

[newpolitics]

And still no education info. Typical wordy DODGE!

your obsessive complusive insistence that I have not is just another ploy in your ongoing saga of dumbfuckery and chicken shit character assassination.

And you silence persists. Still no admission of your lack of education.

Your asking for everyone's education is inappropriate. Please stop doing it. It's actually awkward to look at.

 

[UltimateReality]

Gotta love the crazy Christians.. Up is down..Black is white.. Fantasy is logical.. Reason is nonsense.

Do you really think in all these thousands of posts that you have convinced anyone to believe in your make believe?

Good observation. On the contrary, I think the worst examples of religious fanaticism and belligerent ignorance is demonstrated by the fundies in this thread.

Naw... these idiots are just persistant.

You sure are!! Hollie has been repeating the same few slogans over and over again for over 700 pages while frantically cutting and pasting from the same, tired atheistic websites like panda's thumb, all the while having not given a single response of her own to an argument presented. Now that is persistance!!! Not only that, the internet shows she has been harassing various forms of theistic religions, including Islam, for years!!! Pathetic!! No, really pathetic. Someone needs to get a life!

 

[UltimateReality]

Right back at you. The thing is that I actually have logic and reason on my side. You just have blind assertion and wishful thinking.

If you think abiogenesis and evolution are somehow blurred or interchangeable points in time, demonstrate this. Show me how this is possible.

Abiogenesis came before Evolution. You can't evolution without a self-replicating life form to work with, and abiogenesis is the process that produced that self-replicating life form from organic materials present on earth, and highly abundant throughout the universe.

Your ignorance is astounding. The ID theory is absolutely logical and is more reasonable as the best explanation for the self-replicating life form. All the naturalistic explanations for Abiogenesis are an utter and complete joke. If you had actually studied any of them, you would know this. Why don't you stick to discussing things you have read up on?

This little side-debate isn't about the merits of abiogenesis, its about whether abiogenesis is categorically distinct from evolution. Let's stick to one topic at a time.

As for you opinions on the merits of ID and abiogenesis, I disagree with your point on ID entirely (whether it is logical or not is irrelevant), and it is clear you know nothing about abiogenesis

NP, even you can go to Wiki and read about 19 possible DIFFERENT explanations, all of them severely lacking of any REAL science...

Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[newpolitics]

Your ignorance is astounding. The ID theory is absolutely logical and is more reasonable as the best explanation for the self-replicating life form. All the naturalistic explanations for Abiogenesis are an utter and complete joke. If you had actually studied any of them, you would know this. Why don't you stick to discussing things you have read up on?

This little side-debate isn't about the merits of abiogenesis, its about whether abiogenesis is categorically distinct from evolution. Let's stick to one topic at a time.

As for you opinions on the merits of ID and abiogenesis, I disagree with your point on ID entirely (whether it is logical or not is irrelevant), and it is clear you know nothing about abiogenesis

NP, even you can go to Wiki and read about 19 possible DIFFERENT explanations, all of them severely lacking of any REAL science...

Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As I said, the scientific "story" behind Abiogenesis is not set in stone, as we would expect practically zero evidence from that event to survive. The fact that there many scenarios depicting abiogenesis only confirms what I said. I am not arguing this, so I am not sure why you think this would be new information. Again, you assume that science is "dogmatic" for an atheist, when it isn't. I am perfectly okay with there being a gap in knowledge there. I am not okay with filling a gap simply because it is uncomfortable, and calling that gap "God" and then supplying myself with a story that is then personally believable. This is not a pathway to truth. This is a pathway to fiction.

As I see it, the point of abiogenesis is that it is possible for life to arise naturally. That is all that needs to be proved. With the Miller-Urey Experiments as well as finding ready-made amino acids on incoming meteorites, we have evidence that it is probable that life can form on its own.

 

[UltimateReality]

This little side-debate isn't about the merits of abiogenesis, its about whether abiogenesis is categorically distinct from evolution. Let's stick to one topic at a time.

You and the Neo-Darwinists wish!! Abiogenisis presents a serious problem for Darwinists since the discovery of dna. Even Darwin himself believed the "warm little pond" to be the naturalistic origin of life and the two were linked together more and more, that is, up until the discovery of dna when the materialists began to frantically attempt to divorce themselves from Abiogenesis. You are just a product of that revisionism that teaches the two are not related. What a joke!!! You want to believe the Darwinists religious teaching that evolution and Abiogenis are mutually exclusive because your religion won't allow you to accept otherwise.

 

[UltimateReality]

(snicker) so you saying you acually saw and talked to god?

Gods word reveals the foolishness of man in many ways.

Hearing voices are we?

Posting under multiple genders and personalities are we?

 

[UltimateReality]

your obsessive complusive insistence that I have not is just another ploy in your ongoing saga of dumbfuckery and chicken shit character assassination.

And you silence persists. Still no admission of your lack of education.

Your asking for everyone's education is inappropriate. Please stop doing it. It's actually awkward to look at.

What? Are you Hollie's minion now? What is inappropriate is for attackers to make claims about the lack of others' education while deliberately concealing their own lack of education. Have you appointed yourself the hypocritical Daws and hypocritical Hollie's defender?

 

[UltimateReality]

This little side-debate isn't about the merits of abiogenesis, its about whether abiogenesis is categorically distinct from evolution. Let's stick to one topic at a time.

As for you opinions on the merits of ID and abiogenesis, I disagree with your point on ID entirely (whether it is logical or not is irrelevant), and it is clear you know nothing about abiogenesis

NP, even you can go to Wiki and read about 19 possible DIFFERENT explanations, all of them severely lacking of any REAL science...

Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As I said, the scientific "story" behind Abiogenesis is not set in stone, as we would expect practically zero evidence from that event to survive. The fact that there many scenarios depicting abiogenesis only confirms what I said. I am not arguing this, so I am not sure why you think this would be new information. Again, you assume that science is "dogmatic" for an atheist, when it isn't. I am perfectly okay with there being a gap in knowledge there. I am not okay with filling a gap simply because it is uncomfortable, and calling that gap "God" and then supplying myself with a story that is then personally believable. This is not a pathway to truth. This is a pathway to fiction.

As I see it, the point of abiogenesis is that it is possible for life to arise naturally. That is all that needs to be proved. With the Miller-Urey Experiments as well as finding ready-made amino acids on incoming meteorites, we have evidence that it is probable that life can form on its own.

Now that is faith my friend!!! I'll say it again for the terminally slow among us, Darwin and Lyell both believed the key to the past was presently observable actions. We do not see complex and specifiable information spontaneously arising in nature. All presently observable digital code has an intelligent agent as its source. For now, that is the best explanation for the digitally-coded information we find in dna, not some as of yet randomly unseen magical process with 43 steps of "might haves" and "could haves" that are not even scientifically verifiable by experiments. Why does your logic not allow you to accept this? Back before the Big Bang Theory, when Einstein and other scientists believed the universe was eternal, panspermia was a considered a valid candidate as an explanation for abiogenesis. I guess the fact the earth is only 4.7 billion years old has thrown a monkey wrench in all the chance, necessity, and chance with necessity arguments posited so far. Your faith in a naturalistic process is more preposterous than my scientific inference that an intelligent agent of some type put the digitally coded information there, because I can look around in nature and observe the process occurring all around me right now. Darwin and Lyell would be proud.

 

[newpolitics]

NP, even you can go to Wiki and read about 19 possible DIFFERENT explanations, all of them severely lacking of any REAL science...

Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As I said, the scientific "story" behind Abiogenesis is not set in stone, as we would expect practically zero evidence from that event to survive. The fact that there many scenarios depicting abiogenesis only confirms what I said. I am not arguing this, so I am not sure why you think this would be new information. Again, you assume that science is "dogmatic" for an atheist, when it isn't. I am perfectly okay with there being a gap in knowledge there. I am not okay with filling a gap simply because it is uncomfortable, and calling that gap "God" and then supplying myself with a story that is then personally believable. This is not a pathway to truth. This is a pathway to fiction.

As I see it, the point of abiogenesis is that it is possible for life to arise naturally. That is all that needs to be proved. With the Miller-Urey Experiments as well as finding ready-made amino acids on incoming meteorites, we have evidence that it is probable that life can form on its own.

Now that is faith my friend!!! I'll say it again for the terminally slow among us, Darwin and Lyell both believed the key to the past was presently observable actions. We do not see complex and specifiable information spontaneously arising in nature. All presently observable digital code has an intelligent agent as its source. For now, that is the best explanation for the digitally-coded information we find in dna, not some as of yet randomly unseen magical process with 43 steps of "might haves" and "could haves" that are not even scientifically verifiable by experiments. Why does your logic not allow you to accept this? Back before the Big Bang Theory, when Einstein and other scientists believed the universe was eternal, panspermia was a considered a valid candidate as an explanation for abiogenesis. I guess the fact the earth is only 4.7 billion years old has thrown a monkey wrench in all the chance, necessity, and chance with necessity arguments posited so far. Your faith in a naturalistic process is more preposterous than my scientific inference that an intelligent agent of some type put the digitally coded information there, because I can look around in nature and observe the process occurring all around me right now. Darwin and Lyell would be proud.

You're use of inductive reasoning to conclude that anything with a code or information must have been created by a mind is fallacious. Bottom line, and that is all you have: inductive reasoning, and it simply is not strong enough to warrant such a conclusion.

Certainly, problems with induction have been noted, hence the problem of induction, yet we have more reason to believe that tomorrow will be like today than DNA must have been created by an intelligent designer. The degrees of induction being used are so vastly different in these two instances. We have knowledge of the four physical forces of the universe, and as far as we can tell, have been constant since just after the big bang. This forms the basis for our inductive reasoning day to day, which we all rely on. However, looking at DNA and seeing that it might resemble a binary code, and then looking at the binary code we created, and concluding that because we created binary code that DNA must also have been created by a mind, is invalid logic. For one, it is an oversimplification of the matter, and it is a projection of personal theological beliefs onto physical reality.


The fact that we don't see life forms arise today is irrelevant, since conditions are different today than they were 4.5 billion years ago. We wouldn't expect such a thing. Conditions today are vastly different, and you know this, so I consider this sort of objection to be intellectually dishonest, or stupid, and I know you're not stupid, so try a little harder to be honest.

 

[newpolitics]

And you silence persists. Still no admission of your lack of education.

Your asking for everyone's education is inappropriate. Please stop doing it. It's actually awkward to look at.

What? Are you Hollie's minion now? What is inappropriate is for attackers to make claims about the lack of others' education while deliberately concealing their own lack of education. Have you appointed yourself the hypocritical Daws and hypocritical Hollie's defender?

I never see Hollie or Daws asking you for your educational credentials. I only witness you constantly asking them, in huge pink bold lettering, for their credentials. This is really annoying, and is inappropriate, as it has nothing to do with the debate at hand. If you are simply trying to get back at them, then stop acting so immature. Get over it, and move on.

 

[newpolitics]

This little side-debate isn't about the merits of abiogenesis, its about whether abiogenesis is categorically distinct from evolution. Let's stick to one topic at a time.

You and the Neo-Darwinists wish!! Abiogenisis presents a serious problem for Darwinists since the discovery of dna. Even Darwin himself believed the "warm little pond" to be the naturalistic origin of life and the two were linked together more and more, that is, up until the discovery of dna when the materialists began to frantically attempt to divorce themselves from Abiogenesis. You are just a product of that revisionism that teaches the two are not related. What a joke!!! You want to believe the Darwinists religious teaching that evolution and Abiogenis are mutually exclusive because your religion won't allow you to accept otherwise.

The joke is that I am trying to settle one point at a time, and you keep on wanting to run away from your own assertions.

You are the one who made the point about abiogenesis and evolution not being distinct ideas, yet you have not shown this, so you have failed in proving your assertion. You try to obfuscate around this and use red-herrings left and right to try and distract me from the fact that you have an unsubstantiated assertion still standing.

For the second time, demonstrate how abiogenesis and evolution are the same.

Just to be sure, for the sake of this side-debate, I don't care about evolution and abiogenesis individually. I only care about them categorically and how they relate to each other. You mentioned that they are not mutually exclusive. Please demonstrate.

If you can not, then stop making baseless assertions and then running away.

 

[Youwerecreated]

you've topped yourself on meaninglessness with that one..
two unprovable statements "creator and design with a purpose in mind"
there is no proof of a sentient creator so anything that the creator might have in it's mind is pure speculation..
got to give you style points for vivid imagination!

Does the brain have a purpose daws ? How bout the lungs ? maybe the heart ? the sun ? the moon ? biological chemicals ? how bout red and white blood cells ? How bout Genes ?

Now try and B.S. your way out.

Sure ill answer this question as well as ask a couple counter-questions later on. I may be alone in this as this is influenced by a nihilistic point of view (not a very popular position to hold) all of these things only have purpose if we them a purpose.

If designer had created everything with a purpose than what would be the purpose of small pox, diabetes, and HIV/AIDS? What does it say about the aforementioned creator? So if we were accept this the door would swing both ways.


Maybe I am giving you too much credit but it seems to me you are going after a crude watchmaker argument that the very complexity of creation shouts the need for a creator. This really fails considering the creator would necessarily have to be more complex than his creation so the creator would then need an even more complex designer. This spirals into an ugly infinite regress and other insanity.

Yes most things related to nature does possess a purpose. Since the fall of man everything has been in a constant state of entropy. Imperfections does not mean the designer is a bad designer especially if it was a punishment to all men that sin.