Creationists

[Youwerecreated]

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.

Then you clearly lack logic.

I wouldn't be the one to level this kind of comment when you believe the earth is 6,000 years old, and all you have to do is look up each night at the starlight from stars that are billions of light-years away to know this is demonstrably false.

You can't prove the age of the earth so how do you know I am wrong in my beliefs ?

 

[UltimateReality]

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.

Nice strawman, but this is not what is claimed. The claim is any digital code that is complex and has specificity has a intelligent agent as it's source. I challenge you to find a presently observable example of specifiable, complex digital information code arising by a naturalistic process or one that does not have an intelligent agent as its source.

Bottom line, and that is all you have: inductive reasoning, and it simply is not strong enough to warrant such a conclusion.

Wrong. This is a fallacious response. Meyer is using the very method that Darwin and Lyell espoused in evolutionary theory... i.e., the present is the key to the past. If Meyer's argument is fallacious, then so is Darwin's whole Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection.

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.

Huh? You need to rewrite this sentence so it is comprehensible.

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.

Wrong. First, Quaternary code is more complex than binary code. Second, it is you that is using fallacious reasoning and induction. Do intelligent agents exist presently? Yes. What is the only source for specifiable, digital code that is presently being created. It is an intelligent agent. Until Darwinists come up with something better than chance and necessity for the specificity in the Complex DNA Code, then its source being an intelligent agent is currently the best explanation we have based on the physical evidence around us. It has nothing to do with religion, no matter how much you wish you could make it about faith. It isn't. It is about Darwin's and Lyell's scientific method for studying the historical sciences.

The fact that we don't see life forms arise today is irrelevant,

Wrong! Try to stay on topic. What you mean to say is we don't see life arising. "Life" hasn't arisen spontaneously on the planet for 4 billion years. Any organism "alive" today had it's life spark passed down from millions of generations ago.

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.

Nice Ad Hominem attack but it won't change the serious shortcomings of your arguments above or the fact that their is not ONE VIABLE, TESTABLE, or even PROBABLE theory on Abiogenesis that can account for, not only the "self-replicating" properties of dna (dna does not self replicate by the way) by the complex molecular machines in the cell, but also even the origins of the information itself digitally coded into the molecule. There is a serious chicken and egg enigma at play here. The very machines that copy and transcribe dna are assembled by the instructions contained in the digital code in dna that is being copied!!!!

Game, set, match.

 

[UltimateReality]

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.

There are a great many things you choose not to see. Both myself and YWC have provided our educational background on several occasion so there would be no need for them to request them again.

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.

Ahhh, you choose to remain in your blindness and your logic about the huge, pink fonts is a fail. You have chosen not to "see" Hollie's constant attack accusations that YWC and I lack education. If you had paid attention to the threads, you would see the huge pink fonts always follow her ad hominem attack accusations on someone regarding their level of education. The only thing anyone needs to get over here is your one sided blindness and prejudicial auto ignore mode. Also, your veiled ad hominem attacks (bolded) above don't go unnoticed. Maybe it is you who should grow up.

 

[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.

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,

Strawman. I did not say they were not distinct ideas. I said they were inextricably related.

yet you have not shown this, so you have failed in proving your assertion.

It has been done previously. As usual you are latching onto the back end of a discussion with another poster and missing the salient points in this post. http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/190358-creationists-630.html#post6234710

You can read more about the "Charles Darwin of the 20th Century" here:

Alexander Oparin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Strawman. No claim has been made they 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.

Nice try. But I can back up all my assertions. It is you who is having a bit of a challenge in that area. And as far as running away, please point to where I have not responded to your fallacious claims with sound, logical rebuttals.

 

[PretentiousGuy]

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.

1)Yes most things related to nature does possess a purpose. 2) Since the fall of man everything has been in a constant state of entropy. 3) Imperfections does not mean the designer is a bad designer 4) especially if it was a punishment to all men that sin.

1)You assert this but do not back it up.

2)Entropy has nothing to do with small pox or hiv/aids. So wtf are you talking about? Do you even know?

3) They aren't imperfections they are viruses that if were designed by a mortal man they would be wanted for crimes against humanity. The issue isn't perfection/imperfection in that example the issue is the great malice shown in the supposed creation.

4) Sins like existing, having fun, or seeking knowledge?

 

[PretentiousGuy]

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.

Mutation doesn't mean increased fitness; the mutation could have an adverse effect on the organism but through the process of natural selection those that are capable of surviving to reproduce are the organism.

Taking 3 seconds to research would answer this question. You can test evolution with bacteria, fruit flies, or any organism that goes through generations rapidly. On top of the fossil record that confirms the theory makes for a compelling case especially when compared to the "god dunnit" crowd.

Next time do a bit of research before next time you think of wasting my time with facile questions.

 

[konradv]

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.

1)Yes most things related to nature does possess a purpose. 2) Since the fall of man everything has been in a constant state of entropy. 3) Imperfections does not mean the designer is a bad designer 4) especially if it was a punishment to all men that sin.

1)You assert this but do not back it up.

2)Entropy has nothing to do with small pox or hiv/aids. So wtf are you talking about? Do you even know?

3) They aren't imperfections they are viruses that if were designed by a mortal man they would be wanted for crimes against humanity. The issue isn't perfection/imperfection in that example the issue is the great malice shown in the supposed creation.

4) Sins like existing, having fun, or seeking knowledge?

Fair warning, this thread has been going on for over 10,000 posts and everything has been repeated hundreds of times. Be prepared to be bored out of your mind.

 

[PretentiousGuy]

1)Yes most things related to nature does possess a purpose. 2) Since the fall of man everything has been in a constant state of entropy. 3) Imperfections does not mean the designer is a bad designer 4) especially if it was a punishment to all men that sin.

1)You assert this but do not back it up.

2)Entropy has nothing to do with small pox or hiv/aids. So wtf are you talking about? Do you even know?

3) They aren't imperfections they are viruses that if were designed by a mortal man they would be wanted for crimes against humanity. The issue isn't perfection/imperfection in that example the issue is the great malice shown in the supposed creation.

4) Sins like existing, having fun, or seeking knowledge?

Fair warning, this thread has been going on for over 10,000 posts and everything has been repeated hundreds of times. Be prepared to be bored out of your mind.

I haven't heard a new argument from a creationist or theologian in a while but I do it just in case I can change a mind. To some it might seem like a Sisyphean task but if someone wouldn't have argued with me I would be quite a different person right now.

 

[Hollie]

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?

Comments about your lack of education are certainly appropriate when your ignorance of science matters is displayed in such lurid fashion.

 

[Hollie]

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.

There are a great many things you choose not to see. Both myself and YWC have provided our educational background on several occasion so there would be no need for them to request them again.

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.

Ahhh, you choose to remain in your blindness and your logic about the huge, pink fonts is a fail. You have chosen not to "see" Hollie's constant attack accusations that YWC and I lack education. If you had paid attention to the threads, you would see the huge pink fonts always follow her ad hominem attack accusations on someone regarding their level of education. The only thing anyone needs to get over here is your one sided blindness and prejudicial auto ignore mode. Also, your veiled ad hominem attacks (bolded) above don't go unnoticed. Maybe it is you who should grow up.

Well, you do lack education. When you cut and paste from Harun Yahya, you are actually screaming out that lack education.

Your incessant use of gargantuan, pink fonts in failed attempts to deflect from addressing refutations of your cut and pasted Harun Yahya nonsense only reinforces your inability to compose coherent sentences.

 

[HUGGY]

What religious people do not understand....besides EVERYTHING!

The average person's IQ is 100. 100 average people are not smarter than one person with an IQ of 110. A thousand people with an IQ of 120 are not smarter than one person with an IQ 130. A million people with an IQ of 130 are not smarter than one person with an IQ of 140. and so on.

My point is that more than half the population has an IQ of 100 or less. These people are easily indoctrinated into whatever more's get them ahead or allow them access to any advantage in their lives which they need because they cannot compete on their own as successfully as the smarter people.

This is not an absolute rule but in general it holds water pretty well.

From my observation there are few if any dumb atheists. There are a few people with IQs over 140 that devoutly believe in a god. I would guess that most if not all Atheists have an IQ over 100.

If given the choice to get advice in the areas of monetary investment or education in any other area than religion who would chose to get information from someone with an IQ of 100 or less? Few would.

So in an argument in support of a supreme being what is the value of saying most people believe in a god?

 

[daws101]

I think it is very easy to accept the belief of a designer when you look at the precision is nature. How can a rational person believe that life came from an undirected process that produced complex organic molecules from simpler inorganic molecules through chemical reactions with an undirected process.

To believe an undirected process took an enviornment filled with chaos and produced the precision in nature we can now see is a stretch of the imagination.

Thank you for admitting though that there is no known process concerning the origins of life because a few of the simpletons here easily accepted abiogenesis as a fact.

is it just me or does YWC not even know what he does not know..?
btw YWC, pjnlsn was not admitting anything, just stating fact .
the rest of your post is the same old mix of willful ignorance name calling and the standard line of subjective bullshit...

Your fact checker has been in error just to much for my taste.

another subjective non sequitur.

 

[daws101]

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 ...

you have got to be kidding.

no just stating fact.

 

[daws101]

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.

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

Gods word reveals the foolishness of man in many ways.

that's not an answer..

 

[daws101]

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.

subjective and false, you 've shown no more knowledge about "the subject" than any other poster ,
mostly just subjective wishes and pseudoscience.
"dicuss" things like an adult"

Oh I have posted many things you people have no answer for. I destroyed your theory with the problems of mutation fixation that OI think went over you and your partners head. You had no explanation as to why natural selection removed superior traits that would have allowed humans to be better adapted. Do I really need to continue.

ahh.no you have not, you as always the mistake of believing that what you post has any merit .
all of your challenges have been answered ,debunked and been found wanting.
as always in your one live brain cell of a mind you "think" (if it can be called that) that any un answered shit you spew is a victory.
nothing is further from the truth..
What you constantly and epically fail to grasp is that the TOE could be totally wrong but
even if it was, that would be no proof your gawd fantasy is correct.

 

[daws101]

This may seem important to the ones seeking supposed knowledge,however the creator didn't need a professor to teach him how to design with a purpose in mind.

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.

since I never bs my way out of anything you might try not bullshiting your way out of this. : "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..

 

[daws101]

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.

Then you clearly lack logic.

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?

he does and that's truly scary.

 

[daws101]

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.

what persists is your dishonest slap dickery as you already know my educational credentials were posted long ago....

 

[daws101]

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.

not only that Ur has already seen my educational credentials as i said before :just another ploy in your ongoing saga of dumbfuckery and chicken shit character assassination

 

[UltimateReality]

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.

Mutation doesn't mean increased fitness; the mutation could have an adverse effect on the organism

Strawman. I think a "no duh" would be in order here. That was not the argument. Evolution's claim is that natural selection acts on random mutations to bring about increased fitness or better survivability.

but through the process of natural selection those that are capable of surviving to reproduce are the organism.

Yes. Please provide the modern day example, test, or experiment that shows this in action.

Taking 3 seconds to research would answer this question. You can test evolution with bacteria, fruit flies, or any organism that goes through generations rapidly. On top of the fossil record that confirms the theory makes for a compelling case especially when compared to the "god dunnit" crowd.

Next time do a bit of research before next time you think of wasting my time with facile questions.

"To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady of the ignorant." Amos Bronson Alcot

It is you who should do a bit of research my arrogant but wrong friend. NONE of the generational studies of fruit flies, Ecoli or any other organism have resulted in an additive mutation. All mutations involved the destruction of genetic code. And in the fruit fly example, the mutations resulted in deformities that made the organism less fit. Perhaps you should go back to my original request for an example and produce this mountain of research you are referring to for an actual experiment or test that reveals natural selection acting on a random mutation occurring in nature which provides the organism increased fitness.