Creationists

[UltimateReality]

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

Again, still no education information. How many posts is that where Daws goes on and on but never answers the question?

 

[UltimateReality]

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.

If you are so bored, why are you still here?

 

[UltimateReality]

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,

Wow, look at how vicious the angry Darwinists Zealot is getting. I have NEVER cut and paste from Harun Yahya. You are a LIAR and a TROLL. Show me one post where I cut and pasted from this website you have repeated the name of over 100 times.

 

[UltimateReality]

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.

Well they certainly haven't made an appearance here. I have yet to encounter anyone that can posit their own logical rebuttal to any of the arguments that have been made.

 

[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.

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

Provide the link. Put up or shut up.

 

[daws101]

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.
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.

another heaping steaming pile of subjective unprovable babble. stacked high and deep by YWC.
1."Yes most things related to nature does possess a purpose." ywc-
besides the bad grammer , what does realted to nature mean?
since nature encompasses everything,the statement presupposes (without proof) that some things are not natural.
2."Since the fall of man" is also a subjective unprovable statement .there is no evidence that man was ever in a "higher state" to fall from.

3."possess a purpose." is another presupposition and a logical fallacy.

4. "state of entropy" is only partially true statement, there is no evidence of causation by a sentient being.

5."Imperfections does not mean the designer is a bad designer especially if it was a punishment to all men that sin."

since there is no proof of a designer ,then the idea that imperfection as punishment is not only absured but stupid as well.

 

[daws101]

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....

Provide the link. Put up or shut up.

no, you know I'm right and if you are so hot to prove me wrong then why not do it yourself...? chickenshit ...

 

[daws101]

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 ?

another asked and answerd rehash by ywc.
you're not wrong in your beliefs they're just not based on fact.
and that's were you're wrong .

 

[daws101]

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.

"Both myself and YWC have provided our educational background on several occasion so there would be no need for them to request them again." ur-... nice dodge!
the truth is ur has never said if he graduated or not.
looking at what he has presented as as proof it does not seem likely.
it's also odd that a degreed credentialed mechanical engineer would give up a presumably lucrative career for a much less lucrative,dangerous and stressful stint in law enforcement ,then give that up or be "released from service" to sell industrial heating and air conditioning units only to spend many of his off hours on the net proselytizing religious nonsense and pseudoscience..just saying!

 

[daws101]

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

Again, still no education information. How many posts is that where Daws goes on and on but never answers the question?

that would be none since the question was answered long ago. just another ploy in your ongoing saga of dumbfuckery and chicken shit character assassination.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

Mutations do produce fitness according to the theory or your theory of evolution is dead on arrival. Somehow you are of the crowd that believes that only neutral or beneficial mutations get passed on and we know by the numbers that this is not true. 6,000 genetic disorders and counting. How many beneficial mutations can you point out ? I am willing to bet just a few.

The mutation could have an adverse effect on the organism ? I know for a fact in most cases it has an adverse condition on the organism. I worked in a research lab for over 11 years studying mutations and cells. The majority of flies that showed any change at all were deformed and all flies suffered a shorter life span. The only flies that showed any kind of trait changes over a few generations those traits were lost and the flies reverted back to the origional traits.

I suggest you do some research before you call someone else out. Start with the conditions needed for mutation fixation. I pointed out nine conditions needed for mutation fixation to happen then how these conditions are impossible to be met. So let me suggest since you like Google to google mutation fixation and you will find several articles on it and why it is needed for evolution to happen.

There is nothing compelling about the theory unless you care for conjecture and vivid imaginations. Just about anything you can throw out there has been already dealt with within this thread. You can borrow your buddies copy and paste jobs because all you are doing is regurgitatiing what they have already pasted. Not meaning to be short but I don't like attitude from Ideologues.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

I have not heard in argument from an evolutionist that I can't reduce to dribble.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

I have grown bored of your posts.

 

[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.

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..

Only to the blind Daws.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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

Again, still no education information. How many posts is that where Daws goes on and on but never answers the question?

I believe he claimed to have taken classes in theatre that explains why he has to copy and paste so much and he does not understand many of his paste jobs never address the questions asked he is fun to have around sometimes.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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 ?

another asked and answerd rehash by ywc.
you're not wrong in your beliefs they're just not based on fact.
and that's were you're wrong .

From now on I will no longer respond to your posts unless worthy of a response. I'm thinking we won't be debating much.

 

[Hollie]

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.

I have not heard in argument from an evolutionist that I can't reduce to dribble.

That's strange because you have never refuted the fact of evolution and have only countered science fact with silly claims to supernaturalism.

 

[Hollie]

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.

Well they certainly haven't made an appearance here. I have yet to encounter anyone that can posit their own logical rebuttal to any of the arguments that have been made.

The goofy creationist arguments have been utterly trashed... repeatedly. That is why the fundies retreat into the nonsensical "the gawds did it", safe house.

 

[Hollie]

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.

Mutations do produce fitness according to the theory or your theory of evolution is dead on arrival. Somehow you are of the crowd that believes that only neutral or beneficial mutations get passed on and we know by the numbers that this is not true. 6,000 genetic disorders and counting. How many beneficial mutations can you point out ? I am willing to bet just a few.

The mutation could have an adverse effect on the organism ? I know for a fact in most cases it has an adverse condition on the organism. I worked in a research lab for over 11 years studying mutations and cells. The majority of flies that showed any change at all were deformed and all flies suffered a shorter life span. The only flies that showed any kind of trait changes over a few generations those traits were lost and the flies reverted back to the origional traits.

I suggest you do some research before you call someone else out. Start with the conditions needed for mutation fixation. I pointed out nine conditions needed for mutation fixation to happen then how these conditions are impossible to be met. So let me suggest since you like Google to google mutation fixation and you will find several articles on it and why it is needed for evolution to happen.

There is nothing compelling about the theory unless you care for conjecture and vivid imaginations. Just about anything you can throw out there has been already dealt with within this thread. You can borrow your buddies copy and paste jobs because all you are doing is regurgitatiing what they have already pasted. Not meaning to be short but I don't like attitude from Ideologues.

Did you happen to notice that in your continued attempt to replace science with supermagical gawds, you admitted that mutations do occur, thus confirming a component of evolution.

I'm afraid that your conspiracy theories involving global participants in science and academia have again been destroyed... by you.

 

[newpolitics]

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 ?

I can prove it is a lot older than 6 thousand years. I mentioned how as well. You must have not read what you yourself quoted... When the sun goes down, look up. Notice that you see stars. Stars which are known to be as far as 13 billion light years away. That means... 13 billion years old, at least, that this universe has been around. Granted, I'm standing on the shoulders of giants here, for the speed of light and the measurements to those stars, but these are all rigorous measurements, and I am right in using them. So, there you go. 6,000 years refuted.