Creationists

[UltimateReality]

You will be interested to learn that Christian crestionist ministries are not widely considered to be respected science publications.

I have already presented evidence to the contrary, but if I did present it again, you would just ignore it and repeat the same thing over again 10 pages from now. You're pathetic.

It seems you are the one screeching over and over about what amounts to your own inability to present a cogent, supportable argument not relying on supernaturalism.

Stay on track A.D.D. freak. We were talking about Peer Reviewed Studies.

 

[Hollie]

their agenda is to promote the idea that eveyrthing in existence is the result of naturalism.

here again, your only goal is to promote your religious views at the expense of truth.

If you review the site, you will find each article includes extensive references to peer reviewed data.

As opposed to everything in existence being the product of naturalism, what part of existence can you define that was the result of supernaturalism? How does anyone further define that supernaturalism is the result of your gawds and not someone else's gawds?

lalalalalala

Masterful concision. Such argumentation seems to define the Christian creationist cabal who can barely manage to stutter and mumble when required to support their claims to supernaturalism.

 

[UltimateReality]

NP, since you couldn't answer the star distance question I will you provide you with a few links to your favorite source so you can speak intelligently on the topic. There are several different ways scientists determine the distance to stars and as you can see, they are all based on theories, some with many variables...

Cepheid variable - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Extragalactic observations

The most distant objects exhibit larger redshifts corresponding to the Hubble flow of the universe. The largest observed redshift, corresponding to the greatest distance and furthest back in time, is that of the cosmic microwave background radiation; the numerical value of its redshift is about z = 1089 (z = 0 corresponds to present time), and it shows the state of the Universe about 13.7 billion years ago, and 379,000 years after the initial moments of the Big Bang.[59]

Redshift - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Spectroscopic parallax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[UltimateReality]

here again, your only goal is to promote your religious views at the expense of truth.

If you review the site, you will find each article includes extensive references to peer reviewed data.

As opposed to everything in existence being the product of naturalism, what part of existence can you define that was the result of supernaturalism? How does anyone further define that supernaturalism is the result of your gawds and not someone else's gawds?

lalalalalala

Masterful concision. Such argumentation seems to define the Christian creationist cabal who can barely manage to stutter and mumble when required to support their claims to supernaturalism.

I be happy if you would just support your claims about my sources. ... Liar.

 

[Hollie]

I have already presented evidence to the contrary, but if I did present it again, you would just ignore it and repeat the same thing over again 10 pages from now. You're pathetic.

It seems you are the one screeching over and over about what amounts to your own inability to present a cogent, supportable argument not relying on supernaturalism.

Stay on track A.D.D. freak. We were talking about Peer Reviewed Studies.

Why do you believe Christian creationist ministries reviewing the work of other fundie groups qualifies as legitimate peer review?

 

[daws101]

Wow, all those years in theatre and you still don't grasp Shakespeare??? You really did ride the shortbus didn't you? I know exactly the context it was used in. NP was going overboard trying to say he wasn't attacking me because he disagrees with me when that is exactly what he was doing.

it's you who doesn't grasp Shakespeare and your "use" is /was so far out of context it ,like you is laugable,
Np like everyone else you claim (in your paranoid state) is attacking you,is in reality giving you some much need payback for your hubris and dumbfuckery.
you seem to think it's OK for you to character assassinate anyone and everyone but you cry like a ***** when you get some.
put your big boy pants on...

As usual you come back with the profanity and ad hominem attacks but no where in your wordy post above did you state exactly why my Shakespearean quote was not in context. Try again homeslice.

as usual you're over dramatizing and lying
nowhere in that post did I attack you.
I was just stating facts.
wordy ....**** me! that's funny coming from you.
there is no need for me to state anything ,if you actually knew Shakespeare you would not need to ask why this quote "the lady doth protest too much" is out of context.
you can't, without a web search name the play or the character the line is directed at or what character said it or where the play is set.
the irony is, that line (if you really knew Shakespeare) is an accurate description of you.

BTW homeslice? this is not 1993 and you sure as hell are not falva flave..
also if you answer any of the bard statements, I'll have to assume you googled them..

 

[Hollie]

lalalalalala

Masterful concision. Such argumentation seems to define the Christian creationist cabal who can barely manage to stutter and mumble when required to support their claims to supernaturalism.

I be happy if you would just support your claims about my sources. ... Liar.

You be happy -already done.

 

[UltimateReality]

It seems you are the one screeching over and over about what amounts to your own inability to present a cogent, supportable argument not relying on supernaturalism.

Stay on track A.D.D. freak. We were talking about Peer Reviewed Studies.

Why do you believe Christian creationist ministries reviewing the work of other fundie groups qualifies as legitimate peer review?

Why do you believe repeating something over and over makes it real?

 

[UltimateReality]

Masterful concision. Such argumentation seems to define the Christian creationist cabal who can barely manage to stutter and mumble when required to support their claims to supernaturalism.

I be happy if you would just support your claims about my sources. ... Liar.

You be happy -already done.

This too, is a lie. Nice Job.

 

[Hollie]

Stay on track A.D.D. freak. We were talking about Peer Reviewed Studies.

Why do you believe Christian creationist ministries reviewing the work of other fundie groups qualifies as legitimate peer review?

Why do you believe repeating something over and over makes it real?

Why do you fail so miserably? 'The gods did it" is not an answer to anything except to placate the fears and superstitions of fundies.

 

[daws101]

Oh boy let me educate you on this as well.


1st law of thermo dynamics.
The law of conservation of mass & energy: matter(energy) cannot be created nor destroyed.

So I need to ask you where did the ENERGY come from ? where did the energy come from to power my laptop ? or the lights in my home ? or to spin this planet ? or to power the sun ? or move the stars throughout the universe ?

The big bang isn't a theory of absolute origins, YWC. You are just being silly now.

Human Antiquity an introduction to Physical Anthropology and Archaeology. Kenneth L. Fader and Michael Alan Park 2001 4th edition pages 44 & 45. Quote from the textbook.

"in the beginning all the energy was condensed into an inconceivably tiny speck the laws of Physics can't account for this"

Kenneth Feder is an archaeologist not a physicist and Michael Park is an anthropology professor. On top of the source not being written by experts in the field the quote is a partial sentence so I guarantee that if I were to track down that text book I would find it to be taken grossly out of context. This display of dishonesty is really testing my patience; a fair warning....

What? Is this a threat? I really love it when evolutionists point to authors and try to discredit them on the basis they are outside of the field. This must come from a complete and utter ignorance that their own high priest of their materialistic religion, Charles Darwin, had no formal training in biology. His bachelor's degree was in Theology of all things!!! And he studied Geology on his 5 year voyage. So you see, his whole theory is a sham because it was based on principles outside his field.

This reminded me of another point from Meyer's book that NP just can't seem to logically grasp. And that is, the title of Lyell's book that Darwin read while on the HMS Beagle... Principles of Geology, Being an Attempt to Explain the Former Changes of the Earth's Surface, by Reference to Causes Now in Operation

And what "cause" do we see now in operation for digital code? The cause is us, intelligent agents. We find no other cause NOW in operation that can produce functional, specifiable, digital code. We draw the distinction to complex and specifiable. This has a component of Shannon information with the added specificity of performing a function, i.e., building complex proteins with precise folding mechanisms. We also find that the very instructions to copy and reproduce the code are contained within the code itself. This enigma so far has been unexplained by naturalistic processes... they don't even come close. Ahhh, but former changes can be explained by the single cause now in operation. This is precisely the scientific method Darwin used being used by Meyer, and it is perfectly scientifically legit, whether or not NP's faith in his materialism will let him believe it or not.

To deny this you must deny DNA is digital (which it has already be proven it is, even to the point that some Harvard students are using it as an incredibly compact storange medium for data.)

You must deny the 4 nucleobases do not have any special affinity for their binding sites, i.e., there is equal chance for them to attach to the sugar and phosphate backbone. This fact eliminates the origin of the protein building information occurring by necessity.

You must find another cause now in operation, exclusive of an intelligent agent, that produces complex, specifiable digital code.

are you really so self involved that you thank yourself for your own posts ?

 

[UltimateReality]

it's you who doesn't grasp Shakespeare and your "use" is /was so far out of context it ,like you is laugable,
Np like everyone else you claim (in your paranoid state) is attacking you,is in reality giving you some much need payback for your hubris and dumbfuckery.
you seem to think it's OK for you to character assassinate anyone and everyone but you cry like a ***** when you get some.
put your big boy pants on...

As usual you come back with the profanity and ad hominem attacks but no where in your wordy post above did you state exactly why my Shakespearean quote was not in context. Try again homeslice.

as usual you're over dramatizing and lying
nowhere in that post did I attack you.
I was just stating facts.
wordy ....**** me! that's funny coming from you.
there is no need for me to state anything ,if you actually knew Shakespeare you would not need to ask why this quote "the lady doth protest too much" is out of context.
you can't, without a web search name the play or the character the line is directed at or what character said it or where the play is set.
the irony is, that line (if you really knew Shakespeare) is an accurate description of you.

BTW homeslice? this is not 1993 and you sure as hell are not falva flave..
also if you answer any of the bard statements, I'll have to assume you googled them..

This is really stupid. I do know the play and the character but if I stated that you would just claim I googled it. And once again, you have failed to answer how my use was taken out of context. I actually read this play senior year in high school in 1984.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Hollie]

I be happy if you would just support your claims about my sources. ... Liar.

You be happy -already done.

This too, is a lie. Nice Job.

Your pathology is a condition that is worsening. There is treatment for the conditions that cause your stalking.

 

[UltimateReality]

Why do you believe Christian creationist ministries reviewing the work of other fundie groups qualifies as legitimate peer review?

Why do you believe repeating something over and over makes it real?

Why do you fail so miserably? 'The gods did it" is not an answer to anything except to placate the fears and superstitions of fundies.

I have never once claimed the gods did it, SlapDaws. Add more lies to your repertoire.

 

[UltimateReality]

You be happy -already done.

This too, is a lie. Nice Job.

Your pathology is a condition that is worsening. There is treatment for the conditions that cause your stalking.

Sorry, but I prefer the soft feminine touch, not man hands Rugged. Please keep your fantasies to yourself.

 

[daws101]

As usual you come back with the profanity and ad hominem attacks but no where in your wordy post above did you state exactly why my Shakespearean quote was not in context. Try again homeslice.

as usual you're over dramatizing and lying
nowhere in that post did I attack you.
I was just stating facts.
wordy ....**** me! that's funny coming from you.
there is no need for me to state anything ,if you actually knew Shakespeare you would not need to ask why this quote "the lady doth protest too much" is out of context.
you can't, without a web search name the play or the character the line is directed at or what character said it or where the play is set.
the irony is, that line (if you really knew Shakespeare) is an accurate description of you.

BTW homeslice? this is not 1993 and you sure as hell are not falva flave..
also if you answer any of the bard statements, I'll have to assume you googled them..

This is really stupid. I do know the play and the character but if I stated that you would just claim I googled it. And once again, you have failed to answer how my use was taken out of context. I actually read this play senior of highschool in 1984.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

what's really stupid is your epic failure to see that I already did.. and you did look it up...

 

[Hollie]

This too, is a lie. Nice Job.

Your pathology is a condition that is worsening. There is treatment for the conditions that cause your stalking.

Sorry, but I prefer the soft feminine touch, not man hands Rugged. Please keep your fantasies to yourself.

So you're suggesting you're stalking someone else?

 

[UltimateReality]

as usual you're over dramatizing and lying
nowhere in that post did I attack you.
I was just stating facts.
wordy ....**** me! that's funny coming from you.
there is no need for me to state anything ,if you actually knew Shakespeare you would not need to ask why this quote "the lady doth protest too much" is out of context.
you can't, without a web search name the play or the character the line is directed at or what character said it or where the play is set.
the irony is, that line (if you really knew Shakespeare) is an accurate description of you.

BTW homeslice? this is not 1993 and you sure as hell are not falva flave..
also if you answer any of the bard statements, I'll have to assume you googled them..

This is really stupid. I do know the play and the character but if I stated that you would just claim I googled it. And once again, you have failed to answer how my use was taken out of context. I actually read this play senior of highschool in 1984.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

what's really stupid is your epic failure to see that I already did.. and you did look it up...

According to this it was perfectly in conext. Nice try theatre boy. I bet Hawly would love to see you in your Shakespearean tights.

"The phrase has come to mean that one can "insist so passionately about something not being true that people suspect the opposite of what one is saying."

NP's phrase was "Stop trying to make it seem like I am only picking on you because I disagree with you." Picking on me because he disagreed with me is exactly what he was doing. The epic fail is yours SlapHawly.

 

[daws101]

The old soup fairy tale. Newsflash: This has been totally discredited since the odds of amino acids coming together to form proteins are about 1 in 1 x 10 to the 146. There are only 1 x 10 to the 80 atomic particles in the entire visible universe.

Wow, that is really false. This is has been demonstrated in the Miller-Urey Experiments, which I am now mentioning for the fifth time, and I don't really care that you don't consider these experiments sound. The improvements to make them more like proto-earth actually produced more amino acids than the original experiment, further falsifying your claim.

Have you not heard that amino acids have been found on meteorites? This is evidence that amino acids are not rare at all, and are easily formable throughout our entire universe. Its only a matter of statistics that they find the right conditions to produce life, and we find ourselves in one of those places. Undoubtedly, there are countless other places with life in the universe.

NP, I am really tired of arguing with you. Yes, in the past I have put you down after you attacked me. However, the more I read your posts the more I have compassion for you and how lost you really are. If you are truly interested in this subject matter, I would suggest you take a class on it. It is obvious from your posts you have cobbled information together from websites you have read and you lack formal training. The Miller-Urey experiments proved that under specific conditions, amino acids could form. Now, even admittedly in your own post, this has been disproven by the fact the early atmosphere was nothing like the one in their experiments. And you missed my point entirely. I was talking about proteins, which are made from amino acids and have to be specifically ordered in order to function. There is no possibility they "floated" together or hooked up in the precise order it takes for them to function. Chance and Necessity have been thrown out as a possible explanation for the first proteins.

not the old I feel pity for you ploy! then the I know more than you ploy .
then then you slapped together the wrong info ploy
hope Np get a good laugh out of this disingenuous shit!

 

[daws101]

This is really stupid. I do know the play and the character but if I stated that you would just claim I googled it. And once again, you have failed to answer how my use was taken out of context. I actually read this play senior of highschool in 1984.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

what's really stupid is your epic failure to see that I already did.. and you did look it up...

According to this it was perfectly in conext. Nice try theatre boy. I bet Hawly would love to see you in your Shakespearean tights.

"The phrase has come to mean that one can "insist so passionately about something not being true that people suspect the opposite of what one is saying."

NP's phrase was "Stop trying to make it seem like I am only picking on you because I disagree with you." Picking on me because he disagreed with me is exactly what he was doing. The epic fail is yours SlapHawly.

pretty good ,for being totally wrong.