Creationists

[UltimateReality]

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]

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!

Is there no end to your mental midgetry?

 

[daws101]

Tell me then briefly the importance ofleft handed and right handed amino acids ? Did you miss my explanation on the subject that did not come from ICR and that other site you are spewing about.

Who are you to complain about any site when you constantly copy and paste from Talkorigins and wiki as your source ? They do not have an agenda right ?

No, they do not have an agenda. What agenda does wikipedia have???

Talkorigins I can understand, even though I wholeheartedly disagree that they have an agenda, aside from debunking creationist/ID claims and establishing science.

Anyone who has not observed an action they claimed happened and present it as a fact is lying.

so that must mean that every thing you post from creationist sites is a lie
as they have no proof that anything mentioned in the bible was observed first hand by the writers of the scriptures.

 

[Hollie]

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?

Yep, my stalker is falling into the abyss.

 

[daws101]

Anyone who has not observed an action they claimed happened and present it as a fact is lying.

That was hardly a comprehensible sentence, but I get it. You didn't answer my question. What is their agenda, specifically? If you understand that wikipedia is made up of many, many different authors, then are you suggesting there is a managing authority telling all authors to slant their posts towards a certain viewpoint? This would require some serious evidence, and you've provided none. The same with talkorigins. You won't find a viewpoint on talk origins that isn't held by evolutionary biologists or any professionals in the pertinent fields. It is a vacuous assertion to say that talkorigins has an agenda. The truth is their only agenda, whilst for creationist/ID website, they DO have an agenda, and that is to promote god.

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

that's because everthing is...you have no proof otherwise ..no matter how hard you *****...

 

[daws101]

Is this where you once again run from the questions put to you ?

I have no desire to endure your continued cutting and pasting from creationist websites that falsify data.

Why are you running from my questions? Your conviction that data you cut and paste from Harun Yahya in connection with amino acids must be developed enough to link to a science publication that could have reviewed the data, right? If you're convinced that the data you have will lead to the gawds, why don't you present that data and then present a logical chain of evidence leading to a narrow and specific conclusion for not just any gawd but your particular gawd.

That would be the simplest way to confirm evidence for your gawds. Where is such a link?

You are running from my question. Have I posted from Harun Yahya? Where is such a link?? Or even ICR for that matter? Prove it or shut the Daws up.

awwww some one's having a tantrum either address me directly or stfu.

 

[daws101]

Anyone who has not observed an action they claimed happened and present it as a fact is lying.

Careful there fundie man. Your comment would then apply to every claim of miracles in the bible.

Thus would be an appropriate time to quickly whip up one special exception for your bible tales and fables.

I have told you many times many of my beliefs are based in faith some are not they are based on evidence.

that's all of your beliefs are based on faith as you have no evidence if you claim you do you're lying.

 

[daws101]

Oh the old closed system stupid atheist argument. So where did all the massive chaos go to balance out all the order on earth. Did it leave on a spaceship?

hey slap dick the closed system is a creationist fantasy.
btw chaos never left...... Chaos theory is a field of study in mathematics, with applications in several disciplines including physics, engineering, economics, biology, and philosophy. Chaos theory studies the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions, an effect which is popularly referred to as the butterfly effect. Small differences in initial conditions (such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation) yield widely diverging outcomes for such dynamical systems, rendering long-term prediction impossible in general.[1] This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved.[2] In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable.[3][4] This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos.

Chaotic behavior can be observed in many natural systems, such as weather.[5][6] Explanation of such behavior may be sought through analysis of a chaotic mathematical model, or through analytical techniques such as recurrence plots and Poincaré maps.

You are stupid daws sorry but when I post why you are wrong and still you continue this tap dance then that is stupidity.

you've yet to prove me wrong. but you can always dream..

 

[daws101]

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 gets a good laugh out of this disingenuous shit!

Is there no end to your mental midgetry?

is there no end to what you will say or do to get over ..tosspot.

 

[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.

theatre boy? hmm.. that's an admission that you do know my educational background ,making all your faux protesting that I never posted it a lie.
the slapdick doth protest too much to cover his dishonsty...

 

[UltimateReality]

I have no desire to endure your continued cutting and pasting from creationist websites that falsify data.

Why are you running from my questions? Your conviction that data you cut and paste from Harun Yahya in connection with amino acids must be developed enough to link to a science publication that could have reviewed the data, right? If you're convinced that the data you have will lead to the gawds, why don't you present that data and then present a logical chain of evidence leading to a narrow and specific conclusion for not just any gawd but your particular gawd.

That would be the simplest way to confirm evidence for your gawds. Where is such a link?

You are running from my question. Have I posted from Harun Yahya? Where is such a link?? Or even ICR for that matter? Prove it or shut the Daws up.

awwww some one's having a tantrum either address me directly or stfu.

I won't use profanity so Daws seemed like an appropriate substitution.

 

[UltimateReality]

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.

theatre boy? hmm.. that's an admission that you do know my educational background ,making all your faux protesting that I never posted it a lie.
the slapdick doth protest too much to cover his dishonsty...

Not really. I just read it in YWC's recent post. Sorry to burst your bubble.

 

[newpolitics]

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

I know about the concepts of redshift and parallax shift as it applies to making these measurements, but I do not know the actual methodology of how they use these concepts to obtain such measurements, mathematically, although I seem to remember it involving trigonometry and parallax view, but I could be wrong. I don't see how any of this important, and I don't know why I follow you on these wild goose chases. I am truly a sucker. Are you saying that because I don't understand the methodology behind these measurements, that I am not able to use them?

If you consider the methodology in determining these distances to be flawed, then just say so. If you don't, then you have no basis for needing to know whether or not I understand how these measurements were obtained. It is irrelevant to my using them, unless you think they are questionable, in which case, we can have a discussion about that, and I will do the proper research to learn how these measurements were garnered. I must say that, this just seems like an ego-trip for you, and I don't understand what it has to do with my purposes here.

At bottom, you seem to be implying that a star that has been measured at 13 billion light years away, is not actually 13 billion light years away, and therefore I should not cite this measurement. Is this the case?

 

[newpolitics]

Stupid. Again you haven't followed the post. We are talking about her lies about me, not YWC. Keep up for Darwin's sake!!!!

You and Hollie are talking about how Hollie is lying? That's a lie right there!

I actually hate accusing people of lying, so that will be it for me, but you are being dishonest right now. Hollie is not talking to you about her own lies, but somebody elses.

You're embarrassing yourself. Hollie has lied about me on numerous occasions and I am sick of her repetitive posts of continually lying just as a put down. I am asking her to back up her accusations with proof or get lost. End of story.

This is all well in good, but you implied that Hollie was indicting herself in her conversation with you when you said "were were are talking about her lies about me," which simply isn't true. You have not shown her to be a liar, so you shouldn't use that word. She maybe incorrect at best, but that doesn't make her a liar. She is indicting whoever posted from Harun Yahya. I don't care who is right here. I am just stating the facts, because you like to obfuscate.

Now, I am playing the arbiter.

 

[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

I know about the concepts of redshift and parallax shift as it applies to making these measurements, but I do not know the actual methodology of how they use these concepts to obtain such measurements, mathematically, although I seem to remember it involving trigonometry and parallax view, but I could be wrong. I don't see how any of this important, and I don't know why I follow you on these wild goose chases. I am truly a sucker. Are you saying that because I don't understand the methodology behind these measurements, that I am not able to use them?

If you consider the methodology in determining these distances to be flawed, then just say so. If you don't, then you have no basis for needing to know whether or not I understand how these measurements were obtained. It is irrelevant to my using them, unless you think they are questionable, in which case, we can have a discussion about that, and I will do the proper research to learn how these measurements were garnered. I must say that, this just seems like an ego-trip for you, and I don't understand what it has to do with my purposes here.

At bottom, you seem to be implying that a star that has been measured at 13 billion light years away, is not actually 13 billion light years away, and therefore I should not cite this measurement. Is this the case?

That's for you to decide. I am saying there are many things in space that don't follow the laws here on earth. We can use earthly laws to make estimates of astronomical distances but in the end, they are just educated guesses, because we truly have no way of verifying them.

 

[newpolitics]

No! I have not concluded that and I have stated this before!! DNA is a QUATERNARY code. I have posted up numerous times the conclusion is just as sound as any Darwin made because it is based on his method and "References to Causes Now in Operation." Your rebuttal is a "because I say so" argument. You are going to have to come up with something better. Merely repeating the same thing again and again does not make it true.

From your favorite "reliable" source:

Genetics

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

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

If DNA is a quaternary code, then how can DNA be digital, as you claim, if digital code is binary?

All of this is irrelevant, anyways. It truly does not matter how complex or specifiable DNA is. ID will always be an argument from ignorance. This is what you don't understand. You can talk about the improbabilities of amino acids coming together, or the shannon information in DNA. You can not get around this basic fact, which is why ID is not science. They are not drawing sound conclusions. It is any wonder to you that other scientists don't see ID as science? That should raise a red flag. I truly don't understand your efforts to try and convince us how amazing DNA is. This is your ONLY "evidence?" Wow. ID is really weak.

You are lost in your ignorance even though you can't see it and continue to shout that I lack understanding. Watch this short 7 minute video and then maybe YOU will understand YOUR argument from ignorance. I welcome your rebuttal after you have watched this...

Interesting, unconvincing, and a confirmation of what I have been saying about ID all along, that it rests on ignorance. Calculating the purely mathematical probability of abiogenesis does nothing to prove an intelligent designer, because this also rests on a false dichotomy fallacy: natural abiogenesis or intelligent designer. Even if someone were able to negate abiogenesis entirely, this does absolutely nothing to prove an intelligent designer. You need actual positive evidence for a designer, not the negation of a competing theory. This is logic 101.

Calculating the probabilities of these amino acid combinations in forming a useful protein is not terribly useful in describing what actually happened 4.5 billion years ago, and you run into the same problems scientists run into today when trying to figure out what happened: we simply don't know a lot because there is little evidence. I reject his purely mathematical conjecture that correct amino acid coupling was as improbable as he says it is. He is unable to factor in conditions that may have altered those probabilities, because we are in ignorance about this time period. Hence, drawing any conclusions from this ignorance, is an argument from ignorance. The most anyone can say is "I don't know."

Amino acids have been found on meteorites, demonstrating that they form elsewhere the universe, making the event non-unique to Earth, which means you now how to account for the probabilities of of amino acid combinations happening anywhere in the universe where this is chemically permissible. We don't enough information to even calculate this probability, so Meyer's attempt at establishing probabilities is completely unsound.

 

[UltimateReality]

You and Hollie are talking about how Hollie is lying? That's a lie right there!

I actually hate accusing people of lying, so that will be it for me, but you are being dishonest right now. Hollie is not talking to you about her own lies, but somebody elses.

You're embarrassing yourself. Hollie has lied about me on numerous occasions and I am sick of her repetitive posts of continually lying just as a put down. I am asking her to back up her accusations with proof or get lost. End of story.

This is all well in good, but you implied that Hollie was indicting herself in her conversation with you when you said "were were are talking about her lies about me," which simply isn't true. You have not shown her to be a liar, so you shouldn't use that word. She maybe incorrect at best, but that doesn't make her a liar. She is indicting whoever posted from Harun Yahya. I don't care who is right here. I am just stating the facts, because you like to obfuscate.

Now, I am playing the arbiter.

Did you mean arbitrator? If so, then you would make a really lousy one, because you are incredibly biased to one side.

 

[UltimateReality]

If DNA is a quaternary code, then how can DNA be digital, as you claim, if digital code is binary?

All of this is irrelevant, anyways. It truly does not matter how complex or specifiable DNA is. ID will always be an argument from ignorance. This is what you don't understand. You can talk about the improbabilities of amino acids coming together, or the shannon information in DNA. You can not get around this basic fact, which is why ID is not science. They are not drawing sound conclusions. It is any wonder to you that other scientists don't see ID as science? That should raise a red flag. I truly don't understand your efforts to try and convince us how amazing DNA is. This is your ONLY "evidence?" Wow. ID is really weak.

You are lost in your ignorance even though you can't see it and continue to shout that I lack understanding. Watch this short 7 minute video and then maybe YOU will understand YOUR argument from ignorance. I welcome your rebuttal after you have watched this...

Interesting, unconvincing, and a confirmation of what I have been saying about ID all along, that it rests on ignorance.

Wrong. Naturalistic explanation rest on ignorance that chance could actually produce a functional protein.

Calculating the purely mathematical probability of abiogenesis does nothing to prove an intelligent designer,

Not in and of itself, but coupled with the processes currently in effect for creation of digital code, and the fact that dna contains specifiable information in digital code, Meyer makes a compelling argument for an intelligent agent being the source of the code.

because this also rests on a false dichotomy fallacy: natural abiogenesis or intelligent designer. Even if someone were able to negate abiogenesis entirely, this does absolutely nothing to prove an intelligent designer.

Again, not if that was the only information you had, but we have more.

You need actual positive evidence for a designer,

I have given you positive evidence. Intelligent agents are the only known source for complex, specifiable digital code. You continue to ignore this fact and have yet to note another source.

not the negation of a competing theory. This is logic 101.

Calculating the probabilities of these amino acid combinations in forming a useful protein is not terribly useful in describing what actually happened 4.5 billion years ago,

But it is certainly useful in describing what DIDN'T happen, and included in that is any naturalistic chance explanation.

and you run into the same problems scientists run into today when trying to figure out what happened: we simply don't know a lot because there is little evidence. I reject his purely mathematical conjecture that correct amino acid coupling was as improbable as he says it is. He is unable to factor in conditions that may have altered those probabilities, because we are in ignorance about this time period.

No such conditions exist in the modern world. So it turns out your religion takes just as much faith as mine.

Hence, drawing any conclusions from this ignorance, is an argument from ignorance. The most anyone can say is "I don't know."

That is what most REAL scientist are saying about origins questions, but that is not what YOU were saying several pages back and that is not the trash propaganda being constantly pushed on the atheist agenda websites. Can you not see the tale wagging the dog relationship atheism has with modern science?

Amino acids have been found on meteorites, demonstrating that they form elsewhere the universe, making the event non-unique to Earth,

Irrelevant. We aren't talking about amino acids. We are talking about extremely complex proteins that only function due to their specific 3D structures which include complex folds.

which means you now how to account for the probabilities of of amino acid combinations happening anywhere in the universe where this is chemically permissible. We don't enough information to even calculate this probability, so Meyer's attempt at establishing probabilities is completely unsound.

Wrong!!! Meyer isn't talking about Amino Acids!!! You do understand that proteins are made from long chains of amino acids, right?

 

[Hollie]

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

I know about the concepts of redshift and parallax shift as it applies to making these measurements, but I do not know the actual methodology of how they use these concepts to obtain such measurements, mathematically, although I seem to remember it involving trigonometry and parallax view, but I could be wrong. I don't see how any of this important, and I don't know why I follow you on these wild goose chases. I am truly a sucker. Are you saying that because I don't understand the methodology behind these measurements, that I am not able to use them?

If you consider the methodology in determining these distances to be flawed, then just say so. If you don't, then you have no basis for needing to know whether or not I understand how these measurements were obtained. It is irrelevant to my using them, unless you think they are questionable, in which case, we can have a discussion about that, and I will do the proper research to learn how these measurements were garnered. I must say that, this just seems like an ego-trip for you, and I don't understand what it has to do with my purposes here.

At bottom, you seem to be implying that a star that has been measured at 13 billion light years away, is not actually 13 billion light years away, and therefore I should not cite this measurement. Is this the case?

That's for you to decide. I am saying there are many things in space that don't follow the laws here on earth. We can use earthly laws to make estimates of astronomical distances but in the end, they are just educated guesses, because we truly have no way of verifying them.

That may be true in the alternate reality of creationist ministries but oddly, the natural physical forces across the universe apply in this solar system as they do elsewhere.

In defence of Christianity, it should be noted that the Vatican has accepted the undeniable evidence for evolution, just as it came to accept a heliocentric solar system and other demonstrable phenomena formerly condemned as heretical. Most main-stream Protestant sects concur, although there is a sizable lunatic christian fringe... who foul this board.

 

[UltimateReality]

I know about the concepts of redshift and parallax shift as it applies to making these measurements, but I do not know the actual methodology of how they use these concepts to obtain such measurements, mathematically, although I seem to remember it involving trigonometry and parallax view, but I could be wrong. I don't see how any of this important, and I don't know why I follow you on these wild goose chases. I am truly a sucker. Are you saying that because I don't understand the methodology behind these measurements, that I am not able to use them?

If you consider the methodology in determining these distances to be flawed, then just say so. If you don't, then you have no basis for needing to know whether or not I understand how these measurements were obtained. It is irrelevant to my using them, unless you think they are questionable, in which case, we can have a discussion about that, and I will do the proper research to learn how these measurements were garnered. I must say that, this just seems like an ego-trip for you, and I don't understand what it has to do with my purposes here.

At bottom, you seem to be implying that a star that has been measured at 13 billion light years away, is not actually 13 billion light years away, and therefore I should not cite this measurement. Is this the case?

That's for you to decide. I am saying there are many things in space that don't follow the laws here on earth. We can use earthly laws to make estimates of astronomical distances but in the end, they are just educated guesses, because we truly have no way of verifying them.

That may be true in the alternate reality of creationist ministries but oddly, the natural physical forces across the universe apply in this solar system as they do elsewhere.

In defence of Christianity, it should be noted that the Vatican has accepted the undeniable evidence for evolution, just as it came to accept a heliocentric solar system and other demonstrable phenomena formerly condemned as heretical. Most main-stream Protestant sects concur, although there is a sizable lunatic christian fringe... who foul this board.

Appeal to the masses.