Creationists

[Hollie]

Here it is hollie, unless you don't understand what you wrote. The host is no longer in control of its chemical machines,the machines are used by the virus to reproduce itself so who would be stimulating the mutation ?

So tell us, "who" do you think would be stimulating the mutation. Does this "who" have name?

Ok one more response so I don't leave you hanging. Just because a virus takes over a cell does not mean it will mutate it is better if it mutates because if it mutates it will get weaker. The problem with a virus is when they invade a host cell they take over and reproduce and destroy the cell after reproduction releasing sometimes new viruses and stronger viruses to infect other host cells.

Why do you suggest a virus will necessarily get weaker as a function of mutation? That's not always the case so I have to wonder if you're been trolling creationist websites again.

 

[UltimateReality]

Enough of this drivel about evolution being a historical science and therefore having a fundamentally different burden of proof, or a different methodology.

I hope this post will enlighten you to how even what appears on the surface as a sound article is really very agenda driven. It does not find its source in truth, but more so to silence the attacks of evolution as a legitimate science. I am not sure who opened it, but the debate was ushered in hard core when a fundie evolutionists attempted to compare evolution with the law of gravity. We may never know who the originator of this fallacious argument was but they unleashed a barrage of misinformation to cloud the issue on what category the study of evolution, or creation for that matter, really falls into and what we can expect when it comes to "proofs".

NP, you are allowing Hawly's constant propaganda barage to cloud your judgement of me. While I do subscribe to many of the Discovery Institute Articles, more than 3/4 of knowledge on science comes from unbiased sources and I have never visited the ICR website or Harun Yahya, unless it was by accidentally clicking on one of Hawly's links. (FYI, my spelling of Hawly's name is a dig against her spelling "gawd". Classic.)

I would appreciate it if you try and do the same when posting articles for reference to an argument you have presented if possible. Sometimes in the case of ID theory, it is not possible. Your Atheist websites, just like some Creationists websites, are many times clouded by their agenda, which gives them a slant. Your article above would have you believe Historical Science is on the same level as Emprical Science. It is not. Neither evolution nor ID theory will ever live up to the same burden of proof that the empirical sciences can and most Historical Scientists would protest if you held them to the same level of proof. I thought it fitting to quote this article from Berkley, since it is obviously as Lib as colleges come, and no one can say I am using biased sources.

"B. Formal Sciences
1. Logic and mathematics
2. Both define their own universe.
3. Because they do, they can initially speak of absolute "true" versus "false."
a. 2 + 2 = 4. Why? Because we all agree upon it.
4. This sounds like belief knowledge. However, it differs in one critical element — once you establish an initial premise (which must have rigor), you have to follow the research protocol to investigate its effect and validity.
5. These disciplines are often seen as the epitome of science — an exact, fully logical, brick by brick process.

C. Empirical Sciences
1. Deal with objects and observations
a. Takes the world as it is and tries to understand it.
b. Here there can be NO truth, no right or wrong, only observations and hypotheses about the natural system.
2. Empirical Science may be roughly divided into two camps:
a. The Experimental Sciences: e.g., Chemistry, Physics and allied subjects.
(1) Here the subject allows the creation of controlled experiments in the laboratory.
(2) The objects under observation (e.g., atoms, molecules) are assumed to all be the same and to lack individuality.
b. The Historical Sciences: e.g., most of Biology, Geology.
(1) Here the objects under observation increasingly possess individual characteristics, such as single historical events or the individuals in a species. Optimal controls and laboratory experiments become increasingly difficult.
(2) Paleontology exhibits the "worst" of this in that it concerns organisms (which have individuality) in historical circumstances (where the coincidence of factors at any one time may NEVER be repeated) and all of this occurring in the distant past.
3. This distinction between Experimental and Historical Sciences sets up a false debate in public. Paleontologists are often compared with physicists and then faulted for not producing scientific data as measured by the standards of physics. We paleontologists simply cannot!
4. As we progress from experimental to historical sciences, we pass into a realm of the critical establishment of probability. "Good Science" becomes a matter of eliminating as many variables — while entertaining as many alternate interpretations of the observations — as possible."

What Is Science?

I believe this explanation to be spot on. I'm sure you could cite many experiments you have done in a chemistry or physics class that could be repeated over and over and achieve the same result as long as rigorous controls were in place. This can never be the case with predictions or hypotheses about events that occurred in the distant past. We can never know with 100% certainty that what believe about events in the past are absolutely true. We can only eliminate as many variables as possible. This is what you miss in Meyer's argument and you would note if you read his book. He attempts to eliminate as many competing hypothesis about the origin of information in dna as possible by arguing against some of the more prominent hypotheses put forth on the subject. This too is what you may miss in evolutionary biology. Darwin's tree of life has been shredded by genetic evidence, so new hypotheses have been introduced, like lateral gene transfer, to deal with the new evidence. When these types of discoveries net different results than what Darwin originally predicted, the IDers and Creationists have a field day, and rightfully so.

And that leads us to why I chose the screen name I did. The ultimate goal of science is to describe ultimate reality. Scientists are always trying to determine what is REALLY REAL. Even without my Theistic views, I would have a very hard time believing that evolution, not adaptation, is true based on the evidence. Once you learn to see many of the manipulations for what they are I liken it to the point in the matrix when Neo starts to see the code, instead of the simulation. I am not trying to put you down when I say you are not yet attune to it. There is SOOOOO much misinformation out there now with the proliferation of the internet. I wouldn't call it the information age. I would call it the misinformation age. Even when I did a google search for articles about the empirical sciences versus the historical sciences I was inundated with articles obviously written by evolution supporters to discredit the discrediting being done by the Theists. I can see the code now and I am not fooled by it.

All I see here, again, is an attempt to discredit a competing theory so that your hypothesis will have more of the stage. You attempt this from every angle imaginable, including, attacking the fundamental validity of evolutionary biology, on the grounds that it is "only a historical science."

Wow, you obviously missed the entire point, which had nothing to do with ID, but shows that evolutionary science will never be on the same level as physics or chemistry, ever. And it uses induction for many of its competing hypothesis.

If evolution were proved completely wrong tomorrow, that would not do a single thing in proving an intelligent designer, or god, is responsible for any of the universe.

Strawman. I have not claimed this. I have only claimed that evolution and ID are equally legitimate historical sciences based on Darwin's and Lyell's methodology. Well, I should say, equally legitimate with the exception of evolutionary theory that proposes made up narrative explanations which are not based on any past or presently observable phenomena.

You lost me with "fundie evolutionist," but I managed to finish out your lengthy, and non-substantive post.

I don't consider your critique of my sources posted as valid, because you have not actually critiqued the content. You merely dismiss it off-hand.

I dismissed it with what could be the most non-biased article I could find, written by a historical scientist studying evolution.

The idea that the sciences can be neatly split into two distinct and mutually exclusive categories in all cases, is untenable, as demonstrated in the article I posted, using a real world example.

Wrong. Your real world example has atheist fundamentalism written all over it.

To reiterate the most important point: Trying to split the sciences into neat dichotomies so that one can be shown to be unreliable, does not nothing to prove there is a god or intelligent designer.

Strawman. Your bias infers this claim.

In fact, the ultimate irony is that you would need the historical sciences just as much as evolution in order to make your case.

I wholeheartedly agree. Now we are getting somewhere!

So, your attempts as laying heavier burdens of proof upon historical claims only makes your task more difficult.

Yes, and they apply equally to ID and Evolution, but not the empirical sciences.

This includes claims about the impossibility of abiogenesis, using purely math. This also includes the entire claim about an intelligent designer being the cause for life.

I totally agree!!

No doubt, your response will be, that ID is an experimental science and not a historical one,

Wrong again!! Any science that attempts to describe events that occurred in the distant past, whether they be the theories on the origin of male and female, cosmological arguments about the solar system, or postulates on the origin of the digital code in DNA, is a historical science.

but here you fall into a fundamental paradox. You attempt to explain the past, without referring to the past. Presumably, you do this to avoid the pitfalls that you seen in the "historical sciences," but fail to realize this makes your investigation void of any real evidence.

Wrong again. What evidence from the past do you have for how abiogenesis occurred?

I believe this is the pitfall of ID. Therefore, you are constrained to evidence we have today, and the only thing you have is, the language of another mind: digital code. Therefore, you must make an inductive argument to reach your conclusions: DNA is a complex, specifiable code. Digital code is the same. Digital code is made by intelligent minds. Therefore, so is DNA. There is no evidence for this conclusion, other than looking at another code, and assuming it was formed in the same way. This is pure inductive reasoning. There is no direct evidence for DNA being created by an intelligent designer, because that would require looking to the past, but you have blocked off that avenue for yourself. It seems that IDers have trapped themselves logically.

Everything you just said in the last 10 or so sentences is totally fallacious. See my comments prior to all these incorrect assertions. What Meyer has done is no different that what Darwin did. Your claim that ID doesn't refer to past evidence is fallacious. We can rightfully assert that at some point in the distant past, based on fossil evidence, that the information in DNA originated long ago. Just like Darwin asserted that different species arose long ago. Darwin can't point back to evidence to actually show natural selection in action in the distant past. He attempted to use "causes now in operation", like finch beaks, to make predictions about what happened long ago. I'm not sure why you keep missing the similarities. Confirmation bias I guess.

If this is really the only argument or "evidence" you have for ID, then it is really hard for me to understand why you think this is convincing, at all. The only reason it is, is because you already believe that there was an intelligent force behind creation. The "science" of ID is not otherwise convincing to anyone else. ID is simply a contemporary version of the teleological argument. It is nothing new, and nothing special.

Wrong again. What you keep strawmanning and what you think you know, is that ID claims the intelligent designer was the Judeo-Christian God. As far as ID goes, the intelligent agent that originated the digital dna code could have been an alien race. It is a religious belief by some ID Theorist, not a scientific one, that the intelligent agent is God. However, ID theory never identifies who the intelligent agent is, because that would be impossible to do in light of current evidence. It only draws the logical conclusion that intelligence is responsible, because of the cause now in operation producing digital code.

 

[UltimateReality]

Apparently, you don't understand what you write. What machines are you writing about?

If you knew anything about molecular biology you would understand what chemical machines I am speaking of.



In the lytic cycle, the virus reproduces itself using the host cell's chemical machinery. The red spiral lines in the drawing indicate the virus's genetic material. The orange portion is the outer shell that protects it.


HowStuffWorks "How Viruses Work"

If you knew anything about biology, you would be uncomfortable about using the terms "machines" in connection wth biological mechanisms.

Are you thinking your motives aren't obvious and contrived?

Your high priest Dawkins refers to molecular machines. Get with the program will you LIAR?

 

[Hollie]

If you knew anything about molecular biology you would understand what chemical machines I am speaking of.



In the lytic cycle, the virus reproduces itself using the host cell's chemical machinery. The red spiral lines in the drawing indicate the virus's genetic material. The orange portion is the outer shell that protects it.


HowStuffWorks "How Viruses Work"

If you knew anything about biology, you would be uncomfortable about using the terms "machines" in connection wth biological mechanisms.

Are you thinking your motives aren't obvious and contrived?

Your high priest Dawkins refers to molecular machines. Get with the program will you LIAR?

I see. You're angry because I have refused your creepy advances.

That's a common symptom of stalkers.

 

[UltimateReality]

That makes no sense. The mutation of a virus is often the result of stimulus from the host. The resulting strain is not necessarily stronger or weaker but has adapted to external conditions.

Remarkably, you explicitly define one of the basic principles of evolution, yet you can't allow yourself the intellectual integrity to admit that. To do so would immediately thrust you into a contradiction with your alleged supernatural realms where everything is reduced to the slogan, "the gawds did it".

Here it is hollie, unless you don't understand what you wrote. The host is no longer in control of its chemical machines,the machines are used by the virus to reproduce itself so who would be stimulating the mutation ?

So tell us, "who" do you think would be stimulating the mutation. Does this "who" have name?

Wait, let me guess. Are you talking about your rugged man hands stimulating the mutant known as Daws?

 

[UltimateReality]

If you knew anything about biology, you would be uncomfortable about using the terms "machines" in connection wth biological mechanisms.

Are you thinking your motives aren't obvious and contrived?

Your high priest Dawkins refers to molecular machines. Get with the program will you LIAR?

I see. You're angry because I have refused your creepy advances.

That's a common symptom of stalkers.

Only in your icky, twisted fantasies, she-man. This is the 80's, and UR is down with the ladys.

 

[Hollie]

Here it is hollie, unless you don't understand what you wrote. The host is no longer in control of its chemical machines,the machines are used by the virus to reproduce itself so who would be stimulating the mutation ?

So tell us, "who" do you think would be stimulating the mutation. Does this "who" have name?

Wait, let me guess. Are you talking about your rugged man hands stimulating the mutant known as Daws?

Good gawd what an angry creationist. I suppose that when you arguments have failed (as have your creepy advances), you have nothing left but schoolboy taunts.

 

[UltimateReality]

Daws why do you pretend to know so much and you don't know my back ground.

How to Become a Molecular Biologist: Education and Career Roadmap

this is another pointless reply as stated before YOU did not complete what was required to be a molecular biologist.
end of story!

Do you wish to engage me on a molecular argument no copying and pasting, if not I will use one of your terms, stfu.

You are clearly ignorant on the subject anyone can see and most subjects you address.

I think you meant shut the Hawly up?

 

[Hollie]

Your high priest Dawkins refers to molecular machines. Get with the program will you LIAR?

I see. You're angry because I have refused your creepy advances.

That's a common symptom of stalkers.

Only in your icky, twisted fantasies, she-man. This is the 80's, and UR is down with the ladys.

My rejection of your creepy advances has left you quite damaged.

 

[UltimateReality]

How utterly twisted. No wonder your behavior is so bizarre. You live your life in trembling fear of the most evil villain ever to be shaped by the mind of man. You're suggesting that the gawds "poofed" viruses into existence as yet another punishment to be inflicted on humanity?

So, floods, earthquakes, tornadoes, fire, bacterial infections, etc. weren't enough so the gawds chose yet another humanity wiping catastrophe?

I don't live in fear hollie why would you say I live in fear ?

Of course you live in fear. You even use that fear in hopes of installing fear in others.

Funny coming from the trembling little boy who won't reveal even the slightest hint about their sordid past, dysfunctional childhood, sexual orientation or educational background. You are scared to death of complete strangers on the internet!!!!

 

[Hollie]

this is another pointless reply as stated before YOU did not complete what was required to be a molecular biologist.
end of story!

Do you wish to engage me on a molecular argument no copying and pasting, if not I will use one of your terms, stfu.

You are clearly ignorant on the subject anyone can see and most subjects you address.

I think you meant shut the Hawly up?

Your obsession with me has left you emotionally crippled. This would be a good time to drink the Kool-Aid.

 

[UltimateReality]

Of course you live in fear. You even use that fear in hopes of installing fear in others.

Still waiting on an answer for this Hollie.

Why would a cell lose it's function if you are correct ?

You seem to forget that your "debating" amounts to nothing more than cutting and pasting from Christian creationist websites.

What I found early on is that you have a propensity for "quote-mining" and that you are not at all discriminating in what you cut and paste, nor do you care to verify your sources. Do I need to remind you of the many instances where your "quotes" were exposed as fraudulent?

The most frustrating part of dealing with such dishonesty is that it requires not an insignificant amount of time to research every link you post and to search for every "quote" as invariably, the links are to Christian creationist websites and "quotes" are discovered to be fraudulently parsed, altered or taken out of context so as to change the author's intent.

What you don't seem to comprehend is that none of your "amino acid" cutting and pasting delineates a path to any gawds. Yours is just the boilerplate creationist argument that is found on every Christian creationist website. None of the fundie creationists are performing actual science. None of them perform any research. Without exception, all of the Christian creationist websites have predefined conclusions leading to a partisan gawd. They're not seeking truth or knowledge, they're promoting dogma.

That's as bias a position as I can imagine.

Wow, a bunch of paragraphs to dodge the question. Typical. You're a fool.

 

[Hollie]

I don't live in fear hollie why would you say I live in fear ?

Of course you live in fear. You even use that fear in hopes of installing fear in others.

Funny coming from the trembling little boy who won't reveal even the slightest hint about their sordid past, dysfunctional childhood, sexual orientation or educational background. You are scared to death of complete strangers on the internet!!!!

These are all the same creepy advances you have tried and failed at. Don't let those childhood issues you described above ruin your life beyond what your religion has already done.

 

[UltimateReality]

another failed attempt a character assassination and lame ass cherry picking.

You are right. Your failed attempt to assassinate my character by insinuating I'm an alcoholic was pretty lame.

your character need no help from me to be assassinated as you commit character suicide in every post, for all to see.
wrong tosspot! I Insinuated nothing if I wanted to call you an alcoholic ,I would have done so.
on the other hand your answer hints at the fact that you might have an alcohol problem.
the whole post is another failed attempt at spin.

Okay, parrot.

 

[Hollie]

Still waiting on an answer for this Hollie.

Why would a cell lose it's function if you are correct ?

You seem to forget that your "debating" amounts to nothing more than cutting and pasting from Christian creationist websites.

What I found early on is that you have a propensity for "quote-mining" and that you are not at all discriminating in what you cut and paste, nor do you care to verify your sources. Do I need to remind you of the many instances where your "quotes" were exposed as fraudulent?

The most frustrating part of dealing with such dishonesty is that it requires not an insignificant amount of time to research every link you post and to search for every "quote" as invariably, the links are to Christian creationist websites and "quotes" are discovered to be fraudulently parsed, altered or taken out of context so as to change the author's intent.

What you don't seem to comprehend is that none of your "amino acid" cutting and pasting delineates a path to any gawds. Yours is just the boilerplate creationist argument that is found on every Christian creationist website. None of the fundie creationists are performing actual science. None of them perform any research. Without exception, all of the Christian creationist websites have predefined conclusions leading to a partisan gawd. They're not seeking truth or knowledge, they're promoting dogma.

That's as bias a position as I can imagine.

Wow, a bunch of paragraphs to dodge the question. Typical. You're a fool.

My, you're angry. Your creepy stalking has left you lonely and self-hating.

 

[UltimateReality]

no need to as I've won every argument since I CAME TO THIS THREAD.
how ? WITH ONE SIMPLE SENTENCE "there is no quantifiable evidence of god."
it's an unbeatable fact.
if and until you can provide actual evidence you've already lost...no matter how much *****.

There is evidence all around you. You just choose blindness.

Hebrews 11(NIV)

1 Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. 2 This is what the ancients were commended for.

3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

Romans 1(NIV)

19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.

This is circular reasoning.

You can't use the bible to prove the bible's claims about god.

I didn't, so wrong. The Bible says we can know God exists based on the things he has made. You can't see it because your thinking is futile and your heart is darkened.

 

[Hollie]

You are right. Your failed attempt to assassinate my character by insinuating I'm an alcoholic was pretty lame.

your character need no help from me to be assassinated as you commit character suicide in every post, for all to see.
wrong tosspot! I Insinuated nothing if I wanted to call you an alcoholic ,I would have done so.
on the other hand your answer hints at the fact that you might have an alcohol problem.
the whole post is another failed attempt at spin.

Okay, parrot.

Ah, a recovering (and failed) alcoholic? It often happens that drug addicts, alcoholics and those in prison turn to jeebus.

Maybe try Islam. Your angry, self-hate may be a boon.

 

[UltimateReality]

So tell us, "who" do you think would be stimulating the mutation. Does this "who" have name?

Wait, let me guess. Are you talking about your rugged man hands stimulating the mutant known as Daws?

Good gawd what an angry creationist. I suppose that when you arguments have failed (as have your creepy advances), you have nothing left but schoolboy taunts.

That was a yes or no question.

 

[Hollie]

There is evidence all around you. You just choose blindness.

Hebrews 11(NIV)

1 Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. 2 This is what the ancients were commended for.

3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

Romans 1(NIV)

19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.

This is circular reasoning.

You can't use the bible to prove the bible's claims about god.

I didn't, so wrong. The Bible says we can know God exists based on the things he has made. You can't see it because your thinking is futile and your heart is darkened.

What if I was a recovering alcoholic like you. Would that help me find jeebus?

 

[UltimateReality]

Of course you live in fear. You even use that fear in hopes of installing fear in others.

Funny coming from the trembling little boy who won't reveal even the slightest hint about their sordid past, dysfunctional childhood, sexual orientation or educational background. You are scared to death of complete strangers on the internet!!!!

These are all the same creepy advances you have tried and failed at. Don't let those childhood issues you described above ruin your life beyond what your religion has already done.

Why are you so afraid? Why do you live your life in fear and trembling?