Creationists

[Youwerecreated]

You're having difficulty defining your own argument. Your desperate efforts to bludgeon others with the circular reference about your gawds, "digital code" and an imagined designer are no less vague, discontinuous and contrived now than they were before.

Ironically, the very science you despise has actually expanded our knowledge about another of the intricate building blocks of life. Through ingenuity and the formidable power of science, what was once only a hypothesis is now understandable. The mumbo jumbo of "the gawds did it" falls further and further into the dustbin of fear and superstition.

Your refusal to address your need to make some connection between your alleged "designer" gawds and your fallacious connection between DNA requiring your "designer" gawds is glaring but not unexpected. Simply copying and pasting christian creationist slogans used by Meyer and the Disco'tute is a poor substitute for a comprehensive description of "the gawds did it". As is typical of the christian zealot, you're forced to defend your claims with angry denials, with lashing out and with bad analogies that only parrot the creationist ministry politburo party line.

That's all well and good but you never clarified YOUR specific reasons you believe binary computer code can't be compared to the digital code in dna. Still waiting.

And here again we see the desperation that haunts the Christian fundie. He has no answer to some rather basic questions defining the poverty of his argument and is left to stagger and reel instead of responding with a relevant post.

You avoid questions by accusations that miss their mark.

 

[Hollie]

That's all well and good but you never clarified YOUR specific reasons you believe binary computer code can't be compared to the digital code in dna. Still waiting.

And here again we see the desperation that haunts the Christian fundie. He has no answer to some rather basic questions defining the poverty of his argument and is left to stagger and reel instead of responding with a relevant post.

You avoid questions by accusations that miss their mark.

Yet another pointless comment.

 

[ima]

This my friends is a prime example of "moving the goal posts. Hawly just got owned by claiming that digital code in dna is not like binary xcomputer code so when confronted with the evidence that it is so crazily similar it can be used for digital data storage, she defaults to her repetitive arguments about the gawds, hoping no one will notice that she was WRONG, and HAS NO REBUTTAL or support for her claim DNA cannot be compared to computer code. Here it is again for those who missed it...

"A bioengineer and geneticist at Harvard’s Wyss Institute have successfully stored 5.5 petabits of data — around 700 terabytes — in a single gram of DNA, smashing the previous DNA data density record by a thousand times."

Harvard cracks DNA storage, crams 700 terabytes of data into a single gram | ExtremeTech

What desperation on the part of the Christian creationist. Having had his argument pulled out from underneath him, he continues to post and re-post the same article.

Here is the relevant question that the fundie is desperately trying to avoid answering: how does any of his cutting and pasting represent his gawds?

The evidence of our God can be seen in the heavens. Evidence of our God can be seen on this planet. Evidence of our God can be seen in humans for we are created in his image.

If that is not enough for you go here.

Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge

If that is not enough for you get down on your knees and pray to him asking him to come into your life.

Buddy, just the first 3: 1. the earth doesn't "free-float in space"

2. Hebrew 11.3 doesn't talk about particles, it's too vague to have any real meaning.

and 3. boats were being made as long as 7000 years ago, so whomever wrote the bible 5000 years later... well, you get the idea.

and even 4. Gee, wash in running water instead of standing water. Gee, were these folks GENIUSES or what?

 

[Hollie]

Let's compare and contrast, shall we?

A few thoughts for Daws, Hawly, NP, others:

The reason the evolution argument "works" for you, is because you already believe in materialism. Essentially, you have already accepted the conclusion of the theory of evolution, and so it appears convincing, totally and completely. In a sense, you are "begging the question" when you convince yourself that this theory must be true, because you already contain the premise that evolution is true before you even approach the argument. Therefore, how can you claim to honestly assess its merits? I doubt that you have. You're forgetting that thousands of scientists have not accepted the theory of evolution. (twist on NP's appeal to the mob)

I suspect evolutionary theory is accepted by many simply because of confirmation bias (those who already have a need to believe it is the only explanation), although I will admit that it is the teleological and cosmological arguments that most often convert people to materialism, in addition to the need to justify their atheism, which many times is brought on by traumatic childhood experiences, including sexual abuse that results in same sex attraction (I just added that for NP and Hawly). I can understand this: they simply cannot come to grips that a loving God would let this happen to them. The problem is that intuition is not based on real science. This, if anything, is what the pseudo science of evolution teaches us: that our intuition about the true nature of reality isn't right. So instead, we keep repeating to ourselves, even though this looks designed it isn't. And professors brainwash their students by pre programming their reaction to design by telling them when they make their observation, just keep remembering it wasn't designed. The theory of evolution has also dumbed down the other sciences, with its just so stories and inductively arrived at conclusions that they pretend are deducted "facts". Just look at quantum mechanics. One must accept that our reality isn't the only reality since it requires multiple universes, invisible forces like dark matter and dark energy, other dimensions, and particles that disappear and reappear.

There you go again, copying and pasting my post.

There are no teleological or cosmological arguments for materialism. A teleological argument for materialism doesn't make coherent sense. It is obvious you know nothing about this term. The teleological argument is the argument for a final cause, or a design, which necessarily precludes materialism. Nothing in materialism ever posits that there is a final cause. Therefore, again, you are making a categorical error. So, your lame tactic of copying and pasting my posts has backfired on you.

If a person can't examine something and see it is a product of design it's because they don't want to.

Pointless.

 

[Hollie]

This my friends is a prime example of "moving the goal posts. Hawly just got owned by claiming that digital code in dna is not like binary xcomputer code so when confronted with the evidence that it is so crazily similar it can be used for digital data storage, she defaults to her repetitive arguments about the gawds, hoping no one will notice that she was WRONG, and HAS NO REBUTTAL or support for her claim DNA cannot be compared to computer code. Here it is again for those who missed it...

"A bioengineer and geneticist at Harvard’s Wyss Institute have successfully stored 5.5 petabits of data — around 700 terabytes — in a single gram of DNA, smashing the previous DNA data density record by a thousand times."

Harvard cracks DNA storage, crams 700 terabytes of data into a single gram | ExtremeTech

What desperation on the part of the Christian creationist. Having had his argument pulled out from underneath him, he continues to post and re-post the same article.

Here is the relevant question that the fundie is desperately trying to avoid answering: how does any of his cutting and pasting represent his gawds?

The evidence of our God can be seen in the heavens. Evidence of our God can be seen on this planet. Evidence of our God can be seen in humans for we are created in his image.

If that is not enough for you go here.

Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge

If that is not enough for you get down on your knees and pray to him asking him to come into your life.

That was enough for me. We can therefore agree that you don't need to cut and paste from "infernal productions", ever, ever again.

 

[UltimateReality]

A few thoughts for UR, YWC, Lonestar, others:

The reason the ID argument "works" for you, is because you already believe in an intelligent designer. Essentially, you have already accepted the conclusion of the theory, and so it appears convincing, totally and completely. In a sense, you are "begging the question" when you convince yourself that this theory must be true, because you already contain the premise that an intelligent being exists before you even approach the argument. Therefore, how can you claim to honestly assess its merits? I doubt that you have. You're forgetting that others haven't already accepted the conclusions of the argument.

I supsect ID theory is accepted by many simply because of confirmation bias (those who already have faith), although I will admit that it is the teleological and cosmological arguments that most often convert people to faith. I can understand this: it simply seems intuitive. The problem is that intuition is not truth. This, if anything, is what science teaches us: that our intuition about the true nature of reality is usually wrong. Just look at quantum mechanics. It is fundamentally unintuitive, even for todays particle physicists.

Let's compare and contrast, shall we?

A few thoughts for Daws, Hawly, NP, others:

The reason the evolution argument "works" for you, is because you already believe in materialism. Essentially, you have already accepted the conclusion of the theory of evolution, and so it appears convincing, totally and completely. In a sense, you are "begging the question" when you convince yourself that this theory must be true, because you already contain the premise that evolution is true before you even approach the argument. Therefore, how can you claim to honestly assess its merits? I doubt that you have. You're forgetting that thousands of scientists have not accepted the theory of evolution. (twist on NP's appeal to the mob)

I suspect evolutionary theory is accepted by many simply because of confirmation bias (those who already have a need to believe it is the only explanation), although I will admit that it is the teleological and cosmological arguments that most often convert people to materialism, in addition to the need to justify their atheism, which many times is brought on by traumatic childhood experiences, including sexual abuse that results in same sex attraction (I just added that for NP and Hawly). I can understand this: they simply cannot come to grips that a loving God would let this happen to them. The problem is that intuition is not based on real science. This, if anything, is what the pseudo science of evolution teaches us: that our intuition about the true nature of reality isn't right. So instead, we keep repeating to ourselves, even though this looks designed it isn't. And professors brainwash their students by pre programming their reaction to design by telling them when they make their observation, just keep remembering it wasn't designed. The theory of evolution has also dumbed down the other sciences, with its just so stories and inductively arrived at conclusions that they pretend are deducted "facts". Just look at quantum mechanics. One must accept that our reality isn't the only reality since it requires multiple universes, invisible forces like dark matter and dark energy, other dimensions, and particles that disappear and reappear.

There you go again, copying and pasting my post.

There are no teleological or cosmological arguments for materialism. A teleological argument for materialism doesn't make coherent sense. It is obvious you know nothing about this term. The teleological argument is the argument for a final cause, or a design, which necessarily precludes materialism. Nothing in materialism ever posits that there is a final cause. Therefore, again, you are making a categorical error. So, your lame tactic of copying and pasting my posts has backfired on you.

I absolutely know the term. Materialists continue to borrow "design" terminology while denying design. Their descriptions are teleological. Once again you think you know, only to find out you are wrong.

 

[UltimateReality]

You're having difficulty defining your own argument. Your desperate efforts to bludgeon others with the circular reference about your gawds, "digital code" and an imagined designer are no less vague, discontinuous and contrived now than they were before.

Ironically, the very science you despise has actually expanded our knowledge about another of the intricate building blocks of life. Through ingenuity and the formidable power of science, what was once only a hypothesis is now understandable. The mumbo jumbo of "the gawds did it" falls further and further into the dustbin of fear and superstition.

Your refusal to address your need to make some connection between your alleged "designer" gawds and your fallacious connection between DNA requiring your "designer" gawds is glaring but not unexpected. Simply copying and pasting christian creationist slogans used by Meyer and the Disco'tute is a poor substitute for a comprehensive description of "the gawds did it". As is typical of the christian zealot, you're forced to defend your claims with angry denials, with lashing out and with bad analogies that only parrot the creationist ministry politburo party line.

That's all well and good but you never clarified YOUR specific reasons you believe binary computer code can't be compared to the digital code in dna. Still waiting.

And here again we see the desperation that haunts the Christian fundie. He has no answer to some rather basic questions defining the poverty of his argument and is left to stagger and reel instead of responding with a relevant post.

You can never just answer the question. You're are obviously mentally retarded.

 

[UltimateReality]

What desperation on the part of the Christian creationist. Having had his argument pulled out from underneath him, he continues to post and re-post the same article.

Here is the relevant question that the fundie is desperately trying to avoid answering: how does any of his cutting and pasting represent his gawds?

The evidence of our God can be seen in the heavens. Evidence of our God can be seen on this planet. Evidence of our God can be seen in humans for we are created in his image.

If that is not enough for you go here.

Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge

If that is not enough for you get down on your knees and pray to him asking him to come into your life.

That was enough for me. We can therefore agree that you don't need to cut and paste from "infernal productions", ever, ever again.

As long as you stop the rabid cutting and pasting from Panda's Thumb.

 

[Hollie]

Let's compare and contrast, shall we?

A few thoughts for Daws, Hawly, NP, others:

The reason the evolution argument "works" for you, is because you already believe in materialism. Essentially, you have already accepted the conclusion of the theory of evolution, and so it appears convincing, totally and completely. In a sense, you are "begging the question" when you convince yourself that this theory must be true, because you already contain the premise that evolution is true before you even approach the argument. Therefore, how can you claim to honestly assess its merits? I doubt that you have. You're forgetting that thousands of scientists have not accepted the theory of evolution. (twist on NP's appeal to the mob)

I suspect evolutionary theory is accepted by many simply because of confirmation bias (those who already have a need to believe it is the only explanation), although I will admit that it is the teleological and cosmological arguments that most often convert people to materialism, in addition to the need to justify their atheism, which many times is brought on by traumatic childhood experiences, including sexual abuse that results in same sex attraction (I just added that for NP and Hawly). I can understand this: they simply cannot come to grips that a loving God would let this happen to them. The problem is that intuition is not based on real science. This, if anything, is what the pseudo science of evolution teaches us: that our intuition about the true nature of reality isn't right. So instead, we keep repeating to ourselves, even though this looks designed it isn't. And professors brainwash their students by pre programming their reaction to design by telling them when they make their observation, just keep remembering it wasn't designed. The theory of evolution has also dumbed down the other sciences, with its just so stories and inductively arrived at conclusions that they pretend are deducted "facts". Just look at quantum mechanics. One must accept that our reality isn't the only reality since it requires multiple universes, invisible forces like dark matter and dark energy, other dimensions, and particles that disappear and reappear.

There you go again, copying and pasting my post.

There are no teleological or cosmological arguments for materialism. A teleological argument for materialism doesn't make coherent sense. It is obvious you know nothing about this term. The teleological argument is the argument for a final cause, or a design, which necessarily precludes materialism. Nothing in materialism ever posits that there is a final cause. Therefore, again, you are making a categorical error. So, your lame tactic of copying and pasting my posts has backfired on you.

I absolutely know the term. Materialists continue to borrow "design" terminology while denying design. Their descriptions are teleological. Once again you think you know, only to find out you are wrong.

You're completely befuddled. Terms associated with Christian creationism are appeals to your supernatural gawds, magic and miracles. If you had studied any of the relevant physical or biological sciences, you would have learned that a science curriculum is devote to practical theory, evidence, repeatable results, etc.

You would do yourself the biggest favor by exploring the scientific method and discovering how science reaches a concensus on facts.

 

[Hollie]

The evidence of our God can be seen in the heavens. Evidence of our God can be seen on this planet. Evidence of our God can be seen in humans for we are created in his image.

If that is not enough for you go here.

Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge

If that is not enough for you get down on your knees and pray to him asking him to come into your life.

That was enough for me. We can therefore agree that you don't need to cut and paste from "infernal productions", ever, ever again.

As long as you stop the rabid cutting and pasting from Panda's Thumb.

I understand your objection as your Christian creationist fallacies are so thoroughly dismantled. Your objection to knowledge derives from your indoctrination in Christian apologetics. You need to learn that science and knowledge will invariably supplant fear and superstition. You shouldn't let mere indoctrination in a religious / supernatural worldview necessarily be an obstacle to shedding the ignorance you embrace.

 

[Hollie]

That's all well and good but you never clarified YOUR specific reasons you believe binary computer code can't be compared to the digital code in dna. Still waiting.

And here again we see the desperation that haunts the Christian fundie. He has no answer to some rather basic questions defining the poverty of his argument and is left to stagger and reel instead of responding with a relevant post.

You can never just answer the question. You're are obviously mentally retarded.

My, but you are the prototypical angry Christian creationist. You're angry that your attempts to associate DNA coding with your alleged gawds has gone horribly wrong. That really shouldn't surprise you. Christian fundies have been unable to offer a coherent argument for their gawds that doesn't rely on attacks aimed at science. While Christian fundies will pick and choose science data just as they pick and choose religious dogma, the body of science supporting the natural elements for existence leaves little room for supermagicalism and fear of an angry, paternal supernatural entity.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Evolutionist assume life arose spontaneously which requires more faith than believing in God.

No organism has been found that didn't have some sort of parent.

Do evolutionist believe in souls?

If so, then why isn't that ever explored?

 

[daws101]

Christianity is a philosophy not a religion and I am not of the same religion as robertson.

lie! Christianity is a religion and a philosophy.
if you believe in THE CHRISTIAN GOD, JESUS ETC... you are the same religion as pat Robertson or Jim Jones and David koresh..
any difference you profess is cosmetic and false.

Nope, you are wrong 241,000 religions makes Christanity a philosophy. Every religion has their own set of doctrines and everyone of them claim to have the truth.

that's not an answer! what part of "Christianity is a religion and a philosophy." do you not understand?
must be the same willful ignorance that you use when denying other facts.


American Atheists’ Teresa MacBain has something to say about whether or not Christianity is a religion:

I’m a former pastor, who served many churches for over 20 years. I would consider myself somewhat of an expert. Trust me; Christianity is a religion by any modern definition. According to my theology professors, Christianity has been and always will be a religion. Every priest, every pastor, every Sunday School teacher, choir member, deacon, usher, and pew sitter will tell you that Christianity is a religion. So where did Mr. O’Reilly come up with this idea? Oh! I know! The tides told him.

Bill O’Reilly: ‘Christianity is Not a Religion; It’s a Philosophy’

 

[Lonestar_logic]

lie! Christianity is a religion and a philosophy.
if you believe in THE CHRISTIAN GOD, JESUS ETC... you are the same religion as pat Robertson or Jim Jones and David koresh..
any difference you profess is cosmetic and false.

Nope, you are wrong 241,000 religions makes Christanity a philosophy. Every religion has their own set of doctrines and everyone of them claim to have the truth.

that's not an answer! what part of "Christianity is a religion and a philosophy." do you not understand?
must be the same willful ignorance that you use when denying other facts.


American Atheists’ Teresa MacBain has something to say about whether or not Christianity is a religion:

I’m a former pastor, who served many churches for over 20 years. I would consider myself somewhat of an expert. Trust me; Christianity is a religion by any modern definition. According to my theology professors, Christianity has been and always will be a religion. Every priest, every pastor, every Sunday School teacher, choir member, deacon, usher, and pew sitter will tell you that Christianity is a religion. So where did Mr. O’Reilly come up with this idea? Oh! I know! The tides told him.

Bill O’Reilly: ‘Christianity is Not a Religion; It’s a Philosophy’

An atheist is going to tell us what is or isn't a religion?


No bias there.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Evolutionist assume life arose spontaneously which requires more faith than believing in God.

No organism has been found that didn't have some sort of parent.

Do evolutionist believe in souls?

If so, then why isn't that ever explored?

Because they lack souls.... take away the soul, we're all so much water and minerals... and that cannot be explained with scientific equations. Therein they run into the brick wall that is their belief system.

 

[daws101]

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.

ok what? Tosspot !

 

[daws101]

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.

Still using the bible to make your argument is not proof.
there is no quantifiable proof that god made anything.
you're wrong as always !

 

[daws101]

Nope, you are wrong 241,000 religions makes Christanity a philosophy. Every religion has their own set of doctrines and everyone of them claim to have the truth.

that's not an answer! what part of "Christianity is a religion and a philosophy." do you not understand?
must be the same willful ignorance that you use when denying other facts.


American Atheists’ Teresa MacBain has something to say about whether or not Christianity is a religion:

I’m a former pastor, who served many churches for over 20 years. I would consider myself somewhat of an expert. Trust me; Christianity is a religion by any modern definition. According to my theology professors, Christianity has been and always will be a religion. Every priest, every pastor, every Sunday School teacher, choir member, deacon, usher, and pew sitter will tell you that Christianity is a religion. So where did Mr. O’Reilly come up with this idea? Oh! I know! The tides told him.

Bill O’Reilly: ‘Christianity is Not a Religion; It’s a Philosophy’

An atheist is going to tell us what is or isn't a religion?


No bias there.

who the **** is "us"
GUESS YOU'RE ILLITERATE TOO "American Atheists’ Teresa MacBain has something to say about whether or not Christianity is a religion:

I’m a former pastor, who served many churches for over 20 years. I would consider myself somewhat of an expert."

please explain how this person's knowledge of christianity becomes invalid just because they quit buying into the bullshit.
that's like saying because you're no longer a taxi driver, you've lost the ability to drive.
who's bias again?

 

[daws101]

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.

another epic fail at spin..

 

[Lonestar_logic]

that's not an answer! what part of "Christianity is a religion and a philosophy." do you not understand?
must be the same willful ignorance that you use when denying other facts.


American Atheists’ Teresa MacBain has something to say about whether or not Christianity is a religion:

I’m a former pastor, who served many churches for over 20 years. I would consider myself somewhat of an expert. Trust me; Christianity is a religion by any modern definition. According to my theology professors, Christianity has been and always will be a religion. Every priest, every pastor, every Sunday School teacher, choir member, deacon, usher, and pew sitter will tell you that Christianity is a religion. So where did Mr. O’Reilly come up with this idea? Oh! I know! The tides told him.

Bill O’Reilly: ‘Christianity is Not a Religion; It’s a Philosophy’

An atheist is going to tell us what is or isn't a religion?


No bias there.

who the **** is "us"
GUESS YOU'RE ILLITERATE TOO "American Atheists’ Teresa MacBain has something to say about whether or not Christianity is a religion:

I’m a former pastor, who served many churches for over 20 years. I would consider myself somewhat of an expert."

please explain how this person's knowledge of christianity becomes invalid just because they quit buying into the bullshit.
that's like saying because you're no longer a taxi driver, you've lost the ability to drive.
who's bias again?

Your analogy is as weak as your brain.

Her opinion isn't invalid, it's simply wrong.


And "us" doesn't mean you so get off your self righteous horse.