Creationists

[UltimateReality]

Can you cite a single event, structure or mechanism that is "unnatural"?

I am not aware of a single, verifiable event, structure or mechanism that exists currently or has existed in the past (other than thunder and lightning being the result of the gawds bowling).

Can you cite for us something we can test ad being supernatural?

Already have,you really don't understand how these enzymes are programmed to spot errors and fix them can you give a rational rebuttal to this.

Its like parts of your computer they are programmed to perform duties but they were programmed that is what you are not grasping.

this is an argument from ignorance, again. You can't imagine how something like this system would arise, so... god or aliens did it. Breathtaking... really, it is.

That is all YOU can do is imagine. Because their is no modern occurrence of this happening anywhere in nature and no evidence of it randomly occurring in the past.

 

[UltimateReality]

That's more of your assignment of attributes to enzymes. Can you detail for us how you know enzymes are " programmed".

Hollie,can you explain how these enzymes can spot and correct errors during DNA replication if they were not programmed ?

You are presupposing that there had to be a programmer without establishing this, just in the way you asked the question. You are jumping the gun. In science, You have to start from a place of total ignorance, void of presuppositions, and follow the evidence wherever it leads, instead of leading it to your own conclusions that you already have established, because this is dishonest (this is exactly what IDers are doing). Even in the way you posed this question, it is obvious you are doing this. This question carries an argument from ignorance, once again!

How many times can you scream "argument from ignorance" fallaciously? You aren't fooling anyone.

 

[UltimateReality]

Already responded to this.

Are you suggesting again, that beneficial mutations do not occur?

Why did your gawds get their design so horribly wrong? Your earlier answer was to suggest that this is your gawds' plan to punish sinners. Who are you to question the will of the gawds.

Never said anything of the sort,try again.

Did you forget you wrote this:

"The same one who programmed the enzymes. I have said I believe that this is one of the mechanisms God has chosen to carry out his setence of death to all who sin."

You are under the false assumption that it is all about you. God knew when he created the earth that man would sin. But in his wisdom he also knew the glory that would come from the sacrifice of his Son to pay they debt for man's sin.

 

[mjollnir]

Never said anything of the sort,try again.

Did you forget you wrote this:

"The same one who programmed the enzymes. I have said I believe that this is one of the mechanisms God has chosen to carry out his setence of death to all who sin."

You are under the false assumption that it is all about you. God knew when he created the earth that man would sin. But in his wisdom he also knew the glory that would come from the sacrifice of his Son to pay they debt for man's sin.

Nah, can't be.

I just spoke to God, and he said what you're claiming is bullshit.

 

[UltimateReality]

Did you forget you wrote this:

"The same one who programmed the enzymes. I have said I believe that this is one of the mechanisms God has chosen to carry out his setence of death to all who sin."

You are under the false assumption that it is all about you. God knew when he created the earth that man would sin. But in his wisdom he also knew the glory that would come from the sacrifice of his Son to pay they debt for man's sin.

Nah, can't be.

I just spoke to God, and he said what you're claiming is bullshit.

You should learn to tell the difference between the voices in your head and God.

 

[mjollnir]

You are under the false assumption that it is all about you. God knew when he created the earth that man would sin. But in his wisdom he also knew the glory that would come from the sacrifice of his Son to pay they debt for man's sin.

Nah, can't be.

I just spoke to God, and he said what you're claiming is bullshit.

You should learn to tell the difference between the voices in your head and God.

You should learn why the fantasy nonsense you're try to pass off as somehow legitimate and rational makes your comment about voices in one's head particularly ironic.

Nah. On second thought, you shouldn't. Thinking clearly makes you uncomfy.

 

[newpolitics]

No,there is no explanation for this phenomenon,any rational person can conclude your computer did not program itself nor did our brains.

Then, there is no reason to conclude that there had to be a designer. you have just foiled yourself, and admitted that any conclusion drawn from ignorance is unfounded.

If you wish to believe that be my guest.

This isn't a belief. It is the only rational conclusion available given the evidence.

 

[newpolitics]

Hollie,can you explain how these enzymes can spot and correct errors during DNA replication if they were not programmed ?

You are presupposing that there had to be a programmer without establishing this, just in the way you asked the question. You are jumping the gun. In science, You have to start from a place of total ignorance, void of presuppositions, and follow the evidence wherever it leads, instead of leading it to your own conclusions that you already have established, because this is dishonest (this is exactly what IDers are doing). Even in the way you posed this question, it is obvious you are doing this. This question carries an argument from ignorance, once again!

How many times can you scream "argument from ignorance" fallaciously? You aren't fooling anyone.

I'm not trying to fool anyone... just calling out the fallacies as I see 'em.

YWC is positing that there must be a programmer because of what appears to him, something that must have been programmed. He don't actually have any evidence of this claim, but rests on the facts that there is no evidence either way. We are in ignorance to this. Therefore, any postulations about this are an argument from ignorance, necessarily, until there is evidence.

As I am sure are you just dying to point out the hypocrisy in this, let me stop you from thinking too hard. Scientists haven't made any specific claims about abiogenesis other than it is plausible, given actual evidence of what we know about the abundance of amino acids on the proto-earth, the environmental and atmospheric conditions, and demonstrations such as the Miller-Urey Experiment and subsequent improvement experiments that yielded even better results. Scientists have not claimed they know exactly how it happened, because there simply is not enough evidence. This puts us in a state of ignorance. However, IDers are claiming, despite this ignorance, that they know what happened. Hence, an argument from ignorance.

Any other "fallacious" arguments from ignorance you think I have accused you of? Let me know, and I'll gladly demonstrate.

 

[newpolitics]

No I gave you how many genetic disorders exist in the population vs how many beneficial mutations you can point out.

I already responded to this.

Then tell me how many beneficial mutations you can point to that was fixated in our population ? Right now the harmful mutations have resulted into over 6,000 genetic disorders.

I can think of two. Sicklemia for those in certain environments where it is beneficial (african americans in environments containing malaria). Although this one is a double edged sword, as it poses the potential for sickle cell anemia, it does confer an advantage in fending off the disease in that environment. Don't try and tell me this isn't at all adaptive. It may not be the best example, but it does demonstrate that which you asked about. Within that environment, this would be an advantage and lead to greater survivability. Out of that environment, it is simply a burden.

A better example is the mutation that europeans underwent at around 5,000 B.C. which allowed to them digest lactase past infancy and into adulthood, and which many of us possess today. This was a result of having had domesticated animals the last 6,000 years before that (since 11,000 BC), which is the only reason we were drinking mammalian baby food from another species. As hunter-gathers, before animal domestication and the advent of agriculture (the two things which allowed us to settle down in one place and start civilization), this simply would not have happened. It is not natural for us or any species to drink what is essentially baby-food past the time when we are babies. Being "lactose intolerant" is actually the normal state for most mammals as adults. It is this mutation that allows those of european decent to metabolize lactase without issue. Therefore, it could be argued, that they could glean a larger amount of nutrients from their diet throughout their lifespan, and added another food source for them, which they could control through domestication. This would have conferred a great survival advantage, allowed them to lead longer, healthier lives, and to feed more people, creating more chance for procreation, thus passing on the mutation, which we now experience as the ability to digest lactose.

(Being a vegan, I am vehemently opposed to dairy consumption, because of the unethical nature inherent in the production process of factory farming (check out www.earthlings.com for the inside scoop). I ask anyone open to learning about where there food comes from to go to that website and watch the movie. Please!)

 

[Hollie]

Never said anything of the sort,try again.

Did you forget you wrote this:

"The same one who programmed the enzymes. I have said I believe that this is one of the mechanisms God has chosen to carry out his setence of death to all who sin."

You are under the false assumption that it is all about you. God knew when he created the earth that man would sin. But in his wisdom he also knew the glory that would come from the sacrifice of his Son to pay they debt for man's sin.

How generous of you to speak on behalf of the gawds.

 

[jack113]

You are under the false assumption that it is all about you. God knew when he created the earth that man would sin. But in his wisdom he also knew the glory that would come from the sacrifice of his Son to pay they debt for man's sin.

Nah, can't be.

I just spoke to God, and he said what you're claiming is bullshit.

You should learn to tell the difference between the voices in your head and God.

lol, before you are allowed to join the republican party you have to sign a pledge that says I know Obama traveled the world berrying dinosaur bones to create the atheist view.

 

[UltimateReality]

Nah, can't be.

I just spoke to God, and he said what you're claiming is bullshit.

You should learn to tell the difference between the voices in your head and God.

You should learn why the fantasy nonsense you're try to pass off as somehow legitimate and rational makes your comment about voices in one's head particularly ironic.

Nah. On second thought, you shouldn't. Thinking clearly makes you uncomfy.

Great. Another bigot with something to prove. I think Hawly might have something to say about you honing in on her hate campaign against Christians.

 

[UltimateReality]

I already responded to this.

Then tell me how many beneficial mutations you can point to that was fixated in our population ? Right now the harmful mutations have resulted into over 6,000 genetic disorders.

I can think of two. Sicklemia for those in certain environments where it is beneficial (african americans in environments containing malaria). Although this one is a double edged sword, as it poses the potential for sickle cell anemia, it does confer an advantage in fending off the disease in that environment. Don't try and tell me this isn't at all adaptive. It may not be the best example, but it does demonstrate that which you asked about. Within that environment, this would be an advantage and lead to greater survivability. Out of that environment, it is simply a burden.

A better example is the mutation that europeans underwent at around 5,000 B.C. which allowed to them digest lactase past infancy and into adulthood, and which many of us possess today. This was a result of having had domesticated animals the last 6,000 years before that (since 11,000 BC), which is the only reason we were drinking mammalian baby food from another species. As hunter-gathers, before animal domestication and the advent of agriculture (the two things which allowed us to settle down in one place and start civilization), this simply would not have happened. It is not natural for us or any species to drink what is essentially baby-food past the time when we are babies. Being "lactose intolerant" is actually the normal state for most mammals as adults. It is this mutation that allows those of european decent to metabolize lactase without issue. Therefore, it could be argued, that they could glean a larger amount of nutrients from their diet throughout their lifespan, and added another food source for them, which they could control through domestication. This would have conferred a great survival advantage, allowed them to lead longer, healthier lives, and to feed more people, creating more chance for procreation, thus passing on the mutation, which we now experience as the ability to digest lactose.

(Being a vegan, I am vehemently opposed to dairy consumption, because of the unethical nature inherent in the production process of factory farming (check out Earthlings.com | A Film by Nation Earth for the inside scoop). I ask anyone open to learning about where there food comes from to go to that website and watch the movie. Please!)

So you would deny evolution?? You body is made for meat consumption.

 

[mjollnir]

You should learn to tell the difference between the voices in your head and God.

You should learn why the fantasy nonsense you're try to pass off as somehow legitimate and rational makes your comment about voices in one's head particularly ironic.

Nah. On second thought, you shouldn't. Thinking clearly makes you uncomfy.

Great. Another bigot with something to prove. I think Hawly might have something to say about you honing in on her hate campaign against Christians.

Bigot? Hardly.

You've made nonsensical, irrational statements not supported by any data and then, when that's turned around and used on you, you immediately squeal "Bigot!"

And there's nothing here for me to prove that you haven't already done is spades.

Sorry to have made you so uncomfy.

 

[Hollie]

You should learn to tell the difference between the voices in your head and God.

You should learn why the fantasy nonsense you're try to pass off as somehow legitimate and rational makes your comment about voices in one's head particularly ironic.

Nah. On second thought, you shouldn't. Thinking clearly makes you uncomfy.

Great. Another bigot with something to prove. I think Hawly might have something to say about you honing in on her hate campaign against Christians.

Oh my. You poor persecuted fundie. It's a common tactic of zealots to insist that challenges to their specious opinions is an "attack".

 

[UltimateReality]

You should learn why the fantasy nonsense you're try to pass off as somehow legitimate and rational makes your comment about voices in one's head particularly ironic.

Nah. On second thought, you shouldn't. Thinking clearly makes you uncomfy.

Great. Another bigot with something to prove. I think Hawly might have something to say about you honing in on her hate campaign against Christians.

Bigot? Hardly.

You've made nonsensical, irrational statements not supported by any data and then, when that's turned around and used on you, you immediately squeal "Bigot!"

And there's nothing here for me to prove that you haven't already done is spades.

Sorry to have made you so uncomfy.

What nonsensical statements? Are you referring to my discussions on ID Theory? It not, then the only other statements I've made since you showed up are religious in nature, in which case if your comments were directed at those makes you a bigot.

 

[mjollnir]

Great. Another bigot with something to prove. I think Hawly might have something to say about you honing in on her hate campaign against Christians.

Bigot? Hardly.

You've made nonsensical, irrational statements not supported by any data and then, when that's turned around and used on you, you immediately squeal "Bigot!"

And there's nothing here for me to prove that you haven't already done is spades.

Sorry to have made you so uncomfy.

What nonsensical statements? Are you referring to my discussions on ID Theory? It not, then the only other statements I've made since you showed up are religious in nature, in which case if your comments were directed at those makes you a bigot.

"God knew when he created the earth that man would sin. But in his wisdom he also knew the glory that would come from the sacrifice of his Son to pay they debt for man's sin."

That's an irrational statement.

Pointing out that that is, indeed, an irrational statement, isn't being a 'bigot'. That, and there is no "ID theory".

Please try and refrain from attempting to reference or use words you clearly don't know.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You are presupposing that there had to be a programmer without establishing this, just in the way you asked the question. You are jumping the gun. In science, You have to start from a place of total ignorance, void of presuppositions, and follow the evidence wherever it leads, instead of leading it to your own conclusions that you already have established, because this is dishonest (this is exactly what IDers are doing). Even in the way you posed this question, it is obvious you are doing this. This question carries an argument from ignorance, once again!

How many times can you scream "argument from ignorance" fallaciously? You aren't fooling anyone.

I'm not trying to fool anyone... just calling out the fallacies as I see 'em.

YWC is positing that there must be a programmer because of what appears to him, something that must have been programmed. He don't actually have any evidence of this claim, but rests on the facts that there is no evidence either way. We are in ignorance to this. Therefore, any postulations about this are an argument from ignorance, necessarily, until there is evidence.

As I am sure are you just dying to point out the hypocrisy in this, let me stop you from thinking too hard. Scientists haven't made any specific claims about abiogenesis other than it is plausible, given actual evidence of what we know about the abundance of amino acids on the proto-earth, the environmental and atmospheric conditions, and demonstrations such as the Miller-Urey Experiment and subsequent improvement experiments that yielded even better results. Scientists have not claimed they know exactly how it happened, because there simply is not enough evidence. This puts us in a state of ignorance. However, IDers are claiming, despite this ignorance, that they know what happened. Hence, an argument from ignorance.

Any other "fallacious" arguments from ignorance you think I have accused you of? Let me know, and I'll gladly demonstrate.

Open mouth insert foot time to close the trap. Did you not know that we can alter the functions of Enzymes to carry out tasks ? in other words program them. Speaking of ignorance thank you for walking through the door of ignorance along with all your buddies I think I took you all down at once.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Never said anything of the sort,try again.

Did you forget you wrote this:

"The same one who programmed the enzymes. I have said I believe that this is one of the mechanisms God has chosen to carry out his setence of death to all who sin."

Annnnnnd the Merciless Curtain of "DOH" descends upon the stage.

The DOH is on you.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Did you forget you wrote this:

"The same one who programmed the enzymes. I have said I believe that this is one of the mechanisms God has chosen to carry out his setence of death to all who sin."

You are under the false assumption that it is all about you. God knew when he created the earth that man would sin. But in his wisdom he also knew the glory that would come from the sacrifice of his Son to pay they debt for man's sin.

Nah, can't be.

I just spoke to God, and he said what you're claiming is bullshit.

You may have spoken to a god but not the God.