Creationists

[Hollie]

Wrong this evidence was provided by the science community. You and your side are just suffering from faulty assumptions.

That's simply false. Science has never provided evidence of supermagical designer gawds who "programmed " anything. Further, science has never confirmed any biological programming.

It hasn't gone unnoticed that you make this specious claim completely absent suppport.

Don't have to provide evidence for God to infer design. You're truly clueless and anyone else that makes a similar claim.

Actually, you do. You are the one insisting that a particular consolidation of gawds is responsible for all of existence yet you demand an exception from offering any proof beyond your typical " because I say so" claim.

That makes you appear to be quite the irrational and dogmatic zealot.

 

[Hollie]

You're free to remain ignorant.

I'm free to point out that your specious claims remain completely unsupported and exist only in the realm of Christian creationism.

Wrong this evidence was provided by the science community. You and your side are just suffering from faulty assumptions.

The science community has provided evidence of your gawds? Have you advised the science community of this?

 

[UltimateReality]

If I know what significance you place on this, then: That the particulars of the beginning of process which proceeds forward in time is not known does not mean that the particulars of the output of the process cannot be known over a period of time between the beginning and the present, to a particular degree of accuracy, and in a particular scope.

If what you were thinking when you wrote it had nothing to do with that, then nevermind. But regardless of how much you dislike it, if I know the comments you are referencing, they are meant in the sense of what is described in the preceding sentence, and in that sense the origin, while obviously not having nothing to do with what comes after, is not required to know of more recent events.

I think it is very easy to accept the belief of a designer when you look at the precision is nature. How can a rational person believe that life came from an undirected process that produced complex organic molecules from simpler inorganic molecules through chemical reactions with an undirected process.

To believe an undirected process took an enviornment filled with chaos and produced the precision in nature we can now see is a stretch of the imagination.

Thank you for admitting though that there is no known process concerning the origins of life because a few of the simpletons here easily accepted abiogenesis as a fact.

It is easy to accept, sure (If I know what you mean, and if I do, that something is easy to accept doesn't mean it's rational, or even likely. For example: Starting from nothing, i.e. if you think of a group of people who have no existing societal/familial influences, it's very easy to believe that the spirits of the dead live on in nature. But this is not rational or likely). But you can call it rational or not, and while as I'm sure everyone who's participated in this threat for very long is aware, and as you appear to reference indirectly, there are some milestone experiments done on the subject, but I daresay that what you would like is something along the lines of complete certainty, and according to that standard, it isn't known, this change between when there was no cellular matter and when there was.

But this certainly doesn't lead to any (unspecified) designer-being.

Secondly, there's nothing about the group of solutions, so to speak, which do not involve god-like beings, which would require them to be only imagined, if that's what you mean.

Thirdly, you would appear to be one who wouldn't think much of an idea if it isn't already (completely) known. But even several decades ago the infinite space of solutions to the problem had been narrowed down considerably, for it was found that all of the complex molecules that allow for life could be produced from elemental (or near enough) substances, when said substances were put under electric current. Incidentally, those elemental substances were likely the composition of the early earth's oceans.

Your last paragraph is far from the truth. Please provide a supporting cut and paste and link. The elemental substance argument is fallacious, as many designed things are made from elemental substances including rocket ships and computers.

 

[UltimateReality]

None of the this contradicts the above. Regardless of it's potential uses, it bears no significant similarity to (e.g.) networks of copper/iron alloyed pathways etched in silicon, be they part of, say, a flash memory device, or any particular example of digital circuitry.

But again, you appeared to be using the word merely for embellishment, anyway.

Nice try. But you just got owned.

Again:

[None of it contradicted what it was posted as a response to]. Regardless of it's potential uses, it bears no significant similarity to (e.g.) networks of copper/iron alloyed pathways etched in silicon, be they part of, say, a flash memory device, or any particular example of digital circuitry.

It's not surprising in any sense that storing information on the molecular level is much more efficient than common examples of digital information storage.

But the fact that you can take the amount of information that, say, DNA can represent, and convert it into units of digital information (8-bit numbers in sequence) does not mean that it has any similarity to digital storage.

You could also convert those numbers into the amount of college ruled sheets of lined paper that it would take to represent the same data, and it wouldn't mean that DNA had some resemblance to paper.

And to think so is utterly absurd. It's beyond hopeful.

Nice try but your comparison is fallacious. Lined college ruled paper is not digital.

Digital: of, relating to, or being data in the form of digits, especially binary digits <digital images> <a digital readout>; especially : of, relating to, or employing digital communications signals.

Can your paper do this?

DNA computing is fundamentally similar to parallel computing in that it takes advantage of the many different molecules of DNA to try many different possibilities at once.[8] For certain specialized problems, DNA computers are faster and smaller than any other computer built so far. Furthermore, particular mathematical computations have been demonstrated to work on a DNA computer. As an example, Aran Nayebi[9] has provided a general implementation of Strassen's matrix multiplication algorithm on a DNA computer, although there are problems with scaling. In addition, Caltech researchers have created a circuit made from 130 unique DNA strands, which is able to calculate the square root of numbers up to 15.[10] Source: Wiki

Finally, please provide me with an example of another molecule, exclusive of any in the cell, that exists in nature that can be used for digital information storage.

 

[musingsofacac]

How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?

Meh. It baffles me.

Is very simple - we believe by faith that the Bible is the Word of God. When the Bible says God created the earth in 6 days(and yes the hebrew is literal word for day) and then we take the very detailed geneolgies of the Bible from Adam to Abraham and then from Abraham to Christ you come up with about 6000 years.

So then we have the question raised by even some Christians who choose not to take the Bible so literally(like the Catholic Church) - but why does the Universe and the earth appear to be older? The reason is that God is perfectly capable of creating something fully matured - he did it with Adam and Eve - they were not created as children, but as full adults.

So yes some of us choose to believe the Bible at face value - if you want to impune that or make fun of it - go right ahead.

 

[UltimateReality]

At this point, your frantic and hysterical claims to have schooled anyone are really quite pathetic. You're reduced to insisting you offered evidence for your designer gawds when you have done no such thing.

Only a person in complete denial would believe as you do.

Not at all, which is why your posts are framed in terms of questions and statements that presume the answer you prefer. It's a common tactic of the Christian creationist ministries

Yours are the common tactics of hate-spewing, bigoted, atheist, militant homosexuals.

 

[UltimateReality]

That's simply false. Science has never provided evidence of supermagical designer gawds who "programmed " anything. Further, science has never confirmed any biological programming.

It hasn't gone unnoticed that you make this specious claim completely absent suppport.

Hollie how is that explanation going for the formation of reproducing cell that just popped in to existence one day and produced all we see through a natural process ?

It's going quite well, thank you. The natural world serves quite nicely as an example of rationalism and naturalism. We have no examples or evidence of how your alleged supermagical gawds have had any connection with the natural world.

Why is it that you cannot demonstrate a single example of supermagicalism?

Yet you would have us believe in supermagicalism of darwinism? Complex micro machines spontaneously generating. You know, Hawly, scientist once believed in spontaneous generation until Pasteur and his colleagues proved what was going on at the microscopic level. It is quite ignorant that you still believe in spontaneous generation. It must come from your hatred of real science.

 

[UltimateReality]

How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?

Meh. It baffles me.

Is very simple - we believe by faith that the Bible is the Word of God. When the Bible says God created the earth in 6 days(and yes the hebrew is literal word for day) and then we take the very detailed geneolgies of the Bible from Adam to Abraham and then from Abraham to Christ you come up with about 6000 years.

So then we have the question raised by even some Christians who choose not to take the Bible so literally(like the Catholic Church) - but why does the Universe and the earth appear to be older? The reason is that God is perfectly capable of creating something fully matured - he did it with Adam and Eve - they were not created as children, but as full adults.

So yes some of us choose to believe the Bible at face value - if you want to impune that or make fun of it - go right ahead.

Not making fun at all since I am a Christian ID Theorists. I just believe that many stories in the Bible are not to be taken literally, and the Jewish people knew this at the time they were written. Do your really believe that you take the whole Bible at face value? Jesus commanded you to gouge your eye out if it caused you to stumble so grab a fork.

 

[Hollie]

Only a person in complete denial would believe as you do.

Not at all, which is why your posts are framed in terms of questions and statements that presume the answer you prefer. It's a common tactic of the Christian creationist ministries

Yours are the common tactics of hate-spewing, bigoted, atheist, militant homosexuals.

Your insensate anger is to be expected from a rejected stalker.

 

[Hollie]

Hollie how is that explanation going for the formation of reproducing cell that just popped in to existence one day and produced all we see through a natural process ?

It's going quite well, thank you. The natural world serves quite nicely as an example of rationalism and naturalism. We have no examples or evidence of how your alleged supermagical gawds have had any connection with the natural world.

Why is it that you cannot demonstrate a single example of supermagicalism?

Yet you would have us believe in supermagicalism of darwinism? Complex micro machines spontaneously generating. You know, Hawly, scientist once believed in spontaneous generation until Pasteur and his colleagues proved what was going on at the microscopic level. It is quite ignorant that you still believe in spontaneous generation. It must come from your hatred of real science.

Christian creationism is not science. That is what you are unable to come to terms with. Your claims to miracles, supermagical designer gawds, etc. are, by definition, irrational.

After all the pages in this thread wherein you insist in cutting and pasting from Christian creationist ministries, you have failed at every effort to present a single, testable example of "the gawds did it". Instead, you have made every effort vilify science, even floating outrageously silly conspiracies in favor of your creationist fantasies.

 

[Hollie]

Hollie how is that explanation going for the formation of reproducing cell that just popped in to existence one day and produced all we see through a natural process ?

It's going quite well, thank you. The natural world serves quite nicely as an example of rationalism and naturalism. We have no examples or evidence of how your alleged supermagical gawds have had any connection with the natural world.

Why is it that you cannot demonstrate a single example of supermagicalism?

Yet you would have us believe in supermagicalism of darwinism? Complex micro machines spontaneously generating. You know, Hawly, scientist once believed in spontaneous generation until Pasteur and his colleagues proved what was going on at the microscopic level. It is quite ignorant that you still believe in spontaneous generation. It must come from your hatred of real science.

Ah yes, the Christian creationist need to use "Darwinism" in feverish attempts to denigrate science in favor of supermagical designer gawds.

 

[Hollie]

Only a person in complete denial would believe as you do.

Not at all, which is why your posts are framed in terms of questions and statements that presume the answer you prefer. It's a common tactic of the Christian creationist ministries

Yours are the common tactics of hate-spewing, bigoted, atheist, militant homosexuals.

Oh my, you angry, frustrated stalker. Yours is textbook behavior for a stalker who has been rejected and slips into a pathology of hate / self-hate.

 

[Hollie]

How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?

Meh. It baffles me.

Is very simple - we believe by faith that the Bible is the Word of God. When the Bible says God created the earth in 6 days(and yes the hebrew is literal word for day) and then we take the very detailed geneolgies of the Bible from Adam to Abraham and then from Abraham to Christ you come up with about 6000 years.

So then we have the question raised by even some Christians who choose not to take the Bible so literally(like the Catholic Church) - but why does the Universe and the earth appear to be older? The reason is that God is perfectly capable of creating something fully matured - he did it with Adam and Eve - they were not created as children, but as full adults.

So yes some of us choose to believe the Bible at face value - if you want to impune that or make fun of it - go right ahead.

Not making fun at all since I am a Christian ID Theorists. I just believe that many stories in the Bible are not to be taken literally, and the Jewish people knew this at the time they were written. Do your really believe that you take the whole Bible at face value? Jesus commanded you to gouge your eye out if it caused you to stumble so grab a fork.

If you were capable of being honest, you would acknowledge your Christian fundamentalist beliefs and begin the process of resolving the hate and self-hate that causes you such anger issues.

 

[daws101]

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.

Why don't you come back when you can actually add a logical thought to the discussion. Thanks for playing.

logical from Ur = irony.

 

[UltimateReality]

It's going quite well, thank you. The natural world serves quite nicely as an example of rationalism and naturalism. We have no examples or evidence of how your alleged supermagical gawds have had any connection with the natural world.

Why is it that you cannot demonstrate a single example of supermagicalism?

Yet you would have us believe in supermagicalism of darwinism? Complex micro machines spontaneously generating. You know, Hawly, scientist once believed in spontaneous generation until Pasteur and his colleagues proved what was going on at the microscopic level. It is quite ignorant that you still believe in spontaneous generation. It must come from your hatred of real science.

Christian creationism is not science. That is what you are unable to come to terms with. Your claims to miracles, supermagical designer gawds, etc. are, by definition, irrational.

After all the pages in this thread wherein you insist in cutting and pasting from Christian creationist ministries, you have failed at every effort to present a single, testable example of "the gawds did it". Instead, you have made every effort vilify science, even floating outrageously silly conspiracies in favor of your creationist fantasies.

You darwinists fantasies force you to vilify real science in order to dumb it down to be on par with your darwin fairy tales and "just so" stories. Your rabid cutting and pasting from Panda Thumb ministries is not a viable substitute for knowledge of the un-darwin-bastardized scientific method. You are left with the evolution of the gaps miracles and blind faith in materialistic processes.

 

[UltimateReality]

It's going quite well, thank you. The natural world serves quite nicely as an example of rationalism and naturalism. We have no examples or evidence of how your alleged supermagical gawds have had any connection with the natural world.

Why is it that you cannot demonstrate a single example of supermagicalism?

Yet you would have us believe in supermagicalism of darwinism? Complex micro machines spontaneously generating. You know, Hawly, scientist once believed in spontaneous generation until Pasteur and his colleagues proved what was going on at the microscopic level. It is quite ignorant that you still believe in spontaneous generation. It must come from your hatred of real science.

Ah yes, the Christian creationist need to use "Darwinism" in feverish attempts to denigrate science in favor of supermagical designer gawds.

Your rhetoric cannot conceal your viscous anger and self hatred. Is it your own self-loathing that contributes to hatred of science as well?

 

[daws101]

hollowhead tried arguing this and got totally owned. God is absolutely mentioned in the constitution. Now maybe not in the context to which you are referring, but he is definitely mentioned.

sorry shit head god is not....the word "creator" is in pre amble and it's intentionally ambiguous.
So your insistence that god is, is subjective.

Wrong stupid. If I prove you wrong will you shut up and go away? Jesus is absolutely referenced in the Constitution. I minored in history dork. I know the difference between the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence but apparently you don't.

then you must have failed!

Myth:
The Constitution refers to Christianity and Jesus.



Response:
Accommodationists and others opposed to the separation of church and state sometimes argue that government support and defense of Christianity is justified because the American Constitution refers to Christianity: in Article VII, the Constitution is dated with the words "the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven." What relevance does this point have for the debate over religious liberty? Absolutely none. This was simply the dating convention, not an ideological statement.

Yes, the authors and signers of the Constitution relied upon a dating system which marks as its beginning the birth of the founder of Christianity, Jesus Christ. Yes, it was custom at the time of the Constitution to set forth dates by writing them out in long hand and to use the phrase "the Year of our Lord." It would have been odd for the document to be dated any other way.

None of this would allow us to conclude that any or all of the authors and signers were Christian (though they were), much less that they considered Jesus Christ their "Lord" or that they regarded him as somehow the sovereign over the government. Quite the opposite, in fact: the Constitution is designed to ensure the sovereignty of the people, not of any religious figure.

Moreover, if the use of this phrase was designed to communicate a favored status for Christianity, why use such an obscure method coming at the very end of the document? Had the authors wished to establish Christianity as a partner with the American government, or even to send the message that Christianity occupied some foundation or inspirational role for the government, they could have done so much more explicitly and in dozens of more substantive ways. However, they did not &#8212; and that silence speaks very loudly.



Days, Months, Years
In addition, if a Christian really wants to argue that the use of Christian dating implies a Christian basis to the government, they're in a lot of trouble because the names of the months and days have pagan rather than Christian origins. Although even conservative Christians today don't give this a second thought, it was evidently a source of some consternation of Quakers who refused to use the pagan-based names.



We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[note 1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


I was wrong, the creator line is in the DOI

ON THE OTHER HAND IF YOU READ THE ARTICLE ABOVE YOU'D SEE THAT YOUR ASSUMPTION IS A STEAMING PILE.
BTW MY MISTAKE IN NO WAY EQUALS A VICTORY OF ANY KIND FOR YOU.
UNLIKE YOURSELF WHEN I'M WRONG I take responsibility for it.


if you were going to argue rationally for for god why did you not use the article where god is mentioned prominently:

When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
2.1 We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.


in Article VII, the Constitution is dated with the words "the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven." What relevance does this point have for the debate over religious liberty? Absolutely none. This was simply the dating convention, not an ideological statement.

 

[daws101]

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

Yes, I would deny evolution. Evolution isn't a mind. I am not offending evolution. My reasons are purely ethical, and the claim that "my body is made for meat consumption" is not entirely accurate. We are omnivores, only after being herbivores long before. Earlier species of hominid were herbivorous, such as Lucy (Australopithecus). We came into meat at some point, and evolved to be able to eat it. Therefore, primarily, we are herbivorous. However, marketing would have you believe you need to be eating meat at every meal, which is probably the biggest cause of cancer in the modern world, especially with the amount of growth hormones and antibiotics present in animal flesh, as well as fecal matter. Try watching the movie Earthlings, if you are interested in learning the awful truth about how we treat other sentient, living beings. I realize your bible instructs you to not care about them, but you could have a little humanity. The only thing I would be dependent on meat for is B12, which I supplement. Problem solved. Go vegan.

You really do have a twisted view of the truth. It is also obvious you subscribe to liberal logic 101. I'm guessing you are pro killing of the unborn but anti fur?

neither of which have any relevance to this discussion, it's just another failed attempt character assassination.

 

[daws101]

Hey daws, I'll interpret and clarify what the fundie christian creationist has managed to lie and misrepresent.

My earlier statement was that "god" was not mentioned in the wording of the constitution. My fundie stalker missed the phrase "wording of the constitution", Further, my post delineated the clear intent of the Founding Fathers that no single religion be acknowledged in the wording of the constitution.

The slathering fundie, insisting on forcing his gawds into the constitution (obviously not what was intended by the Founding Fathers), claimed that a closing salutation "... in the year of our lord" (note, "god" is nowhere mentioned), contradicted my comment.

The frantic fundie still doesn't want to acknowledge his lie and further, is forced into juvenile name-calling in failed attempts to resurrect his still failed credibility.

thanks.
the old year of our lord ploy !

And just who is this Lord they are referring to? Well I'll be! Slap your grandma. It is sometimes referred to as AD or Addo Domini:

Wiki says: Anno Domini (AD or A.D.) and Before Christ (BC or B.C.) are designations used to label or number years used with the Julian and Gregorian calendars. This calendar era is based on the traditionally reckoned year of the conception or birth of Jesus of Nazareth, with AD counting years after the start of this epoch, and BC denoting years before the start of the epoch.

On no though, did the Founders stop there? No they did not. They took the time to write it out instead of using the Latin term just so there was no mistake. It ends with.. " In the year of OUR Lord"

Daws, consider yourself owned stupid. Jesus is mentioned in the US Constitution.

asked answerd.

 

[daws101]

You never heard of biologically engineered Enzymes ? You wanted evidence I gave it to you now you want to move the goalposts ?


Our ability to alter enzymes by inhibiting their functioning abilities has resulted in hundreds of life saving drugs. One example is penicillin, a well-known antibiotic that can cure syphilis, pneumonia, and other illnesses. Penicillin works by bonding to the active sites of the disease-causing bacteria’s enzymes, ultimately destroying the bacteria’s ability to survive and reproduce.

What are Enzymes?

New study: genetically engineered enzyme boosts treatment for rare children’s illness

So I ask you again, who programmed them in the beginning to find and correct errors during DNA replication ?

Will you now resort to intellectual dishonesty by denying the obvious ?

The question is premature. You can not start asking "Who?" until you establish "that" a programmer exists. You have not done so, so the question is non-sensical.

You can ask what engineered enzymes in the beginning, like most other questions evolutionist ask, but once again no answer will come by evidence only by a vivid imagination.

My question still stands since we know that Enzymes can and were programmed with functions.

no it's does not but you keep dreamin'!