Creationists

[Youwerecreated]

Here is another science hater who doesn't believe in evolution:


The testimony of Sir John Carew Eccles (1903-1997), a neurophysiologist who won the 1963 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine

Who was he and what was he famous for?

Sir John Carew Eccles, AC FRS FRACP FRSNZ FAAS (27 January 1903 – 2 May 1997) was an Australian neurophysiologist who won the 1963 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for his work on the synapse, sharing the prize with Andrew Fielding Huxley and Alan Lloyd Hodgkin.

How did his beliefs about the human mind contradict Darwinian evolution?

Although Sir John Eccles believed that the Darwinism could account for the various life-forms we observe today, he did not believe that it could possibly explain human consciousness. He believed on scientific grounds that each and every human being has an immaterial soul which is supernaturally created by God.

Where’s the evidence?

In his book, Evolution of the Brain: Creation of the Self (Routledge, 1989), Eccles was forthright about his belief, which was based on scientific grounds, in the existence of an immaterial soul

Twenty-one more famous Nobel Prize winners who rejected Darwinism as an account of consciousness | Uncommon Descent

Cutting and pasting from the usual christian creationist ministries.

That's in bad form, laddie.

I will stop it when you provide evidence of your engineer.

Let's talk about your designer.

Let's see who is suffering from delusions. What is your evidence that Enzymes evolved the ability to do what we have discussed ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

If you could be honest with yourself, you would forgive those who have wronged you in life, including the man that abused you and is responsible for your unwanted same sex attraction, which is the real reason for your hatred of God and your atheism.

no false assuptions or accusations there ..nope not one...

I will stop it when you provide evidence of your engineer.

Let's talk about your designer.

Let's see who is suffering from delusions. What is your evidence that Enzymes evolved the ability to do what we have discussed ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

really? if you think (and I use the word loosely) that unprovable ravings you use as examples of real science are science then why don't you make a trip to the national science foundation and present your "theory" to them ?
if you're extremely lucky ,you might get to 1 or two of your foreknowledge bits before they escort you to the waiting police car....that is of course is after they stop laughing hysterically..
just a thought.

National Science Foundation?? Those loons???

denial of fact in action! thanks!

I will stop it when you provide evidence of your engineer.

Let's talk about your designer.

Let's see who is suffering from delusions. What is your evidence that Enzymes evolved the ability to do what we have discussed ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Have you somehow missed that you are simply stating the obvious that man has the ability to manipulate enzyme function?

Go lay down and finish your coma.

If you are talking to Daws, its comb-over, not coma.

another false assuption..
baldness does not run in my family.
unlike yours.

I will stop it when you provide evidence of your engineer.

Let's talk about your designer.

Let's see who is suffering from delusions. What is your evidence that Enzymes evolved the ability to do what we have discussed ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Here is another science hater who doesn't believe in evolution:


The testimony of Sir John Carew Eccles (1903-1997), a neurophysiologist who won the 1963 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine

Who was he and what was he famous for?

Sir John Carew Eccles, AC FRS FRACP FRSNZ FAAS (27 January 1903 – 2 May 1997) was an Australian neurophysiologist who won the 1963 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for his work on the synapse, sharing the prize with Andrew Fielding Huxley and Alan Lloyd Hodgkin.

How did his beliefs about the human mind contradict Darwinian evolution?

Although Sir John Eccles believed that the Darwinism could account for the various life-forms we observe today, he did not believe that it could possibly explain human consciousness. He believed on scientific grounds that each and every human being has an immaterial soul which is supernaturally created by God.

Where’s the evidence?

In his book, Evolution of the Brain: Creation of the Self (Routledge, 1989), Eccles was forthright about his belief, which was based on scientific grounds, in the existence of an immaterial soul

Twenty-one more famous Nobel Prize winners who rejected Darwinism as an account of consciousness | Uncommon Descent

got anything even resembling science?

How bout you numb nuts..

I will stop it when you provide evidence of your engineer.

Let's talk about your designer.

Let's see who is suffering from delusions. What is your evidence that Enzymes evolved the ability to do what we have discussed ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

now it's an engineer! changing the name is still no proof....

Dodge !!

I will stop it when you provide evidence of your engineer.

Let's talk about your designer.

Let's see who is suffering from delusions. What is your evidence that Enzymes evolved the ability to do what we have discussed ?

He's not the one saying there is a designer. You are. So, why are you asking him to provide evidence for your premise?? This makes no sense.

Your designer is naturalism.

I will stop it when you provide evidence of your engineer.

Let's talk about your designer.

Let's see who is suffering from delusions. What is your evidence that Enzymes evolved the ability to do what we have discussed ?

 

[Hollie]

Dodge !!

I will stop it when you provide evidence of your engineer.

Let's talk about your designer.

Let's see who is suffering from delusions. What is your evidence that Enzymes evolved the ability to do what we have discussed ?

He's not the one saying there is a designer. You are. So, why are you asking him to provide evidence for your premise?? This makes no sense.

Your designer is naturalism.

I will stop it when you provide evidence of your engineer.

Let's talk about your designer.

Let's see who is suffering from delusions. What is your evidence that Enzymes evolved the ability to do what we have discussed ?

Try this for a search: evolution of enzyme superfamilies

 

[newpolitics]

Dodge !!

I will stop it when you provide evidence of your engineer.

Let's talk about your designer.

Let's see who is suffering from delusions. What is your evidence that Enzymes evolved the ability to do what we have discussed ?

He's not the one saying there is a designer. You are. So, why are you asking him to provide evidence for your premise?? This makes no sense.

Your designer is naturalism.

I will stop it when you provide evidence of your engineer.

Let's talk about your designer.

Let's see who is suffering from delusions. What is your evidence that Enzymes evolved the ability to do what we have discussed ?

We don't have evidence of this period of history. If there was, we wouldn't be having this discussion. You are the one making an argument from ignorance, not us. Stop trying to switch the burden of proof. You are the worst! And UR...

 

[newpolitics]

My first week on duty, back in the early 2000s, I was second on scene to a family of 5 who'd been shotgunned in a gang related incident in their SUV, close range, when they pulled up into their driveway. Parents and eldest kid didn't make it. Two younger ones in the back did. The whole nine yards of opened up heads, body bits all over, the kids in the back crying in car seats, etc...

I just recalled some of the same feeling watching this as I felt then.

All that useless, callous cruelty for absolutely no justifiable reason.

Wow... that's terrible. That must have left an indelible imprint on your memory. I can't even imagine what it was like to see that. I'm sorry to hear it.

It made me realize what I'd signed up for, that's for sure.

That's an insane first week.

 

[mjollnir]

Wow... that's terrible. That must have left an indelible imprint on your memory. I can't even imagine what it was like to see that. I'm sorry to hear it.

It made me realize what I'd signed up for, that's for sure.

That's an insane first week.

That's Salinas, CA, for you. Glad I no longer work there. Love the guys I went through the academy with who are still there.

Southern California, ironically, is far less guns-up and violent that Salinas ever was.

Thankful for the dues I paid, though.

 

[pjnlsn]

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 attitude doesn't reflect the reality.

The miller urey experiment showed nothing of the sort. A designer is not considered rational because you have not seen him but you have seen evidence of him and just deny.

You have not seen evidence of the many theories you defend so by your reasoning you are irrational.

Again:

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.

Or: it showed that it is likely that the materials required for life were produced by mere electrical charges, the most obvious source being lightning. And again, this was known (or was produced, as a result) several decades ago.

Calling something by a name doesn't change what it is. In particular, the definition of rationality, especially in this context, varies a lot.

Offhand, If I know how you would think of and define the term evidence, then there is evidence for an infinite amount of claims.

But that there is some amount of evidence for it does not mean it is likely, or most likely, either of all possible explanations for a given thing, condition, or likely past event, or even of all explanations being considered, which is similar to what my 'point' was.

Also, you appear to be using a different definition of evidence in each sentence. Defined like it might be in the first sentence, the statement about evidence in the second is false, and will be false for most possible explanations.

And similar for the term rational.

In any case, again, calling something by a name doesn't change what it is, and using neutral terms, and just as it was before you responded, my 'point' is embodied in the above quote.

 

[pjnlsn]

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.

I meant that all of the amino acids which are required for life were produced, and a few other things. In addition, another experiment run at the same time, with the idea of volcanic formation in mind, or with the cycle of the experiment having high air humidity in addition to the energy source, produced a more diverse collection of organic molecules.

You may be partially interpreting what was written in comparison to something that wasn't, but what was written was that these experiments were done and that therefore there are certain likelihoods.

Your last sentence doesn't strictly follow, but if you mean that it is still possible that there could have been some kind of designer, this is not surprising.

 

[UltimateReality]

The delusional creep Hawly, who cannot separate here fantasies about me from reality, would have you believe that no science has been done by believers in God. She is the worst kind of revisionist, because she is relentless in her repetitive brainwashing techniques, posting the same thing over and over and over. So much so that those who lack discernment and are easily manipulated like Daws and NP, actually fall for its revisionism. Here is yet another science loathing Christian:

Joseph Murray (b. 1919), winner of the Nobel Prize in Medicine and Physiology in 1990.

Who is he and what is he famous for?

Joseph E. Murray (born 1919) was granted the 1990 Nobel Prize in Medicine and Physiology (which he shared with E. Donnall Thomas) for work that “proved to a doubting world that it was possible to transplant organs to save the lives of dying patients.” Murray was the first to perform kidney transplants. He is one of the founders of modern transplantology.

How do his beliefs about the human mind contradict Darwinian evolution?

He is a devout Catholic, who believes that each and every human being has a soul which is directly created by God.

Where’s the evidence?

In his article “Murray: Surgeon with soul” (Harvard University Gazette, 4 October 2001), John Lenger described Murray’s views on the spiritual aspects of surgery. Surprisingly, Murray believes that each of us has a spiritual soul:

“To Murray, a doctor’s responsibility is to treat each patient as not just a set of symptoms, but as someone with a spirit that can be helped through medical procedures. The title of his autobiography, Surgery of the Soul (Boston Medical Library, 2001), stems from Murray’s spiritually based approach to medicine. Though he has in the past hesitated to talk publicly about his faith, for fear of being lumped in with the televangelist crowd, Murray is deeply religious. ‘Work is a prayer,’ he said, ‘and I start off every morning dedicating it to our Creator. Every day is a prayer – I feel that, and I feel that very strongly.’” (Murray, as cited in Lenger, John. 2001. “Murray: Surgeon with soul: Nobelist’s memoir mixes science and humanity,” in Harvard University Gazette, October 4. Cambridge, MA.)

I actually find it creepy that you're dedicating so much tine and effort with cut and paste articles seeking my attention and approval.

You're only indulging your stalking proclivities.

Yeah, because calling you a delusional creep is a sure way to your heart.

 

[UltimateReality]

Have you somehow missed that you are simply stating the obvious that man has the ability to manipulate enzyme function?

Go lay down and finish your coma.

If you are talking to Daws, its comb-over, not coma.

another false assuption..
baldness does not run in my family.
unlike yours.

I was talking about the haircut YWC just gave you.

 

[UltimateReality]

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?

You're damn right, you piece of shit. I'm anti-fur over caring about unborn fetus' that don't even know they are alive. Animals skinned for fur, sometimes have their fur ripped off of them, while they are fully conscious. Yet, somehow, just because a fetus is human, we should care more? No, thanks. This is where religious morals are skewed and completely ******* retarded. Try watching the truth, instead of being ignorant and a dick...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLcgxIGTFRs]Animals are Skinned Alive on Chinese Fur Farms - YouTube[/ame]

Yep, you just confirmed you are one sick pig. While I agree that is disturbing and inhumane, what do you expect from a nation that has abandoned God like atheistic China?? Horrible atrocities are a sure thing with the brutality that accompanies the loss of compassion which comes from God. Along with your unnatural affection for other men, you also have an un-natrual disdain for the sanctity of human life. Who was it that claimed atheists don't worship the creation?? This is the same type of thinking that allowed the Nazi's to gas men, women and children like they were insignificant pieces of garbage. And this is no doubt what happens when men abandon logic and embrace the law of the jungle that materialism espouses.

 

[UltimateReality]

ah yes I do.....your attempt at finding fault fails, as always.

Daws, YWC is not like that big sore on your lip you got from Hawly. Even if you ignore him he is not going away.

not another gay slur...wow you seem to an expert at what causes mouth sores .....

So Daws apparently you are convinced that Hawly is packing?

 

[UltimateReality]

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 attitude doesn't reflect the reality.

The miller urey experiment showed nothing of the sort. A designer is not considered rational because you have not seen him but you have seen evidence of him and just deny.

You have not seen evidence of the many theories you defend so by your reasoning you are irrational.

Again:

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.

Or: it showed that it is likely that the materials required for life were produced by mere electrical charges, the most obvious source being lightning. And again, this was known (or was produced, as a result) several decades ago.

Calling something by a name doesn't change what it is. In particular, the definition of rationality, especially in this context, varies a lot.

Offhand, If I know how you would think of and define the term evidence, then there is evidence for an infinite amount of claims.

But that there is some amount of evidence for it does not mean it is likely, or most likely, either of all possible explanations for a given thing, condition, or likely past event, or even of all explanations being considered, which is similar to what my 'point' was.

Also, you appear to be using a different definition of evidence in each sentence. Defined like it might be in the first sentence, the statement about evidence in the second is false, and will be false for most possible explanations.

And similar for the term rational.

In any case, again, calling something by a name doesn't change what it is, and using neutral terms, and just as it was before you responded, my 'point' is embodied in the above quote.

Unfortunately, you have contracted Hawly's disease and apparently believe if you keep repeating the same post over and over it will add some legitimacy to it. There is no truth to your claims. The experiment you refer to is ONE experiment and now there is evidence the ancient atmosphere was not even close to the one proposed in the experiment. Why not default to Lyell's and Darwins methodology? They did not look for some supermagical explanation, none of which has ever been observed occurring naturally. No, they looked for causes now in operation to explain the distant past. And still the best explanation for the digital code in dna is intelligence. Now whether that was an alien or some other Being that pre-existed our universe, we just can't say 100% since this is historical science. But we can look around and make solid observations that complex, functional information systems don't spontaneously pop into existence by some supermagical naturalistic darwinian process.

 

[UltimateReality]

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.

I meant that all of the amino acids which are required for life were produced, and a few other things. In addition, another experiment run at the same time, with the idea of volcanic formation in mind, or with the cycle of the experiment having high air humidity in addition to the energy source, produced a more diverse collection of organic molecules.

You may be partially interpreting what was written in comparison to something that wasn't, but what was written was that these experiments were done and that therefore there are certain likelihoods.

Your last sentence doesn't strictly follow, but if you mean that it is still possible that there could have been some kind of designer, this is not surprising.

Link please? So we can all have a good laugh.

 

[newpolitics]

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?

You're damn right, you piece of shit. I'm anti-fur over caring about unborn fetus' that don't even know they are alive. Animals skinned for fur, sometimes have their fur ripped off of them, while they are fully conscious. Yet, somehow, just because a fetus is human, we should care more? No, thanks. This is where religious morals are skewed and completely ******* retarded. Try watching the truth, instead of being ignorant and a dick...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLcgxIGTFRs]Animals are Skinned Alive on Chinese Fur Farms - YouTube[/ame]

Yep, you just confirmed you are one sick pig. While I agree that is disturbing and inhumane, what do you expect from a nation that has abandoned God?? Along with your unnatural affection for other men, you also have an un-natrual disdain for the sanctity of human life. Who was it that claimed atheists don't worship the creation?? This is the same type of thinking that allowed the Nazi's to gas men, women and children like they were insignificant pieces of garbage. And this is no doubt what happens when men abandon logic and embrace the law of the jungle that materialism espouses.

I find it hilarious that you think our lack of compassion for animals is caused by our "distance from god" when the holy shitbook says this:

"Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." Gen. 1:26

If anything, it is because of religious adherence that people exhibit speciesist mentalities. Atheism frees one from this doctrine, and allows you to see that animal pain is the same as human pain. They possess a central nervous system, just as we do. The ability to add 2+2 has nothing to do with pain detection.

 

[newpolitics]

It made me realize what I'd signed up for, that's for sure.

That's an insane first week.

That's Salinas, CA, for you. Glad I no longer work there. Love the guys I went through the academy with who are still there.

Southern California, ironically, is far less guns-up and violent that Salinas ever was.

Thankful for the dues I paid, though.

Were you a Police Officer or an investigator?