Creationists

[newpolitics]

Ha!! Now this is funny!! Ima mistakenly thought your new buddy was a Creationist. Since he isn't, you quickly came to his defense.

No, you're not bias!!!!

You are hilariously predictable. I never claimed to be non-bias.

Really?? So now you admit it. And your bias extends to all your opinions on so called science as well then.

You reply does not follow from what was said. I don't know what to call this, other than stupidity. Therefore, I can not respond. Perhaps, if you reformulate your response, we can continue from here.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Nothing worth replying to,carry on.

 

[UltimateReality]

You are hilariously predictable. I never claimed to be non-bias.

Really?? So now you admit it. And your bias extends to all your opinions on so called science as well then.

Are you claiming to be non-bias? Is anyone non-bias??? That is some serious arrogance right there.

What is this double-standard you are putting up, you asshole? For some reason, I am expected to be totally objective, yet you are not held to the same standard? This is SPECIAL PLEADING. You are claiming I am an exemption from known human cognitive biases which we can not consciously control, but you, nor anyone else is. There is something wrong with you.

Can you claim to be non-bias? I hope not, because you are failing miserably.

Is this Loki??? Seriously? You can stop trying to impress all of us with your new found accusations from your copy of "Fallacies for Dummies".

 

[UltimateReality]

In other words, by definition, he doesn't exist.

Your logic is all twisted up. No, not by definition!! Where do you come up with this crap? Because you can't see it, taste it, smell it, hear it, touch it, it isn't real? Yet, your atheist brethren in their zeal to disprove the fine tuning argument for God have come up with the Multiple Universe theory. No one seems to be bugged that the other universes exist outside our universe. You're pathetic and not even worth arguing with.

Nice appeal to hypocrisy, or the Tu Quoque Fallacy. The multiverse theory has nothing to do with this claim, so lets stick with the topic at hand. I never said it was because you can't see it, taste it... etc. I used logic, and said there was no space, no time, no energy, no matter... by all accounts, existence is defined as something which exists in space and time. How does something exists outside of space and time? Can you answer this question without an appeal to hypocrisy? No, you can not. You must resort to dodging the question.

Btw, it is well conceded that no verifiable evidence exists for the multiverse. It is mathematical, at this point. Yet, so were all of the predictions in the theory of relativity, including back holes, and they turned out to exist in the universe, after being predicted purely by mathematics.

You can order your copy too. "Fallacies for Dummies" is on sale right now for the low, low price of only $19.95. Impress your friends. Impress strangers on the internet. No one will ever know what a tool you really are when you start to accuse them of various fallacies. And maybe they won't be smart enough to know you have no clue what you are talking about. Act now while supplies last.

 

[UltimateReality]

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?

another false assuption. i can see why you never made detective... it's either extreme paranoia as exhibited in the prior post or sucking cock in the locker room.
there is no other logical reason why Ur would be so knowledgeable about mouth sores or so perversely interested in homosexuality.
9

there is no other logical reason why Daws would be so knowledgeable about sucking cock in the locker room or so perverse to even come up with something so disgusting unless it was based on his personal experience. Apparently he does secretly wish Hawly was a man and really did have man hands so she could touch him so Ruggedly.

And by the way, I was a detective Douche bag so there goes that theory.

 

[UltimateReality]

You just demonstrated my point for me,entirely. You are unable to take into account, the pain of animals, because of some bullshit excuse you give yourself about self-awareness, and the justification you receive from the bible. Here's the bullshit: First of all, you can't positively know the phenomenological experience of animals, despite self-awareness tests we may have done. Most farm animals are very social creatures, with rights to life just as much as the dogs or cats we bring into our home (in the Western World- I realize China eats dogs). Pigs are smarter than dogs, yet we love dogs and subject pigs to institutional torture and death? Cows are also very social animals too, that want to live.

Really though, intelligence has nothing to do with pain detection. It is an entirely different system in the brain. You are using Descartes argument or William Lane Craig's argument, where he says the animal isn't able to feel pain because it isn't self-aware. This is impossible to establish as a fact, because despite any tests we do, we will never know their subjective experience of the world and of themselves. The only thing that is important, is whether they can feel pain. This is demonstrably, yes. Also, animals have interests of their own, and we completely ignore them for our own. This is selfish, and narcissistic, and what's worse are the bullshit justifications such the ones you just provided.

Unborn babies certainly are not self-aware, so any argument that supports your justification for eating animals could also be applied to babies before they are around 2 years old, when they become self-aware. Your position is based on speciesism, plain and simple. It is special pleading that babies be taken into our moral account, even though most farm animals are smarter than babies and more self-aware. Obviously, I am not advocating we start eating babies, but any argument you try to provide that shows preference for the interests of human babies over adult animals is special pleading. You have no justification to do so, other than the "might makes right" fallacy (appeal to Ad Baculum: appeal to force).

Leave it to you to Strawman this. I did not say animals did not feel pain or discomfort. I said they don't experience it the same way someone who is self aware does.

Maybe you should outlaw lions on the African plain. Those sickos kill and start to eat other animals while they are still alive!!! And your designer made it this way!!!

Also, I am not arguing unborn babies should be protected because they are self aware. I am arguing they should be protected because they are humans!!!

there is no proof that human babies are any more or less sentient then other mammals .

Dr James Kirkwood, chief executive and scientific director of the Universities' Federation for Animal Welfare (Ufaw), gives qualified approval to CIWF's approach.

He told BBC News Online: "Animal sentience has been a matter of debate down the centuries.

"We can't prove absolutely even that another human being is sentient, though it would obviously be unreasonable to assume they are not.

"But the weight of scientific opinion is that it's certainly right to give the benefit of the doubt to all vertebrates."

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Animals 'are moral beings'

tosspot

Apparently, Daws has a little reading comprehension problem. But thanks for the irrelevant post arguing against a point I wasn't making.

 

[UltimateReality]

That is exactly right and why your side should back off being so arrogant. I am not the one arguing from the stand point of ignorance that would be you. I can and did provide evidence for what I believe. Anytime you fellas run out this ignorant argument well how do you know we won't find this or that you have just lost your credibility. You let me know when you find it

We are not talking about gaps concerning your theory,we are talking gaping holes. Life by design definitely possesses more credibility. I said it once, I don't need to present the creator to you he has already done that. I don't need to prove God exist's all i have to do is prove design. Really it was not me it was many that have proved design I am just one who is not ignorant when it comes to this subject and I agree with the ones who say life just simply didn't come in to existence through naturalism.

I always think it is such a joke when they say life happened by accident. Even with our massive technology, we can't take amino acids and proteins and using microscopes and micromachines build a working cell. This is even with intelligent input!!! Yet, were are expected to believe that something we can't even reverse engineer just happened by chance and self assembled itself.

Btw, who said anything about accident. Is it an accident that gravity pulls matter together, forming stars? Is it an accident that a sodium ion (+) and a chloride ion (-) or attracted to each other, and when in close proximity, form a chemical bond? No. There are built-in attractive forces in this universe that set events in motion, without a designer, or a "will." This is all it takes for matter to be attracted to other matter, and eventually form what we call and know and experience as "life." The same attractive forces cause amino acids to form together, and for amino acids to couple together. I know Meyer has given you some probabilities to try and preclude this event from your imagination, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen because you think it is mathematically unlikely. As I said before, we don't have enough information to include in those mathematical descriptions about probabilities for those probabilities to actually mean anything. They are just guesses. Given enough time, abiogenesis is inevitable, and likely has happened and is happening in countless places around the universe. Your incredulity on this matter is your issue.

Wow! Just Wow!! Thanks NP. You just made the Design argument for fine tuning of the universe!!

And by the way, you have feebly attempted to present a necessity argument, which, if you actually read the book, you would know Meyer has easily refuted.

 

[UltimateReality]

For one thing, the point that Meyer makes about the bonding in DNA is that "there are no chemical bonds between the bases along the longitudinal axis in the center of the helix. Yet it is precisely along this axis of the DNA molecule that the genetic information is stored" (SITC, p. 242). It is this fundamental property of DNA that allows DNA to carry the information it does. The bases of DNA do not align in the sequential arrangement they do because of physical necessity or chemical affinity. The arrangement, on the contrary, is arbitrary -- any arrangement is possible, but only some arrangements convey functional specificity.

Meyer's argument also does not say that "x is complex; therefore, x is designed," nor does Meyer commit the "god-of-the-gaps" fallacy. On the contrary, Meyer argues -- based on the standard historical (abductive) scientific method -- that there is only one known cause, one category of explanation, that is known by virtue of our uniform and repeated experience to be able to produce large volumes of highly complex (improbable) and functionally specific information. Thus, in the absence of viable competing explanations, it follows that the most likely explanation for this phenomenon is that it too arose by virtue of an intelligent cause.



From the Darwinist Blogosphere, Stephen Meyer's Trip to London Elicits a Typical Reaction - Evolution News & Views

 

[UltimateReality]

Hawly took exception to the word "machine". Her hatred of science and blind allegiance to materialism prevents her from embracing the truth, regardless of the effect it might have on her psychosis.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GZXRMG5i_w&feature=player_embedded#]BBC Secret Universe: The Hidden Life of the Cell - YouTube[/ame]!

 

[newpolitics]

Your logic is all twisted up. No, not by definition!! Where do you come up with this crap? Because you can't see it, taste it, smell it, hear it, touch it, it isn't real? Yet, your atheist brethren in their zeal to disprove the fine tuning argument for God have come up with the Multiple Universe theory. No one seems to be bugged that the other universes exist outside our universe. You're pathetic and not even worth arguing with.

Nice appeal to hypocrisy, or the Tu Quoque Fallacy. The multiverse theory has nothing to do with this claim, so lets stick with the topic at hand. I never said it was because you can't see it, taste it... etc. I used logic, and said there was no space, no time, no energy, no matter... by all accounts, existence is defined as something which exists in space and time. How does something exists outside of space and time? Can you answer this question without an appeal to hypocrisy? No, you can not. You must resort to dodging the question.

Btw, it is well conceded that no verifiable evidence exists for the multiverse. It is mathematical, at this point. Yet, so were all of the predictions in the theory of relativity, including back holes, and they turned out to exist in the universe, after being predicted purely by mathematics.

You can order your copy too. "Fallacies for Dummies" is on sale right now for the low, low price of only $19.95. Impress your friends. Impress strangers on the internet. No one will ever know what a tool you really are when you start to accuse them of various fallacies. And maybe they won't be smart enough to know you have no clue what you are talking about. Act now while supplies last.

You have just committed the fallacy of being a total jackass, and trying to justify your lack of logic by appealing to ridicule. Way to go! You are really a great debater, UR.

 

[newpolitics]

I always think it is such a joke when they say life happened by accident. Even with our massive technology, we can't take amino acids and proteins and using microscopes and micromachines build a working cell. This is even with intelligent input!!! Yet, were are expected to believe that something we can't even reverse engineer just happened by chance and self assembled itself.

Btw, who said anything about accident. Is it an accident that gravity pulls matter together, forming stars? Is it an accident that a sodium ion (+) and a chloride ion (-) or attracted to each other, and when in close proximity, form a chemical bond? No. There are built-in attractive forces in this universe that set events in motion, without a designer, or a "will." This is all it takes for matter to be attracted to other matter, and eventually form what we call and know and experience as "life." The same attractive forces cause amino acids to form together, and for amino acids to couple together. I know Meyer has given you some probabilities to try and preclude this event from your imagination, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen because you think it is mathematically unlikely. As I said before, we don't have enough information to include in those mathematical descriptions about probabilities for those probabilities to actually mean anything. They are just guesses. Given enough time, abiogenesis is inevitable, and likely has happened and is happening in countless places around the universe. Your incredulity on this matter is your issue.

Wow! Just Wow!! Thanks NP. You just made the Design argument for fine tuning of the universe!!

And by the way, you have feebly attempted to present a necessity argument, which, if you actually read the book, you would know Meyer has easily refuted.

Except that he hasn't, because he can't demonstrate that something didn't happen. Wow, he multiplied a few probabilities together, and voila! He knows that abiogenesis is impossible! What a dumbass.

 

[newpolitics]

Leave it to you to Strawman this. I did not say animals did not feel pain or discomfort. I said they don't experience it the same way someone who is self aware does.

Maybe you should outlaw lions on the African plain. Those sickos kill and start to eat other animals while they are still alive!!! And your designer made it this way!!!

Also, I am not arguing unborn babies should be protected because they are self aware. I am arguing they should be protected because they are humans!!!

there is no proof that human babies are any more or less sentient then other mammals .

Dr James Kirkwood, chief executive and scientific director of the Universities' Federation for Animal Welfare (Ufaw), gives qualified approval to CIWF's approach.

He told BBC News Online: "Animal sentience has been a matter of debate down the centuries.

"We can't prove absolutely even that another human being is sentient, though it would obviously be unreasonable to assume they are not.

"But the weight of scientific opinion is that it's certainly right to give the benefit of the doubt to all vertebrates."

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Animals 'are moral beings'

tosspot

Apparently, Daws has a little reading comprehension problem. But thanks for the irrelevant post arguing against a point I wasn't making.

As if you don't do this, constantly.

 

[Hollie]

Hawly took exception to the word "machine". Her hatred of science and blind allegiance to materialism prevents her from embracing the truth, regardless of the effect it might have on her psychosis.

The Christian creationist industry has effectively preyed upon gullibility and ignorance by adding anthropomorphism to their catalog of bad science and faulty characterizations of biological mechanisms. Both of the Christian creationist fundies in this thread are exploited by this. We see so often the horribly ignorant attempt at analogy whereby they question how it is that cars, buildings, etc., don’t self assemble and replicate as analogous to biological mechanisms. It’s these childish and naïve notions that are furthered by the Christian ministries and accepted as valid by the science illiterate. Christian ministries promote their revulsion of science by recruiting ignorant minions to further their cause.

Accepting the reason and rationality of science, observation, testing, etc., as the criteria for perception is not stripping away anything. Human emotions have their source in natural instincts we see every day in the common animal kingdom. We simply have added sentience and a vast array of texture to emotions and perception that simpler animals do not. Human passion and emotions are a part of the wonder of humanity. That we pay for our emotions with fears and acts of questionable ethics as a price for those passions and emotions. It is helpful to know the foundation of human behavior, but blindly accepting ancient superstitious tales that instill irrational fear and ignorance is particularly furthering of humanity. Accepting and embracing rationality doesn’t strip humanity of anything-- in fact, it enhances it. And it is only in these types of discussions that abstractions of angry gawds are meted out by christian creationists who seek to impose their fears, superstitions and prejudices on others.

 

[Youwerecreated]

This is one of the worst arguments I've ever heard. Our ability or inability to reproduce a living cell has nothing to do with how those cells were created in the first place.

Do you notice a trend ?you keep coming up with excuses why you believe as you do.

Where are you even getting this from? It's like you read every other word, and then try and piece together what I might have said, and then respond to that. You are not even worth responding to sometimes.

I could have sworn Jesus said something about being humble, yet you act like a know-it-all, which is the ultimate irony, considering you have nothing to back any of your claims up!! It's truly fantastic.

" inability to reproduce a living cell has nothing to do with how those cells were created in the first place."

Not being able to form a cell that can reproduce itself just shows scientists have no idea how life came about but you are sure it was not a product of design. You have nothing backing your claims of naturalism and I did give you evidence backing my claim.

Yeah it is tough responding to me because you have no answer for my questions and no rebuttals. I do read your words and respond to points you hint at because most of your posts are just rhetoric. like most people who try to debate with no evidence to support them.

 

[Youwerecreated]

In other words, by definition, he doesn't exist. Nothing predates the big bang.

Then what caused the Big Bang Einstein?

I don't have to know the answer to that, and you don't get any points by my admitting this. So, as much as you think you just "cornered me," the simple and only feasible answer is: "I don't know."

But, apparently, you do!! Because you read a book about it... ha! Your epistemology is laughable. It's called gullibility. You might know it as "faith." Same thing.

Just say it,once again you have no answer for a good question.

 

[Hollie]

I always think it is such a joke when they say life happened by accident. Even with our massive technology, we can't take amino acids and proteins and using microscopes and micromachines build a working cell. This is even with intelligent input!!! Yet, were are expected to believe that something we can't even reverse engineer just happened by chance and self assembled itself.

Btw, who said anything about accident. Is it an accident that gravity pulls matter together, forming stars? Is it an accident that a sodium ion (+) and a chloride ion (-) or attracted to each other, and when in close proximity, form a chemical bond? No. There are built-in attractive forces in this universe that set events in motion, without a designer, or a "will." This is all it takes for matter to be attracted to other matter, and eventually form what we call and know and experience as "life." The same attractive forces cause amino acids to form together, and for amino acids to couple together. I know Meyer has given you some probabilities to try and preclude this event from your imagination, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen because you think it is mathematically unlikely. As I said before, we don't have enough information to include in those mathematical descriptions about probabilities for those probabilities to actually mean anything. They are just guesses. Given enough time, abiogenesis is inevitable, and likely has happened and is happening in countless places around the universe. Your incredulity on this matter is your issue.

Wow! Just Wow!! Thanks NP. You just made the Design argument for fine tuning of the universe!!

And by the way, you have feebly attempted to present a necessity argument, which, if you actually read the book, you would know Meyer has easily refuted.

In the rational world, (not one haunted by childish fears and superstitions of angry gawds and demons), we are forced to make conclusions regarding your nonsensical, supermagical “design” argument because irrational claims and irrational actions to similarly configured fears and superstitions can be disastrous. Your “feelings”, as a concept, are basically no different from the “feelings” which motivated Jim Jones, David Koresh, Marshall Applewhite and a host of other religious loons. How do we know what you “feel” (in spite of your suggestion that the gawds apparently communicate with you), is in fact truth? We are talking about the christian conception of designer gawds who:

a. Created an evil Satan before man was around to be evil
b. Drowned a world
c. Destroyed numerous peoples and cities throughout the Pentateuch
d. Demanded the death of his own kid
e. Will destroy the world again in an apocalypse.

I can’t help but note that your argument for designer gawds must necessarily include credit for “design” of disease, horrendous suffering by floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, fire and other “acts of gawds”. We are also to learn from the other Christian fundie that your gawds actually manipulate cell biology as a means to snuff out sinners. How cool, little Johnny and Jane struggling with childhood cancer in a children’s hospital are being snuffed out by your gawds because they’re evil sinners.

No wonder your christian creationist beliefs cause you such intellectual trauma!

 

[Hollie]

Do you notice a trend ?you keep coming up with excuses why you believe as you do.

Where are you even getting this from? It's like you read every other word, and then try and piece together what I might have said, and then respond to that. You are not even worth responding to sometimes.

I could have sworn Jesus said something about being humble, yet you act like a know-it-all, which is the ultimate irony, considering you have nothing to back any of your claims up!! It's truly fantastic.

" inability to reproduce a living cell has nothing to do with how those cells were created in the first place."

Not being able to form a cell that can reproduce itself just shows scientists have no idea how life came about but you are sure it was not a product of design. You have nothing backing your claims of naturalism and I did give you evidence backing my claim.

Yeah it is tough responding to me because you have no answer for my questions and no rebuttals. I do read your words and respond to points you hint at because most of your posts are just rhetoric. like most people who try to debate with no evidence to support them.

What evidence for designer gawds have you provided? You have been tasked with providing such evidence throughout this thread and you have never done that.

Isn't there something in christianity that says one shouldn't lie?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Where are you even getting this from? It's like you read every other word, and then try and piece together what I might have said, and then respond to that. You are not even worth responding to sometimes.

I could have sworn Jesus said something about being humble, yet you act like a know-it-all, which is the ultimate irony, considering you have nothing to back any of your claims up!! It's truly fantastic.

" inability to reproduce a living cell has nothing to do with how those cells were created in the first place."

Not being able to form a cell that can reproduce itself just shows scientists have no idea how life came about but you are sure it was not a product of design. You have nothing backing your claims of naturalism and I did give you evidence backing my claim.

Yeah it is tough responding to me because you have no answer for my questions and no rebuttals. I do read your words and respond to points you hint at because most of your posts are just rhetoric. like most people who try to debate with no evidence to support them.

What evidence for designer gawds have you provided? You have been tasked with providing such evidence throughout this thread and you have never done that.

Isn't there something in christianity that says one shouldn't lie?

To answer your question Enzymes being designed by altering their functions. The first Enzymes how or who designed them with functions to perform ?

Your denial of the evidence for design is predictable. What is the point of bringing up lying if you believe God is a fairytale and based on lies ?

You also have been challenged to present evidence for your naturalism you seem to have a problem doing so.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Btw, who said anything about accident. Is it an accident that gravity pulls matter together, forming stars? Is it an accident that a sodium ion (+) and a chloride ion (-) or attracted to each other, and when in close proximity, form a chemical bond? No. There are built-in attractive forces in this universe that set events in motion, without a designer, or a "will." This is all it takes for matter to be attracted to other matter, and eventually form what we call and know and experience as "life." The same attractive forces cause amino acids to form together, and for amino acids to couple together. I know Meyer has given you some probabilities to try and preclude this event from your imagination, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen because you think it is mathematically unlikely. As I said before, we don't have enough information to include in those mathematical descriptions about probabilities for those probabilities to actually mean anything. They are just guesses. Given enough time, abiogenesis is inevitable, and likely has happened and is happening in countless places around the universe. Your incredulity on this matter is your issue.

Wow! Just Wow!! Thanks NP. You just made the Design argument for fine tuning of the universe!!

And by the way, you have feebly attempted to present a necessity argument, which, if you actually read the book, you would know Meyer has easily refuted.

In the rational world, (not one haunted by childish fears and superstitions of angry gawds and demons), we are forced to make conclusions regarding your nonsensical, supermagical “design” argument because irrational claims and irrational actions to similarly configured fears and superstitions can be disastrous. Your “feelings”, as a concept, are basically no different from the “feelings” which motivated Jim Jones, David Koresh, Marshall Applewhite and a host of other religious loons. How do we know what you “feel” (in spite of your suggestion that the gawds apparently communicate with you), is in fact truth? We are talking about the christian conception of designer gawds who:

a. Created an evil Satan before man was around to be evil
b. Drowned a world
c. Destroyed numerous peoples and cities throughout the Pentateuch
d. Demanded the death of his own kid
e. Will destroy the world again in an apocalypse.

I can’t help but note that your argument for designer gawds must necessarily include credit for “design” of disease, horrendous suffering by floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, fire and other “acts of gawds”. We are also to learn from the other Christian fundie that your gawds actually manipulate cell biology as a means to snuff out sinners. How cool, little Johnny and Jane struggling with childhood cancer in a children’s hospital are being snuffed out by your gawds because they’re evil sinners.

No wonder your christian creationist beliefs cause you such intellectual trauma!

His so called kid was himself in the flesh.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Where are you even getting this from? It's like you read every other word, and then try and piece together what I might have said, and then respond to that. You are not even worth responding to sometimes.

I could have sworn Jesus said something about being humble, yet you act like a know-it-all, which is the ultimate irony, considering you have nothing to back any of your claims up!! It's truly fantastic.

" inability to reproduce a living cell has nothing to do with how those cells were created in the first place."

Not being able to form a cell that can reproduce itself just shows scientists have no idea how life came about but you are sure it was not a product of design. You have nothing backing your claims of naturalism and I did give you evidence backing my claim.

Yeah it is tough responding to me because you have no answer for my questions and no rebuttals. I do read your words and respond to points you hint at because most of your posts are just rhetoric. like most people who try to debate with no evidence to support them.

What evidence for designer gawds have you provided? You have been tasked with providing such evidence throughout this thread and you have never done that.

Isn't there something in christianity that says one shouldn't lie?

Hollie how come the science community can genetically alter food and animals but they cannot show macroevolution in doing so ? Why do these genetically altered plants and animals not survive and produce a new sustainable species that would survive on it's own ?