Creationists

[Hollie]

I can't change your mind no matter what I provide for you,the only one that can change your mind is yourself.

Evidence will not change ones mind unless they are open to being wrong and allow correction.

Evidence would negate the need for blind faith.

You may also have faith in the existence of invisible pink unicorns and aliens. Who cares?

Is lack of evidence in those entities also a reason to worship them? Why don't you pray at the altar of alien spaceships or Bigfoot? Those entities are just as rational as your imaginary gawds.

You have yet to offer evidence to back your claims for the questions that was asked of you. Did you think we forgot ?

Sidestepping and obfuscation on your part reinforces the hopelessness and confusion that defines blind faith in ancient superstitions.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Evidence would negate the need for blind faith.

You may also have faith in the existence of invisible pink unicorns and aliens. Who cares?

Is lack of evidence in those entities also a reason to worship them? Why don't you pray at the altar of alien spaceships or Bigfoot? Those entities are just as rational as your imaginary gawds.

You have yet to offer evidence to back your claims for the questions that was asked of you. Did you think we forgot ?

Sidestepping and obfuscation on your part reinforces the hopelessness and confusion that defines blind faith in ancient superstitions.

Once again, Dodge!

 

[ima]

You would like to think so.

Ok, whatcha got?

I can't change your mind no matter what I provide for you,the only one that can change your mind is yourself.

Evidence will not change ones mind unless they are open to being wrong and allow correction.

MASSIVE COP OUT ALERT!!!!!

cmon, help me out here, you must have at least SOME proof.

 

[Hollie]

You have yet to offer evidence to back your claims for the questions that was asked of you. Did you think we forgot ?

Sidestepping and obfuscation on your part reinforces the hopelessness and confusion that defines blind faith in ancient superstitions.

Once again, Dodge!

You've run out of cut and paste material?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Sidestepping and obfuscation on your part reinforces the hopelessness and confusion that defines blind faith in ancient superstitions.

Once again, Dodge!

You've run out of cut and paste material?

I have presented evidence for intelligent design. Can you now present evidence for naturalism,mainly on the topic we were discussing. How did a natural process cause Enzymes to evolve the ability to spot and correct errors during DNA replication ?

What is the purpose of this function ?

Either way say I have no evidence or provide the evidence, then we can move on to something else I would like to address.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Ok, whatcha got?

I can't change your mind no matter what I provide for you,the only one that can change your mind is yourself.

Evidence will not change ones mind unless they are open to being wrong and allow correction.

MASSIVE COP OUT ALERT!!!!!

cmon, help me out here, you must have at least SOME proof.

Pay attention Ima, I will once again expose the ignorance.

 

[ima]

I can't change your mind no matter what I provide for you,the only one that can change your mind is yourself.

Evidence will not change ones mind unless they are open to being wrong and allow correction.

MASSIVE COP OUT ALERT!!!!!

cmon, help me out here, you must have at least SOME proof.

Pay attention Ima, I will once again expose the ignorance.

Wtf does that mean? You have nothing and you're exposing your own ignorance?

 

[Youwerecreated]

MASSIVE COP OUT ALERT!!!!!

cmon, help me out here, you must have at least SOME proof.

Pay attention Ima, I will once again expose the ignorance.

Wtf does that mean? You have nothing and you're exposing your own ignorance?

Hide and watch.

 

[daws101]

that's a little rude.

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!!!!

how about, i just found it rude, and thought i would mention it, because i was having a nice discussion with this person, learning about some real shit. Again, you use your faulty intuition to fill your own head with what you want to believe. You might as well be a solipsist. You'd be a good one!

ur is a solipsist! How could he be any thing else?:d

 

[daws101]

Nothing worth replying to,carry on.

if that's so WHY did you reply?

 

[daws101]

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.

another not even original failed attempt at character assassination.
BTW it was you, who inferred cock sucking by using the mouth sore reference and your never ending gay innuendo,the only way to gain that much knowledge is by the "hands on" method.
my "theory" stands.
if there were a perversion scale you'd pin the needle.
Definition of PERVERSION
"an aberrant sexual practice or interest especially when habitual"
the sheer number of your posts with slurs and innuendo proves my "theory" correct.
Thanks for giving me your new name fron now on I'll call you: detective Douche bag!

 

[daws101]

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 always detective douche bag intentionally misinterprets.. being human is not a rational reason why.

 

[Hollie]

Once again, Dodge!

You've run out of cut and paste material?

I have presented evidence for intelligent design. Can you now present evidence for naturalism,mainly on the topic we were discussing. How did a natural process cause Enzymes to evolve the ability to spot and correct errors during DNA replication ?

What is the purpose of this function ?

Either way say I have no evidence or provide the evidence, then we can move on to something else I would like to address.

You have never provided evidence of your gawds. As you are the one claiming your Christian gawds are the "designers" in your ID fantasy, it falls to you to offer some testable support for your gawds. Where is that testable evidence?

 

[daws101]

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.

To respond to your designer enzymes: which gawds produced the first enzyme? Support your claim.

Science has not determined the precise biological mechanism that blossomed the first enzyme. Your default position is that one or more of your designer gawds did so, without providing a shred of evidence.

Your refusal to provide evidence of your claimed designer gawds is predictable. It has been the history of your posting: claims absent any evidence.

How did they happen to have beneficial functions hollie ?

by products-
here's an anology that is also a fact (let's see how fast you deny it!)

Three billion years ago single-celled underwater bacteria used sunlight to convert carbon dioxide and water into tiny oxygen bubbles. Soon plants were turning an atmosphere full of volcanic carbon dioxide into oxygen. As we learn in this video segment from Interactive NOVA: "Earth," photosynthesis created a good home for animals and humans, though not for some primitive organisms. They had to retreat to where oxygen couldn't reach them. Join researchers as they search for these organisms, now considered tiny time capsules from a time before there was oxygen on Earth.
Teachers' Domain: Life Before Oxygen
no super natural help needed.

 

[daws101]

His so called kid was himself in the flesh.

A superstitious tale.

How do you know ?

simple! there is no direct or corroborating evidence to prove it. that's how.

 

[daws101]

How come these enzymes functions are to guard agains't mutations ? I would say in the long run too many mutations would destroy the population they were ocurring in.

But mutations happen. Why are your gawds such incompetent designers?

I will answer it again,sin. Not incompetence purposeful punishment.

(cue buzzer)
a declarative statement with no basis in fact....

 

[daws101]

No. He is saying the discoveries they have made disprove macroevolution so if the Naturalists want to stick to naturalism as an explanation, its time for them to look for another theory that science actually supports, not a 160 year old fairy tale based on bird beaks.

No, he's actually saying he is clueless as macroevolution has not been disproved.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

The fact of evolution is not disputed by science. Bottom line is that an argument that arbitrarily picks a point on some presumed chain of causality and calls it "Gawds" is not an argument of any value to anybody. It helps no one's sectarian position.

We have vast amounts of hard scientific evidence that demonstrates evolution has actually taken place. For example, we have large collections of transitional fossils that record the evolution of mammals from reptiles, birds from dinosaurs, amphibians from fish, whales from land dwelling four legged artiodactyls, etc. Genetic evidence now allows us to also track such relationships at the biochemical level. Similar evidence comes from geology, anatomy, ecology, population genetics and related fields. That's the outline. But against all that, you counter with "The Gawds Did It". Although no human has lived for millions of years, the processes of evolution leave behind plenty of evidence to be tested. We can compare and contrast the features of living organisms and see that they fall into a nested hierarchy of characteristics. (This was known long before Darwin, by the way.) We can examine the fossil evidence of different ages and see how skeletal structures have changed over time. We now can compare particular DNA sequences and immunology and fetal development in a variety of creatures. We apply what we know about biology, about genetics, about cell development, and so on, to the results.

Dr Douglas Theobald is an Idelogue,he presents micro adaptations as macroevolution. Look the whole science community except for the loons know there has never been a case of macroevolution being observed. Hollie talk origins will decompose your brain.


A Critique of Douglas Theobald’s
“29 Evidences for Macroevolution”
by Ashby Camp
Introduction Part 1

© 2001 Ashby L. Camp. All Rights Reserved.


. . . Earth’s crammed with heaven,
And every common bush afire with God:
But only he who sees, takes off his shoes,
The rest sit round it, and pluck blackberries,
And daub their natural faces unaware
More and more, from the first similitude.

Elizabeth Barrett Browning, Aurora Leigh VII.821-22


NOTE: The paper critiqued in this article was subsequently changed by Mr. Theobald, who also published a criticism of this article—and changed it too, after Mr. Camp responded. Neither this article, nor Mr. Camp’s response to Theobald’s criticism, have been altered to accommodate Mr. Theobold’s on-going adjustments and modifications.

am convinced that various groups of organisms had an independent, nonevolutionary origin. More specifically, I believe the founding members of these groups were created miraculously and separately by God. Douglas Theobald, on the other hand, is convinced that all organisms (except the first) descended from a single, original species.

In “29 Evidences for Macroevolution,” Dr. Theobald sets forth the evidence that he believes proves scientifically that all organisms share the same biological ancestor. In this critique, I argue that his evidence is insufficient to establish that proposition.

Read the rest here. - A Critique of ''29 Evidences for Macroevolution'' - Intro -

invald source.

 

[daws101]

Dr Douglas Theobald is an Idelogue,he presents micro adaptations as macroevolution. Look the whole science community except for the loons know there has never been a case of macroevolution being observed. Hollie talk origins will decompose your brain.


A Critique of Douglas Theobald’s
“29 Evidences for Macroevolution”
by Ashby Camp
Introduction Part 1

© 2001 Ashby L. Camp. All Rights Reserved.


. . . Earth’s crammed with heaven,
And every common bush afire with God:
But only he who sees, takes off his shoes,
The rest sit round it, and pluck blackberries,
And daub their natural faces unaware
More and more, from the first similitude.

Elizabeth Barrett Browning, Aurora Leigh VII.821-22


NOTE: The paper critiqued in this article was subsequently changed by Mr. Theobald, who also published a criticism of this article—and changed it too, after Mr. Camp responded. Neither this article, nor Mr. Camp’s response to Theobald’s criticism, have been altered to accommodate Mr. Theobold’s on-going adjustments and modifications.

am convinced that various groups of organisms had an independent, nonevolutionary origin. More specifically, I believe the founding members of these groups were created miraculously and separately by God. Douglas Theobald, on the other hand, is convinced that all organisms (except the first) descended from a single, original species.

In “29 Evidences for Macroevolution,” Dr. Theobald sets forth the evidence that he believes proves scientifically that all organisms share the same biological ancestor. In this critique, I argue that his evidence is insufficient to establish that proposition.

Read the rest here. - A Critique of ''29 Evidences for Macroevolution'' - Intro -

I thought the science link would send the Christian fundies scrambling.

As it turns out, their only option is to link to another Christian fundie. From the fundie link:

"I am convinced that various groups of organisms had an independent, nonevolutionary origin. More specifically, I believe the founding members of these groups were created miraculously and separately by God."

Well sure, "the gawds did it"


Anti-evolutionist Ashby Camp has penned a critique of these "29 Evidences of Macroevolution," which can be found posted at TrueOrigin. Camp's critique is well-written, very thorough, and quite lengthy (the criticism is longer than the original article). Although I intend to address Camp's concerns in totality, currently I can only devote a limited amount of time to this effort. In the meantime, this partial response will suffice. I would like to thank Camp for his congenial criticism. It has given me the impetus to rework and expand the "29 Evidences," and the result is a more comprehensive, clearer, and stronger article.

My response has been two-fold. First, I have incorporated new material into the original essay that specifically addresses many of Camp's points, and thus much of his response is now superfluous. Second, in the following sections I rebut the more egregious errors found in Camp's criticism, especially ones that would interrupt the flow and thrust of the original article if they were included there. In the following response, Camp's words are indented in grey boxes, set apart from mine. Material that Camp has quoted in his criticism is also in the grey boxes, surrounded by quotes, and followed by the pertinent external reference.

Mr. Camp's critique is error-ridden in various ways, and is primarily characterized by:

1. Straw man arguments 2. Red herrings 3. Self-contradictions 4. Equivocation 5. Two wrongs make a right 6. Fallacies of accident and converse accident 7. Ignoratio elenchi 8. Naive theological assumptions 9. Insufficient knowledge of basic biology, molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics 10. Misunderstanding of the scientific method 11. Forwarding of untestable competing "hypotheses" 12. Mischaracterization of evolutionary theory 13. Misleading mis-quotes 14. Fallacies of accent 15. Distortion of scientific controversies 16. Arguments from authority 17. False analogies

The repeated use of these errors and others in Camp's "Critique" will be abundantly clear in the following rebuttal.

Note: Since the time I wrote this reply, Mr. Camp has responded to this in a shorter article entitled "Camp answers Theobald." The elements which I felt deserve some mention are included here enclosed in green boxes.

The most hilarious part of your response is that you believe your link showed REAL science. Your brain is so dumb down from the pseudoscience thinking of evolution it is obvious you can no longer tell the difference.

you just keep believing that detective douche bag.....
your denial of fact is no proof.

 

[daws101]

poor np, there's those darn "fractions" again. We are back to the probability arguments again and once again, you lose! For some of the values below, there are an infinite number of other possibilities that wouldn't have even resulted in a universe with stars and planets, much less life. So what is the fraction 1/infinity?

[reasons to believe : Fine-tuning for life in the universe

wall of text .......invalid source..........false premise.....

 

[daws101]

Yep another question they will avoid like the plague.

gawds? First you need to go back and try passing grade school before making a public fool out of yourself.

Another empty accusation.

HARDLY.... you might have passed but any real learning was lost when you started filling the void with superstion and non sense.