Creationists

[Youwerecreated]

how'd I know you'd say that.....false as it is...

Do you understand what conjecture is daws ?

yes I do ...you on the other hand believe that noah's ark is fact....do I need to say more.?

No noah's ark would not be considered conjecture daws,it would be a belief from faith.

So you don't undersatnd what conjecture is.

 

[Youwerecreated]

in your mind that may be true but in reality there is no "who" in nature.
so once again pull yourhead out of your ass.

Daws did you read what was wrote ? The question was daws,what put everything in to motion ?

that's funny coming from a proven illterate!
ther are two parts to your statement.
the first is an unprovable erroneous declarative...
the second part is not an honest question .
it's invalid because of the first statement,which infers there must be a designer
my answer stands.

Still avoided the question ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

You seem have lost track of your own argument. When you ask questions of " evolutionist idiots", it tends to suggest a certain anger and resentment.

If you read the article, you will notice that you're referring to an acknowledgement not made by the author regarding thus "soul", thing. Did you happen to notice that the drug ketamine can reproduce the NDE experience that is connected with this 'soul", thing?

Lastly, I think you should have noticed that I actually do disagree with your questions alluding to this "soul' you believe exists but cannot demonstrate in any meaningful way.

It would be helpful if you could link to any major teaching university hospital or research institute that could provide some data on the 'soul".

Yes I'm aware of who I asked questions to. And you obliged me with your answer.

I use the word idiot not out of anger or resentment but because it's an accurate description. IMO

I read the entire article. And it did acknowledge a soul. I'll concede they did their best to explain it away. But they managed to leave you with more questions than answers.

I've always been skeptical of skeptics.

Here's an interesting article from Psychology Today

Does The Soul Exist? Evidence Says ‘Yes’...New scientific theory recognizes life’s spiritual dimension

Fact is, you cannot admit to there being a soul because then you would have to then acknowledge a higher power.

really i just finished reading that article ,no where in it does it mention the need to believe in a higher power to acknowledge that souls exist

Daws if a soul exists your side have some explaining to do

 

[Youwerecreated]

more proof you're an illiterate! what the scientists did is no proof that an other intelligence did any thing.
the scientists intelligence is HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. YOU IGNORANT ****.

That is a good description of yourself.

So are you suggesting that these Enzymes just entered into a cell with the purpose of identifying errors during DNA replication and fixing most of these errors by chance ? Daws what would happen to all living organisms that lacked these enzymes to repair errors during DNA replication ?

dodge


1

My response was honest and straight to the point.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Yes I'm aware of who I asked questions to. And you obliged me with your answer.

I use the word idiot not out of anger or resentment but because it's an accurate description. IMO

I read the entire article. And it did acknowledge a soul. I'll concede they did their best to explain it away. But they managed to leave you with more questions than answers.

I've always been skeptical of skeptics.

Here's an interesting article from Psychology Today

Does The Soul Exist? Evidence Says ‘Yes’...New scientific theory recognizes life’s spiritual dimension

Fact is, you cannot admit to there being a soul because then you would have to then acknowledge a higher power.

really i just finished reading that article ,no where in it does it mention the need to believe in a higher power to acknowledge that souls exist

Shhhh Hollie doesn't know that.

They would still have even more explaining to do.

 

[Youwerecreated]

really i just finished reading that article ,no where in it does it mention the need to believe in a higher power to acknowledge that souls exist

Shhhh Hollie doesn't know that.

so you lied? ...how christian of you!

Oh boy

 

[Youwerecreated]

Your self assessed superiority is contradicted by your inability to further any meaningful dialogue. I see nothing in the Christian creationist argument that is not rife with fallacious analogies, bad examples and appeals to ignorance, fear and superstition. It's remarkable how you consider cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya as making you superior but I suppose that delusions of supermagical, angry gawds is just one more symptom of the pathology of Christian creationism.

Therein lies the danger. The point being, Christian creationism does not allow for the growth of knowledge. The fundies in this thread have made it clear that from a fundamentalist Christian point of view, humans are inherently evil, base, greedy, etc. That is a self-fulfilling speculation, and given the fact that we continue to survive, to show compassion and to further the benefits of cooperation, the fundie Christian worldview is not empirically true. And because it's not true -- what purpose does the fundie Christian promotion of hate and derision serve? Is it retrograde and superfluous? Yes, of course it is.

Assuming that evil acts are bourne out of the corruption of religion, (or more likely, the influence of religion), is religion worth the price is extracts on human development?

My scientific arguments are not faith based they are fact based.

you just keep telling yourself that

Don't need to or you would have shown me otherwise with all your knowledge of science.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Your comments depict a typical lack of knowledge regarding the science of evolution or more likely, a willful misrepresentation of what you choose to misrepresent.

Your comments are in concert with what is barfed out of creationist ministries. Such allegiance to lies and falsehoods calls into question your personal credibility.

I asked you for an example of your accusation.

then you asked for the wrong thing.
what hollie said is a statement of fact not an accusation.
an educated non paranoid person would know the difference.

Here goes the rhetoric again.

 

[Youwerecreated]

So basically, because the bible doesn't say so. But the earth is round, and the bible doesn't say it is?
A lot of creatures went extinct because of nature changing or something like an asteroid... The most well adapted are still alive. Look, a baby starts out small and unable to talk and it evolves into a talking, thinking adult. Or, I used to eat meat, but my thinking evolved to a healthier lifestyle and I'll probably live longer than my siblings.

Btw, the bible isn't the word of god, it's the words of men.

You are wrong the earth was described as a circle in the bible. That is only theory that dinosaurs went extinct from a giant meteor. That is not evolution a child forming in the womb and becoming an intelligent thinking adult. That is a natural process that was put into motion and that person runs it's course. If anything it would be devolution because the person reaches a certain point then they eventually wear out and die.

that's true but a circle is not a sphere so the biblical description is inaccurate.
the rest of your post is creationist bullshit .

How do you know what was meant with all the language barriers going from the Hebrew language of 3,500 years ago to modern day english ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Dinosaurs could not have faced extinction in the distant past. Ken Ham's creation museum depicts children in buckskin outfits frollicking with those dinosaurs. It really calls into question all of science. Thank the gawds for Ken Ham.

And what about all those dinosaurs on the Ark?

Does ken ham represent and speak for all who believe in a creator ?

only if the believers are ignorant suckers.
KEN ham like you has no right to speak for any one but himself.
I know a lot of christians who know he's full of shit.

I don't agree with everything ken ham has said nor do I agree with everything UR say's. I can agree to disagree with people daws I am not a robot.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Hollie it is time for your side to put up or shut up.

We have put up, for the last 150 years. Your side, however, has nothing but "faith." How cute.

That is why there are a lot of evolutionist walking around using conjecture as evidence for their magical theories.

 

[daws101]

Hollie it is time for your side to put up or shut up.

We have put up, for the last 150 years. Your side, however, has nothing but "faith." How cute.

another empty challenge from Ywc!
Ywc, what will you do if Hollie doesn't ?
claim a false win?

 

[newpolitics]

What fact am I denying daws ? daws according to you theory macroevolution happens through beneficial mutations,daws mutations are errors. What you said last was just jibberish. Daws do you understand what you're saying because all it shows you are ignorant of the theory you defend.

all of them! or do I need to make a list?
there is no macro evolution.
There is no such thing as micro or macro evolution in a scientific sense. They are both the exact same thing, one is just a matter of greater time. The terms were also manufactured in order to lend a false legitimacy to evolution deniers when it was even beyond their denialism to reject observed and proven instances of evolution happening. So instead of accepting a proven fact, the goalpost was moved.

Wrong,there has never been any case of observed macroevolution. They are not the same thing micro and macro evolution. Really what has beeen observed was micro adaptations. Microadaptations have been extrapolated from as evidence for macro evolution.

It is unimportant that we haven't observed it directly because we have evidence that it happened, with many, many transitional fossils that were found, and a few that were predicted as a result of evolutionary theory, and found after they were predicted to exist. For example, tiktaalik perfectly demonstrates how evolutionary theory can make a prediction about what we should expect to find in the fossil record, including where exactly in the strata, and it was actually found where it was predicted.

Tiktaalik - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[daws101]

Your free to find whatever reasoning you want as to why I believe you're an idiot. Although it's not as complicated as you make it sound. And anger nor resentment has anything to do with it. Sorry.

There are scientific theories regarding the soul but you choose to ignore them. Which is quite odd since you except the theory of evolution. But que sera.

I've come to realize one thing while scanning your rant. You're really not as intelligent as you pretend. Of course that's just my opinion. Not subject to debate.

I pity people like. In a sadistic way I wish I could be there the moment you pass from this world. Just to see the look on your face the moment you realize that there is indeed a God and He is sending you to eternal damnation. I know it's not very Christian of me to wish that. But... oh well.

There's no reason to pity me.

I do, however, feel sorry for you. Your need to use your gawds to threaten people relegates you to being just another angry Christian who is consumed by hate. It's pretty clear that your wish for "him" to send me to eternal damnation is more a reflection of your own self-hate, insecurity and inability to resolve your seething hatred for those who reject your appeals to fear and ignorance. You seem to approach your gawds as they are some type of cosmic arcade fortune telling machine. Do you think that your gawds will hear and oblige your calls to condemn the non-believers? Are you the gawds mafioso enforcers?

Surprisingly, I find it to be very Christian of you to wish eternal damnation on me. Your attitudes are largely in concert with historical christianity and its history of violence and intolerance toward non-Christians.

Yes I believe there is. And I do.

I haven't threatened anyone. If you feel threatened by anything I've written .... well...that's your cross to bear.

My wish isn't for Him to send you anywhere. My wish is to be present when he does. Reading comprehension seems difficult for you.

Furthermore it isn't my call to condemn non-believers to hell, God made that call.

And again, I didn't wish eternal damnation on you and whether you believe it or not... I am not angry.

Historical intolerance? You have Christians confused with muslims. I'll concede that during the crusades Christians did kick some butt. But it was caused in the 1st crusade by 3000 Christians being massacred. And the crusades ended around 750 years ago.

Can you cite any recent events that shows Christian intolerance, let's say on the scale of muslim intolerance?

how bout the concentration camps in ww2.
if your answer is: the nazis were atheists you'll be wrong

.

 

[daws101]

What fact am I denying daws ? daws according to you theory macroevolution happens through beneficial mutations,daws mutations are errors. What you said last was just jibberish. Daws do you understand what you're saying because all it shows you are ignorant of the theory you defend.

all of them! or do I need to make a list?
there is no macro evolution.
There is no such thing as micro or macro evolution in a scientific sense. They are both the exact same thing, one is just a matter of greater time. The terms were also manufactured in order to lend a false legitimacy to evolution deniers when it was even beyond their denialism to reject observed and proven instances of evolution happening. So instead of accepting a proven fact, the goalpost was moved.

Wrong,there has never been any case of observed macroevolution. They are not the same thing micro and macro evolution. Really what has beeen observed was micro adaptations. Microadaptations have been extrapolated from as evidence for macro evolution.

that's no answer just creationist propaganda. as always you're spewing bullshit!

 

[daws101]

Do you understand what conjecture is daws ?

yes I do ...you on the other hand believe that noah's ark is fact....do I need to say more.?

No noah's ark would not be considered conjecture daws,it would be a belief from faith.

So you don't undersatnd what conjecture is.

you wish I did not. there is not one thing you have presented that is not conjecture : a : interpretation of omens b : supposition
2a : inference from defective or presumptive evidence b : a conclusion deduced by surmise or guesswork .


please present your version of conjecture.

 

[daws101]

Yes I'm aware of who I asked questions to. And you obliged me with your answer.

I use the word idiot not out of anger or resentment but because it's an accurate description. IMO

I read the entire article. And it did acknowledge a soul. I'll concede they did their best to explain it away. But they managed to leave you with more questions than answers.

I've always been skeptical of skeptics.

Here's an interesting article from Psychology Today

Does The Soul Exist? Evidence Says ‘Yes’...New scientific theory recognizes life’s spiritual dimension

Fact is, you cannot admit to there being a soul because then you would have to then acknowledge a higher power.

really i just finished reading that article ,no where in it does it mention the need to believe in a higher power to acknowledge that souls exist

Daws if a soul exists your side have some explaining to do

only an ignorant asshole would say that.
A soul is just another name for sentience.
as much as you wish a soul means proof of god there is no quanitative or observed action or evidence linking the two..
belife is not evidence.
your so wrong It's funny

 

[newpolitics]

Hollie it is time for your side to put up or shut up.

We have put up, for the last 150 years. Your side, however, has nothing but "faith." How cute.

That is why there are a lot of evolutionist walking around using conjecture as evidence for their magical theories.

Where are there evolutionary biologists walking around using conjecture as evidence? What are you even talking about?

 

[daws101]

That is a good description of yourself.

So are you suggesting that these Enzymes just entered into a cell with the purpose of identifying errors during DNA replication and fixing most of these errors by chance ? Daws what would happen to all living organisms that lacked these enzymes to repair errors during DNA replication ?

dodge


1

My response was honest and straight to the point.

you have no point.
you are trying and failing to endow chemical reaction with a quality it does no process.
enzymes do not have the kind of purpose you wish they did.
by that I mean, you believe but cannot prove that a designer programmed them for that purpose.
you've not shown any credible evidence that that process did not happen naturally.
all you shown is totally subjective denial.

 

[daws101]

My scientific arguments are not faith based they are fact based.

you just keep telling yourself that

Don't need to or you would have shown me otherwise with all your knowledge of science.

not at all, you've already proven that all your arguments are based on faith.
any references to science you've made are not science but an erroneous imitation of it .
ken hamm and his buddies are a fine example.