Creationists

[Youwerecreated]

No it isn't... Abiogenesis?

Abiogenesis theory is a theory filled with conjecture lacks any real evidence that would support the theory. Many famous evolutionist avoid using this theory as an answer to the origins question. There is a reason for that as I stated.

Says the guy who can't show me with some real evidence where his invisible superbeing is. Man, you're such an idiot.

The Idiots have been exposed,see ya on judgement day girls.

 

[Hollie]

Life comes from living organisms scientific fact.

No it isn't... Abiogenesis?

Abiogenesis theory is a theory filled with conjecture lacks any real evidence that would support the theory. Many famous evolutionist avoid using this theory as an answer to the origins question. There is a reason for that as I stated.

Abiogenesis is a theory not unlike the theory of gravity but abio has not met the standards that would apply such that the theory becomes accepted as "fact".

You should avoid such slogans as "Many famous evolutionist avoid using this theory as an answer to the origins question. There is a reason for that as I stated", There is no indication of who these "many famous evolutionist" are and further, we know from experience in this thread that creationist and truth have a habit of being separated by fact.

 

[Hollie]

Abiogenesis theory is a theory filled with conjecture lacks any real evidence that would support the theory. Many famous evolutionist avoid using this theory as an answer to the origins question. There is a reason for that as I stated.

Says the guy who can't show me with some real evidence where his invisible superbeing is. Man, you're such an idiot.

The Idiots have been exposed,see ya on judgement day girls.

Cheap threats from the Christian fundie using his religion to promote fear and superstition.

 

[Hollie]

Yeah I think I am gonna join UR they can't even be honest with themselves they will never be honest with us.

You poor dear. We understand that christianity is a proselytizing religion and your attempts at that have failed. What you fail to realize is that your lies, falsification of "quotes", deceit and eventual thinly veiled threats of eternal damnation have only reinforced the hopelessness and retrogression that defines the Christian creationist agenda.

It's ironic that you would accuse anyone of dishonesty when you have been scolded, repeatedly, for cutting and pasting falsified "quotes".

No one has ever said you are not free to believe in supernaturalism and magical agents. But when you bring those notions into a public forum and insist - absent any evidence - that scientific consensus is a conspiracy and then threaten people for not "believing", its best you just buggar off.

 

[ima]

Abiogenesis theory is a theory filled with conjecture lacks any real evidence that would support the theory. Many famous evolutionist avoid using this theory as an answer to the origins question. There is a reason for that as I stated.

Says the guy who can't show me with some real evidence where his invisible superbeing is. Man, you're such an idiot.

The Idiots have been exposed,see ya on judgement day girls.

You deny someone's claim because of lack of scientific proof. What scientific proof do you have that your invisible superbeing exists?

 

[daws101]

Life comes from living organisms scientific fact.

wrong! LIFE is living organisms that's a scientific fact.
not the other way around.
life as we know it is a process...living things reproduce ..that's what they do.
it is not however an answer to how life got started.
that's also a scientific fact.
as usual all you did was attempt and fail to put a supernatural spin on the obvious.

If there are no living organisms you have no reproduction,are you such a tool to deny the obvious ? The only one putting a spin on what was said was you.

once again stating the obvious, it is not however an answer to how life got started...

 

[daws101]

Yep fits you perfectly.

your answer is "a psychosis characterized by systematized delusions of persecution or grandeur usually without hallucinations "

Dawsy loath thyself.

as always NOT funny NOT factual NOT original !

 

[daws101]

YWC and Lonestar,

It is with much regret I inform you that I am no longer going to subject myself to the frustration of dealing with the liars and complete imbeciles that populate this thread. This thread degenerated from an actual scientific discussion many pages ago. I will not endure the sick, perverted posts of the sexual deviant Daws anymore. No longer will I subject myself to the stupidity and lack of understanding of logic of NP and his baseless fallacy accusations. Nor will I appeal to his ignorance and lack of understanding of deductive and inductive reasoning, and how they apply to his own materialist worldview.

And finally, this last page is a prime example of what a complete and utter moron Hawly is and only a fool would continue to beat his head against the wall in an attempt to actually pull even one, count it, one remotely intelligent thought out of his/her bigoted head. It is impossible for me to behave in a manner pleasing to God when dealing with such continued blatant stupidity, and moronic, repetitive cut and pasted propaganda. How can you even argue with someone that doesn't even know what it is they are arguing and blatantly lies like as evidenced by her completely ignorant comments about Irreducible Complexity and Meyer's book above? It is an exercise in futility and frustration to even get him/her to stay on topic, and only a saint would be able to deal with such incompetent arrogance and continue to remain Christ-like.

I will check back occasionally to see if anyone who can actually present a logical, opposing argument or who desires to engage in a friendly, civil debate has shown up. But I will not endure the prejudicial, bigoted, and utterly devoid of logic attacks from these clowns anymore.

Good luck guys and God Bless. And for the rest of you, may God have mercy on your souls. Peace out.

will this piece of self indulgent, awful soap opera scribbling be the last from UR. ?

 

[daws101]

Life comes from living organisms scientific fact.

No it isn't... Abiogenesis?

Abiogenesis theory is a theory filled with conjecture lacks any real evidence that would support the theory. Many famous evolutionist avoid using this theory as an answer to the origins question. There is a reason for that as I stated.

is it just me or is that description true for everything in the creationist playbook and the bible?

 

[pjnlsn]

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

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

Can your paper do this?

The sequence:



Perhaps if there was a certain similarity. However:





And, so, again:

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

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

This doesn't follow from the last, which is a response to a collection of statistics on the information capacity of DNA. The second to last quote is still true, and is relevant if that was what the preceding post was to mean that the fact that it (DNA) has some information storage capacity, and that this amount can be converted into other units possibly in a differing number base, like terabytes, or number of blu-ray discs, does not mean it is similar, or has similar origins, in the context of the above sequence.

The information capacity of DNA can be represented as an amount of terabytes. This does not mean it is similar to, or has similar origins to any example of digital circuitry for encoding information, e.g. a flash drive, or HDD, or SSD, or (as below) optical disc.

The information capacity of DNA can be represented as an amount of blu-ray discs. This does not mean it is similar to, or has similar origins to any kind of optical disc, i.e. (simply) layers of plastic and metal with pits and bumps burned into one or more layers by a kind of laser.

The information capacity of DNA can be represented as the amount of college-ruled sheets of lined paper in a given size font which would be required to encode the relevant information into base-2 numbers (or base-4 as is more applicable to DNA) written in some consistent fashion, with arabic numerals. This does not mean it is similar to, or has similar origins to any kind of mixture of wood, pulped, desaturated, cooked, colored, and on which lines of ink are placed as to draw symbols.

Finally, that it can be used to create what is known as a curcuit does not mean it is similar to, or has similar origins to, a curcuit made of some other material(s). That two things can be called by the same name in the same sentence or otherwise does not mean they are similar or have similar origins.

In the context of the preceding sequence.

And to think so is both hopeful and absurd.

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

Literally, this changes nothing. As a note, we both know the answer is. Or in any case, whether either of us have heard of something that qualifies which fits the criteria.

Actually, I think I know what you mean, but as for molecules in nature, and ability to be used for digital information storage, graphene comes to mind, not that I've heard about it specifically for storage...something about flexible transistors, iirc.

But, while this is vaguely interesting, your expected response to your statement (negative) doesn't contradict what I wrote

Overall, that (what you appear to be responding to/implying the opposite of), is just not what I meant. Perhaps I phrased some of the above in such a way that it could be confusing (read alone, that is), but in context, it's obvious what I meant.

 

[pjnlsn]

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.

Calling something by a name doesn't change what it is. You can say it was so dissimilar as to be 'not even close,' but this difference in what you reference is not such that it would make what was before likely unlikely, given both the common definitions of those words and your apparent attitude for what you meant. If the probability before was greater than 3/4, the changes you reference would not render the probability 1/4 or lower, for example.

WTH are you even talking about?

And, similarly to before, with or without minor contextual omissions, and if I know what significance you place on the associated statements:

DNA does not bear any markings of having been designed or made by humans, who are of course, the only known example of an intelligent agent as you speak of it, "anywhere on earth right now," or in the past. And certainly not of any significant similarity to digital curcuitry, of storage devices or otherwise. [One hopes] you were using the word as a form of embellishment, but as it's written....

Also, as a general comment, what is required for DNA to exist at all is merely a process of sufficient orderliness and predictability, one of the possible forms of which is, of course, by definition (and by the definition I think you would give it), an intelligent agent. But this is only one possibility.

As for the rest: Calling something by a name doesn't change what it is, and all relevant corollarys, if the issue(s) is/are actually of that nature, as before.

Either you need to go to sleep or you need to lay off the crack pipe. What are you even saying? Calling cocaine another name doesn't change what it is.

Link please?

Link to what?

If you weren't in the state of mind that you probably are when you think about this topic, I'm sure you would've understood it perfectly, but when I say that labelling something doesn't change what it is, I obviously just mean that one's attitude conception of/towards a thing doesn't neccesarily reflect reality. A hardcore christian might call Cocaine "a tool of the devil to corrupt youth," or something like that, but..... and you can figure out the rest.

P.S. Oh and even more obviously (blindingly so), the "calling..." bit is as to say that you can call it a digital code, but this doesn't mean it is anything more than it is, and it is not a given that it is the remnant of a super-being's science project. ( )...if you know what I mean.

 

[newpolitics]

YWC and Lonestar,

It is with much regret I inform you that I am no longer going to subject myself to the frustration of dealing with the liars and complete imbeciles that populate this thread. This thread degenerated from an actual scientific discussion many pages ago. I will not endure the sick, perverted posts of the sexual deviant Daws anymore. No longer will I subject myself to the stupidity and lack of understanding of logic of NP and his baseless fallacy accusations. Nor will I appeal to his ignorance and lack of understanding of deductive and inductive reasoning, and how they apply to his own materialist worldview.

And finally, this last page is a prime example of what a complete and utter moron Hawly is and only a fool would continue to beat his head against the wall in an attempt to actually pull even one, count it, one remotely intelligent thought out of his/her bigoted head. It is impossible for me to behave in a manner pleasing to God when dealing with such continued blatant stupidity, and moronic, repetitive cut and pasted propaganda. How can you even argue with someone that doesn't even know what it is they are arguing and blatantly lies like as evidenced by her completely ignorant comments about Irreducible Complexity and Meyer's book above? It is an exercise in futility and frustration to even get him/her to stay on topic, and only a saint would be able to deal with such incompetent arrogance and continue to remain Christ-like.

I will check back occasionally to see if anyone who can actually present a logical, opposing argument or who desires to engage in a friendly, civil debate has shown up. But I will not endure the prejudicial, bigoted, and utterly devoid of logic attacks from these clowns anymore.

Good luck guys and God Bless. And for the rest of you, may God have mercy on your souls. Peace out.

He can dish it out, but he can't take it. Go cry you pathetic creationist. Your use of fallacies and misunderstanding of induction will not be missed.

 

[pjnlsn]

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.

We have discussed this earlier in the thread. I will go over a few problems with your explanation.

1. They didn't know what the enviornment was like when they say this could of happened.
2. This was done in a lab by intelligent beings not through naturalism.
3. We get electrical charges all the time on this planet and we do not see these things unless they exist in a living organism.
4. They could not exist outside a living organism they definitely could not exist in a body of water because they are very soluble.
5. They could not exist on dry ground either because of oxygen they would decompose.
6. The sun would have the same effect.

It wasn't to say that this is the way that it is, and there's no possible objection, but just that, and in response to someone else talking about undefinable intelligences in regards to the 'origin,' that the more likely explanations, which aren't just a handoff, if you know what I mean, involve high temperature reactions.

This might sound like an excuse, but w/e. I haven't thought about the idea in several years, though I recently felt the need to peruse more the more recent material, and there was a progression, starting from the work I described into more modern versions. I can't recall exactly, but from the idea that electrical charges transferred energy (indirectly perhaps) in the 50's there came the idea that perhaps, given the lack of Methane content in the early earth's atmosphere, as someone pointed out, that the environment around an active volcano might, instead of the general ocean/atmosphere, provide the neccesary ingredients.

Like this is the once accepted idea that the atomic units everything is made of are beneath miniscule but completely solid, a few decades ago. From that idea came the one that an atom is actually a collection of smaller particles, concentrated in the nucleus, with some orbiting around it like tiny planets, and which have nearly no mass compared to the center, and that it is mostly empty space, it's boundaries being defined by it's electric field. From that came quantum mechanics, and the idea that the subatomic particles which were thought to orbit the nucleus are so small they have no discrete state at any given time, unless being subject to conditions which would force their position or velocity into a specific set of states.

I hope you can see the progression and understand what my point was in bringing up Miller's work.

 

[CandySlice]

YWC and Lonestar,

It is with much regret I inform you that I am no longer going to subject myself to the frustration of dealing with the liars and complete imbeciles that populate this thread. This thread degenerated from an actual scientific discussion many pages ago. I will not endure the sick, perverted posts of the sexual deviant Daws anymore. No longer will I subject myself to the stupidity and lack of understanding of logic of NP and his baseless fallacy accusations. Nor will I appeal to his ignorance and lack of understanding of deductive and inductive reasoning, and how they apply to his own materialist worldview.

And finally, this last page is a prime example of what a complete and utter moron Hawly is and only a fool would continue to beat his head against the wall in an attempt to actually pull even one, count it, one remotely intelligent thought out of his/her bigoted head. It is impossible for me to behave in a manner pleasing to God when dealing with such continued blatant stupidity, and moronic, repetitive cut and pasted propaganda. How can you even argue with someone that doesn't even know what it is they are arguing and blatantly lies like as evidenced by her completely ignorant comments about Irreducible Complexity and Meyer's book above? It is an exercise in futility and frustration to even get him/her to stay on topic, and only a saint would be able to deal with such incompetent arrogance and continue to remain Christ-like.

I will check back occasionally to see if anyone who can actually present a logical, opposing argument or who desires to engage in a friendly, civil debate has shown up. But I will not endure the prejudicial, bigoted, and utterly devoid of logic attacks from these clowns anymore.

Good luck guys and God Bless. And for the rest of you, may God have mercy on your souls. Peace out.

He can dish it out, but he can't take it. Go cry you pathetic creationist. Your use of fallacies and misunderstanding of induction will not be missed.

Poor Urinary. (I decided I'd call him that since he called me Candysleaze~~is that pathetic or what??)

So to you, Urinary I say:
Don't the door hit you. . .well, you know the rest.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

YWC and Lonestar,

It is with much regret I inform you that I am no longer going to subject myself to the frustration of dealing with the liars and complete imbeciles that populate this thread. This thread degenerated from an actual scientific discussion many pages ago. I will not endure the sick, perverted posts of the sexual deviant Daws anymore. No longer will I subject myself to the stupidity and lack of understanding of logic of NP and his baseless fallacy accusations. Nor will I appeal to his ignorance and lack of understanding of deductive and inductive reasoning, and how they apply to his own materialist worldview.

And finally, this last page is a prime example of what a complete and utter moron Hawly is and only a fool would continue to beat his head against the wall in an attempt to actually pull even one, count it, one remotely intelligent thought out of his/her bigoted head. It is impossible for me to behave in a manner pleasing to God when dealing with such continued blatant stupidity, and moronic, repetitive cut and pasted propaganda. How can you even argue with someone that doesn't even know what it is they are arguing and blatantly lies like as evidenced by her completely ignorant comments about Irreducible Complexity and Meyer's book above? It is an exercise in futility and frustration to even get him/her to stay on topic, and only a saint would be able to deal with such incompetent arrogance and continue to remain Christ-like.

I will check back occasionally to see if anyone who can actually present a logical, opposing argument or who desires to engage in a friendly, civil debate has shown up. But I will not endure the prejudicial, bigoted, and utterly devoid of logic attacks from these clowns anymore.

Good luck guys and God Bless. And for the rest of you, may God have mercy on your souls. Peace out.

Your concession is duly noted.

 

[daws101]

YWC and Lonestar,

It is with much regret I inform you that I am no longer going to subject myself to the frustration of dealing with the liars and complete imbeciles that populate this thread. This thread degenerated from an actual scientific discussion many pages ago. I will not endure the sick, perverted posts of the sexual deviant Daws anymore. No longer will I subject myself to the stupidity and lack of understanding of logic of NP and his baseless fallacy accusations. Nor will I appeal to his ignorance and lack of understanding of deductive and inductive reasoning, and how they apply to his own materialist worldview.

And finally, this last page is a prime example of what a complete and utter moron Hawly is and only a fool would continue to beat his head against the wall in an attempt to actually pull even one, count it, one remotely intelligent thought out of his/her bigoted head. It is impossible for me to behave in a manner pleasing to God when dealing with such continued blatant stupidity, and moronic, repetitive cut and pasted propaganda. How can you even argue with someone that doesn't even know what it is they are arguing and blatantly lies like as evidenced by her completely ignorant comments about Irreducible Complexity and Meyer's book above? It is an exercise in futility and frustration to even get him/her to stay on topic, and only a saint would be able to deal with such incompetent arrogance and continue to remain Christ-like.

I will check back occasionally to see if anyone who can actually present a logical, opposing argument or who desires to engage in a friendly, civil debate has shown up. But I will not endure the prejudicial, bigoted, and utterly devoid of logic attacks from these clowns anymore.

Good luck guys and God Bless. And for the rest of you, may God have mercy on your souls. Peace out.

He can dish it out, but he can't take it. Go cry you pathetic creationist. Your use of fallacies and misunderstanding of induction will not be missed.

 

[daws101]

YWC and Lonestar,

It is with much regret I inform you that I am no longer going to subject myself to the frustration of dealing with the liars and complete imbeciles that populate this thread. This thread degenerated from an actual scientific discussion many pages ago. I will not endure the sick, perverted posts of the sexual deviant Daws anymore. No longer will I subject myself to the stupidity and lack of understanding of logic of NP and his baseless fallacy accusations. Nor will I appeal to his ignorance and lack of understanding of deductive and inductive reasoning, and how they apply to his own materialist worldview.

And finally, this last page is a prime example of what a complete and utter moron Hawly is and only a fool would continue to beat his head against the wall in an attempt to actually pull even one, count it, one remotely intelligent thought out of his/her bigoted head. It is impossible for me to behave in a manner pleasing to God when dealing with such continued blatant stupidity, and moronic, repetitive cut and pasted propaganda. How can you even argue with someone that doesn't even know what it is they are arguing and blatantly lies like as evidenced by her completely ignorant comments about Irreducible Complexity and Meyer's book above? It is an exercise in futility and frustration to even get him/her to stay on topic, and only a saint would be able to deal with such incompetent arrogance and continue to remain Christ-like.

I will check back occasionally to see if anyone who can actually present a logical, opposing argument or who desires to engage in a friendly, civil debate has shown up. But I will not endure the prejudicial, bigoted, and utterly devoid of logic attacks from these clowns anymore.

Good luck guys and God Bless. And for the rest of you, may God have mercy on your souls. Peace out.

Your concession is duly noted.

can I get some soda and chips at that concession?

 

[ima]

YWC and Lonestar,

It is with much regret I inform you that I am no longer going to subject myself to the frustration of dealing with the liars and complete imbeciles that populate this thread. This thread degenerated from an actual scientific discussion many pages ago. I will not endure the sick, perverted posts of the sexual deviant Daws anymore. No longer will I subject myself to the stupidity and lack of understanding of logic of NP and his baseless fallacy accusations. Nor will I appeal to his ignorance and lack of understanding of deductive and inductive reasoning, and how they apply to his own materialist worldview.

And finally, this last page is a prime example of what a complete and utter moron Hawly is and only a fool would continue to beat his head against the wall in an attempt to actually pull even one, count it, one remotely intelligent thought out of his/her bigoted head. It is impossible for me to behave in a manner pleasing to God when dealing with such continued blatant stupidity, and moronic, repetitive cut and pasted propaganda. How can you even argue with someone that doesn't even know what it is they are arguing and blatantly lies like as evidenced by her completely ignorant comments about Irreducible Complexity and Meyer's book above? It is an exercise in futility and frustration to even get him/her to stay on topic, and only a saint would be able to deal with such incompetent arrogance and continue to remain Christ-like.

I will check back occasionally to see if anyone who can actually present a logical, opposing argument or who desires to engage in a friendly, civil debate has shown up. But I will not endure the prejudicial, bigoted, and utterly devoid of logic attacks from these clowns anymore.

Good luck guys and God Bless. And for the rest of you, may God have mercy on your souls. Peace out.

Your concession is duly noted.

can I get some soda and chips at that concession?

He knew he was beat, he probably started to doubt his own thoughts, got scared and left.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Your concession is duly noted.

can I get some soda and chips at that concession?

He knew he was beat, he probably started to doubt his own thoughts, got scared and left.

Do you people actually read the posts ? the questions go ignored or worse yet some weak argument is offered as an explanation when there is no evidence supporting the explanation.

I have purposely stayed away wondering what would be said,you guy's are very predictable.

 

[Hollie]

can I get some soda and chips at that concession?

He knew he was beat, he probably started to doubt his own thoughts, got scared and left.

Do you people actually read the posts ? the questions go ignored or worse yet some weak argument is offered as an explanation when there is no evidence supporting the explanation.

I have purposely stayed away wondering what would be said,you guy's are very predictable.

What questions were ignored? Secondly, neither of you offered anything in terms of "explanations" to, for example, the diversity of life on the planret , except silly and pointless claims that "The gawds did it".

That's not an explanation.

Further, neither of you were here to learn or to debate. Your goal was to proselytize, or worse, in the case of your creepy co-religionist, stalking.

We saw in clear and unmistakable terms the attitude of both the YEC’ists and just how retograde your ideology really is: anyone who disagrees with you is sick, stupid, perverted, an imbecile, etc. etc.