Creationists

[Hollie]

YWC, more info on left-handed amino acids. Presented in honor of Daws, who never responded to your questions to him on this topic.

CEH: Left-Handed Amino Acid Puzzle Remains

It is actually more fun to sit back and watch the liars at work. YWC was questioning Daws on Chirality back in August but he accuses YWC of using a NEW buzz word and Hawly like the sheeple that she is just falls in lock step and runs with it. See several post above were she reports Daws term about a new buzz word over and over. These people can't even remember what was said a few months ago, so how to you expect them to remember anything else related to this topic??? Their knowldege base is only as relevant as their last cut and paste, many of which they have proven they haven't even read because they are not related to the topic.

It's actually fun to read the whining of the petulant fundies, forever "threatening" to leave, only to have them thrash their way back with cut and paste nonsense.

 

[Hollie]

It appears that the Christian YEC'ists are "quote-mining" from the Watchtower cult.


From talkorigins"

Claim CB040:

The twenty amino acids used by life are all the left-handed variety. This is very unlikely to have occurred by chance.

Source:

Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, pg. 43

Response:

1. The amino acids that are used in life, like most other aspects of living things, are very likely not the product of chance. Instead, they likely resulted from a selection process. A simple peptide replicator can amplify the proportion of a single handedness in an initially random mixture of left- and right-handed fragments (Saghatelian et al. 2001; TSRI 2001). Self-assemblies on two-dimensional surfaces can also amplify a single handedness (Zepik et al. 2002). Serine forms stable clusters of a single handedness which can select other amino acids of like handedness by subtituting them for serine; these clusters also incorporate other biologically important molecules such as glyceraldehyde, glucose, and phosphoric acid (Takats et al. 2003). An excess of handedness in one kind of amino acid catalyzes the handedness of other organic products, such as threose, which may have figured prominently in proto-life (Pizzarello and Weber 2004).

 

[Youwerecreated]

Who do you speak of? What is the context? What was said?

Dawkins and crick and a few others google it.

This is more of your tactic of "quote-mining" where you cut and paste edited portions and out of context snippets of "quotes" that are selectively parsed from wider context.

Just for you hollie.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKP3tMlg0II]Has Science Buried God (John Lennox vs Richard Dawkins) FULL DEBATE - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Youwerecreated]

WoW! This douchesack actually quit a job because the others wouldn't pretend to see an invisible superbeing like he does.

I new they were wrong and I made my money and moved on I didn't move on and sponge off the government.

You probably didn't like working with coons either.

Why do you force your bigotry on me ?

 

[Hollie]

Dawkins and crick and a few others google it.

This is more of your tactic of "quote-mining" where you cut and paste edited portions and out of context snippets of "quotes" that are selectively parsed from wider context.

Just for you hollie.

Sorry dear, but while YouTube videos may suffice for Christian creationists to believe in gawds, they're hardly convincing of anything.

Do you find it strange that Christian creationist ministries are doing nothing in terms of actual research to connect amino acids with supermagical intervention? Is that because the creation ministries have already conceded there is nothing supermagical about amino acids?

 

[Youwerecreated]

YWC, more info on left-handed amino acids. Presented in honor of Daws, who never responded to your questions to him on this topic.

CEH: Left-Handed Amino Acid Puzzle Remains

It is actually more fun to sit back and watch the liars at work. YWC was questioning Daws on Chirality back in August but he accuses YWC of using a NEW buzz word and Hawly like the sheeple that she is just falls in lock step and runs with it. See several post above were she reports Daws term about a new buzz word over and over. These people can't even remember what was said a few months ago, so how to you expect them to remember anything else related to this topic??? Their knowldege base is only as relevant as their last cut and paste, many of which they have proven they haven't even read because they are not related to the topic.

So actually daws did not know what we were talking about or he is a delibrate liar knowing we spoke of chirality

 

[Youwerecreated]

This is more of your tactic of "quote-mining" where you cut and paste edited portions and out of context snippets of "quotes" that are selectively parsed from wider context.

Just for you hollie.

Sorry dear, but while YouTube videos may suffice for Christian creationists to believe in gawds, they're hardly convincing of anything.

Do you find it strange that Christian creationist ministries are doing nothing in terms of actual research to connect amino acids with supermagical intervention? Is that because the creation ministries have already conceded there is nothing supermagical about amino acids?

Quote mining you claimed, now you can see it in dawkins own words.

 

[Hollie]

Just for you hollie.

Sorry dear, but while YouTube videos may suffice for Christian creationists to believe in gawds, they're hardly convincing of anything.

Do you find it strange that Christian creationist ministries are doing nothing in terms of actual research to connect amino acids with supermagical intervention? Is that because the creation ministries have already conceded there is nothing supermagical about amino acids?

Quote mining you claimed, now you can see it in dawkins own words.

I didn’t watch the video but it certainly seems strange (hypocritical is a better term), that you, of all people, would be whining about “quote-mining”. You are easily the worst offender of copying and pasting falsified, altered and out of context “quotes”.

What is your obsession with Dawkins? Obviously, he’s outspoken about creationist propaganda and as a visible opponent to Christian fundamentalists, he’s an obvious target for fundies to hate. But clearly, creationism has failed on its own lack of credibility, merit and accountability.

Apparently, you are unconcerned (or more likely, see any argument in support of Christian creationist ministry “research” as a dead end.)

US churches fleece their congregations for something like 90 billion dollars a year. Conversely, the budget for the NIH is something like 31 billion per year.

How much of that 90 billion is spent on creationist “research”? It’s about 0 (zero) dollars. Creationism is a science boat-anchor not a science enabler. What is pretty clear is that there is an implied or explicit acknowledgement that “creationist research” is an oxymoron. What we do see with hapless Christian creationist “science” claims are embarrassing and dishonest gaffs such as the Disco ‘Tute having to phony-up pictures of a creationist “lab” and a “research” program that simply doesn’t exist.

Quite clearly, research is expensive. Research also implies that results of testing will be put before peer review. The Christian creationist ministries know full well that there are no tests available for their absurd and fantastical claims to supermagicalism and designer gawds. What the Christian creationist charlatans understand is that It is easier and less costly to make unsupported claims challenging science while alluding to language and bluster that hopes to convey an impression of authority.

 

[PretentiousGuy]

No, my problem is they see obvious evidence of design and dismiss it. Hell you even have well known evolutionist admitting to things looking designed but then go on to say they arose through a natural process to which they have zero evidence for.

Who do you speak of? What is the context? What was said?

What is the teleological argument for the existence of God?

The quotes are heavily edited with several ellipses, context is not given. But I put no stock in either man beyond Crick's contribution to genetics, so on to the actual point I suppose.

This is clearly a spring board to get into the teleological argument that Im sure has been discussed ad nauseam in this thread by you and everyone else who has been on the internet in the past ******* decade.

If you declare something so complex that it requires a creator it begs the question "Who created the ever more complex creator?"

 

[YoungRepublican]

Here are some reasons.

Evidence for a Young World - Answers in Genesis


http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/features/young-earth-evidence/


Chapter 4: Unlocking the Geologic Record - Answers in Genesis


Young Earth Creationism - Conservapedia


This video destroy's evolutionist timeline and makes a very strong argument for the global flood,and a young earth.

101 - The Earth In Time And Space - Amazing Discoveries TV

Literally the most retarded, intellectually dishonest arguments ever.

Usually when someone makes a claim like you just did you would back it up with something of substance.

A high school diploma is enough substance to discredit any notion of creationism ever put forth.

 

[ima]

No, my problem is they see obvious evidence of design and dismiss it. Hell you even have well known evolutionist admitting to things looking designed but then go on to say they arose through a natural process to which they have zero evidence for.

Who do you speak of? What is the context? What was said?

What is the teleological argument for the existence of God?

ALERT!!! For simpletons only!

There's no proof here, just the same old, same old.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Who do you speak of? What is the context? What was said?

What is the teleological argument for the existence of God?

The quotes are heavily edited with several ellipses, context is not given. But I put no stock in either man beyond Crick's contribution to genetics, so on to the actual point I suppose.

This is clearly a spring board to get into the teleological argument that Im sure has been discussed ad nauseam in this thread by you and everyone else who has been on the internet in the past ******* decade.

If you declare something so complex that it requires a creator it begs the question "Who created the ever more complex creator?"

Yes it has been discussed to nauseam in this thread but so has your question. God the creator is not limited ,he created all things and exists outside time matter and space. The scriptures declare he has always existed.

Now I will ask you,what created the universe the thing that created you ? what created the big bang the thing that created the universe ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Literally the most retarded, intellectually dishonest arguments ever.

Usually when someone makes a claim like you just did you would back it up with something of substance.

A high school diploma is enough substance to discredit any notion of creationism ever put forth.

Only if you subscribe to myth, fantasy and conjecture.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Who do you speak of? What is the context? What was said?

What is the teleological argument for the existence of God?

ALERT!!! For simpletons only!

There's no proof here, just the same old, same old.

Both sides admit to design but one side withdraws in to myth and fantasy to explain the evidence.

 

[Youwerecreated]

If any of you watched the video Professor Lennox exposed dawkins to what his argument was hung on the same thing PretentiousGuy is hung up on, knowing something was designed you must be able to explain the designer. When you look at your watch you know it was designed,do you have to explain the designer to know the watch was designed ?

 

[Hollie]

What is the teleological argument for the existence of God?

The quotes are heavily edited with several ellipses, context is not given. But I put no stock in either man beyond Crick's contribution to genetics, so on to the actual point I suppose.

This is clearly a spring board to get into the teleological argument that Im sure has been discussed ad nauseam in this thread by you and everyone else who has been on the internet in the past ******* decade.

If you declare something so complex that it requires a creator it begs the question "Who created the ever more complex creator?"

Yes it has been discussed to nauseam in this thread but so has your question. God the creator is not limited ,he created all things and exists outside time matter and space. The scriptures declare he has always existed.

Now I will ask you,what created the universe the thing that created you ? what created the big bang the thing that created the universe ?

What is the hierarchy of gawds that created your gawds?

Your claims to the gawds being except from creation are insufficient.

 

[Hollie]

If any of you watched the video Professor Lennox exposed dawkins to what his argument was hung on the same thing PretentiousGuy is hung up on, knowing something was designed you must be able to explain the designer. When you look at your watch you know it was designed,do you have to explain the designer to know the watch was designed ?

Those silly videos are amateurish and contrived.

 

[Hollie]

What is the teleological argument for the existence of God?

ALERT!!! For simpletons only!

There's no proof here, just the same old, same old.

Both sides admit to design but one side withdraws in to myth and fantasy to explain the evidence.

Nonsense. Science does not recognize the Christian gawds (or any supermagical entity) as a "designer".

 

[Youwerecreated]

The quotes are heavily edited with several ellipses, context is not given. But I put no stock in either man beyond Crick's contribution to genetics, so on to the actual point I suppose.

This is clearly a spring board to get into the teleological argument that Im sure has been discussed ad nauseam in this thread by you and everyone else who has been on the internet in the past ******* decade.

If you declare something so complex that it requires a creator it begs the question "Who created the ever more complex creator?"

Yes it has been discussed to nauseam in this thread but so has your question. God the creator is not limited ,he created all things and exists outside time matter and space. The scriptures declare he has always existed.

Now I will ask you,what created the universe the thing that created you ? what created the big bang the thing that created the universe ?

What is the hierarchy of gawds that created your gawds?

Your claims to the gawds being except from creation are insufficient.

There is only one supreme creator that has always existed absent of beginning or end. Now you answer my questions. Did you also notice that dawkins admitted according to the real historians that Jesus did exist and was crucified ? and no one knows what happened to his body.

 

[Hollie]

Usually when someone makes a claim like you just did you would back it up with something of substance.

A high school diploma is enough substance to discredit any notion of creationism ever put forth.

Only if you subscribe to myth, fantasy and conjecture.

Only cult fundies would define the entirety of science as a conspiracy.