Creationists

[Hollie]

You don't need to know the designer to see evidence of design that is a copout.

Actually, the cop-out is: "Believe in Me." It's void of any proof, and not even one little speck of evidence supports it.

Are you telling me you can't look at something and detect design ,really ?

"Design" is not indicative of supernatural entities. You can't separate reality from supernaturalism? Really?

 

[Koios]

The complexity of the cell is evidence of creation by the designer.

Nope. Just proof that cells exist and are complex and shit.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40cOy-i_7zM]Stephen Meyer - Genetics Proves Design and Disproves Evolution PT 1 of 2 - YouTube[/ame]

Bullshit that ignores all the evidence to the contrary, which is extensive to the nth ******* degree.

Keep trying, in your words please, since apparently you know the chemisty of creation. You know; some dude actually doing the creating, and how he did it, with evidence supporting it.

For example: folks might think Elvis is alive. Proof is not that a guitar he might use was foudn in the woods. Proof would be Elvis himself coming on TV, and being aliive, for example.

Now then, please proceed.

 

[Youwerecreated]

1. Life's First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory | Wired Science | Wired.com

2. Your turn.

Besides you don't want to go there I am sure you have not been educated enough in chemistry to argue this either.

If your description of the creation process gets into chemistry that's over my head, I'll let you know and ask you dumb it down for me. K?

So then, please go hog wild not fearing my understanding (lack of) of chemisty or anything else. Prove away.

If you did not understand how I figured out the mutation rate argument you would not understand biochemistry.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Nope. Just proof that cells exist and are complex and shit.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40cOy-i_7zM]Stephen Meyer - Genetics Proves Design and Disproves Evolution PT 1 of 2 - YouTube[/ame]

Bullshit that ignores all the evidence to the contrary, which is extensive to the nth ******* degree.

Keep trying, in your words please, since apparently you know the chemisty of creation. You know; some dude actually doing the creating, and how he did it, with evidence supporting it.

For example: folks might think Elvis is alive. Proof is not that a guitar he might use was foudn in the woods. Proof would be Elvis himself coming on TV, and being aliive, for example.

Now then, please proceed.

Well I know you havn't had time to watch the video so the bull shit is on you.

 

[Koios]

Besides you don't want to go there I am sure you have not been educated enough in chemistry to argue this either.

If your description of the creation process gets into chemistry that's over my head, I'll let you know and ask you dumb it down for me. K?

So then, please go hog wild not fearing my understanding (lack of) of chemisty or anything else. Prove away.

If you did not understand how I figured out the mutation rate argument you would not understand biochemistry.

No I understood. Come up with a bullshit rate, which by the way, is nonsense. Rates vary by the complexity of the organism, not to mention rates of reproduction.

Moreover, 2.2 or whatever million years, is bullshit. 4 to 6 million is more accurate, not to mention, the entire ******* human genome did not evolve in that time. Just a tiny, tiny portion did, which today differentiates us, rather slightly, in fact, from chimps or apes, depending on which is most closely related. The bulk of our DNA evolved over BILLIONS OF ******* YEARS!!!

You people are beyond ignorant. You're complete ******* idiots.

Fact, not opinion.

 

[Koios]

Stephen Meyer - Genetics Proves Design and Disproves Evolution PT 1 of 2 - YouTube

Bullshit that ignores all the evidence to the contrary, which is extensive to the nth ******* degree.

Keep trying, in your words please, since apparently you know the chemisty of creation. You know; some dude actually doing the creating, and how he did it, with evidence supporting it.

For example: folks might think Elvis is alive. Proof is not that a guitar he might use was foudn in the woods. Proof would be Elvis himself coming on TV, and being aliive, for example.

Now then, please proceed.

Well I know you havn't had time to watch the video so the bull shit is on you.

I got the gist, and saw at once it was the same lame bullshit ya'll have been spouting since damn near the day after Nov (whatever) 1859. Ooh; it's sublime in its perfection (except for retarded cousin Johnny, which was probably because aunt Judy ate cherries whilst pregant, without also having milk) so GOD made it, and everything else, including light, time, space, the top ******* quark, you name it, cuz just look how really complicated it is!!!

Abject

*******

Retards

 

[Youwerecreated]

If your description of the creation process gets into chemistry that's over my head, I'll let you know and ask you dumb it down for me. K?

So then, please go hog wild not fearing my understanding (lack of) of chemisty or anything else. Prove away.

If you did not understand how I figured out the mutation rate argument you would not understand biochemistry.

No I understood. Come up with a bullshit rate, which by the way, is nonsense. Rates vary by the complexity of the organism, not to mention rates of reproduction.

Moreover, 2.2 or whatever million years, is bullshit. 4 to 6 million is more accurate, not to mention, the entire ******* human genome did not evolve in that time. Just a tiny, tiny portion did, which today differentiates us, rather slightly, in fact, from chimps or apes, depending on which is most closely related. The bulk of our DNA evolved over BILLIONS OF ******* YEARS!!!

You people are beyond ignorant. You're complete ******* idiots.

Fact, not opinion.

Then you are using circular reasoning to prove a point.

The rate was figured by rate of mutations in humans after the mapping of the human Genome.

When you are finished watching the first video watch the 2nd video because this is what I will use for evidence creation or design whichever term makes you more comfortable.

 

[Koios]

If you did not understand how I figured out the mutation rate argument you would not understand biochemistry.

No I understood. Come up with a bullshit rate, which by the way, is nonsense. Rates vary by the complexity of the organism, not to mention rates of reproduction.

Moreover, 2.2 or whatever million years, is bullshit. 4 to 6 million is more accurate, not to mention, the entire ******* human genome did not evolve in that time. Just a tiny, tiny portion did, which today differentiates us, rather slightly, in fact, from chimps or apes, depending on which is most closely related. The bulk of our DNA evolved over BILLIONS OF ******* YEARS!!!

You people are beyond ignorant. You're complete ******* idiots.

Fact, not opinion.

Then you are using circular reasoning to prove a point.

The rate was figured by rate of mutations in humans after the mapping of the human Genome.

When you are finished watching the first video watch the 2nd video because this is what I will use for evidence creation or design whichever term makes you more comfortable.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3R1I9Xi1FU]Stephen Meyer - Genetics Proves Design and Disproves Evolution PT 2 of 2 - YouTube[/ame]

No. I'm talking about you and making a factual claim:

Abject.

*******.

Retard.

 

[daws101]

Still they are two animals, but a frog and the goose have not always existed... God has always existed.

you have no proof of that, it's specious reasoning.

Not at all ... the logic is quite simple.

1. Nothing as complex as a human could result from chance.

2. The Universe did not and could not just pop into existence.

3. A vastly more complex being, God, can and did! result from something, random, ordered, some of both, who the **** knows? But He really is there, even if we cannot see Him. And He's always existed, even if it's lunacy to suggest the Universe always existed, which is stooooopiiiiiid, since nothing can always exist!!! (Except God)

Jeez. Get a clue!!!!

thanks pastor Josephus ,can I go out and be judgmental now?!

 

[Koios]

If you did not understand how I figured out the mutation rate argument you would not understand biochemistry.

No I understood. Come up with a bullshit rate, which by the way, is nonsense. Rates vary by the complexity of the organism, not to mention rates of reproduction.

Moreover, 2.2 or whatever million years, is bullshit. 4 to 6 million is more accurate, not to mention, the entire ******* human genome did not evolve in that time. Just a tiny, tiny portion did, which today differentiates us, rather slightly, in fact, from chimps or apes, depending on which is most closely related. The bulk of our DNA evolved over BILLIONS OF ******* YEARS!!!

You people are beyond ignorant. You're complete ******* idiots.

Fact, not opinion.

Then you are using circular reasoning to prove a point.

The rate was figured by rate of mutations in humans after the mapping of the human Genome.

When you are finished watching the first video watch the 2nd video because this is what I will use for evidence creation or design whichever term makes you more comfortable.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3R1I9Xi1FU]Stephen Meyer - Genetics Proves Design and Disproves Evolution PT 2 of 2 - YouTube[/ame]

And for the love of god!!!

For starters, the "human" Genome was in fact a sampling, I think from one or two celebs, a few scientists, etc. But a very small sampling.

It's not THE human genome, and to suggest rates of mutation which are not simply time driven, but also subject to environmental factors, are NOT KNOWN!!! Hell; even speculations on rates is STILL UNDER INVESTIGATION!!

 

[Youwerecreated]

If your description of the creation process gets into chemistry that's over my head, I'll let you know and ask you dumb it down for me. K?

So then, please go hog wild not fearing my understanding (lack of) of chemisty or anything else. Prove away.

If you did not understand how I figured out the mutation rate argument you would not understand biochemistry.

No I understood. Come up with a bullshit rate, which by the way, is nonsense. Rates vary by the complexity of the organism, not to mention rates of reproduction.

Moreover, 2.2 or whatever million years, is bullshit. 4 to 6 million is more accurate, not to mention, the entire ******* human genome did not evolve in that time. Just a tiny, tiny portion did, which today differentiates us, rather slightly, in fact, from chimps or apes, depending on which is most closely related. The bulk of our DNA evolved over BILLIONS OF ******* YEARS!!!

You people are beyond ignorant. You're complete ******* idiots.

Fact, not opinion.

no you didn't understand what was presented yeasterdy because it makes my argument stronger if you believe 4 to 6 million years vs 2.2 million years. Don't you know you can find people of science who thinks man didn't show up till 65,000 years ago on up to what you are saying. Really though you didn't understand that the more years you assign to it makes it less viable because of the mutation rate. Now don't waste my time just watch the videos so you can educate yourself so we can discuss design.

 

[Youwerecreated]

No I understood. Come up with a bullshit rate, which by the way, is nonsense. Rates vary by the complexity of the organism, not to mention rates of reproduction.

Moreover, 2.2 or whatever million years, is bullshit. 4 to 6 million is more accurate, not to mention, the entire ******* human genome did not evolve in that time. Just a tiny, tiny portion did, which today differentiates us, rather slightly, in fact, from chimps or apes, depending on which is most closely related. The bulk of our DNA evolved over BILLIONS OF ******* YEARS!!!

You people are beyond ignorant. You're complete ******* idiots.

Fact, not opinion.

Then you are using circular reasoning to prove a point.

The rate was figured by rate of mutations in humans after the mapping of the human Genome.

When you are finished watching the first video watch the 2nd video because this is what I will use for evidence creation or design whichever term makes you more comfortable.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3R1I9Xi1FU]Stephen Meyer - Genetics Proves Design and Disproves Evolution PT 2 of 2 - YouTube[/ame]

No. I'm talking about you and making a factual claim:

Abject.

*******.

Retard.

Someone is having a bad day.

 

[Youwerecreated]

No I understood. Come up with a bullshit rate, which by the way, is nonsense. Rates vary by the complexity of the organism, not to mention rates of reproduction.

Moreover, 2.2 or whatever million years, is bullshit. 4 to 6 million is more accurate, not to mention, the entire ******* human genome did not evolve in that time. Just a tiny, tiny portion did, which today differentiates us, rather slightly, in fact, from chimps or apes, depending on which is most closely related. The bulk of our DNA evolved over BILLIONS OF ******* YEARS!!!

You people are beyond ignorant. You're complete ******* idiots.

Fact, not opinion.

Then you are using circular reasoning to prove a point.

The rate was figured by rate of mutations in humans after the mapping of the human Genome.

When you are finished watching the first video watch the 2nd video because this is what I will use for evidence creation or design whichever term makes you more comfortable.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3R1I9Xi1FU]Stephen Meyer - Genetics Proves Design and Disproves Evolution PT 2 of 2 - YouTube[/ame]

And for the love of god!!!

For starters, the "human" Genome was in fact a sampling, I think from one or two celebs, a few scientists, etc. But a very small sampling.

It's not THE human genome, and to suggest rates of mutation which are not simply time driven, but also subject to environmental factors, are NOT KNOWN!!! Hell; even speculations on rates is STILL UNDER INVESTIGATION!!

You never heard of the human Genome project and the many scientists that worked on this project ?

 

[daws101]

Then how did the origins of life start ?

How do you know life was not the product of design ?

Why is it that scientist can give us a rate of deleterious mutations but they can't do the same for beneficial mutations ?

How do you want to play it ?

Liquid water, organic molecules and sun or chemical energy.

How did Creation occur? Tell me that and I can answer your second question, maybe.

Prove your claim.

God designed all life and things that are a necessity for life.

prove, yours without specious conjecture or the intervention of imaginary gawds or cut and paste pseudoscience.

 

[Koios]

you have no proof of that, it's specious reasoning.

Not at all ... the logic is quite simple.

1. Nothing as complex as a human could result from chance.

2. The Universe did not and could not just pop into existence.

3. A vastly more complex being, God, can and did! result from something, random, ordered, some of both, who the **** knows? But He really is there, even if we cannot see Him. And He's always existed, even if it's lunacy to suggest the Universe always existed, which is stooooopiiiiiid, since nothing can always exist!!! (Except God)

Jeez. Get a clue!!!!

thanks pastor Josephus ,can I go out and be judgmental now?!

Yes, My Son. Go forth now, and multiply, or at least have a ball trying!!!

Amen.

 

[Koios]

Then you are using circular reasoning to prove a point.

The rate was figured by rate of mutations in humans after the mapping of the human Genome.

When you are finished watching the first video watch the 2nd video because this is what I will use for evidence creation or design whichever term makes you more comfortable.


Stephen Meyer - Genetics Proves Design and Disproves Evolution PT 2 of 2 - YouTube

And for the love of god!!!

For starters, the "human" Genome was in fact a sampling, I think from one or two celebs, a few scientists, etc. But a very small sampling.

It's not THE human genome, and to suggest rates of mutation which are not simply time driven, but also subject to environmental factors, are NOT KNOWN!!! Hell; even speculations on rates is STILL UNDER INVESTIGATION!!

You never heard of the human Genome project and the many scientists that worked on this project ?

Projects actually. There was a race between public and private funded efforts, since private ones we patenting sections of the code as they parsed / discovered it.

Meanwhile, all the hubbub may have been over thought. Turns out the vastly more complex Protenome is what's controlling the *****, not to mention the Epi-genetic deal where enviroment comes into play and the same ******* gene in identical twins doesn't necessarily result in the same outcome. Shit!!! No cure for cancer, nor the common cold. But we know more, so there's that.

How'd I do?

 

[Koios]

Then you are using circular reasoning to prove a point.

The rate was figured by rate of mutations in humans after the mapping of the human Genome.

When you are finished watching the first video watch the 2nd video because this is what I will use for evidence creation or design whichever term makes you more comfortable.


Stephen Meyer - Genetics Proves Design and Disproves Evolution PT 2 of 2 - YouTube

No. I'm talking about you and making a factual claim:

Abject.

*******.

Retard.

Someone is having a bad day.

Yeah; and someone else is having a bad life. Sucks to be a moron, yeah?

 

[daws101]

Liquid water, organic molecules and sun or chemical energy.

How did Creation occur? Tell me that and I can answer your second question, maybe.

In truth, I can answer your second question ...

Because no creator has been proven to have done so.

You don't need to know the designer to see evidence of design that is a copout.

if nobody's caught on to this badly executed and zero logic party trick ywc is for the nth time attempting to present as fact, I'll make it simple :ywc "believes" but has no evidence that because we design god must also design.
it's a classic logical fallacy .

 

[Hollie]

Besides you don't want to go there I am sure you have not been educated enough in chemistry to argue this either.

If your description of the creation process gets into chemistry that's over my head, I'll let you know and ask you dumb it down for me. K?

So then, please go hog wild not fearing my understanding (lack of) of chemisty or anything else. Prove away.

If you did not understand how I figured out the mutation rate argument you would not understand biochemistry.

You really should consider taking some courses in the biological sciences. It would help you to understand the abysmal lack of facts in your arguments.

Have you not yet learned that your nonsensical "mutation rate" claims, which you apparently dredge up from creationist sites, are baseless?

 

[daws101]

If your description of the creation process gets into chemistry that's over my head, I'll let you know and ask you dumb it down for me. K?

So then, please go hog wild not fearing my understanding (lack of) of chemisty or anything else. Prove away.

If you did not understand how I figured out the mutation rate argument you would not understand biochemistry.

You really should consider taking some courses in the biological sciences. It would help you to understand the abysmal lack of facts in your arguments.

Have you not yet learned that your nonsensical "mutation rate" claims, which you apparently dredge up from creationist sites, are baseless?

ywc will say we're befuddled or stupid or hateful or some variation on those themes in 5......4.....3......2.....