Creationists

[koshergrl]

I never said that my need to believe was proof.

That's all you. Talk about projecting.

The rest of your post is drivel. It doesn't make sense, it's just hateful nonsense.

you ask, I gave you the most honest answer.
if you don't like the result ,don't ask.
since when is fact hateful?
no you did not ,it's implied .
as i SAID, you believe and that's all the proof you need.
but then again belief only proves belief.
it does not and can not prove the existence of the thing believed in.

it takes evidence for that.

Did I ask? I don't remember.

Anyway, I reiterate. I don't need proof, and I never said faith was proof.

Moron.

 

[LOki]

Let me post them for you again.

101 Scientific Facts & Foreknowledge

--101 APPLICATIONS OF THE TEXAS SHARPSHOOTER FALLACY AND INTENTIONAL MISINFORMATION SNIPPED--​

Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge

This was intentional misinformation the first time you posted it, as it was every time afterward, and still is in this instance.

 

[LOki]

You can look at post #1723 to see your admission that you did not believe it takes beneficial information for evolution according the theory.

I have looked at post 1723, and as anyone who looks at post 1723 can see, there is literally no admission what-so-ever that I do not believe it takes beneficial information for evolution according the theory.

I know you have faith that such an admission is there, and consistent with faith you're obligated to deny the verifable evidence that such an admission is not there, but the fact of reality remains that no such admission is actually there.

Your accusation is a prima facie example of the necessary renunciation of intellectual and moral integrity that embracing faith requires.

I am not gonna go back and find all of your ignorant posts.

Of course you won't. There are none to go back to. Which, of course, is entirely beside the point; as it is entirely unneccessary for you to validate your beliefs with verifiable evidence, which do not require verifiable evidence for you to hold in the first place. Correct?

People reading this thread saw them and was probably hoping you would stop posting.

This is without doubt just denial of reality and wishful thinking on your part.

 

[LOki]

He is a spirit,he is love,he is just,he is all knowing,he is almighty,he is the creator of all things,he has always existed,nothing escapes his attention,he makes the rules,and he enforces the rules,there is no one like him.

All I am asking you to do is honestly provide the exact same specificity of explanation regarding the mechanisms of your Creation "theory" (i.e. this "God" thing you reference) that you require me to provide when I explain claims regarding the Theory of Evolution--including the means by which you can test and verify the claims you make regarding your "theory."

What you have provided here is clearly no such explanation at all.

And I'm pretty certain you really don't mean for it to be an explanation, otherwise by saying "God is ..." what you're telling me is that your notions of love, justice, knowledge, might, things, existence, attention, and rules are all MEANINGLESS; they are all baseless in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic. Furthermore, in order to validate your notions of love, justice, knowledge, might, things, existence, attention, and rules you must deny all verifiable evidence and valid logic supporting them.

I'm pretty sure you don't really mean to say this, so why don't you make an honest effort to explain this "God" thing you keep referencing. Please provide the kind of response you require--that you would accept--when you ask me to explain some point of evolution.

Is that really too much to ask?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Science doesn't claim to know the answers because it goes against the philosophy of science of knowing how much you don't know and then going to find out about it. There's an air of Socrates in it. God has nothing to do with it, and certainly doesn't have any of the answers if anything of the things you claim are the answers.




No no, you asked if neanderthals had bigger brains, how could we have such a morphological change such as bigger brains then? And I answered that it was irrelevant because we are not directly descended from neanderthals, therefore the morphological change was still valid.



They're relatives for sure. After all they are part of the genus homo, but to call them human would be inaccurate. I never denied their cranial size. cbirch2 has actually been giving you a fairly good explanation on it.



I find it interesting you claim they're humans and than ask me how we know who we're descended from.

The answer you're looking for is homo ergaster and possibly homo erectus as well. We know this through fossils, as well as DNA sequencing.

So you are not sure who we are descended from.

That's not what I said. Try again please.

The ol fossil tree again,someone putting a puzzle to gether in a back room. First you need to prove we descended from apelike creatures. That we have a common ancestor with the chimp.

These are inferred beliefs from your presuppositions not from the evidence.

What your side has done is found crossbreeding ape fossils and tried to build a tree that we humans came from. Saying we share a common ancestor is rediculous. You're saying we had to cross breed and there is no evidence of that.

There definitely is no evidence of gradualism that over time beneficial mutations spread through the population making us what we are today.

These beliefs are merely Inferences of the mind not evidence so it falls under the faith category.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You can look at post #1723 to see your admission that you did not believe it takes beneficial information for evolution according the theory.

I have looked at post 1723, and as anyone who looks at post 1723 can see, there is literally no admission what-so-ever that I do not believe it takes beneficial information for evolution according the theory.

I know you have faith that such an admission is there, and consistent with faith you're obligated to deny the verifable evidence that such an admission is not there, but the fact of reality remains that no such admission is actually there.

Your accusation is a prima facie example of the necessary renunciation of intellectual and moral integrity that embracing faith requires.

I am not gonna go back and find all of your ignorant posts.

Of course you won't. There are none to go back to. Which, of course, is entirely beside the point; as it is entirely unneccessary for you to validate your beliefs with verifiable evidence, which do not require verifiable evidence for you to hold in the first place. Correct?

People reading this thread saw them and was probably hoping you would stop posting.

This is without doubt just denial of reality and wishful thinking on your part.

Did you ask for me to provide someone of science saying that beneficial mutations are needed for evolution ?

It's right there in the post #1723 where i quoted you.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You can look at post #1723 to see your admission that you did not believe it takes beneficial information for evolution according the theory.

I have looked at post 1723, and as anyone who looks at post 1723 can see, there is literally no admission what-so-ever that I do not believe it takes beneficial information for evolution according the theory.

I know you have faith that such an admission is there, and consistent with faith you're obligated to deny the verifable evidence that such an admission is not there, but the fact of reality remains that no such admission is actually there.

Your accusation is a prima facie example of the necessary renunciation of intellectual and moral integrity that embracing faith requires.

I am not gonna go back and find all of your ignorant posts.

Of course you won't. There are none to go back to. Which, of course, is entirely beside the point; as it is entirely unneccessary for you to validate your beliefs with verifiable evidence, which do not require verifiable evidence for you to hold in the first place. Correct?

People reading this thread saw them and was probably hoping you would stop posting.

This is without doubt just denial of reality and wishful thinking on your part.

From post#1723

Quote: Originally Posted by Youwerecreated
Evolution is considered new and benficial information so how would this be evolution ?

LOKI'S response
"Considered by whom? Direct quote (from an actual and currently practicing mainstream evolutionary scientist) and link, please."

 

[LOki]

You can look at post #1723 to see your admission that you did not believe it takes beneficial information for evolution according the theory.

I have looked at post 1723, and as anyone who looks at post 1723 can see, there is literally no admission what-so-ever that I do not believe it takes beneficial information for evolution according the theory.

I know you have faith that such an admission is there, and consistent with faith you're obligated to deny the verifable evidence that such an admission is not there, but the fact of reality remains that no such admission is actually there.

Your accusation is a prima facie example of the necessary renunciation of intellectual and moral integrity that embracing faith requires.

Of course you won't. There are none to go back to. Which, of course, is entirely beside the point; as it is entirely unneccessary for you to validate your beliefs with verifiable evidence, which do not require verifiable evidence for you to hold in the first place. Correct?

People reading this thread saw them and was probably hoping you would stop posting.

This is without doubt just denial of reality and wishful thinking on your part.

From post#1723

Quote: Originally Posted by Youwerecreated
Evolution is considered new and benficial information so how would this be evolution ?

LOKI'S response
"Considered by whom? Direct quote (from an actual and currently practicing mainstream evolutionary scientist) and link, please."

These facts are not in dispute.

What is in dispute is whether or not I admitted that I "... do not believe it takes beneficial information for evolution according the theory" not that I have denied that "Evolution is considered new and benficial information."

And, so that another fact of reality that cannot honestly be disputed is not overlooked, you haven't provided any substantiation in the form of a direct quote (with a link) from an actual and currently practicing mainstream evolutionary scientist who says "evolution is considered new and benficial information."

 

[Youwerecreated]

I have looked at post 1723, and as anyone who looks at post 1723 can see, there is literally no admission what-so-ever that I do not believe it takes beneficial information for evolution according the theory.

I know you have faith that such an admission is there, and consistent with faith you're obligated to deny the verifable evidence that such an admission is not there, but the fact of reality remains that no such admission is actually there.

Your accusation is a prima facie example of the necessary renunciation of intellectual and moral integrity that embracing faith requires.

Of course you won't. There are none to go back to. Which, of course, is entirely beside the point; as it is entirely unneccessary for you to validate your beliefs with verifiable evidence, which do not require verifiable evidence for you to hold in the first place. Correct?

This is without doubt just denial of reality and wishful thinking on your part.

From post#1723

Quote: Originally Posted by Youwerecreated
Evolution is considered new and benficial information so how would this be evolution ?

LOKI'S response
"Considered by whom? Direct quote (from an actual and currently practicing mainstream evolutionary scientist) and link, please."

These facts are not in dispute.

What is in dispute is whether or not I admitted that I "... do not believe it takes beneficial information for evolution according the theory" not that I have denied that "Evolution is considered new and benficial information."

And, so that another fact of reality that cannot honestly be disputed is not overlooked, you haven't provided any substantiation in the form of a direct quote (with a link) from an actual and currently practicing mainstream evolutionary scientist who says "evolution is considered new and benficial information."

You seem to be a little confused even when you look at your own comment.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Well i have to head out of town for a few hours,i shall return.

 

[LOki]

You seem to be a little confused even when you look at your own comment.

The confusion is all on your account.

Asking you to provide substantiation that "Evolution is considered new and benficial information", is no denial that "... it takes beneficial information for evolution according the theory." It doesn't even suggest it.

I know that your faith requires you to rationalize it that way, but the fact of reality remains that your accusation is entirely baseless in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic. Your belief is entirely a desperate fabrication of your delusional imagination.

 

[LOki]

Well i have to head out of town for a few hours,i shall return.

While you're out, why not give this some consideration?

He is a spirit,he is love,he is just,he is all knowing,he is almighty,he is the creator of all things,he has always existed,nothing escapes his attention,he makes the rules,and he enforces the rules,there is no one like him.

All I am asking you to do is honestly provide the exact same specificity of explanation regarding the mechanisms of your Creation "theory" (i.e. this "God" thing you reference) that you require me to provide when I explain claims regarding the Theory of Evolution--including the means by which you can test and verify the claims you make regarding your "theory."

What you have provided here is clearly no such explanation at all.

And I'm pretty certain you really don't mean for it to be an explanation, otherwise by saying "God is ..." what you're telling me is that your notions of love, justice, knowledge, might, things, existence, attention, and rules are all MEANINGLESS; they are all baseless in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic. Furthermore, in order to validate your notions of love, justice, knowledge, might, things, existence, attention, and rules you must deny all verifiable evidence and valid logic supporting them.

I'm pretty sure you don't really mean to say this, so why don't you make an honest effort to explain this "God" thing you keep referencing. Please provide the kind of response you require--that you would accept--when you ask me to explain some point of evolution.

Is that really too much to ask?

 

[LOki]

Troll.

Intellectually gutless, superstitious, duplicitous, morally retarded troll.

 

[koshergrl]

Troll.

Intellectually gutless, superstitious, duplicitous, morally retarded troll.

Yes, you are all those things, but I chose to tone my description down a little in the spirit of civility.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Well i have to head out of town for a few hours,i shall return.

While you're out, why not give this some consideration?

He is a spirit,he is love,he is just,he is all knowing,he is almighty,he is the creator of all things,he has always existed,nothing escapes his attention,he makes the rules,and he enforces the rules,there is no one like him.

All I am asking you to do is honestly provide the exact same specificity of explanation regarding the mechanisms of your Creation "theory" (i.e. this "God" thing you reference) that you require me to provide when I explain claims regarding the Theory of Evolution--including the means by which you can test and verify the claims you make regarding your "theory."

What you have provided here is clearly no such explanation at all.

And I'm pretty certain you really don't mean for it to be an explanation, otherwise by saying "God is ..." what you're telling me is that your notions of love, justice, knowledge, might, things, existence, attention, and rules are all MEANINGLESS; they are all baseless in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic. Furthermore, in order to validate your notions of love, justice, knowledge, might, things, existence, attention, and rules you must deny all verifiable evidence and valid logic supporting them.

I'm pretty sure you don't really mean to say this, so why don't you make an honest effort to explain this "God" thing you keep referencing. Please provide the kind of response you require--that you would accept--when you ask me to explain some point of evolution.

Is that really too much to ask?

All i can give you is what the scriptures say. If you're looking for something beyond that you will have to wait for his coming just like the rest of us . But thanks for admitting your views to are based in faith.

 

[LOki]

Well i have to head out of town for a few hours,i shall return.

While you're out, why not give this some consideration?

He is a spirit,he is love,he is just,he is all knowing,he is almighty,he is the creator of all things,he has always existed,nothing escapes his attention,he makes the rules,and he enforces the rules,there is no one like him.

All I am asking you to do is honestly provide the exact same specificity of explanation regarding the mechanisms of your Creation "theory" (i.e. this "God" thing you reference) that you require me to provide when I explain claims regarding the Theory of Evolution--including the means by which you can test and verify the claims you make regarding your "theory."

What you have provided here is clearly no such explanation at all.

And I'm pretty certain you really don't mean for it to be an explanation, otherwise by saying "God is ..." what you're telling me is that your notions of love, justice, knowledge, might, things, existence, attention, and rules are all MEANINGLESS; they are all baseless in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic. Furthermore, in order to validate your notions of love, justice, knowledge, might, things, existence, attention, and rules you must deny all verifiable evidence and valid logic supporting them.

I'm pretty sure you don't really mean to say this, so why don't you make an honest effort to explain this "God" thing you keep referencing. Please provide the kind of response you require--that you would accept--when you ask me to explain some point of evolution.

Is that really too much to ask?

All i can give you is what the scriptures say. If you're looking for something beyond that you will have to wait for his coming just like the rest of us .

I understand you completely; you have no verifiable or logically valid basis for understanding what you believe in, or the beliefs of others which you criticize. Thank you for your candid admission that you have no idea what you're talking about; that everything you post is simply obtuse denials of reality; all entirely baseless in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.

But thanks for admitting your views to are based in faith.

No such admission was submitted, but thank you again, for so unambiguously affirming that you have no idea what you're talking about; that everything you post is simply obtuse denials of reality; all entirely baseless in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.

 

[LOki]

Troll.

Intellectually gutless, superstitious, duplicitous, morally retarded troll.

Yes, you are all those things, but I chose to tone my description down a little in the spirit of civility.

In recognition of the recent holiday, I wish to thank you for affirming your resolute commitment to being an intellectually gutless, superstitious, duplicitous, morally retarded troll.

 

[koshergrl]

Sorry, that won't work, troll.

 

[LOki]

Sorry, that won't work, troll.

It's working perfectly.

Feel free to continue with your enthusiastic affirmations of your unmistakably cretinous nature.

 

[Sky Dancer]

The genome reveals, indisputably and beyond any serious doubt, that Darwin was right—mankind evolved over a long period of time from primitive animal ancestors.

Scientist Arthur Kaplan