RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster

RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Milesnmiles -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (7/28/2017 5:50:25 PM)
First, why should I say anything more to you, I have repetedly told you that although I believe in creation but I am not a "Creationist" and have told you why, yet you continue to call me a "Creationist". quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML It would be most satisfying coming from the work of a creationist scholar of course. So, it appears that you aren't really listening to what I am saying to you. quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: Creationism "scientists" have no original research to support their claims. They are almost entirely focused on criticism of evolution. Kinda of like Evolutionary "scientists" keep trying to remove God from everyone's life. Your answer is interesting and revealing, Miles. It shows that you have no reply to my point that creationists lack any original research (expanded here) or observations of their own but rest their entire system of belief on criticisms of the evidence for evolution. Particularly, you seem to want us to present every "missing link" and if we were able to do that (never mind that soft tissue is rarely fossilized) you still would not be satisfied, but would move the goal posts further back. So, instead of answering my comment directly you deflect into a totally unrelated accusation. Your answer here is also interesting and revealing. Somehow you think I rest my "entire system of belief on criticisms of the evidence for evolution", my system of belief began long before your "evidence for evolution" and will exist long after your "theory of Evolution" is a forgotten memory. As for missing links, some would be nice but as you so nicely point out "soft tissue is rarely fossilized" thus the fossil record is a bit skimpy on "missing links", once again Evolution has a "good excuse" for not coming up with the evidence that they say should be everywhere. Next you nicely point out by inference that Science is dominated by "Evolutionary scientists", I thought science was science and didn't take sides. Which means my "totally unrelated accusation" wasn't so "totally unrelated" after all. quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Let's examine the accusation that we lack any record of evolutionary relationships: Probably along with the transition to flight the transition from water dwelling to land dwelling is another major sequence of events. What would be needed? Evidence of the emergence of "appendages" for locomotion on land and the emergence of an air breathing organ. In the 1930s a fish long thought to exist only in the fossil record was caught off the coast of Africa. The Coelacanth has lobed fins fore and aft and caudal. These fleshy fins, precursors to terrestrial appendages, are found in other evolutionary lines of fish and in salamanders. Examination of the coelacanth's genome ruled it out as a direct ancestor to the salamander, even though it has a single vestigial lung. There are a number of species of lung fish both fossil and living, that demonstrate various combinations of terrestrial appendages and functional lungs, who spend most of their lives in water. There are a number of species of salamanders that vary in gills/lungs and fins/appendages, and in their habitats, but spend much of their lives on "wet" land. It seems pretty clear that the transition from sea dwelling to land dwelling has been well demonstrated in the organs of these lung fish and salamanders. Now you may wish to say they all exhibit the same genome. You probably could find the answer to that question in some scientific publication. I doubt you could find the answer in the publications of some creationist cults. If you do, please give me a nudge as I would be most interested in seeing the creationist's DNA evidence. Can you offer a rebuttal to the evidence for the transition of life from sea to land as I have displayed it? Sure. But first let me say I am totally amazed at all the assumptions you make and still call it science. You start with the assumption that creatures transitioned from water to land and so any creature that lives both in and out of water is a "transition' creature. You ever stop to think that a Creator would know that there would be vast amounts of water/land transition and that he might create animals that could live in those areas and even create some that could transition back and forth between land and water. Then, you bring up the Coelacanth and act like you don't know that before it was found to be still alive it was a prime example of a "transition" creature that went extinct thousands of years ago and that "evolutionary scientists" had to go scrambling for excuses for why it still exists. quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Regards, Miles Back at ya.

vincentML -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (7/29/2017 9:36:06 AM)
quote: As for missing links, some would be nice but as you so nicely point out "soft tissue is rarely fossilized" thus the fossil record is a bit skimpy on "missing links", once again Evolution has a "good excuse" for not coming up with the evidence that they say should be everywhere. You missed the point, Miles. Lung fish and primitive tetrapods are alive today just like the coelacanth is. Sonovagun, living not-so-missing links! quote: You ever stop to think that a Creator would know that there would be vast amounts of water/land transition and that he might create animals that could live in those areas and even create some that could transition back and forth between land and water. I would consider it if you could provide some evidence for it. Alas, you cannot do that because your beliefs are based upon faith, which precludes the need for evidence of any kind. Because of the complexity of the water to land transitions the lung fish and tetrapods have rather large genomes. However, a reference transcriptome has been produced to study the transitions. Right, I know your answer for that. The Creator is capable of designing all of those variants. If true then, the Creator is responsible for the various genetic variants that cause pain and suffering among humans, such as the various cancers in children and adults, various heart conditions, and conditions like Chron's disease, cystic fibrosis, muscular dystrophy, Huntington's disease, Hemophilia, Marfan's syndrome, Neurofibromatosis, Schizophrenia, Bipolar Disorder, Autism,Psychopathy, Dementia, Parkenson's disease, spinal muscular atrophy, and not a few other awful conditions. Geneticists would probably happily give the Creator credit for that list of horrors except he did not supply a cure book, so they will have to continue to work at that in his absence. Hopefully, the Creator will one day reach cosmological adulthood and return to his sandbox of genetic horrors and correct the miserable lot he conjured for mankind. I have had enough of your sadistic creator and will leave you to ponder his works alone. Ciao, Miles. [:)]

WickedsDesire -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (7/29/2017 3:03:44 PM)
Nonsense can be difficult to argue against - but by fuk its fun guffaws

vincentML -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (7/29/2017 4:21:58 PM)
Yes, it is fun and difficult but filled with guffaws![:D]

Milesnmiles -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (7/29/2017 6:27:25 PM)
quote: vincentML You missed the point, Miles. Lung fish and primitive tetrapods are alive today just like the coelacanth is. Sonovagun, living not-so-missing links! Actually it is you that “missed the point”; a “missing link” is supposed to link from something to something. These “missing links” link to nothing, where are the “links” that lead up to them and the “links” that lead away from them? There aren’t any and so the only thing that makes them “missing links” is that you call them such. Sonovagun, living not-so-missing links that link to nothing! quote: vincentML I would consider it if you could provide some evidence for it. Alas, you cannot do that because your beliefs are based upon faith, which precludes the need for evidence of any kind. There are none so blind as those who refuse to see. quote: vincentML Because of the complexity of the water to land transitions the lung fish and tetrapods have rather large genomes. However, a reference transcriptome has been produced to study the transitions. Great study away, maybe they'll learn something from the missing links that link to nothing. quote: vincentML Right, I know your answer for that. The Creator is capable of designing all of those variants. Yes he is. quote: vincentML If true then, the Creator is responsible for the various genetic variants that cause pain and suffering among humans, such as the various cancers in children and adults, various heart conditions, and conditions like Chron's disease, cystic fibrosis, muscular dystrophy, Huntington's disease, Hemophilia, Marfan's syndrome, Neurofibromatosis, Schizophrenia, Bipolar Disorder, Autism,Psychopathy, Dementia, Parkenson's disease, spinal muscular atrophy, and not a few other awful conditions. Geneticists would probably happily give the Creator credit for that list of horrors except he did not supply a cure book, so they will have to continue to work at that in his absence. I was wondering when you would run out of things to say and would turn to this old chestnut. I could answer it but I can tell you’re not ready to hear the answer. quote: vincentML Hopefully, the Creator will one day reach cosmological adulthood and return to his sandbox of genetic horrors and correct the miserable lot he conjured for mankind. I have had enough of your sadistic creator and will leave you to ponder his works alone. Ciao, Miles. Hopefully mankind will one day will take a look around and realize that most of the problems in the world are manmade and stop blaming God for what they have done to themselves. Hasta la vista, ;-)

WickedsDesire -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (7/29/2017 6:30:22 PM)
God? looks at vincent and snickers

bounty44 -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (7/29/2017 6:49:28 PM)
one more time for all you comrades. evolution is a godless religion masquerading as "science."

Real0ne -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (7/29/2017 7:03:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML You missed the point, Miles. Lung fish and primitive tetrapods are alive today just like the coelacanth is. Sonovagun, living not-so-missing links! so whats the point did they like 'evolutionate' into squirrels er somthin?

Real0ne -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (7/29/2017 7:04:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 one more time for all you comrades. evolution is a godless religion masquerading as "science." lightyears beyond their comprehension from what I have seen

WickedsDesire -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (7/29/2017 7:21:40 PM)
That reminds me idiot I gave someone a caustic verbal row for them saying a supernova could take out greater than 30 light years, and tried to un-confuse them with a gamma ray burst I was wrong - was it someone on the site? That's me RealOne Anyhoos do I owe someone an apology on here? technically their wording was inaccurate

vincentML -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (7/29/2017 7:36:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 one more time for all you comrades. evolution is a godless religion masquerading as "science." Oh wait. Let me jot down that gem. [8\|]

WickedsDesire -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (7/29/2017 8:04:33 PM)
its dogsbreath44 I will not tell you all again

WickedsDesire -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (7/29/2017 8:08:40 PM)
Woof woof!

blnymph -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (7/30/2017 1:56:34 AM)
If "creation" requires a "creator" who or what creates that creator then, and the creator of the creator, and the creator of the creator's creator ... creationism as such is nonsense

tweakabelle -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (7/30/2017 2:26:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 one more time for all you comrades. evolution is a godless religion masquerading as "science." Oh my! What a zinger! I wonder where bounty found this priceless one liner ...??? An old edition of Woody Allen jokes. from his stand up days perhaps? Bounty has claimed that he was once interviewed for an academic position. If this claim is anything other than total fantasy (and the smart money says it is total fantasy), then coming out with vacuous claims such as this would be one very good reason no self respecting academic department wouldn't touch him with a barge pole. However, it's not all totally negative. Bounty's inane claim re-writes the standard for moronic intellectual pretensions.

Milesnmiles -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (7/31/2017 3:36:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: blnymph If "creation" requires a "creator" who or what creates that creator then, and the creator of the creator, and the creator of the creator's creator ... creationism as such is nonsense Then do you believe the "Big Bang" nonsense that something came from nothing? Or what they now believe that there was something there that the "Big Bang" came from? And where did the something that was there before the "Big Bang" come from? Did it come from nothing or was it always there, much like those who believe in God believe he was always there? So it seems you believe in nothing whereas those who believe in God at least believe in something.

tweakabelle -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (7/31/2017 7:21:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles quote: ORIGINAL: blnymph If "creation" requires a "creator" who or what creates that creator then, and the creator of the creator, and the creator of the creator's creator ... creationism as such is nonsense Then do you believe the "Big Bang" nonsense that something came from nothing? Or what they now believe that there was something there that the "Big Bang" came from? And where did the something that was there before the "Big Bang" come from? Did it come from nothing or was it always there, much like those who believe in God believe he was always there? So it seems you believe in nothing whereas those who believe in God at least believe in something. I'm not sure that it's a clever argument to claim that it's better to believe in "something". There's a long list of murderous ideologues who all believed in "something" when the entire world would have been far better off had they believed in nothing. Self proclaimed believers in ideologies and belief systems that claim to be absolutely right have far more blood on their hands than nihilists. I fail to see any merit in the argument that it's better to believe in one version of a fairy tale than to with hold judgement until the question is resolved. I do see a lot of potential dangers in this position, and am reminded of those dangers every time a religious fundamentalist (of whatever hue) insists against all reason that their particular fairy tale is the Truth the whole Truth and nothing but the Truth and threatens to kill anyone who disrupts their childish certainties.

WickedsDesire -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (7/31/2017 8:20:54 AM)
Penny Dreadful- Caliban Speech FULL. Life, the Universe! I don't really know *smiles The observable Universe - ~~time malarkey aside I always find it strange no one mentions, or things about~~ An observable Universe Both may be a mere drop in the ocean Creation myths there are so many, not one... always got confused with that too. There is no "God!" why half you of are fixated on that one I dont understand. tweakabelle why is that I have only noticed you the last two months on this place?

vincentML -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (7/31/2017 8:27:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles quote: ORIGINAL: blnymph If "creation" requires a "creator" who or what creates that creator then, and the creator of the creator, and the creator of the creator's creator ... creationism as such is nonsense Then do you believe the "Big Bang" nonsense that something came from nothing? Or what they now believe that there was something there that the "Big Bang" came from? And where did the something that was there before the "Big Bang" come from? Did it come from nothing or was it always there, much like those who believe in God believe he was always there? So it seems you believe in nothing whereas those who believe in God at least believe in something. I'm not sure that it's a clever argument to claim that it's better to believe in "something". There's a long list of murderous ideologues who all believed in "something" when the entire world would have been far better off had they believed in nothing. Self proclaimed believers in ideologies and belief systems that claim to be absolutely right have far more blood on their hands than nihilists. I fail to see any merit in the argument that it's better to believe in one version of a fairy tale than to with hold judgement until the question is resolved. I do see a lot of potential dangers in this position, and am reminded of those dangers every time a religious fundamentalist (of whatever hue) insists against all reason that their particular fairy tale is the Truth the whole Truth and nothing but the Truth and threatens to kill anyone who disrupts their childish certainties. Quoted for Truth, Tweak, and eloquently expressed as usual.

vincentML -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (7/31/2017 8:49:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles quote: ORIGINAL: blnymph If "creation" requires a "creator" who or what creates that creator then, and the creator of the creator, and the creator of the creator's creator ... creationism as such is nonsense Then do you believe the "Big Bang" nonsense that something came from nothing? Or what they now believe that there was something there that the "Big Bang" came from? And where did the something that was there before the "Big Bang" come from? Did it come from nothing or was it always there, much like those who believe in God believe he was always there? So it seems you believe in nothing whereas those who believe in God at least believe in something. The Big Bang Theory itself is based upon measurements of spectrometer Red Shift in light coming from distant planets. Scientists have also identified and measured the Cosmological Microwave Radiation that is "left over" from the Big Bang. Sort of like static. In fact, depending how old you are, if you go back to the days when television stations did not broadcast 24 hours but signed off in the wee hours and went black except for a hissing noise, that hissing noise was the CMR reaching us through our television antennae. BTW, if you are going to speculate in the realm of metaphysics, you might consider there are three ontological choices: There was nothing from which matter arose. There always was a Creator before there was nothing. Or there always was matter and energy. The last one is just as valid as the Creator myth but obviously not as satisfying. Of course, the thought is that before the Big Bang there was a massive singularity (a pinpoint of matter and energy) that overcame the black hole gravity and exploded. Unfortunately, that has the same First Cause problem as who created the Creator? Eternal matter/energy is just as valid as the spooky eternal Creator. How do you know which is true? The reason it is not so satisfying is that it holds out no hope of everlasting life for humans. I should add that Red Shift measurements do suggest that the galaxies are moving away from one another so the universe is expanding. Maybe.

Page: << < prev 12 13 [14] 15 16 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875