How EvoTards Define "Creationist"
-
From the rantings of OM and RichTard Hughes it has become quite clear that anyone who follows the evidence is a "Creationist".
The evidence says life begets life-> don't blame science, call me a Creationist.
The evidence says fish beget fish, humans beget humans, ie baraminology rules, and no amount of mutational accumulation can change that-> don't blame science, call me a Creationist.
And if those facts ever change I will adjust my opinion accordingly.
From the rantings of OM and RichTard Hughes it has become quite clear that anyone who follows the evidence is a "Creationist".
The evidence says life begets life-> don't blame science, call me a Creationist.
The evidence says fish beget fish, humans beget humans, ie baraminology rules, and no amount of mutational accumulation can change that-> don't blame science, call me a Creationist.
And if those facts ever change I will adjust my opinion accordingly.
posted by Joe G @ 1:38 PM
65 Comments:
At 7:25 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
And how you believe the earth is?
And who was the creator?
Can you be honest, ever?
At 8:33 AM,
Joe G said…
RichTard:
And how you believe the earth is?
There is evidence that the earth is- scientific evidence.
RichTard:
And who was the creator?
I don't know-> THAT is what science is for- moron- to help us determine that. So far all the scientific evidence says is that it (the earth and solar system) was designed.
RichTard:
Can you be honest, ever?
Obviously you can't- I doubt you have ever been honest.
At 9:35 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
You don't appear to KNOW much.
SO let's have your opinions
Age of the earth
was it created? If so who was the creator?
At 10:19 AM,
Joe G said…
RichTard:
You don't appear to KNOW much.
It is OBVIOUS that I KNOW MORE than YOU.
YOU can't even stay on-topic. And you sure as hell cannot produce positive evidence nor a testable hypothesis for your position.
RichTard:
Age of the earth
Nobody knows- as I said you have to know HOW the Earth was formed in order to determine its age.
RichTard:
was it created?
The evidence points to a design of the earth and solar system.
RichTad:
If so who was the creator?
I don't know-> THAT is what science is for- moron- to help us determine that. So far all the scientific evidence says is that it (the earth and solar system) was designed.
At 9:50 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
"The evidence says life begets life-> don't blame science, call me a Creationist."
By that 'logic', the creator was a physical being. And was created by a physical being, which was also...
At 10:20 AM,
Joe G said…
"The evidence says life begets life-> don't blame science, call me a Creationist."
RichTard:
By that 'logic', the creator was a physical being.
Nope. Try again.
At 10:26 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
But Joe, " life begets life". Or have you changed your mind?
At 10:58 AM,
Joe G said…
RichTard:
But Joe, " life begets life".
That's right.
At 11:33 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
So life must come from an infinite regress of life.
At 11:56 AM,
Joe G said…
Nope- only that which had a beginning requires a cause.
At 2:24 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
So there can be non begoten life, then.
At 3:48 PM,
Joe G said…
Richtard:
So there can be non begoten life, then.
Non-sequitur
At 4:14 AM,
CBD said…
So, Joe,
A) How old is the earliest life
B) Why is there early life at all when currently life could just have been directly created?
C) To the best of your knowledge how old is the earth?
Creationist.
At 7:13 AM,
Joe G said…
OM:
A) How old is the earliest life
Nobody knows- that is the only honest answer.
B) Why is there early life at all when currently life could just have been directly created?
Is there early life? How do you know?
C) To the best of your knowledge how old is the earth?
Don't know- need more data.
Asshole loser.
At 7:59 AM,
CBD said…
Joe,
Don't know- need more data.
Like what?
At a minimum how old is the earth? It's at least as old as you, right?
At 8:12 AM,
Joe G said…
STILL waiting for testable hypotheses for your position...
At 8:49 AM,
CBD said…
Joe,
STILL waiting for testable hypotheses for your position...
that would be off topic, and we all know how you love to stay on topic.
Why don't you create a new thread, explain what "my position" is and I'll see what I can do.
At 9:15 AM,
Joe G said…
STILL waiting for testable hypotheses for your position...
OM:
that would be off topic,
That is par for you- to be off-topic.
Heck you haven't had a post in this thread that has been on-topic- asshole.
At 9:32 AM,
CBD said…
Joe,
Nobody knows- that is the only honest answer.
Untrue. We might not know about the very first entity we call life, but we know for sure that signs of life have been around for at least 3.2 billion years, the first procaryotes are seen at that time.
Your "designer" must be very old indeed eh?
At 10:10 AM,
Joe G said…
OM:
We might not know about the very first entity we call life, but we know for sure that signs of life have been around for at least 3.2 billion years, the first procaryotes are seen at that time.
That is what you believe and it is nothing more than that.
BTW there isn't any evidence that prokaryotes can "evolve" into anything but prokaryotes....
At 10:13 AM,
CBD said…
Joe,
That is what you believe and it is nothing more than that.
I don't need to believe it, it's supported by evidence that you cannot dispute.
BTW there isn't any evidence that prokaryotes can "evolve" into anything but prokaryotes....
I thought ID was not anti-evolution?
At 12:09 PM,
Joe G said…
OM:
I don't need to believe it, it's supported by evidence that you cannot dispute.
No, that is what you believe.
BTW there isn't any evidence that prokaryotes can "evolve" into anything but prokaryotes....
OM:
I thought ID was not anti-evolution?
It isn't. However there isn't any evidence that prokaryotes can "evolve" into anything but prokaryotes.
And prokaryotes evolving into prokaryotes IS evolution you moron.
At 12:17 PM,
CBD said…
Joe,
However there isn't any evidence that prokaryotes can "evolve" into anything but prokaryotes.
Perhaps you should ask Lynn Margulis, I understand you are already a fan of her work.
Fossil records indicate that eukaryotes evolved from prokaryotes somewhere between 1.5 to 2 billion years ago. Two proposed pathways describe the invasion of prokaryote cells by two smaller prokaryote cells. They subsequently became successfully included as part of a now much larger cell with additional structures and capable of additional functions.
Research conducted by Lynn Margulis at the University of Massachusetts supports the hypothesis that two separate mutually beneficial invasions of a prokaryote cell produced the modern-day mitochondria and chloroplast as eukaryotic organelles. In this model, ancestral mitochondria were small heterotrophs capable of using oxygen to perform cellular respiration and thereby create useful energy. They became part of a large cell either by direct invasion as an internal parasite or as an indigestible food source. Later, a second invasion brought ancestral chloroplasts, which are thought to be small, photosynthetic cyanobacteria. Modern-day supporting evidence for endosymbiosis shows that both the mitochondria and chloroplasts have their own genes, circular DNA and RNA, and reproduce by binary fission independent of the host's cell cycle. They therefore appear to be more similar to prokaryotes than eukaryotes.
The invasions of the host prokaryote cell probably were successful because the host cell membrane infolded to surround both invading prokaryote cells and thereby help transport them into the cell. The membrane did not dissolve but remained intact, and thereby created a second membrane around the protomitochondria and protochloroplast. It is also known that in modern-day eukaryotes the inner membrane of both the mitochondria and chloroplast contain structures more similar to prokaryotes than eukaryotes, whereas the outer membrane retains eukaryote characteristics! It is also suggested that continued membrane infolding created the endomembrane system. It can be said that possibly the first eukaryotic cell type was miraculously born from prokaryotic, symbiotic, multicell interactions!
Read more: Origin of Prokaryotes and Eukaryotes: Eukaryote Evolution — Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/cig/biology/eukaryote-evolution.html#ixzz1PSMPvvV2
At 12:20 PM,
Joe G said…
However there isn't any evidence that prokaryotes can "evolve" into anything but prokaryotes.
OM:
Perhaps you should ask Lynn Margulis, I understand you are already a fan of her work.
She doesn't have the evidence. There isn't any way to test her clasims. And the evidence she uses has been used to say that proks evolved from euks:
Can evolution make things less complicated?
Instead, the data suggest that eukaryote cells with all their bells and whistles are probably as ancient as bacteria and archaea, and may have even appeared first, with bacteria and archaea appearing later as stripped-down versions of eukaryotes, according to David Penny, a molecular biologist at Massey University in New Zealand.
Penny, who worked on the research with Chuck Kurland of Sweden's Lund University and Massey University's L.J. Collins, acknowledged that the results might come as a surprise.
“We do think there is a tendency to look at evolution as progressive,” he said. “We prefer to think of evolution as backwards, sideways, and occasionally forward.”
At 12:31 PM,
CBD said…
Joe,
There isn't any way to test her clasims.
your claim is that prokaryotes were designed.
How can you test that claim?
At 12:35 PM,
Joe G said…
OM:
your claim is that prokaryotes were designed.
It is?
They could have evolved from eukaryotes.
OM:
How can you test that claim?
I have already told you how to test claims of design.
At 1:04 PM,
CBD said…
Joe,
I have already told you how to test claims of design.
In this specific case? No, you have not.
At 1:24 PM,
CBD said…
Joe,
They could have evolved from eukaryotes.
What baramin are eukaryotes in?
What about prokaryotes?
Care to name the baraminologists that might be able to answer these simple, basic questions?
At 4:15 PM,
Joe G said…
I have already told you how to test claims of design.
OM:
In this specific case?
What I have said applies in all cases.
At 4:16 PM,
Joe G said…
They could have evolved from eukaryotes.
OM:
What baramin are eukaryotes in?
Non-sequitur.
At 4:27 PM,
CBD said…
Joe,
Non-sequitur.
But why? Why is that not a reasonable question?
After all, you yourself said:
The evidence says fish beget fish, humans beget humans, ie baraminology rules, and no amount of mutational accumulation can change that-> don't blame science, call me a Creationist.
Have we finally found a piece of evidence that's not compatible with baraminology?
What baramin are eukaryotes in?
Onlookers note, Joe has no answer!
At 4:32 PM,
Joe G said…
Non-sequitur.
OM:
But why?
Are you also ignorant of what "non-sequitur" means?
The question doesn't follow from what I said.
OM:
Have we finally found a piece of evidence that's not compatible with baraminology?
Doubtful.
OM:
What baramin are eukaryotes in?
There are many baramins of eukaryotes you ignorant wanker.
And getting a prok from a euk would be a major loss of information so I doubt YECs would have an issue with that, moron.
At 6:21 PM,
CBD said…
Joe,
There are many baramins of eukaryotes you ignorant wanker.
Ok. Name two.
At 7:01 PM,
Joe G said…
Yawn...
Basic Types and Baramins, arranged alphabetically by taxonomic name
sigh, shrug...
At 11:13 AM,
CBD said…
Joe,
Ok. Name two.
Nice list. Is it accurate?
At 11:32 AM,
IntelligentAnimation said…
As an evotard myself, I would define Creationist as those who believe that God created all species, in full form, not through evolution, but through devine intervention.
There are two types of Creationists, Young Earth and Old Earth, with the OEC believing in mainstream timelines and YEC claiming that all species were created at the same time. YEC may be more the Biblical literalist of the two, but they are both religious beliefs, not really based on science.
Creationists do not believe in macroevolution or biological speciation. I believe they claim that creatures just pop into existence, apparently as grown adults, out of thin air. Second gender also does the same, using s rib or something.
Not sure about this last part, can someone clarify?
At 11:51 AM,
Joe G said…
IntelligentAnimation, you appear to be in contradiction but I am busy to go back and read what you posted pertaining to your position.
Evotards are people who believe that genetic accidents accumulated along diverging lines of descent to give rise to the diversity of living organisms- extinct and extant- we observe.
As for "speciation", even with its ambiguity it appears that YECs are OK with it.
At 12:21 PM,
IntelligentAnimation said…
On the opposite end of the spectrum are the Materialists, also a religious belief not based in science. Their belief holds that there can be no immaterial intelligence involved. They claim that random luck causes particles to form complex functional creatures that think and move around purposefully.
Mosr, but not all, Materialists are Darwinists, who mistakenly believe that "selection", defined as not dying, trumps the overwhelming probabilities against random chaos creating functional complex order and intelligence.
It is safe to say that all materialists believe in evolution. They also believe in abiogenesis, the first life caused by random luck, apparently also reproducing by accident. Although unable to explain, they believe that all aspects of life and evolution involve standard chemical reactions. Even intelligence is accidental to them.
An odd offshoot group of Materialists are "Theist Evolutionists". While most materialists fight against all evidence claiming there is an "illusion" of intelligent agency, this group claims God created materialism as a ruse to hide his intelligent agency.
At 12:42 PM,
IntelligentAnimation said…
To listen to the media, which feeds off controversy, you would believe that Materialism and Creationism are the only two positions that exist. Sadly, the same can be said for academia, where only Creationism (private school) or Materialism (public) are taught as fact.
In truth most adults and most biologists are neither. The vast middle ground includes anything where intelligence moves matter to form life, but not out of thin air. Intelligently guided evolution is the largest demographic, dwarfing the materialist group. Over 70% of biology teachers support intelligent evolution.
What separates intelligent evolution from materialists and creationists is the scientific method and overwhleming evidence. Scientifically, there is not the slightest question that intelligence is moving matter. We may not know how, why or who, but intelligent agency is the most certain fact in all of science.
At 12:49 PM,
Joe G said…
TEs are a different group- they freely admit this is God's work but then slap you for thinking it can be detected as such.
"Oh no, we can't possibly know God's work".
Then stop jumping to conclusions that it was God's work and try to determine the cause. And if the evidence leads you to "the God inference", so be it. And if the evidence leads to dimension-jumping techno-droids, then so be it. Spaghetti monster? Walking, flying or swimming- if that is what the evidence says...
At 1:03 PM,
Joe G said…
I dislike the media- I choose ID because it is neither Creation nor Materialism/ reductionism.
At 3:11 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
""selection", defined as not dying"
What an idiot. Everything dies - does that mean "no selection"?
Strawmantastic.
At 3:47 PM,
Joe G said…
True, natural selection is all about elimination- it is a negative concept.
At 3:49 PM,
CBD said…
Joe,
And if the evidence leads to dimension-jumping techno-droids, then so be it.
What's the evidence pointing to right now?
At 7:33 AM,
CBD said…
Joe,
I dislike the media- I choose ID because it is neither Creation nor Materialism/ reductionism.
Well, now we know what it is not.
So what is it?
At 7:44 AM,
Joe G said…
ID is an areligious approach to answer the origins questions.
At 7:52 AM,
CBD said…
Joe,
ID is an areligious approach to answer the origins questions.
And what has this approach determined so far about "the origin question" that we did not already know?
Anything at all?
At 8:10 AM,
Joe G said…
OM:
And what has this approach determined so far about "the origin question" that we did not already know?
That the universe and living organisms were designed and that changes everything.
At 10:15 AM,
CBD said…
Joe,
That the universe and living organisms were designed and that changes everything.
What does it change? Specifically?
So HIV was designed eh? Nice...
At 10:54 AM,
Joe G said…
OM:
What does it change?
Everything.
OM:
So HIV was designed eh?
Non-sequitur.
At 10:58 AM,
CBD said…
Joe,
Everything.
Care to get more specific? Or are vast sweeping generalities the best that ID can offer?
At 11:01 AM,
Joe G said…
Everything.
OM:
Care to get more specific?
Why do I have to?
What doesyor position have besie a bunch of chickenshit cowards?
At 11:11 AM,
CBD said…
Joe,
What doesyor position have besie a bunch of chickenshit cowards?
The support of over 99% of working biologists.
At 2:22 PM,
Joe G said…
Strange, all those biologists and still no evidence that genetic accidents can accumulate in such a way as to construct new, useful and functional multi-part systems.
What a bunch of losers.
At 2:48 PM,
CBD said…
Joe,
Strange, all those biologists and still no evidence that genetic accidents can accumulate in such a way as to construct new, useful and functional multi-part systems.
HIV evolved, from whatever it evolved from (harmless original created virus or whatever) and along the way it constructed (via evolution) new, useful and functional multi-part systems that enabled it to invade human cells and replicate.
So well does it do this in fact that we've spend decades and billions of $$ trying to stop it.
I'd call that a useful and functional multi-part system, from the point of view of the virus.
If, as you claim, such systems can only be designed via telic means then who exactly is the designer? Are you not frightened?
If, on the other hand, such systems can evolve then the explanation for HIV is much saner.
At 2:52 PM,
Joe G said…
Strange, all those biologists and still no evidence that genetic accidents can accumulate in such a way as to construct new, useful and functional multi-part systems.
OM:
HIV evolved, from whatever it evolved from (harmless original created virus or whatever) and along the way it constructed (via evolution) new, useful and functional multi-part systems that enabled it to invade human cells and replicate.
Citation please- lying loser.
At 5:43 PM,
CBD said…
Joe,
http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=evolution+of+hiv&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=ws
When you say "Citation please- lying loser." what is it you want? My point is not proven with a citation, the point is rather that you have to either accept that HIV was originally harmless (as created) and it evolved into a killer by the direction of that same creator or that it evolved into a killer all on it's own from that harmless original and therefore such "useful parts" as required to turn harmless viri into killers can evolve thereby disproving your claim, regardless of where it originally came from in the first place.
So which is it Joe? Saying "Citation please" without actually addressing the point is not fooling anybody.
What do you want a citation to prove? That HIV was not designed? That it was originally harmless in the garden of Eden? That the designer turned it evil deliberately? Why don't you provide a citation for one of those!
At 5:48 PM,
Joe G said…
MULTI-PART SYSTEMS
There isn't any evidence that HIV became a killer- not a very good one at that- due to the construction of new, useful and functional multi-part systems/ system.
You are obviously ignorant and stupid.
At 5:59 PM,
CBD said…
Joe,
There isn't any evidence that HIV became a killer- not a very good one at that- due to the construction of new, useful and functional multi-part systems/ system.
Then how do you suppose it became a killer at all then?
At 7:33 PM,
Joe G said…
There isn't any evidence that HIV became a killer- not a very good one at that- due to the construction of new, useful and functional multi-part systems/ system.
OM:
Then how do you suppose it became a killer at all then?
Could be due to our degeneration which is due to an accumulation of genetic accidents- that stuff that breaks things.
At 9:07 PM,
IntelligentAnimation said…
Selection is defined as not dying.
Dont like the double negative? OK, how about this: Selection is defined as survival, therefore selection is the reason we survive.
Hmmm. Selection does absolutely nothing no matter how you define it. There is nothing about being selected (not dying) that CAUSES anything to live. Beneficial novel traits can only be selected AFTER they come into existence. Therefore selection can not and does not bring anything into existence.
Selection is a result, not a cause. Darwinism relies 100% on rank luck as its supposed cause.
So lack-of-death causes life, you say? I'll stick with my favorite description of what selection is:
"We live because we didnt die."
Darwinist dimwits.
At 9:10 PM,
IntelligentAnimation said…
I support ID because the facts support it. The evidence is overwhelming and unquestioable.
I have yet to hear a Materialist come up with any evidence to support their case. Will either of you volunteer to be the first?
At 9:26 PM,
IntelligentAnimation said…
Joe, apparently you agree with my definitions of Materialist and Intelligent Evolution, as well as "Theist Evolutionist".
But we disagree on the definition of Creationist. Isnt Creationism basically God-Did-It? Are you saying that Creationism embraces evolution?
They are calling you a Creationist and you are denying it. Can you point to something that a Creationist advocates that you disagree with?
At 9:35 PM,
IntelligentAnimation said…
I share your frustration with Theist Evolutionists. I grouped them with Materialists because they claim that random accident can account for life as we know it.
Classic materialists, such as Dick Dawkins, state that scientific evidence shows that life was designed, but their religious beliefs hold that it can not be.
TE's claim that scientific evidence shows that life was NOT designed, but their religious beliefs hold that it was.
Both reject the scientific method in favor of their beliefs.
At 9:10 PM,
Joe G said…
IA,
I define Creationist pretty much as all sane and rational people do- one, as you say, says "God did it", ie the Bible is an actual historical text (that just happens to also be open to interpretation).
Post a Comment
<< Home