Gender: Female Location: Swansea, Wales, United Kingdom
About the science thing...when you said "Because God created the universe does not mean that science doesnt exist" I don't mean people who believe in God don't think science exists, I just mean that if they believe God created the world then that means they can't believe "science" (I don't mean "science" created the world if you know what I mean I mean like all the things to DO with science did if you get what I mean....) created the world....that was what I was saying.
And about the child thing lol.....that's ok although I prefer to be referred to as a teenager seeing as I have been one for 3 years on 28th Feb...YAY
I dont think what you are saying is concise. You stated that "if they believe that God created the world then they dont believe science". While I know what it is you are trying to say, you are inherently wrong. Science does not dictate the philosophy that atheists have come up. Therefore it can not be in disagreement with science.
What it is that creationist do not believe however, is the atheistic philosophy for existence. That is exactly what is going on, this isnt about not believing science. This philosophy (of atheists) is used in their
unobjective search for information. That same philosophy is full of holes, logic based problems, non existent evidence and so on.
__________________
Last edited by clickclick on Feb 2nd, 2005 at 11:06 PM
Oh, I'm spewing nonsense? You're the one who called my stuff bullshit first, and now you complain that I can't call your's bullshit???? Clickclick, you simply can't argue on a rational and logical level. Everything you say is without substance - you can't prove anything - you're also so intellectually challenged as you don't realise that micro evolution manifests in macro evolution - the macro is composed of the micro - so if micro evolution happens then it follows logically that macro evolution happenss. Micro entities and changes are the building blocks for the macro phenomena. It's impossible to have micro evolution and not have that evolution trnslated into the macro - the micro makes the macro. I feel sorry for you that you can't think logically.
Im not surprised that once again, fido once wants to engage me. My first instinct was correct. I addressed it when I stated that I should leave this section until you had gone from it. Now I will address your one post, your misrepresentation of fact was quite insulting but this will be the extent of it. I will lay out the truth as is and from there, you can talk to yourself for all that is my concern.
Anybody with a modicum of knowledge would know that you spewed bullshit. It had no basis. To have you criticize me for a lack of "logic or rational thinking" is laughable in its pathetic nature. I can prove logically or evidence wise what I have said. You use conjecture, bold face lies, innaccuricies and illogical conclusions. You are so absurd. It is a fact that your last post (among others) was full with unequivocal nonsensical drivel.
Therein lies fault incalculable of the young pup fido. Were I to entertain for a short duration the idea that macroevolution took place which of course would require me to suspend knowledge in the process, I would still be left with an enormous obstacle in believing it. The complete lack of evidence. Now if such was the case, then that most certainly should not be the actuality. Microevolution is such that is allowed within the boundries of DNA. To even think that therefore Macroevolution must follow is a titanic insult to the supposed intelligence you purport to have. If you understand anything about DNA and parent species, how could you possibly explain making that statement of yours? Even on the notion of "upward evolution", minor changes do not make for irreducibly complex systems. Small "upward evolutionary changes" on the way to betterment in an irreducibly complex system would not be sustainable, it would be wiped out by the same theory used to explain all this, otherwise known as natural selection. Genetic mutations denote a downward trend and a loss of information. It does not transulate to an upward trend or increase in information. Information that in itself is without naturalistic explanation. The presence of the DNA double helix, the presence of information itself from nothingness as is required for even the "supposed" simple single celled organism. For not only the DNA double helix, not only DNA itself but also the complexities in a single celled organism alone. From whence? Spontaneous generation follows from nothing either, it is but a mere desperate philosophy by the unobjective atheist. At least centuries past they could excuse those thoughts with ignorance, today however people like yourself are stuck with the tag of illogical and thoughtless Its incredibly humerous how many times they resort to spontaneous generation and illogical premises to form their philosophy. From nothingness, uncaused with effect, violating laws of nature, unsupported and illogical. Though it suprises me not the slightest that YOU would bite down on that, after all that is your MO.
Are you so desperate for my attention? You know that I dont like to deal with you, you are the epitome of ignorence, irrationality and nonsensical drivel infinitum. It is against my better judgement that I even respond to you, I cant stand it but yet it is through my pity that I engage you.
My suggestion and it will be helpful. Find somebody else to get your attention, tell them your falsehoods and whatever else it may be that you derive enjoyement from.
Good luck to you and peace.
__________________
Last edited by clickclick on Feb 4th, 2005 at 02:42 PM
Oh, but evolutionary biologists and Scientists share my same ideas.
Genetic mutations, even if it results in a downward trend and a loss of information, still in some cases are found fit for survival by natural selection - and there's the proof: genetic mutations does in fact cause in this case an upward trend and thus causes macroevolution, because genetic mutations occur on the microevolution scale! For example, a genetic mutation occuring in the genes of a primitive giraffe (those which previously had short necks) manifests in a macro change of the giraffe being born with a long neck, and this giraffe is found fit for survival by natural selection. So, the microevolution in the form of a genetic mutation did indeed manifest in a macro change - the genetic mutation (micro cause) leading to the giraffe being born with a long neck (a macro effect), caused a macroevolution!
__________________
Last edited by Philosophicus on Feb 7th, 2005 at 07:14 AM
The fatal flaw and unsolving 'answer' theists give is: They postulate a god/creator as the explanation of existence, because they find existence unexplainable existing on its own. BUT this god/creator who is supposed to be the 'explanation' for existence is unexplainable and unfathomable itself. So, we still sit with an unexplainable entity, only now it's not existence, but a god/creator - in effect, nothing has been explained - one cannot explain an unexplainable entity with another unexplainable entity - that's ridiculous. One might as well leave the unexplainability at existence as such - why move it on to a god/creator?
WHY NOT SIMPLY SAY THAT GOD IS NO CREATOR, BUT THAT HE IS SIMPLY EXISTENCE ITSELF?
Perhaps but you share the same objective. Unobjectivity and a bias that clouds reason.
You are suggesting that a downward trend begets upward evolution. Ill give you more time to think about what you are saying. I hate having to constantly explain everythign to you. There is flexibility within the DNA for a species that allows for variation. If you think a giraffe "getting a longer neck" denotes upward evolution, then why dont you go on the road with your comedy act? Do you even understand what upward evolution is or macroevolution? So far, I very much doubt it.
a giraffe "getting a longer neck" did infact cause upward evolution - prehistoric giraffes had short necks and died out due to their inability to survive on ground vegetation as ground vegetation dissapeared (scientists found skeletons of short necked giraffes)- so the mutations (long necks) survived as they could eat from the trees - as they do today! Their upward evolution saved them from having died out. And their long necks came from genetic mutation(micro), which manifested into macro evolution. Do I have to explain everything to you?
clickclick, oh hilarious, misguided one, I won't go on arguing with you - your retarded logic makes it impossible to convince you of anything that makes sense.
It was fun though to see how utterly mindless someone like you can be, and I'm sure many other members will agree with me.
Good luck with gaining some rudimentary logic skills.
Giraffe's having "getting longer necks" would only be upward evolution if nequivocally new and meaningful genetic content was produced. Obviously it is quite clear that you do not understand the concept of apperance and/or disppearance of existing and/or potential genetic traits
through recombination of existing genetic code.
Even a genetic mutation in a downward trend does not consitute upward evolution.
You dont know what microevolution is, nor macro.
Please child, go play in the sand where you would be much more in your element.
KMC Community Forums
Feb 2nd, 2005 01:54 PM
Once again you are done with me!? 
although I prefer to be referred to as a teenager seeing as I have been one for 3 years on 28th Feb...YAY 
I don't exactly know what "the atheistic philosophy for existence" means! Haha....
