There are easy creationist answers to problems evolutionists pose

Why did this truly stupid thread even get promoted?

Mikey has never discussed anything honestly and is simply another hit-n-run carny barker like ALL Creationists and all of the the CCoI?

The same goes for you, Mikey. Dont insult or berate your critics. I know we all get carried away....Phat does this sometimes, but my intention is to focus on the arguments rather than the personalities. At least try and say something nice to them...after all, as a Creationist defending Creationism you represent the Creator...so keep that in mind when dealing with critics and adversaries.
(I am preaching to myself also)

I promoted this thread. We are not a biased forum. If you have anything to say, keep it professional. Insulting individuals or groups (CCoI, Biblical Creationists) will be met with moderation in this thread. Dont test me, old man.

PaulK, you are right on the line, but having read your responses to Mike, I judge them to be borderline appropriate. The others whom will get suspended if they keep it up are using words like "stupid" "ignorant" and "dishonest".

This thead will be a polite discourse or none at all. And that goes for Mikey as well as his critics.

I know you promoted this thread. The question was other than your bias and willful blindness, why was this crap even promoted when there is ample evidence that Mikey has NEVER discussed or debated anything honestly and is nothing but a hit-n-run troll?

Edited by jar, : No reason given.

Edited by jar, : No reason given.

More DNA evidence is provided by endogenous retroviruses: quote: Endogenous retroviruses are the remnant DNA of a past viral infection. Retroviruses (like the AIDS virus or HTLV1, which causes a form of leukemia) make a copy of their own viral DNA and insert it into their host's DNA. This is how they take over the cellular machinery of a cell and use it to manufacture new copies of the virus. Sometimes, the cell that gets infected by such a virus is an immature egg cell in the ovary of a female animal. Such cells can be stored in a state of suspended animation or dormancy for as much as 50 years before they complete meiosis and become mature egg cells ready to be fertilized. Because they are dormant, gene expression is suppressed and the infection cannot take over the cell and kill it. If that egg later matures and is fertilized, the newborn organism will have that endogenous retrovirus in every one of its cells, and so will all of its descendants. Every viral infection is unique. The complete genome of an animal is so huge, and the insertion point of a virus’s DNA is so random that it is statistically impossible for any two individuals to have the same exact endogenous retrovirus in the same exact spot on the genome unless they both inherited it from a common ancestor who had the original infection. And the infection of a germ cell is so rare that ERVs make up only somewhere between 1% and 8% of the entire human genome. If two humans have the same identical ERV, it is proof that they are descended from a common ancestor. And if two different species have the identical ERV, it is proof that they too are descended from a common ancestor. In humans, there are about 30,000 different ERVS embedded in each person's DNA. Except for those later duplicated by a duplication mutation, all of them record unique infections of a single ancestral individual. Now here is where it gets really interesting. There are at least seven different known instances of shared ERVs between chimps and humans... i.e. ERVs which are the identical viral DNA inserted into the identical spot of the genome. 100% of all chimps and 100% of all humans have these same ERVs. This is only possible if 100% of all chimps and all humans are descended from the single individual that had these original infections. They are proof that humans and chimps share a common ancestor. In a 2000 paper published in the journal Gene researchers identified ERVS shared by different primates and used them to assemble a family tree of monkeys apes and humans. Reference: Lebedev, Y. B., Belonovitch, O. S., Zybrova, N. V, Khil, P. P., Kurdyukov, S. G., Vinogradova, T. V., Hunsmann, G., and Sverdlov, E. D. (2000) "Differences in HERV-K LTR insertions in orthologous loci of humans and great apes." Gene 247: 265-277. Human Evolution: Endogenous Retroviruses prove that humans and chimps share a common ancestor.

The ERV phylogenies are the most compelling evidence of common ancestry piled on top of all the other genetic and morphological taxonomies. Claiming that these patterns do not exist or that the conclusions drawn from this evidence is not obvious is hardly a convincing argument, from mike the pisser.

[insert nasty personal insult here]

In fact disease and defect arise in time, not at creation week. Or do you think God invented covid for humans? Symbiotic hosts can become extinct for example. When you think about it it doesn't really take much thinking to solve some of the "simple" level problems you pose then endlessly repeat as though there are no answers to them. (Mendacious)

And where is this stated? Or did your god whisper this in your ear? You’re so privileged as to know the thoughts of god? Disease wasn’t mentioned in your book of death (bible) because the ancient ignorant minds that made up your god didn’t know about such things.

You made this up, just like creationists fake all their other excuses. (mendacious on steroids)

You’re the liar here, Mikie.

The wiring of the retina for example. But it's been answered now for years on end, eye-specialists have said there isn't any wrong wiring of the eye nor any defect caused by the wiring.

Such lying. That big ol’ blind spot is well known.

Why do you insist in spouting this crap when you MUST know we have the facts and this obvious stupidity was killed dead ages ago?

Mammalian eye - Wikipedia

The Flagellum Unspun

quote:

---

Although the eye remains a common and popular argument among laypeople, some intelligent design and creationism advocates have abandoned the eye as an example of "irreducible complexity" because of the relatively thorough understanding of its evolutionary origins biologists now have, instead relying more on mollecular and microscopic structures such as the flagella, though recent developments have shed significant light on these structures as well.[1]

---

Miller, Kenneth R. The Flagellum Unspun: The Collapse of "Irreducible Complexity"

You’re a liar, Mike. Your “eye-specialists”, who you cannot list, didn’t say any such thing. And remember Project Steve - Wikipedia. For every creationist yahoo you cite I can cite 1,000 + that refute that.

Also a lot of the whining from atheists isn't usually scientific but theological because their complaints usually start with, "why would God do thus and so?"

It is all part of the same complaint. If you believe in this god monster then you have to accept and explain ALL of it including the evil. Scientific inquiry doesn’t stop at the physical. No area of inquiry is out of bounds for science.

That isn't a scientific motive in asking such questions and reveals your bias. If you were objective and open to the truth you wouldn't reveal your true motive which is to attack God, you would simply and honestly WONDER if there really are answers to why God does things beyond a limited human perspective.

Of course we have a bias. Openly. Deliberately.

Find the facts.

And the facts we find are that your god is a figment of ancient ignorant goat herders' quite human imaginations.

Frankly, science couldn’t care less about your creation myth fairy tale.

Scientists don’t spend their time writing up grant proposals to attack your version of Santa Claus.

After all it doesn't take any brain power to surmise that an omniscient mind might have omniscient reasons a human mind can't grasp.

Fact is it doesn’t take any brain power to fantasize ghosts, gods, demons. The brain power comes in with the critical thinking that negates the reality of these things. That is what you and your religionist brethren lack – the honesty of critical intellect.

What better demonstration of this is found in how humans make errors and jump to conclusions when they are plainly in the wrong?

Religion is the poster child. Every error and jump turns into a new cult. In science the human tendency to get it wrong is corrected by peer review. We change. We follow the data.

You guys get some stupidity stuck in your heads and despite clear evidence otherwise continue to believe the crap no matter how many millennia of evidence are known, no matter how much blood and evil ensue.

This behaviour is ubiqitous and we all do it. You can't tell us humans are full of bias and ineptitude and are fallible on the one hand then tell us your judgement is perfectly objective and righteous on the other.

The only ones we know of claiming perfectly objective and righteous anything are the brain-dead religionists like you.

[insert nasty personal insult here]

You bore people with talk of things such as confirmation bias, post-hoc reasoning, memory bias, pareidolia, and all the other human foibles yet when you ask child-level questions about God you think your first thought is going to be accurate and then a flippant dismissal of the issue.

You bore easily of this talk because you are too fucking stupid to understand the concepts and how they very directly impact the issues.

You’re a dumbshit, Mike.

"You can't define kind." MOOT. And you should know that by now. Because not being able to define the original kinds as a classification wouldn't mean it would follow they don't exist.

We can show the lineage of our kinds. I know why you have such a problem with yours. They never were made so.

The fact is we can define kind generally by defining them as the creatures God made.

The fact is we can define creationists generally by defining them as religionists disconnected from the reality of life by strong emotional and cognitive imbalances.

"Geologists back in the day dismissed a flood." This is the silliest one for me personally. Why? The, "geologists" back then didn't know anything.

They knew the bible and the book of genesis. And the more they learned the more they showed it was wrong.

You didn’t know this? Of course you knew this.

Mike you’re arguing abject stupidity from base ignorance. Stop that.

OVERALL CONCLUSION; In their eagerness to spread propaganda about us creationists it would seem evolutionists have never actually read anything we say despite them being the ones that call us ignorant. (think about it, we at least read your position, but you simply dismiss ours and therefore have a poor understanding of us generally speaking.)

As for our view of creationists, we are not eager to spread propaganda. We are eager to ignore. You brain-dead creationist twits keep coming up with these desperate stupidities and then lie about the science.

[insert nasty personal insult here]

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Mike you’re arguing abject stupidity from base ignorance. Stop that. OVERALL CONCLUSION; In their eagerness to spread propaganda about us creationists it would seem evolutionists have never actually read anything we say despite them being the ones that call us ignorant. (think about it, we at least read your position, but you simply dismiss ours and therefore have a poor understanding of us generally speaking.) As for our view of creationists, we are not eager to spread propaganda. We are eager to ignore. You brain-dead creationist twits keep coming up with these desperate stupidities and then lie about the science.

[insert nasty personal insult here= He chews gum like a teenage girl !]

Oh, come on, you know, mikey is a self proclaimed stable genius.

Of course evolution was established even before viruses were discovered in the late nineteenth century. As we gain more knowledge we gain yet more support for the science.

floccinaucinihilipilification

What kind of a useless word is that?

mike the wiz writes: floccinaucinihilipilification What kind of a useless word is that?

The explanation comes with the definition:

quote:

---

"floccinaucinihilipilification" is defined as "the action or habit of estimating something as worthless. (The word is used chiefly as a curiosity.)."

---

So by Mike the Wiss' own words, he's just jerking our chains. Making much more noise than his content is worth.

mike the wiz

Consider CIWS, in which a "close-in weapon system"(CIWS) is deployed on ships with an almost automatic manner. Because of the physical appearance of the system, it's referred to as an R2D2 (made you look!).

Sorry, but I still think that how that system is described, "sea-wiz", still refers to a sailor taking a leak over the side (ie, urinating over the gunwale).

Which cannot help but describe the value of what "mike the wiz" ("pissing over the side") posts and ever has to offer.

Edited by dwise1, : Sorry, cleanup in aisle whatever.

There was also the character “Woody Wiswell” from an old Frasier episode. The writers clearly decided to get a bit crude with the puns on that day.

Sorry, but I guess I'm of "that certain age" that had spent my early teenage years during the surfing craze of the early-mid 60's (eg, Jan and Dean's song, "Sidewalk Surfing" with its refrain of "bust your buns!"). To me, a "woodie" is and always will be a particular kind of car that was popular with surfers, a station wagon with a wooden body.

Lovely looking cars and they still catch my eye. They had also been around in my father's day. I forget whose it was, but one day he decided to redo the varnish on it. So he dismantled it (you could do that) and redid the varnish on each piece. But then he realized that he didn't quite remember how to put it back together again. He did finally work it out, but it had him worried for a while.

I also know that the guy nickname of "Woody" long predates that new connotation that I had never heard of until a later episode of "Rosanne". Kind of like someone's description of me circa 1970 as "the straightest guy he had ever met" would mean something entirely different now (then, "straight" meant that you weren't a "freak", meaning a hippy type in any way).

But a wiz is a wiss is a whiz is a whis and always will be. Such are creationists.

But seriously, follow that link for the CIWS and try to tell me that's not an R2D2 unit! Another friend (other than the shipmate who had used that name for it) described seeing one in action. It kept looking around for a target, pointing its rotary cannon (a modern Gatling gun) as it did so.

So that should raise the question of when the nickname of "Woody" could have become crude. Whenever did that other meaning come into use? I can most definitely assure you that if I were to start driving a Woodie that it would not be a form of penis display!

Refer to the old British comedy, "Coupling" (the USA tried to clone it but failed miserably just like with "Red Dwarf" -- loved it (brilliant semi-autobiographical writing by Steven Moffet who also wrote some of the best modern Doctor Who); I think I have it in my list on Hulu). In one episode, Sally Harper (kind of a over-sexed air-head -- Patrick was trying to guide her into parallel parking, but she instead popped into the pub for a drink) is trying to chat up a doctor at work who drives a sports car, a steel penis. But every time she refers to his car she calls it a "penis" and she tells him that she also used to have a "penis" but she just drove it into the ground. Brilliant!

Edited by dwise1, : Minor grammatical correction changing a contraction to the intended possessive (its).

MTW writes: I have reported message 4 to adminphat in the hopes that he might be more objective since he isn't an anti-theist admin. I think if there are any more personal attacks from the Pauls, a good standard would be to ban them for 14 days. Especially AZPaul. PaulK is slightly more subtle in his character-assassination technique but AZPaul is always a crude person generally. I suspect most posters are just likely to be trolls that have been given a free pass to just troll any creationist that stops by.

To be honest, Mikey, I actually did suspend AZPaul3 overnight and lifted the suspension this morning after re-reading the thread.
I have not watched you moderate too often over at Evolution Fairytale Forum, but I am looking now as I compile this reply. I also respect the members at EvC Forum even if I disagree with them so I expect that you wont do a hit and run and prove jar right. I think I will now participate in this thread and keep AdminPhat back home in the whine cellar.

Edited by Phat, : fixed broken link

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

I suspect most posters are just likely to be trolls that have been given a free pass to just troll any creationist that stops by.

Dream on, Dude! I've been studying "creation science" since 1981 and have discussed it online since about 1986. Mike the Wiz (AKA nothing but pissing over the side -- see my Message 26). In my considered opinion, everything Mike the "pissing over the side" posts and has posted is complete and utter nonsense bull sh*t.

I am waiting to see otherwise.

The absolute proof why a pessimist is the happiest person possible.

99.9999 percent of the time he's right.

The remaining time, he is pleasantly surprised.