Darwin: Fossils or Fruit Flies?

[Hollie]

In any event, Readers, note that as I talk substance, here and on the other thread, Steven and Hollie are still spouting insults and rubbish about what the Bible teaches, and have yet to demonstrate that they have any first-hand knowledge of significance about the theory they worship.

More personal garbage. More sloganeering. More of the same ol' sneering claptrap about the Bible from boobs and bores who don't know anything about that system of thought either!

Wow. You hyper-religious types are nothing but blowhards.

Your mastery of the science is . . . well . . . underwhelming.

There's no reason to go away angry, my little fundie crank. Not surprisingly, you tried your best to sidestep, waffle and dodge an exercise that befuddles the typical clones that spill out of the fundie creation ministries. *

Here it is again. Don't run and hide.

I'll make this simple with a simple fill in the blank exercise.

"My gods are true as exampled by the supernatural / un-natural event of ________________" which is testable by peer reviewed experimentation."


You see, I've found the best way to confront ID'iots and hyper-religious zealots is to provide them an opportunity to make a rational case for supernaturalism, and then watch as they stutter and mumble nothing but irrelevant slogans they steal from their creation ministries.


Unfortunately, the religious perspectives (fear and ignorance) spewed by you angry fundie has beenthe prime antecedent of 10,000 years of odd rituals, human and animal sacrifice, deistic moral codes, cathedral building, sectarian strife, chants; Gregorian and otherwise, magic beads, smelly incense, golden icons, prayers of petition, public stoning, plastic effigies on dashboards, blind worship of an arbitrarily compiled and dubiously translated book, and lots of guys sporting big funny hats!


Reality has all the earmarks of a naturally caused and functioning universe. We have no solid evidence of any gods or any supernatural realms, this despite multiple millenniaof theories and claims and suppositions and books and icons and so on. Not one single verifiable shred of evidence that a god exists (and even an argument that states that if there were proof, it would defeat his requirement for pure faith), and in fact, a very youthful science that shows more and more every day that a god isn't even needed for reality to exist... god theories crumble quickly under the light of scientific knowledge.


In mathematics, there are fine distinctions to be made between definite and indefinite articles. "An answer" is by no means synonymous with "the answer." Even when a solution has been demonstrated, the uniqueness of the solution is often a far more difficult proposition. This is natural enough, as there are quite often multiple distinct solutions in nature.


*The more excitable of *the creation ministry clones refer to "the" Bible as "the" story of "man's" relationship with "God(s)." Each of these concepts presupposes a unique reification.*

"The Bible" ... There are many interpretations of Bibles, many verses subject to interpretation and many other holy scriptures and still more general spiritual texts besides.*

"The Story" (creation)... There are as many stories, historically, as there are consciousnesses to experience them. By what reasoning can a claim be made for the universality of any of them? Further, how does anyone account for the gods being a liar within the genesis tale; god lied, Satan told the truth.

"Man" ... The evidence seems overwhelming that man does indeed share a common natural descent with all other forms of life on earth. At what point of our biotic history can we chop down the tree and say, "This creature has a soul?"

"God(s)" ... The essential uniqueness of the Abrahamic God(s) lies in the claims of its uniqueness made by its adherents. Yet the largest branch of Abrahamic spirituality claims their unique god is actually three-in-one. The second largest branch claims 9 billion names for the same divinity leaving the third leg of the tripod to mutter "Oi vey" under their collective breaths. "It's broke, you've done with that God we gave you whole!"

If there is one thing sure, it is that closer examination of the supernatural excludes science and opens the door to fundie cranks such as yourself. Gods have a tendency to breed when placed in philosophical intercourse with men. So how are we to discover those aspects, if any, which hold universally?

 

[editec]

1. “No fossil is buried with its birth certificate.

― Henry Gee, "In Search of Deep Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life"

GIGO = start with bad presuppositions and all that follows logically are dubious conclusions

Fossils DO come with a kind of birth certificate (unless of course you choose to deny ALL science)


RE fossil birth certificates?

The discovery of radioactivity late in the 19th century enabled scientists to develop techniques for accurately determining the ages of fossils, rocks, and events in Earth's history in the distant past. For example, through isotopic dating we've learned that Cambrian fossils are about 540-500 million years old, that the oldest known fossils are found in rocks that are about 3.8 billion years old, and that planet Earth is about 4.6 billion years old.
Determining the age of a rock involves using minerals that contain naturally-occurring radioactive elements and measuring the amount of change or decay in those elements to calculate approximately how many years ago the rock formed. Radioactive elements are unstable. They emit particles and energy at a relatively constant rate, transforming themselves through the process of radioactive decay into other elements that are stable - not radioactive. Radioactive elements can serve as natural clocks, because the rate of emission or decay is measurable and because it is not affected by external factors.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. “No fossil is buried with its birth certificate.

― Henry Gee, "In Search of Deep Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life"

GIGO = start with bad presuppositions and all that follows logically are dubious conclusions

Fossils DO come with a kind of birth certificate (unless of course you choose to deny ALL science)


RE fossil birth certificates?

The discovery of radioactivity late in the 19th century enabled scientists to develop techniques for accurately determining the ages of fossils, rocks, and events in Earth's history in the distant past. For example, through isotopic dating we've learned that Cambrian fossils are about 540-500 million years old, that the oldest known fossils are found in rocks that are about 3.8 billion years old, and that planet Earth is about 4.6 billion years old.
Determining the age of a rock involves using minerals that contain naturally-occurring radioactive elements and measuring the amount of change or decay in those elements to calculate approximately how many years ago the rock formed. Radioactive elements are unstable. They emit particles and energy at a relatively constant rate, transforming themselves through the process of radioactive decay into other elements that are stable - not radioactive. Radioactive elements can serve as natural clocks, because the rate of emission or decay is measurable and because it is not affected by external factors.

You dope!

The garbage here is your post!!


The quote is not about the age of a fossil...it is about parentage and species formation.


This is a part of the quote that you didn't comprehend:

"...it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way... To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested,...."





Then again, you might have some expertise when it comes to fossils.....being one.

 

[Hollie]

1. “No fossil is buried with its birth certificate.

― Henry Gee, "In Search of Deep Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life"

GIGO = start with bad presuppositions and all that follows logically are dubious conclusions

Fossils DO come with a kind of birth certificate (unless of course you choose to deny ALL science)


RE fossil birth certificates?

The discovery of radioactivity late in the 19th century enabled scientists to develop techniques for accurately determining the ages of fossils, rocks, and events in Earth's history in the distant past. For example, through isotopic dating we've learned that Cambrian fossils are about 540-500 million years old, that the oldest known fossils are found in rocks that are about 3.8 billion years old, and that planet Earth is about 4.6 billion years old.
Determining the age of a rock involves using minerals that contain naturally-occurring radioactive elements and measuring the amount of change or decay in those elements to calculate approximately how many years ago the rock formed. Radioactive elements are unstable. They emit particles and energy at a relatively constant rate, transforming themselves through the process of radioactive decay into other elements that are stable - not radioactive. Radioactive elements can serve as natural clocks, because the rate of emission or decay is measurable and because it is not affected by external factors.

You dope!

The garbage here is your post!!


The quote is not about the age of a fossil...it is about parentage and species formation.


This is a part of the quote that you didn't comprehend:

"...it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way... To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested,...."





Then again, you might have some expertise when it comes to fossils.....being one.

How ironic.



The princess, the worst offender at dumping edited, parsed, out of context and phony "quotes" she steals from Harun Yahya, is chest heaving about a "quote".

 

[PoliticalChic]

GIGO = start with bad presuppositions and all that follows logically are dubious conclusions

Fossils DO come with a kind of birth certificate (unless of course you choose to deny ALL science)


RE fossil birth certificates?

You dope!

The garbage here is your post!!


The quote is not about the age of a fossil...it is about parentage and species formation.


This is a part of the quote that you didn't comprehend:

"...it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way... To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested,...."








Then again, you might have some expertise when it comes to fossils.....being one.

How ironic.



The princess, the worst offender at dumping edited, parsed, out of context and phony "quotes" she steals from Harun Yahya, is chest heaving about a "quote".

" .....at dumping edited, parsed, out of context and phony "quotes"....."

You moron.

Time and again you have been offered opportunities to show any such "....edited, parsed, out of context and phony "quotes" ...and you have been unable to do so.


The result is the undeniable conclusions that:

a. you are a liar.

b. my posts are accurate and dispositive

c. you have a mental condition.



But...hey....here: try again.
Any examples of such out of context and phony "quotes" ?



I love doing this because I get you to prove how correct I am.

 

[Hollie]

You dope!

The garbage here is your post!!


The quote is not about the age of a fossil...it is about parentage and species formation.


This is a part of the quote that you didn't comprehend:

"...it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way... To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested,...."








Then again, you might have some expertise when it comes to fossils.....being one.

How ironic.



The princess, the worst offender at dumping edited, parsed, out of context and phony "quotes" she steals from Harun Yahya, is chest heaving about a "quote".

" .....at dumping edited, parsed, out of context and phony "quotes"....."

You moron.

Time and again you have been offered opportunities to show any such "....edited, parsed, out of context and phony "quotes" ...and you have been unable to do so.


The result is the undeniable conclusions that:

a. you are a liar.

b. my posts are accurate and dispositive

c. you have a mental condition.



But...hey....here: try again.
Any examples of such out of context and phony "quotes" ?



I love doing this because I get you to prove how correct I am.

How silly.





On multiple occasions, your phony "quotes" from Harun Yahya were shown to be fraudulent.






It's inescapable that you:





Lie.






It's demonstrated that you're a:



Hack.

 

[PoliticalChic]

How ironic.



The princess, the worst offender at dumping edited, parsed, out of context and phony "quotes" she steals from Harun Yahya, is chest heaving about a "quote".

" .....at dumping edited, parsed, out of context and phony "quotes"....."

You moron.

Time and again you have been offered opportunities to show any such "....edited, parsed, out of context and phony "quotes" ...and you have been unable to do so.


The result is the undeniable conclusions that:

a. you are a liar.

b. my posts are accurate and dispositive

c. you have a mental condition.



But...hey....here: try again.
Any examples of such out of context and phony "quotes" ?



I love doing this because I get you to prove how correct I am.

How silly.





On multiple occasions, your phony "quotes" from Harun Yahya were shown to be fraudulent.






It's inescapable that you:





Lie.






It's demonstrated that you're a:



Hack.

But...hey....here: try again.
Any examples of such out of context and phony "quotes" ?

No?


None????



Not a single one????



Write soon.

 

[Hollie]

" .....at dumping edited, parsed, out of context and phony "quotes"....."

You moron.

Time and again you have been offered opportunities to show any such "....edited, parsed, out of context and phony "quotes" ...and you have been unable to do so.


The result is the undeniable conclusions that:

a. you are a liar.

b. my posts are accurate and dispositive

c. you have a mental condition.



But...hey....here: try again.
Any examples of such out of context and phony "quotes" ?



I love doing this because I get you to prove how correct I am.

How silly.





On multiple occasions, your phony "quotes" from Harun Yahya were shown to be fraudulent.






It's inescapable that you:





Lie.






It's demonstrated that you're a:



Hack.

But...hey....here: try again.
Any examples of such out of context and phony "quotes" ?

No?


None????



Not a single one????



Write soon.

Well actually, there's an entire catalog of you being a horse's ass with you silly "quotes".




http://www.usmessageboard.com/8234050-post32.html





You were "quoting" a science fiction writer in a science thread.





A science fiction writer..... in a desperate attempt to make some meaningless point.







Do you recall the numerous "quotes" that you cut and pasted from fundie websites that I showed were frauds?





The talkorigins website I linked to has an entire catalog listing many of your phony "quotes".





You are a





Hack.






You are a





Fraud.

 

[PoliticalChic]

How silly.





On multiple occasions, your phony "quotes" from Harun Yahya were shown to be fraudulent.






It's inescapable that you:





Lie.






It's demonstrated that you're a:



Hack.

But...hey....here: try again.
Any examples of such out of context and phony "quotes" ?

No?


None????



Not a single one????



Write soon.

Well actually, there's an entire catalog of you being a horse's ass with you silly "quotes".




http://www.usmessageboard.com/8234050-post32.html





You were "quoting" a science fiction writer in a science thread.





A science fiction writer..... in a desperate attempt to make some meaningless point.







Do you recall the numerous "quotes" that you cut and pasted from fundie websites that I showed were frauds?





The talkorigins website I linked to has an entire catalog listing many of your phony "quotes".





You are a





Hack.






You are a





Fraud.

So....still no examples?

 

[Hollie]

But...hey....here: try again.
Any examples of such out of context and phony "quotes" ?

No?


None????



Not a single one????



Write soon.

Well actually, there's an entire catalog of you being a horse's ass with you silly "quotes".




http://www.usmessageboard.com/8234050-post32.html





You were "quoting" a science fiction writer in a science thread.





A science fiction writer..... in a desperate attempt to make some meaningless point.







Do you recall the numerous "quotes" that you cut and pasted from fundie websites that I showed were frauds?





The talkorigins website I linked to has an entire catalog listing many of your phony "quotes".





You are a





Hack.






You are a





Fraud.

So....still no examples?

You're still brain dead.




How about your phony "Dean Kenyon" quote?







You dumped that nonsensical bit of Harun Yahya trash into multiple threads





http://www.usmessageboard.com/7872302-post10.html





Your ID'iosy represents an entire catalog of Harun Yahya'isms.





Need more?





Your lies and fraudulent "quotes" are easy to find.





You're a:




Hack and a:




fraud.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Wow. You hyper-religious types are nothing but blowhards.

Your mastery of the science is . . . well . . . underwhelming.

There's no reason to go away angry, my little fundie crank. Not surprisingly, you tried your best to sidestep, waffle and dodge an exercise that befuddles the typical clones that spill out of the fundie creation ministries. *

Here it is again. Don't run and hide.

I'll make this simple with a simple fill in the blank exercise.

"My gods are true as exampled by the supernatural / un-natural event of ________________" which is testable by peer reviewed experimentation."


You see, I've found the best way to confront ID'iots and hyper-religious zealots is to provide them an opportunity to make a rational case for supernaturalism, and then watch as they stutter and mumble nothing but irrelevant slogans they steal from their creation ministries.


Unfortunately, the religious perspectives (fear and ignorance) spewed by you angry fundie has beenthe prime antecedent of 10,000 years of odd rituals, human and animal sacrifice, deistic moral codes, cathedral building, sectarian strife, chants; Gregorian and otherwise, magic beads, smelly incense, golden icons, prayers of petition, public stoning, plastic effigies on dashboards, blind worship of an arbitrarily compiled and dubiously translated book, and lots of guys sporting big funny hats!


Reality has all the earmarks of a naturally caused and functioning universe. We have no solid evidence of any gods or any supernatural realms, this despite multiple millenniaof theories and claims and suppositions and books and icons and so on. Not one single verifiable shred of evidence that a god exists (and even an argument that states that if there were proof, it would defeat his requirement for pure faith), and in fact, a very youthful science that shows more and more every day that a god isn't even needed for reality to exist... god theories crumble quickly under the light of scientific knowledge.


In mathematics, there are fine distinctions to be made between definite and indefinite articles. "An answer" is by no means synonymous with "the answer." Even when a solution has been demonstrated, the uniqueness of the solution is often a far more difficult proposition. This is natural enough, as there are quite often multiple distinct solutions in nature.


*The more excitable of *the creation ministry clones refer to "the" Bible as "the" story of "man's" relationship with "God(s)." Each of these concepts presupposes a unique reification.*

"The Bible" ... There are many interpretations of Bibles, many verses subject to interpretation and many other holy scriptures and still more general spiritual texts besides.*

"The Story" (creation)... There are as many stories, historically, as there are consciousnesses to experience them. By what reasoning can a claim be made for the universality of any of them? Further, how does anyone account for the gods being a liar within the genesis tale; god lied, Satan told the truth.

"Man" ... The evidence seems overwhelming that man does indeed share a common natural descent with all other forms of life on earth. At what point of our biotic history can we chop down the tree and say, "This creature has a soul?"

"God(s)" ... The essential uniqueness of the Abrahamic God(s) lies in the claims of its uniqueness made by its adherents. Yet the largest branch of Abrahamic spirituality claims their unique god is actually three-in-one. The second largest branch claims 9 billion names for the same divinity leaving the third leg of the tripod to mutter "Oi vey" under their collective breaths. "It's broke, you've done with that God we gave you whole!"

If there is one thing sure, it is that closer examination of the supernatural excludes science and opens the door to fundie cranks such as yourself. Gods have a tendency to breed when placed in philosophical intercourse with men. So how are we to discover those aspects, if any, which hold universally?

Still no science concerning your belief?

 

[Hollie]

Your mastery of the science is . . . well . . . underwhelming.

There's no reason to go away angry, my little fundie crank. Not surprisingly, you tried your best to sidestep, waffle and dodge an exercise that befuddles the typical clones that spill out of the fundie creation ministries. *

Here it is again. Don't run and hide.

I'll make this simple with a simple fill in the blank exercise.

"My gods are true as exampled by the supernatural / un-natural event of ________________" which is testable by peer reviewed experimentation."


You see, I've found the best way to confront ID'iots and hyper-religious zealots is to provide them an opportunity to make a rational case for supernaturalism, and then watch as they stutter and mumble nothing but irrelevant slogans they steal from their creation ministries.


Unfortunately, the religious perspectives (fear and ignorance) spewed by you angry fundie has beenthe prime antecedent of 10,000 years of odd rituals, human and animal sacrifice, deistic moral codes, cathedral building, sectarian strife, chants; Gregorian and otherwise, magic beads, smelly incense, golden icons, prayers of petition, public stoning, plastic effigies on dashboards, blind worship of an arbitrarily compiled and dubiously translated book, and lots of guys sporting big funny hats!


Reality has all the earmarks of a naturally caused and functioning universe. We have no solid evidence of any gods or any supernatural realms, this despite multiple millenniaof theories and claims and suppositions and books and icons and so on. Not one single verifiable shred of evidence that a god exists (and even an argument that states that if there were proof, it would defeat his requirement for pure faith), and in fact, a very youthful science that shows more and more every day that a god isn't even needed for reality to exist... god theories crumble quickly under the light of scientific knowledge.


In mathematics, there are fine distinctions to be made between definite and indefinite articles. "An answer" is by no means synonymous with "the answer." Even when a solution has been demonstrated, the uniqueness of the solution is often a far more difficult proposition. This is natural enough, as there are quite often multiple distinct solutions in nature.


*The more excitable of *the creation ministry clones refer to "the" Bible as "the" story of "man's" relationship with "God(s)." Each of these concepts presupposes a unique reification.*

"The Bible" ... There are many interpretations of Bibles, many verses subject to interpretation and many other holy scriptures and still more general spiritual texts besides.*

"The Story" (creation)... There are as many stories, historically, as there are consciousnesses to experience them. By what reasoning can a claim be made for the universality of any of them? Further, how does anyone account for the gods being a liar within the genesis tale; god lied, Satan told the truth.

"Man" ... The evidence seems overwhelming that man does indeed share a common natural descent with all other forms of life on earth. At what point of our biotic history can we chop down the tree and say, "This creature has a soul?"

"God(s)" ... The essential uniqueness of the Abrahamic God(s) lies in the claims of its uniqueness made by its adherents. Yet the largest branch of Abrahamic spirituality claims their unique god is actually three-in-one. The second largest branch claims 9 billion names for the same divinity leaving the third leg of the tripod to mutter "Oi vey" under their collective breaths. "It's broke, you've done with that God we gave you whole!"

If there is one thing sure, it is that closer examination of the supernatural excludes science and opens the door to fundie cranks such as yourself. Gods have a tendency to breed when placed in philosophical intercourse with men. So how are we to discover those aspects, if any, which hold universally?

Still no science concerning your belief?

As expected, when the angry fundies are challenged with supporting their claims to magic and supernaturalism, they scatter like cockroaches when a light is turned on.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Well actually, there's an entire catalog of you being a horse's ass with you silly "quotes".




http://www.usmessageboard.com/8234050-post32.html





You were "quoting" a science fiction writer in a science thread.





A science fiction writer..... in a desperate attempt to make some meaningless point.







Do you recall the numerous "quotes" that you cut and pasted from fundie websites that I showed were frauds?





The talkorigins website I linked to has an entire catalog listing many of your phony "quotes".





You are a





Hack.






You are a





Fraud.

So....still no examples?

You're still brain dead.




How about your phony "Dean Kenyon" quote?







You dumped that nonsensical bit of Harun Yahya trash into multiple threads





http://www.usmessageboard.com/7872302-post10.html





Your ID'iosy represents an entire catalog of Harun Yahya'isms.





Need more?





Your lies and fraudulent "quotes" are easy to find.





You're a:




Hack and a:




fraud.

"How about your phony "Dean Kenyon" quote?"


Why didn't you include the quote?

Here it is:

"And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field."
Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.


It is correct....and you remain a lying dolt.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

There's no reason to go away angry, my little fundie crank. Not surprisingly, you tried your best to sidestep, waffle and dodge an exercise that befuddles the typical clones that spill out of the fundie creation ministries. *

Here it is again. Don't run and hide.

I'll make this simple with a simple fill in the blank exercise.

"My gods are true as exampled by the supernatural / un-natural event of ________________" which is testable by peer reviewed experimentation."


You see, I've found the best way to confront ID'iots and hyper-religious zealots is to provide them an opportunity to make a rational case for supernaturalism, and then watch as they stutter and mumble nothing but irrelevant slogans they steal from their creation ministries.


Unfortunately, the religious perspectives (fear and ignorance) spewed by you angry fundie has beenthe prime antecedent of 10,000 years of odd rituals, human and animal sacrifice, deistic moral codes, cathedral building, sectarian strife, chants; Gregorian and otherwise, magic beads, smelly incense, golden icons, prayers of petition, public stoning, plastic effigies on dashboards, blind worship of an arbitrarily compiled and dubiously translated book, and lots of guys sporting big funny hats!


Reality has all the earmarks of a naturally caused and functioning universe. We have no solid evidence of any gods or any supernatural realms, this despite multiple millenniaof theories and claims and suppositions and books and icons and so on. Not one single verifiable shred of evidence that a god exists (and even an argument that states that if there were proof, it would defeat his requirement for pure faith), and in fact, a very youthful science that shows more and more every day that a god isn't even needed for reality to exist... god theories crumble quickly under the light of scientific knowledge.


In mathematics, there are fine distinctions to be made between definite and indefinite articles. "An answer" is by no means synonymous with "the answer." Even when a solution has been demonstrated, the uniqueness of the solution is often a far more difficult proposition. This is natural enough, as there are quite often multiple distinct solutions in nature.


*The more excitable of *the creation ministry clones refer to "the" Bible as "the" story of "man's" relationship with "God(s)." Each of these concepts presupposes a unique reification.*

"The Bible" ... There are many interpretations of Bibles, many verses subject to interpretation and many other holy scriptures and still more general spiritual texts besides.*

"The Story" (creation)... There are as many stories, historically, as there are consciousnesses to experience them. By what reasoning can a claim be made for the universality of any of them? Further, how does anyone account for the gods being a liar within the genesis tale; god lied, Satan told the truth.

"Man" ... The evidence seems overwhelming that man does indeed share a common natural descent with all other forms of life on earth. At what point of our biotic history can we chop down the tree and say, "This creature has a soul?"

"God(s)" ... The essential uniqueness of the Abrahamic God(s) lies in the claims of its uniqueness made by its adherents. Yet the largest branch of Abrahamic spirituality claims their unique god is actually three-in-one. The second largest branch claims 9 billion names for the same divinity leaving the third leg of the tripod to mutter "Oi vey" under their collective breaths. "It's broke, you've done with that God we gave you whole!"

If there is one thing sure, it is that closer examination of the supernatural excludes science and opens the door to fundie cranks such as yourself. Gods have a tendency to breed when placed in philosophical intercourse with men. So how are we to discover those aspects, if any, which hold universally?

Still no science concerning your belief?

As expected, when the angry fundies are challenged with supporting their claims to magic and supernaturalism, they scatter like cockroaches when a light is turned on.

Are you insane? I've been doing nothing but discussing the science that supports my contention on this thread and the other thread. You've done nothing but sling insults and make baby talk. You're not making a lick of sense.

1. You're asking for an empirical demonstration of an immaterial substance.

*crickets chirping*

2. Can you provide an empirical demonstration for what is in fact the immaterial substance of your presupposition for science: metaphysical/ontological naturalism?

*crickets chirping*

3. I'm not a fundamentalist.

4. I'm not a young-earth creationist.

"Man" ... The evidence seems overwhelming that man does indeed share a common natural descent with all other forms of life on earth.

What evidence? Do you know what the alleged evidence is for this is or not? I've already refuted the supposed evidence in the above. Do you have a counterargument or not?

At what point of our biotic history can we chop down the tree and say, "This creature has a soul?"

I don't except the premise for this question. I refuted the premise for this question. Do you know the science of your faith or not?

What is wrong with you?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Still no science concerning your belief?

As expected, when the angry fundies are challenged with supporting their claims to magic and supernaturalism, they scatter like cockroaches when a light is turned on.

Are you insane? I've been doing nothing but discussing the science that supports my contention on this thread and the other thread. You've done nothing but sling insults and make baby talk. You're not making a lick of sense.

1. You're asking for an empirical demonstration of an immaterial substance.

*crickets chirping*

2. Can you provide an empirical demonstration of the immaterial substance of your scientific presupposition of metaphysical/ontological naturalism?

*crickets chirping*

3. I'm not a fundamentalist.

4. I'm not a young-earth creationist.

"Man" ... The evidence seems overwhelming that man does indeed share a common natural descent with all other forms of life on earth.

What evidence? Do you know what the alleged evidence is for this is or not? I've already refuted the supposed evidence in the above. Do you have a counterargument or not?

At what point of our biotic history can we chop down the tree and say, "This creature has a soul?"

I don't except the premise for this question. I refuted the premise for this question. Do you know the science of your faith or not?

What is wrong with you?

Actually, I truly believe her to be insane......her posts are totally at odds with reality, and the perseveration is a sign found in schizophreniacs.

Sad.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I know, Hollie, maybe you missed this: http://www.usmessageboard.com/scien...win-fossils-or-fruit-flies-7.html#post8972193

 

[Hollie]

Still no science concerning your belief?

As expected, when the angry fundies are challenged with supporting their claims to magic and supernaturalism, they scatter like cockroaches when a light is turned on.

Are you insane? I've been doing nothing but discussing the science that supports my contention on this thread and the other thread. You've done nothing but sling insults and make baby talk. You're not making a lick of sense.

1. You're asking for an empirical demonstration of an immaterial substance.

*crickets chirping*

Oh my. And still you hope to slither away from the tough questions.

It's theists who make claims to one or more gods so your inability to make any rational case for your version of gods is not my demonstration to make.

The theist creates for himself a genuinely unsolvable dilemma. He/she claims there is a source material that lays out the belief system. He/she claims this source material has a level of functionality that supports that belief system as well. He/she further asserts that unless the "author" of that support system (a god or god(s)) endows one with some special knowledge (knowledge that can’t be shared in a meaningful way), one cannot understand that support system as laid out and supported by the source material.

The theist then further complicates matters by suggesting that there are various complex methods by which one can read and interpret this source material.

Then the theist proceeds even further. He/she states that the god has a vested interest in human salvation, and through this book makes that word of salvation known, and yet... according to believers, there are varying degrees by which this knowledge may or may not be interpreted or even discovered.

In other words, the message of the book is a cold, unalterable law: Ye must believeth this, or be damned.

Then the book itself ranges from fact to fiction, from literalism to metaphor helter-skelter, and humans are then asked to pick and choose which aspects are literal and which are not.

Is Joshua's sun-standing still (i.e., Earth stopping its rotation) a true rendering of an historical event, or not? Is the flood true? Is Adam and Eve and original sin true (this one is primary, for without it, all the rest is unnecessary), is the resurrection true?

I dunno. Could be. Maybe. Depends. Kinda. Sorta. Maybe a flesh and blood body. Maybe not. That's what you embrace. Meanwhile, the underlying message remains:

Believe this, or be eternally, forever, always and from now until never – marshmallow in Hell.

Super!

So, obviously, you cannot or will not respond to:

"My gods are true as exampled by the supernatural / un-natural event of ________________" which is testable by peer reviewed experimentation."


*crickets chirping*

2. Can you provide an empirical demonstration for what is in fact the immaterial substance of your presupposition for science: metaphysical/ontological naturalism?

*crickets chirping*

You use goofy terms you apparently stole from one of the fundamentalist creation ministries. How cute.

I'm not one to but into any of the conspiracy theories that haunt many of the more excitable fundies. I'm OK with providing a short primer on biological evolution for you as you're a bit light on the basics.

Biological evolution (Darwinian or otherwise) presumes the existence of life, and it does not matter what the source of that life might be. It could be abiogenesis, or it could be panspermia (directed or otherwise), or it could be the miraculous intervention of one of more of the gods, or it could be some other source of which we are completely unaware. Evolution studies what has occurred to life ion the planet in the subsequent 3+/- billion years of its existence. It explains the origin and diversity of species, not the origin of life. To pretend that evolution's status as a rigorous science depends on a prior solution to the problem of abiogenesis is the equivalent of insisting that orbital mechanics is not scientific until we have a prior solution to the issues regarding quantum mechanics. Planets still orbit their respective suns in a way that is rigorously understood, even though we do not yet fully understand the behavior of subatomic particles. And, as best science can determine, humans still evolved from a common ancestor with the apes, even though we do not fully understand the origin of the first organism.

Evolution is based on evidence. This is different from creationism, which selectively uses evidence to support its position. In other words, evolution comes from evidence, while creationism uses evidence to support an unverifiable, pre-existing source (the “holy text” of choice).

Creationism is not science, because it relies completely on miraculous interventions (floods, miracles and the creation itself,)-- things that cannot be used in the formulation of a scientific theory. Since miraculous events cannot be tested, repeated, nor can the processes by which they operate be described, they must be taken on faith. Creationism is an expression of religious belief-- not science. There is a huge difference.
The fact that all species alive today have descended from a common ancestor can be denied, but not refuted. We know it happens because we can observe it directly in short-lived species, and for longer lived species there is genetic and fossil evidence that is unambiguous. There is no other scientific explanation for the diversity of living species. Creationism IS NOT a scientific explanation-- it is a religious one, and a religious explanation is not interchangeable with a scientific one.

If you have trouble fathoming the study of events that happened millions or billions of years ago, perhaps you should study further. Is paleontology to be doubted? Should archaeology be thrown out? Is geology a religion? Is all of history suspect? There are real reasons behind the science of reconstructing the past.

*crickets chirping*

3. I'm not a fundamentalist.

You're a card carrying, bible beater.

4. I'm not a young-earth creationist.

Is the Flat Earth Society currently promoting an enrollment drive?

"Man" ... The evidence seems overwhelming that man does indeed share a common natural descent with all other forms of life on earth.

What evidence? Do you know what the alleged evidence is for this is or not? I've already refuted the supposed evidence in the above. Do you have a counterargument or not?

I do know what the evidence is. I'll leave it to you and your fundie homies to embrace any and all global conspiracies involving those Atheistic Evilutionist Scientists

Your comments are stereotypical for fundie whack-jobs and is another demonstration of creationist inability to deal effectively with the overwhelming evidence of biological evolution since that "mysterious" origin. Evolutionists can fully concede (arguendo) that some god created the first living thing, and that would still change nothing for the subsequent science.

It is part of what I like to call "The Amazing Shrinking Creation Model." The original creationists made no effort to conceal their agenda of promoting Biblical literalism. It was (as you may recall) originally called "Biblical Creationism" with great candor. Faced with the correct legal conclusions that it was merely religion, they retreated and renamed it "Scientific Creationism," making a half hearted attempt to edit out explicit Biblical references... but that fooled no one. When that met an equally unambiguous decision in the courts, the new version became "Intelligent Design." In the process, the creationist movement has become progressively less candid, more ambiguous, and frankly more pathetic.

In the same way, when creationists find themselves unable to deal with the multiple independent sources of evidence for evolution that include the fossils, the genetic comparisons, comparative anatomy, biogeography, ecology etc., they retreat further and further towards the subject of abiogenesis. But how does that help them?

Does a god that created bacteria and then let everything else evolve from there conform any better with the record of Genesis than no god at all? Either way, the Bible still cannot be taken literally. Adam and Eve are still an allegory. Biblical history is still a myth.

It is not the issue of abiogenesis that actually concerns the creationist movement. It is irrelevant to the actual disagreement with science, and most creationists already know that. The disagreement fundamentally is about evolution, not abiogenesis. And specifically, the issue is about the evolution of human beings, not the origin of the first cell.

Creationism is not a theist vs. atheist controversy. It is a Fundamentalist Christian vs. everybody else controversy. It is a single biblical literalist perspective versus even other Christians who have no trouble with the scientific perspective.

Organisms still evolve through a combination of genetic mutation and natural selection. And the evidence still reflects a common origin for all living things from a common ancestor via a process of descent with modification, no matter how life arose in the first place. That is the problem for creationists.

*Crickets chirping*

At what point of our biotic history can we chop down the tree and say, "This creature has a soul?"

I don't except the premise for this question. I refuted the premise for this question. Do you know the science of your faith or not?

What is wrong with you?

You give yourself credit for doing nothing.

At this point I cannot take you off the hook quite that easily. There does not exist a significant "anti-evolution" movement outside of Christian creationism. This is (and you must be honest with yourself here) the source of your own arguments, and therefore it is fair game, if only from a history of the philosophy perspective. It would be easier to take seriously your protests here were your arguments not so tightly in lockstep with those of the Institute for Creation Research, the Center for Scientific Creationism, or the Discovery Institute. But that is not the case.

Further, were you not essentially arguing as a classic Creationist, I would expect you to actually have a scientific alternative to propose, which (of course) Creationists and their ID'iot brethren do not. Creationism has always consisted primarily of arguments against evolution rather than argument in favor of a different theory of origins. This is also the manner in which you are arguing.

 

[MaryL]

Let's apply that same rigorous standard of proof to the bible. Please, it's easier to believe a big man in the sky created the world in seven days?

 

[HUGGY]

Hollie... You work too hard to show the fundi and fundiesquelol readers the errors of their ways.

A famous quote..I'm not sure from where it was born. "who is crazier? A crazy person? or someone that argues with one?"

I am only aiming at the volumes you bring to the discussion. I am certain you could assemble 10 or 100 pages of your well thought out arguments and still the "understanding" needle wouldn't budge with these god fearing folks.

You can't present a better argument that the threat of hell or the treat of heaven to make your point.

You offer no bribe nor insurance against what happens when you die.

I certainly applaud the work you do.

Religion has tapped into the same fears of children, imagining what monsters lurk under the bed or in the shadows in the closet, that still live in the imaginations of adults.

I too feel sorry for the pain and fears these people harbor. Unfortunately until the fears have been beaten into submission these folks will never stand up to any truth that just dismisses them. They believe god can protect them and we offer nothing of the kind.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Hollie... You work too hard to show the fundi and fundiesquelol readers the errors of their ways.

A famous quote..I'm not sure from where it was born. "who is crazier? A crazy person? or someone that argues with one?"

I am only aiming at the volumes you bring to the discussion. I am certain you could assemble 10 or 100 pages of your well thought out arguments and still the "understanding" needle wouldn't budge with these god fearing folks.

You can't present a better argument that the threat of hell or the treat of heaven to make your point.

You offer no bribe nor insurance against what happens when you die.

I certainly applaud the work you do.

Religion has tapped into the same fears of children, imagining what monsters lurk under the bed or in the shadows in the closet, that still live in the imaginations of adults.

I too feel sorry for the pain and fears these people harbor. Unfortunately until the fears have been beaten into submission these folks will never stand up to any truth that just dismisses them. They believe god can protect them and we offer nothing of the kind.

"...the errors of their ways."

I understand that you hate and fear religion.....

...but nothing that I've posted pertains to or relies on religion for its veracity.




How about you attempt to show any "errors of their ways."

Bet you cannot.