When Is An Evolution Scientist Ever Going To Admit The Other Side May Be Right?

[NoNukes]

I find it funny that creationists find evolution so far-fetched while believing people just popped out of thin air.

The facts are, neither side can prove their side.

We know the world is older than 5,000 years.

Absolutely. Not what we were discussing though.

That is what the Creationists believe.

 

[Anomalism]

Which I'm not arguing.

If God created life it would have to be single-celled life that evolved. I think we understand physics well enough to say for sure that people didn't just pop into existence.

 

[pknopp]

I find it funny that creationists find evolution so far-fetched while believing people just popped out of thin air.

The facts are, neither side can prove their side.

We know the world is older than 5,000 years.

Absolutely. Not what we were discussing though.

That is what the Creationists believe.

Some do. Many do not.

 

[pknopp]

Which I'm not arguing.

If God created life it would have to be single-celled life that evolved. I think we understand physics well enough to say for sure that people didn't just pop into existence.

Quite possible. Maybe some day, someone will prove it.

 

[Ringtone]

Creationism is extremely unlikely given what we do know. Don't underestimate the limits of your own knowledge either. The vast, vast majority of scientists believe evolution to be real.

LOL! Nonsense. There's absolutely nothing in the available evidence that falsifies creationism proper. Evolutionists do not know that metaphysical naturalism, the underlying assumption for their interpretation of the evidence, is true. They assume it's true and their conclusion circularly follows. Why do you believe that metaphysical naturalism is true?

 

[Crepitus]

They've still got no evidence of creationism at all.

View attachment 441851

Meanwhile, back to reality, the Universe, which began to exist in the finite past, exists.

Your opinion isn't proof of jack squat.

Sorry for your luck.

 

[Ringtone]

We know the world is older than 5,000 years.

Nonsense. Not all creationists believe that and creationism proper asserts no such thing. By the way, the number you're looking for is 6,000 to 10,000 years, not 5,000, depending on what version of Ussherian hermeneutics the YEC imposes on the biblical text.

 

[Ringtone]

Your opinion isn't proof of jack squat.

Sorry for your luck.

Your opinion doesn't refute jack squat.

Make an argument next time. Were you dropped on your head as a child? Sorry for your luck.

 

[Ringtone]

If God created life it would have to be single-celled life that evolved.

LOL! Why?

I think we understand physics well enough to say for sure that people didn't just pop into existence.

What do the laws of physics have to do with the creation of the physical world and life? Please be specific and start your explication for how the physical world came into existence in the finite past, which we know to be a fact per logic, mathematics, astrophysics and cosmology.

 

[Crepitus]

Your opinion isn't proof of jack squat.

Sorry for your luck.

Your opinion doesn't refute jack squat.

Make an argument next time. Were you dropped on your head as a child? Sorry for your luck.

There's your argument.

That's 135,000,000 years old.

 

[Ringtone]

There's your argument.

View attachment 441947

That's 135,000,000 years old.

So your argument is that a fossil demonstrating the existence of an animal that has gone extinct exists? Uhhhhhh, okey dokey. Now, beyond that, what's your argument, precisely, and for what, precisely?

 

[Crepitus]

There's your argument.

View attachment 441947

That's 135,000,000 years old.

So your argument is that a fossil demonstrating the existence of an animal that has gone extinct exists? Uhhhhhh, okey dokey. Now, beyond that, what's your argument, precisely, and for what, precisely?

You have a nice day.

 

[Hollie]

Creationism is extremely unlikely given what we do know. Don't underestimate the limits of your own knowledge either. The vast, vast majority of scientists believe evolution to be real.

LOL! Nonsense. There's absolutely nothing in the available evidence that falsifies creationism proper. Evolutionists do not know that metaphysical naturalism, the underlying assumption for their interpretation of the evidence, is true. They assume it's true and their conclusion circularly follows. Why do you believe that metaphysical naturalism is true?

You fail to realize that you’re making a rather nonsensical claim suggesting that supernatural creationism cannot be falsified.

You fail to understand a rather simple premise which is: supernatural creationism, whether ID’iot creationism, “the gawds did it”, Biblical creationism or whatever appeals to magic and supernaturalism you claim, in any form, is not science. Appeals to a supernatural being, or the “designed by the gods” concept you dump into a science discussion are pointless in any science discussion because creationers exclude their ideas from the domain of science. Gods, magic and supernaturalism are neither testable nor falsifiable. Those two criteria are very basic criteria to the scientific method.

 

[Ringtone]

There's your argument.

View attachment 441947

That's 135,000,000 years old.

So your argument is that a fossil demonstrating the existence of an animal that has gone extinct exists? Uhhhhhh, okey dokey. Now, beyond that, what's your argument, precisely, and for what, precisely?

You have a nice day.

Behold the mindless imbeciles of evolution who cannot grasp the fact that their dogma is predicated on the scientifically indemonstrable apriority of metaphysical naturalism. Oh, look, a very old fossil of an organism that has gone extinct exists, therefore, evolution!

Because we’re here. It must have happened. That’s called circular reasoning, friends, based on a prior commitment to naturalism that won’t be shaken by the facts.​

​

Which proves that this is not about science, it’s about philosophy. —Greg Koukl​

 

[Ringtone]

You fail to realize that you’re making a rather nonsensical claim suggesting that supernatural creationism cannot be falsified.

You fail to understand a rather simple premise which is: supernatural creationism, whether ID’iot creationism, “the gawds did it”, Biblical creationism or whatever appeals to magic and supernaturalism you claim, in any form, is not science. Appeals to a supernatural being, or the “designed by the gods” concept you dump into a science discussion are pointless in any science discussion because creationers exclude their ideas from the domain of science. Gods, magic and supernaturalism are neither testable nor falsifiable. Those two criteria are very basic criteria to the scientific method.

 

[Hollie]

You fail to realize that you’re making a rather nonsensical claim suggesting that supernatural creationism cannot be falsified.

You fail to understand a rather simple premise which is: supernatural creationism, whether ID’iot creationism, “the gawds did it”, Biblical creationism or whatever appeals to magic and supernaturalism you claim, in any form, is not science. Appeals to a supernatural being, or the “designed by the gods” concept you dump into a science discussion are pointless in any science discussion because creationers exclude their ideas from the domain of science. Gods, magic and supernaturalism are neither testable nor falsifiable. Those two criteria are very basic criteria to the scientific method.

View attachment 442013

I tried to help you understand that falsifying magic and supernaturalism is simply not an endeavor available to science.

You really should consider that your arguments for gods really belong in the religious forums.

 

[Anomalism]

Behold the mindless imbeciles of evolution who cannot grasp the fact that their dogma is predicated on the scientifically indemonstrable apriority of metaphysical naturalism. Oh, look, a very old fossil of an organism that has gone extinct exists, therefore, evolution!

Behold the petulant arrogance of a person that's actually willing to call believers of evolution "mindless imbeciles" while lacking the tools to ever perceive the magnitude of their own ignorance enough to have a reasonable debate. When you make ridiculous claims and demand that they are fact despite having no evidence to back them up, one can't do much but roll their eyes at you. I actually feel bad for you. What is it about your life that makes you so desperate for God that you're willing to come here and constantly bullshit yourself and others?

 

[Ringtone]

Behold the petulant arrogance of a person that's actually willing to call believers of evolution "mindless imbeciles" while lacking the tools to ever perceive the magnitude of their own ignorance enough to have a reasonable debate. When you make ridiculous claims and demand that they are fact despite having no evidence to back them up, one can't do much but roll their eyes at you. I actually feel bad for you. What is it about your life that makes you so desperate for God that you're willing to come here and constantly bullshit yourself and others?

False! I wrote: Behold the mindless imbeciles of evolution who cannot grasp the fact that their dogma is predicated on the scientifically indemonstrable apriority of naturalism. Not all evolutions are as stupid as the typical true believer on social media. Unlike the imbeciles, they readily understand the nature of their underlying assumption regarding reality. Thus, ultimately right or wrong, they actually own their own minds and beliefs as persons who have thought things through.

I have yet to encounter a true believer on this board in all these years who grasps the actual reason they think evolution is true. It's hilarious. As one who failed to follow the actual point of my observation, you don't seem to be consciously aware of the actual reason you think evolution is true either.

Why do you think the scientifically indemonstrable apriority of naturalism is true? If you cannot grasp the thrust of that question or you cannot answer it, then you are one of the imbeciles.

 

[Ringtone]

Behold the petulant arrogance of a person that's actually willing to call believers of evolution "mindless imbeciles" while lacking the tools to ever perceive the magnitude of their own ignorance enough to have a reasonable debate. When you make ridiculous claims and demand that they are fact despite having no evidence to back them up, one can't do much but roll their eyes at you. I actually feel bad for you. What is it about your life that makes you so desperate for God that you're willing to come here and constantly bullshit yourself and others?

No evidence?!

Let me help you grasp the actual order of your very own “reasoning” that utterly escapes you and every other evolutionist I’ve encountered on US Message Board.

Responding to another, Steven_R sarcastically writes:

Well, at some point humans branched off and two of our chromosomes fused. . . . So, whatever the common ancestor we and chimps had evolved into two separate species of Homo sapiens and Pan troglodytes.​

​

Either that or God fused two chromosomes in our genome together in an attempt to trick us into thinking we're related to chimps.​

Note that this imbecile is unwittingly presupposing evolution all the while in his premise!

Earlier he writes:

When we finish with why evolution is a lie, our next topic will be why the Sun really goes around the Earth, and that topic will be followed by a presentation entitled "The Four Humours & You: How to Keep in Balance for Fun, Profit, & Health." Make sure you stay to the end when we discuss how dental cavities are caused by tiny worms.​

I then invite this braying jackass to consider something that has never occurred to him. I write:

I have a better idea!​

​

Let's discuss why you believe naturalism, on which the fanciful hypothesis of evolution is predicated, is necessarily true. Then we can discuss how you, not God, tricked yourself into interpreting the available evidence per the gratuitous insertion of an apriority that circularly begs the question and yields the mathematical monstrosity of a biological history entailing an evolutionary branching and transmutational process of speciation from a common ancestry.​

​

Then you might finally perceive the actual reason that biologists of the evolutionary hypothesis believe it to be true, that is, because they presuppose their interpretation of the evidence in their metaphysical premise as they observe that adaptive radiation occurs and that the paleontological record demonstrates that species appeared on Earth in a chronology of generally increasing complexity and variety.​

​

The gratuitous apriority is not observed. It's an assumption and scientifically unfalsifiable.​

​

Hocus Pocus​

​

Make sure you stay to the end when I show you the potentiality that has never occurred to you in all of your unexamined life, namely, that biological history entails a series of creative events per a systematically upgraded and transcribed genetic motif of common design imbued by God to adaptively radiate per the mechanisms of natural selection, genetic mutation, genetic drift, and gene flow over geological time.​

​

Don’t miss out on the fact that a cyclically limited range of adaptive radiation to the taxonomic level of genus is all that we actually observe. The putative evolutionary branching and transmutational speciation from a common ancestry is not and cannot be observed. Not now, not ever!​

​

Bonus points if you should suddenly have the epiphany that the evidence would actually look very similar . . . whether a speciation of common ancestry or a speciation of common design be ultimately true.​

Back to you, Anomalism. . . .

The evolutionists' actual line of reasoning goes like this:

1. Naturalism is necessarily true.​

​

2. The paleontological record depicts the appearances of species in a chronology of generally increasing complexity and variety over geological time.​

​

3. Therefore, biological history necessarily entails an evolutionary branching and transmutational process of speciation from a common ancestry.​

The metaphysical apriority of naturalism is scientifically indemonstrable. It’s an article of faith! The conclusion does not necessarily follow at all. If the apriority is false, so is the conclusion. Your imbecilic line of reasoning, Anomalism, just like that of virtually every other evolutionist I’ve encountered on social media, including Crepitus, mindlessly goes like this:

1. The paleontological record depicts the appearances of species in a chronology of generally increasing complexity and variety over geological time.​

​

2. Therefore, biological history necessarily entails an evolutionary branching and transmutational process of speciation from a common ancestry.​

There's no justification for your conclusion anywhere in sight. Your syllogism is missing something. Your conclusion does not follow at all! Indeed, you're not even consciously aware of the fact that your conclusion is ultimately and circularly predicated on the metaphysics of naturalism! But don’t feel too bad. Most of the trained biologists of the evolutionary hypothesis are likewise oblivious.

By the way, Anomalism, in college, I pulled down virtually all straight A's in advanced courses on biochemistry and evolutionary theory, in exams and papers, and my professors never had so much as an inkling that I believed that the entire edifice was built on sand, namely, the imbecilic apriority of naturalism.

Aside from the fact that for all these many years you've been walking around spouting slogans sans so much as an inkling of the actual reason you believe evolution is true: what, precisely, is your justification for naturalism itself? I dare you to justify it without circularly appealing to naturalism. I double dare you. LOL!

In the meantime, metaphysics necessarily precedes and has primacy over the methodology of scientific inquiry. PoliticalChic and I are among the very few on this board who fully grasp the realities of that. Naturalism cannot even begin to account for the origin of the physical world, let alone for the origin of life and its various forms. The naturalist cannot even provide a universally objective justification for his metaphysical apriority.

But the classical theist can.

1. That which begins to exist, must have a sufficient cause of its existence.​

2. The physical world—per the incontrovertible imperatives of logic, mathematics and physics—began to exist.​

3. The physical world has a sufficient cause of its existence.​

4. The only sufficient cause for its existence would be that of an eternally self-subsistent, immaterial and immutable being of incomparable greatness.​

 

[Hollie]

Behold the petulant arrogance of a person that's actually willing to call believers of evolution "mindless imbeciles" while lacking the tools to ever perceive the magnitude of their own ignorance enough to have a reasonable debate. When you make ridiculous claims and demand that they are fact despite having no evidence to back them up, one can't do much but roll their eyes at you. I actually feel bad for you. What is it about your life that makes you so desperate for God that you're willing to come here and constantly bullshit yourself and others?

No evidence?!

Let me help you grasp the actual order of your very own “reasoning” that utterly escapes you and every other evolutionist I’ve encountered on US Message Board.

Responding to another, Steven_R sarcastically writes:

Well, at some point humans branched off and two of our chromosomes fused. . . . So, whatever the common ancestor we and chimps had evolved into two separate species of Homo sapiens and Pan troglodytes.​

​

Either that or God fused two chromosomes in our genome together in an attempt to trick us into thinking we're related to chimps.​

Note that this imbecile is unwittingly presupposing evolution all the while in his premise!

Earlier he writes:

When we finish with why evolution is a lie, our next topic will be why the Sun really goes around the Earth, and that topic will be followed by a presentation entitled "The Four Humours & You: How to Keep in Balance for Fun, Profit, & Health." Make sure you stay to the end when we discuss how dental cavities are caused by tiny worms.​

I then invite this braying jackass to consider something that has never occurred to him. I write:

I have a better idea!​

​

Let's discuss why you believe naturalism, on which the fanciful hypothesis of evolution is predicated, is necessarily true. Then we can discuss how you, not God, tricked yourself into interpreting the available evidence per the gratuitous insertion of an apriority that circularly begs the question and yields the mathematical monstrosity of a biological history entailing an evolutionary branching and transmutational process of speciation from a common ancestry.​

​

Then you might finally perceive the actual reason that biologists of the evolutionary hypothesis believe it to be true, that is, because they presuppose their interpretation of the evidence in their metaphysical premise as they observe that adaptive radiation occurs and that the paleontological record demonstrates that species appeared on Earth in a chronology of generally increasing complexity and variety.​

​

The gratuitous apriority is not observed. It's an assumption and scientifically unfalsifiable.​

​

Hocus Pocus​

​

Make sure you stay to the end when I show you the potentiality that has never occurred to you in all of your unexamined life, namely, that biological history entails a series of creative events per a systematically upgraded and transcribed genetic motif of common design imbued by God to adaptively radiate per the mechanisms of natural selection, genetic mutation, genetic drift, and gene flow over geological time.​

​

Don’t miss out on the fact that a cyclically limited range of adaptive radiation to the taxonomic level of genus is all that we actually observe. The putative evolutionary branching and transmutational speciation from a common ancestry is not and cannot be observed. Not now, not ever!​

​

Bonus points if you should suddenly have the epiphany that the evidence would actually look very similar . . . whether a speciation of common ancestry or a speciation of common design be ultimately true.​

Back to you, Anomalism. . . .

The evolutionists' actual line of reasoning goes like this:

1. Naturalism is necessarily true.​

​

2. The paleontological record depicts the appearances of species in a chronology of generally increasing complexity and variety over geological time.​

​

3. Therefore, biological history necessarily entails an evolutionary branching and transmutational process of speciation from a common ancestry.​

The metaphysical apriority of naturalism is scientifically indemonstrable. It’s an article of faith! The conclusion does not necessarily follow at all. If the apriority is false, so is the conclusion. Your imbecilic line of reasoning, Anomalism, just like that of virtually every other evolutionist I’ve encountered on social media, including Crepitus, mindlessly goes like this:

1. The paleontological record depicts the appearances of species in a chronology of generally increasing complexity and variety over geological time.​

​

2. Therefore, biological history necessarily entails an evolutionary branching and transmutational process of speciation from a common ancestry.​

There's no justification for your conclusion anywhere in sight. Your syllogism is missing something. Your conclusion does not follow at all! Indeed, you're not even consciously aware of the fact that your conclusion is ultimately and circularly predicated on the metaphysics of naturalism! But don’t feel too bad. Most of the trained biologists of the evolutionary hypothesis are likewise oblivious.

By the way, Anomalism, in college, I pulled down virtually all straight A's in advanced courses on biochemistry and evolutionary theory, in exams and papers, and my professors never had so much as an inkling that I believed that the entire edifice was built on sand, namely, the imbecilic apriority of naturalism.

Aside from the fact that for all these many years you've been walking around spouting slogans sans so much as an inkling of the actual reason you believe evolution is true: what, precisely, is your justification for naturalism itself? I dare you to justify it without circularly appealing to naturalism. I double dare you. LOL!

In the meantime, metaphysics necessarily precedes and has primacy over the methodology of scientific inquiry. PoliticalChic and I are among the very few on this board who fully grasp the realities of that. Naturalism cannot even begin to account for the origin of the physical world, let alone for the origin of life and its various forms. The naturalist cannot even provide a universally objective justification for his metaphysical apriority.

But the classical theist can.

1. That which begins to exist, must have a sufficient cause of its existence.​

2. The physical world—per the incontrovertible imperatives of logic, mathematics and physics—began to exist.​

3. The physical world has a sufficient cause of its existence.​

4. The only sufficient cause for its existence would be that of an eternally self-subsistent, immaterial and immutable being of incomparable greatness.​

All the usual “... because I say so”, nonsense from the hyper-religious.