15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

[abu afak]

Looks like a Revival is on the way
[URL unfurlNewsmax.com/newsfront/Bible-books-Religious...

LOFL

`

 

[Blisterfinger]

LOFL

`

Looks like someone's triggered LOL

 

[Blisterfinger]

LOFL

`

Hurt your feelings little boy?

 

[Blisterfinger]

LOFL

`

Settle down now dumbass

 

[Blisterfinger]

LOFL

`

You're so stupid you can't even respond

 

[Blisterfinger]

LOFL

`

You are so fucking stupid all you can put is little pictures on here! What a dumbass

 

[Blisterfinger]

LOFL

`

You're so stupid you can't even respond! Hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha gotcha

 

[Blisterfinger]

LOFL

`

What's the matter cat got your tongue dumbass

LOFL

`

Stupid and ignorant is no way to go through life Abu

 

[abu afak]

• This thread is based on “why?”
• 
  
• Since a century and a half after Darwin produced his eloquent theory, with more professional scientists active today than every before, why has no proof of Darwin’s theory been produced, and, in fact with evidence has been found in Chengyiang, China, Syria, England, with fossils showing the very opposite pattern from Darwin’s predictions.
• 
  
• Why is this provably false theory taught as fact in schools?
• To whom is it so important that it be viewed as such?
• Answer: any who need God driven from the common discussion: the ideologies that have murdered untold million of human being and don’t care to have God watching their actions, or to individuals who understand God's view of murder.

• Meyer: “There are two issues: how do you get to the first life from simple non-living chemicals…we have no chemical evolutionary theory that accounts for the first life.”
• 
  
• Never have scientists been able to generate living organisms from any array of chemicals or any procedure.

• 
  
• “Darwin presumed some simple organisms, which we now know were not simple, and then proposed a mechanism by which they could generate all the new forms of life.”
• The mechanism proposed does a nice job of explaining small scale variations…adaptions such as bigger or smaller in response to weather but does a very poor job of explaining the major variations in the history of life such as the origin of birds, mammals….”

Here is the key fact that obviates Darwin's theory:
“In the fossil record we do see very abrupt appearance without the transitional intermediates you would expect on the basis of Darwin’s theory.”


Why is it so important to persuade every susceptible individual that it is true????

Science doesn't deal in 'proof,' (only math can in the absolute sense) it deals in theories validated over time.
In 160 Years and an explosion of new sciences, NOTHING Contradicts it AND all relevant ones help Affirm it: Radiocarbon dating, DNA, millions of new fossil finds, etc.

"1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.

Many people learned in Elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature.
So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are Not expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the Fact of evolution.
[......]

`

 

[zaangalewa]

...In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the Fact of evolution.

And that's exactly the problem. Some things are evolution - others not. Evolution needs for example a world which is consistent. Things have to fit to each other - otherwise they are not able to "survive". Most things what people say when they use what they think what "evolution" could be is just simple nonsense - like for example "the evolution of cars". Machines in general do not evolve. They are dead constructed things following "teleology" = following plans. What most people absolutelly do not understand who use the expression "evolution" is it that evolution has no plans, no intentions - nothing except "fitness". Life has not to be. Life is.

This means by the way also that the first four editions of the "origin of species" of the idiot Charles Darwin had been wrong before the philosopher Spencer "evolved" (=corrected) the book of Charles Darwin with his idea "fitness" which fitted much better. Evolution is "only" able to fit to this what's all around and what's real, what's true. Evolution is part of creation. The whole Americo-English discussion "evolution vs creation" is a fake discussion. If everything would only be evolution then "to fit" and "to survive" would be the same and the theory of evolution would be a worthless tautology. Without creation no evolution.

 

[abu afak]

And that's exactly the problem. Some things are evolution - others not. Evolution needs for example a world which is consistent. Things have to fit to each other - otherwise they are not able to "survive". Most things what people say when they use what they think what "evolution" could be is just simple nonsense - like for example "the evolution of cars". Machines in general do not evolve. They are dead constructed things following "teleology" = following plans. What most people absolutelly do not understand who use the expression "evolution" is it that evolution has no plans, no intentions - nothing except "fitness". Life has not to be. Life is.

This means by the way also that the first four editions of the "origin of species" of the idiot Charles Darwin had been wrong before the philosopher Spencer "evolved" (=corrected) the book of Charles Darwin with his idea "fitness" which fitted much better. Evolution is "only" able to fit to this what's all around and what's real, what's true. Evolution is part of creation. The whole Americo-English discussion "evolution vs creation" is a fake discussion. If everything would only be evolution then "to fit" and "to survive" would be the same and the theory of evolution would be a worthless tautology. Without creation no evolution.

You are merely talking different but still valid usages of the word.

`

 

[zaangalewa]

You are merely talking different but still valid usages of the word.

My experience with this fake-discussion in the English speaking world is it that so called "creationists" have not a big idea about the Christian religion and so called "evolutionists" have not a big idea about evolution.

For example believe many "evolutionists" that the universe has to be full of intelligent life forms. They argue this is a matter of probability because an unbelievable amount of planets exists and use a construct which is called "self organisation of matter". But indeed has evolution no intentions, makes no plans and we are surrounded nearly only from matter which is not living at all. Even under very best conditions here on planet Earth is nearly no life existing compared with the mass of the planet. The natural law evolution not creates life - life is just simple. And it is able to be because the natural law evolution exists. But I could also say life exists because the natural law gravity exists. Or life is existing because light (=electrogmganetism) exists. Light for example did not evolve but "froze out" and came free (the universe became transparent). Such phenomenons have nothing to do with "evolution" for example. In the end say very most "evolutionists" that life exists because the universe is full of natural laws - including evolution. But they also do not know how it came that a universe appeared in which all natural laws - including evolution - had been existing since the very first Plank-second (which is falsely called Plank-time). Evolution on its own - like any other natural law - did not evolve. Evolution was created. All physical laws are created. And everything in the universe has to fit to this natural laws. Otherwise "natural science" would be an impossible thing to do.

 

[zaangalewa]

abu afak

Do you have the intellectual capacity exactly to say what you call "fake news", weirdo? Evolution is without plan, without "teleology". So tell me please why the natural law evolution (whatever it is) should "create" all over the universe life-forms. What we currently know is just simple that life exists on the third planet of the solar system with the name "sun system". So "life" (whatever this is) seems to fit here. But if we make a difference between multi-cellular life and other life forms (="slime") then multi-cellular life has good conditions here only since the last 500 million years. And not to forget in this context: Our own galaxy is one of the eldest galaxies which we know. So theoretically everywhere all around us in the near should exist life. But where is it if not here? Living matter is for sure the most seldom form of matter. Life is extremely valuable. And this is no opinion. This is a fact. The strange thing is not this. The strange thing is what we are doing. Also what you are doing. You are not able to express what you really think on whatever reason - but you attack another life form. And you do so although you are not hungry - and even if you would be hungry and win you could not eat me so this is changing nothing in your own biological living conditions. You show with your comment "fake news" only "I am stupid" and calculate with solidarity on reason of the stupidity of others. But one of the most evil things in our world is learned stupidity. Prejudices are able to be right - but who learned to be a professional idiot will always be wrong and never find out why.

 

[abu afak]

And that's exactly the problem. Some things are evolution - others not. Evolution needs for example a world which is consistent. Things have to fit to each other - otherwise they are not able to "survive". Most things what people say when they use what they think what "evolution" could be is just simple nonsense - like for example "the evolution of cars". Machines in general do not evolve. They are dead constructed things following "teleology" = following plans. What most people absolutelly do not understand who use the expression "evolution" is it that evolution has no plans, no intentions - nothing except "fitness". Life has not to be. Life is.

This means by the way also that the first four editions of the "origin of species" of the idiot Charles Darwin had been wrong before the philosopher Spencer "evolved" (=corrected) the book of Charles Darwin with his idea "fitness" which fitted much better. Evolution is "only" able to fit to this what's all around and what's real, what's true. Evolution is part of creation. The whole Americo-English discussion "evolution vs creation" is a fake discussion. If everything would only be evolution then "to fit" and "to survive" would be the same and the theory of evolution would be a worthless tautology. Without creation no evolution.

1. Evolution is Not abiogenesis.
2. Evolution works by Mutation/copy errors along the chain.. the favorable ones survive/flourish and even replace previous forms.
3. Glad you dropped the inane music boobtubes from every post.
4. Coherence is a problem for you, so I kept this short/direct. Let's see if you can even remotely do the same.
`

 

[zaangalewa]

1. Evolution is Not abiogenesis.
2. Evolution works by Mutation/copy errors along the chain.. the favorable ones survive/flourish and even replace previous forms.
3. Glad you dropped the inane music boobtubes from every post.
4. Coherence is a problem for you, so I kept this short/direct. Let's see if you can even remotely do the same.
`

Please do me the favor not to try to tell me something about the real scientific theory of evolution and/or about evolutionary epistemology. But one or two questions I could answer if you would ask.