Blowing Up Darwin

[Sherlock Holmes]

Hollie - Is religion natural? is belief in deities natural?

 

[scruffy]

I suppose it was expected that a religionist would strip humanity of its uniqueness.
The human attribute you strip of its meaning is "sentience".
Humans have evolved (<---oh dear, I wrote that word), a brain that developed sentience and language skills. I believe it was Carl Sagan who popularized the term “sentience”, an ability to perceive one’s environment and their place in it. Our sentience is a product of more complex brains as opposed to other animals. Sentience, the sense of self-sacrifice, nurturing, decision making and making “moral” choices is a higher brain function and it's seen in comparably lesser degrees in lesser animals.

Did the gods choose to invent humans at a higher wattage vs. Chimpanzees for example?

Chimps are mini-me's.

They don't speak English but they do have a sense of humor.

 

[Hollie]

None so far as I am aware.

Is there anything I can do that is not natural?

So then. various gods un-naturally, (supernaturally) "creating" existence is not a claim that anyone should take seriously.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

So then. various gods un-naturally, (supernaturally) "creating" existence is not a claim that anyone should take seriously.

Why are you struggling to answer this question: Is there anything I can do that is not natural?

Is your answer "yes" or "no" or "I don't know" or something else? do you understand the question?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Chimps are mini-me's.

They don't speak English but they do have a sense of humor.

yes, trumpanzees are endlessly amusing for those like you, with the mind of a simpleton:

 

[Frankenstein]

Evolution is science. Not sure what you flat-earthers and podcast listeners find in these idiots that pontificate stupidity.
But, you'll believe anything...so...

Science is the study of God's creation! Evolution lost a long time ago with the unbelievable amounts of holes in the supposed evolutionary chain!

 

[Hollie]

Why are you struggling to answer this question: Is there anything I can do that is not natural?

Is your answer "yes" or "no" or "I don't know" or something else? do you understand the question?

Why are you struggling to answer this question: "has there ever been an un-natural event in human history".

Shirley, you can cite somethingfrom the Bible or Koran to support your claims to un- natural, supernatural events.

 

[Hollie]

yes, trumpanzees are endlessly amusing for those like you, with the mind of a simpleton:

View attachment 1054921

Like most of your spam, you're best left to cutting and pasting cartoons.

 

[Hollie]

Science is the study of God's creation! Evolution lost a long time ago with the unbelievable amounts of holes in the supposed evolutionary chain!

Stole that from Harun Yahya, did ya'

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Why are staging to answer this question: "

Why are you struggling to answer this question: "has there ever been an un-natural event in human history".

I already answered your question look:

Shirley, you can cite somethingfrom the Bible or Koran to support your claims to un- natural, supernatural events.

Lets answer questions in the order they are asked shall we:

Is there anything I can do that is not natural?

Do you not know the answer?

 

[Hollie]

I already answered your question look:

View attachment 1054925

Lets answer questions in the order they are asked shall we:

Is there anything I can do that is not natural?

Do you know the answer?

Let's not sidestep and dodge.

Cite a single instance of an un-natural event in human history.
You can't, obviously.

 

[Frankenstein]

Stole that from Harun Yahya, did ya'

Stole nothing, have seen the chart

 

[Hollie]

Stole nothing, have seen the chart

The chart from your madrassah?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Care to refute the evidence?

I think it's over your head.

The evidence is on my side: Darwin's presumptions are false.


Watch me prove it.


First, 'evolving' suggests changing, in this case from the simple to the more advanced and complex organism. Outside of the kind of simple faith of peasants, science requires physical proof...in this sphere, that of the fossil record.

Evolution theory, sadly, falls short in that respect.



1. Even the fossil record definitively rejects the concept of speciation. There is absolutely no sign in the record of the countless intermediate species that should have once lived according to Darwinism. It has now been acknowledged that Darwin's claim that these fossils would be found in the future is definitely incorrect. http://www.nationalacademyofsciencesrefuted.com/regarding_speciation.php

a. “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, The Myths of Human Evolution, 1984, pp.45-46.)

b. "The difficulty of understanding the absence of vast pile of fossiliferous strata, which on my theory were no doubt somewhere accumulated before the [Cambrian] epoch, is very great. I allude to the manner in which numbers of species of the same group suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rock."
Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p. 306-307.


2. The discovery of the Burgess Shale deposits pretty much nailed it. The significance of the Burgess Shale discoveries is that the many new body plans show disparity, major differences that separate phyla, classes and orders ....and careful study of earlier fossils did not reveal any evolutionary trail!

a. "During this explosion of fauna, representatives of about twenty of the roughly twenty-six total phyla present in the known fossil record made their first appearance on earth." Meyers, "Darwin's Doubt," p. 31.

b. " To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer..... The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained. " Charles Darwin On the Sudden Appearance of Groups of Allied Species in the Lowest Known Fossiliferous Strata - Collection at Bartleby.com



This is where you lie and scream "is not!!! Is notttttttt!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Frankenstein]

The chart from your madrassah?

My statement is factual, science is the study of what God created, and there are so many holes in the evolutionary chain is wouldn't hold large clumps of earth!

 

[Hollie]

The evidence is on my side: Darwin's presumptions are false.


Watch me prove it.


First, 'evolving' suggests changing, in this case from the simple to the more advanced and complex organism. Outside of the kind of simple faith of peasants, science requires physical proof...in this sphere, that of the fossil record.

Evolution theory, sadly, falls short in that respect.



1. Even the fossil record definitively rejects the concept of speciation. There is absolutely no sign in the record of the countless intermediate species that should have once lived according to Darwinism. It has now been acknowledged that Darwin's claim that these fossils would be found in the future is definitely incorrect. http://www.nationalacademyofsciencesrefuted.com/regarding_speciation.php

a. “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, The Myths of Human Evolution, 1984, pp.45-46.)

b. "The difficulty of understanding the absence of vast pile of fossiliferous strata, which on my theory were no doubt somewhere accumulated before the [Cambrian] epoch, is very great. I allude to the manner in which numbers of species of the same group suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rock."
Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p. 306-307.


2. The discovery of the Burgess Shale deposits pretty much nailed it. The significance of the Burgess Shale discoveries is that the many new body plans show disparity, major differences that separate phyla, classes and orders ....and careful study of earlier fossils did not reveal any evolutionary trail!

a. "During this explosion of fauna, representatives of about twenty of the roughly twenty-six total phyla present in the known fossil record made their first appearance on earth." Meyers, "Darwin's Doubt," p. 31.

b. " To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer..... The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained. " Charles Darwin On the Sudden Appearance of Groups of Allied Species in the Lowest Known Fossiliferous Strata - Collection at Bartleby.com



This is where you lie and scream "is not!!! Is notttttttt!!!!!!!!!!!

Good gawd you're ignorant. Evolving is adaptation. You don't understand the terms you cut and paste.


This is where you cut and paste from the Disco'tute.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Let's not sidestep and dodge.

Cite a single instance of an un-natural event in human history.
You can't, obviously.

Yes, I can't cite any instances as I've said three times now.

Is there anything I can do that is not natural?

Do you not know the answer?

 

[scruffy]

Science is the study of God's creation!

This part is certainly true.

Evolution lost a long time ago with the unbelievable amounts of holes in the supposed evolutionary chain!

Yes, the fossil chain has a lot of gaps.

It would be unreasonable to expect otherwise

 

[Hollie]

My statement is factual, science is the study of what God created, and there are so many holes in the evolutionary chain is wouldn't hold large clumps of earth!

There us not s single "phact" in your silly tirade.

 

[Hollie]

Yes, I can't cite any instances as I've said three times now.

Is there anything I can do that is not natural?

Do you not know the answer?

So, I can only agree to agree that your claims to supernatural entities performing un'natural acts like carnival side show freaks are a total bust.