Evolution lies

[alang1216]

Evolution is the satanic lie creating a distance between you and God. Stop to sin, repent and come back to God, otherwise it will be too late

Scientism as a whole, including ToE, is a lie for those who don't actually understand science to fall for. ToE, unlike biology or chemistry, doesn't have a single bit of falsifiability for it to be called a science.

In terms of science, not falsifiable means if it's true we can't tell. If it's false we can't tell either. That's what ToE is by far.

Actually, that is not true. We have found trillions of fossils and any one of them could have falsified the ToE. None of them did (some are disputed, like the finding of 'human' footprints with dinosaurs that may or may not be real).

 

[Ben Thomson]

Evolution is the satanic lie creating a distance between you and God. Stop to sin, repent and come back to God, otherwise it will be too late

So were Adam and Eve Neanderthal or Cro-Magnon?..and why are the dinosaurs not mentioned in length in the bible?..after all they roamed the earth for an awfully long time.

 

[Ringtone]

Evolution is a FACT

God is a theory

So says the nitwit who unwittingly claims to be God. It is readily self-evident that God necessarily exists per the imperatives of logic. As for evolution, If naturalism is not true, neither is evolution. Evolution is predicated on the purely metaphysical presupposition of naturalism/materialism.

 

[rightwinger]

Evolution is a FACT

God is a theory

So says the nitwit who unwittingly claims to be God. It is readily self-evident that God necessarily exists per the imperatives of logic. As for evolution, If naturalism is not true, neither is evolution. Evolution is predicated on the purely metaphysical presupposition of naturalism/materialism.

Evolution happened
It is supported by biological, geological, fossil and DNA a evidence

God is, at best, a theory
A Theory totally unsupported by evidence

 

[Ringtone]

Evolution is the satanic lie creating a distance between you and God. Stop to sin, repent and come back to God, otherwise it will be too late

Scientism as a whole, including ToE, is a lie for those who don't actually understand science to fall for. ToE, unlike biology or chemistry, doesn't have a single bit of falsifiability for it to be called a science.

In terms of science, not falsifiable means if it's true we can't tell. If it's false we can't tell either. That's what ToE is by far.

Actually, that is not true. We have found trillions of fossils and any one of them could have falsified the ToE. None of them did (some are disputed, like the finding of 'human' footprints with dinosaurs that may or may not be real).

LOL! Fossils and geological evidence?! Your so-called fossil evidence and geological evidence are the same thing. They do not prove direct ancestry at all. What exactly is this biological and DNA evidence of yours?

Note how your typical evolutionist true believer doesn't really know what he's talking about. He's just a slogan spouter of popular authority.

You're unwittingly asserting that naturalism is true; therefore, evolution is true. You're unwittingly begging question, brainwash. What precisely is your ontological justification for your religion?

 

[Ringtone]

Evolution is the satanic lie creating a distance between you and God

How, precisely, does a knowledge of molecular chemistry distance me from G-d?

How, precisely, does your naturalistic "knowledge" of molecular chemistry prove naturalism? Can you say begging the question? Your conclusion is presupposed in your premise. Zoom! Right over your head.

 

[Ringtone]

Evolution is the satanic lie creating a distance between you and God. Stop to sin, repent and come back to God, otherwise it will be too late

So were Adam and Eve Neanderthal or Cro-Magnon?..and why are the dinosaurs not mentioned in length in the bible?..after all they roamed the earth for an awfully long time.

We now know that "Neanderthals" and Cro-Magnons" were akin to modern man in terms of appearance and intelligence. Dinosaurs are of the Mesozoic Era. Hello. Knock. Knock. Anybody home? The Bible was written by men, not dinosaurs. Dinosaurs were already extinct when man appeared. LOL! Your question is both rhetorical and silly.

 

[rightwinger]

Evolution is the satanic lie creating a distance between you and God. Stop to sin, repent and come back to God, otherwise it will be too late

Scientism as a whole, including ToE, is a lie for those who don't actually understand science to fall for. ToE, unlike biology or chemistry, doesn't have a single bit of falsifiability for it to be called a science.

In terms of science, not falsifiable means if it's true we can't tell. If it's false we can't tell either. That's what ToE is by far.

Actually, that is not true. We have found trillions of fossils and any one of them could have falsified the ToE. None of them did (some are disputed, like the finding of 'human' footprints with dinosaurs that may or may not be real).

LOL! Fossils do not prove direct ancestry at all. You're unwittingly asserting that naturalism is true; therefore, evolution is true. You're unwittingly begging question, brainwash. What precisely is your ontological justification for your religion?

Fossils provide irrefutable evidence that life evolved from simple creatures into more complex creatures

There is no evidence of God

 

[Ringtone]

Evolution is a FACT

God is a theory

So says the nitwit who unwittingly claims to be God. It is readily self-evident that God necessarily exists per the imperatives of logic. As for evolution, If naturalism is not true, neither is evolution. Evolution is predicated on the purely metaphysical presupposition of naturalism/materialism.

Evolution happened
It is supported by biological, geological, fossil and DNA a evidence

God is, at best, a theory
A Theory totally unsupported by evidence

Evolution is the satanic lie creating a distance between you and God. Stop to sin, repent and come back to God, otherwise it will be too late

hahhahahahahahhahah-damn that's some strong dope you are on ..
too late for what?

Hahahahahahahahahaha. . . . Damn, that's some strong naturalistic brainwash you're on.

 

[Ringtone]

Dinosaur fossils are a trick of the debil!

I'm of the opinion that museum curators are the ones who put them in the ground millions of years ago.

So what, precisely, do the existence of fossils have to do with the hypothesis of evolution, i.e., the purely metaphysical presupposition of a common ancestry? Evolution is not the hypothesis that species have appeared and gone extinct over time. Evolution is the hypothesis that all species are necessarily of a common ancestry via naturalistic means. Hello! Knock. Knock. Anybody home?

Behold the typical ignorance and presumptuous prattle of the mindless slogan spouters of evolution who unwittingly beg the question, who unwittingly presuppose the conclusion in their premise of naturalism and call it science.

 

[Ringtone]

Evolution is the satanic lie creating a distance between you and God. Stop to sin, repent and come back to God, otherwise it will be too late

Scientism as a whole, including ToE, is a lie for those who don't actually understand science to fall for. ToE, unlike biology or chemistry, doesn't have a single bit of falsifiability for it to be called a science.

In terms of science, not falsifiable means if it's true we can't tell. If it's false we can't tell either. That's what ToE is by far.

Actually, that is not true. We have found trillions of fossils and any one of them could have falsified the ToE. None of them did (some are disputed, like the finding of 'human' footprints with dinosaurs that may or may not be real).

LOL! Fossils do not prove direct ancestry at all. You're unwittingly asserting that naturalism is true; therefore, evolution is true. You're unwittingly begging question, brainwash. What precisely is your ontological justification for your religion?

Fossils provide irrefutable evidence that life evolved from simple creatures into more complex creatures

There is no evidence of God

How does the mere existence of fossils provide irrefutable evidence of a biological common ancestry of purely natural means?

Behold how the naturalistic mindset still fails to grasp the point I'm making. Zoom! The scientifically indemonstrable nature of their metaphysical presupposition flies right over their heads.

As for God. . . .

There's no evidence for God's existence?! The material realm of being just popped into existence out of an ontological nothingness?! Magic?! LOL! Logic doesn't tell us that a mutable and, therefore, contingent substance, namely, the material realm of being, necessarily began to exist? That an eternal, immutable and, therefore, non-contingent ontological ground of existence must be?

What do you mean by evidence? Something physical? You idiot! Again you unwittingly beg the question. The evidence would necessarily be immaterial, namely, the irrefutable imperatives of logic.

Shut up, you irrational twit, you slogan-spouting moron.

 

[Ben Thomson]

Evolution is the satanic lie creating a distance between you and God. Stop to sin, repent and come back to God, otherwise it will be too late

So were Adam and Eve Neanderthal or Cro-Magnon?..and why are the dinosaurs not mentioned in length in the bible?..after all they roamed the earth for an awfully long time.

We now know that "Neanderthals" and Cro-Magnons" were akin to modern man in terms of appearance and intelligence. Dinosaurs are of the Mesozoic Era. Hello. Knock. Knock. Anybody home? The Bible was written by men, not dinosaurs. Dinosaurs were already extinct when man appeared. LOL! Your question is both rhetorical and silly.

Akin but not human?..inresting. Guess to admit they were early human would blow the whole Adam and Eve thing up..and just because dinosaurs predated man doesn't explain why they were not refered to in some context in the Bible..knock..knock

 

[Ringtone]

Dinosaur fossils are a trick of the debil!

An awesome trick of the Debil...

View attachment 337063

Oh, look, everybody, even fncceo, who's smart enough to follow my point regarding the metaphysical presupposition on which the hypothesis of evolution is actually predicated, is unwittingly making the very same stupid argument—asserting the very same non sequitur, begging the question as he presupposes the conclusion in his premise —that the mere existence of fossils necessarily means a common ancestry . . . as if a biological history of distinct creative events of biologically unrelated species over time, howbeit, predicated on a systematically progressive genetic motif of common design, were not possible, indeed, were not a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the fossil record.

Note the arrogance, the unwitting presumptuousness of the typical true believer, even that of theistic evolutionists.

No. The fool is he who fails to grasp the underlying essence of his belief, he who is utterly unaware of the actual reason for his belief, not he who grasps the potentialities regarding the whole of the matter. The former is mindlessly spouting slogans.

 

[Hollie]

Dinosaur fossils are a trick of the debil!

I'm of the opinion that museum curators are the ones who put them in the ground millions of years ago.

So what, precisely, do the existence of fossils have to do with the hypothesis of evolution, i.e., the purely metaphysical presupposition of a common ancestry? Evolution is not the hypothesis that species have appeared and gone extinct over time. Evolution is the hypothesis that all species are necessarily of a common ancestry via naturalistic means. Hello! Knock. Knock. Anybody home?

Behold the typical ignorance and presumptuous prattle of the mindless slogan spouters of evolution who unwittingly beg the question, who unwittingly presuppose the conclusion in their premise of naturalism and call it science.

I can't help but notice that the more hyper, the hyper-religioner becomes, the angrier they are.

Your fundie christian madrassah obviously neglected a science curriculum so maybe we can help.

Let's define for you that a fossil is the organic remains or an impression of an organism as a mold in rock. A transitional fossil is a fossil which shows structural features and traits common to or intermediate between two other fossils. Transitional fossils show clear relationships between other fossils and can even show details of how particular features transitioned. For example, whales have finger-like ''hands'' in their flippers. Vestigial bones and organs exist in both humans and animals. Are we to believe that your various gods had spare parts left over and perhaps played a cruel joke on the more hyper of the hyper-religious?

Knowledge advances and is confirmed by subjecting hypotheses to tests that explore the validity of one hypothesis from another. Fossil evidence, along with disciplines of paleontology, chemistry, earth science, geology, biology, etc., does this.

Let's propose that the hyper-religious offer a hypothesis for their respective gods and let's subject those tobthe sane standards as science is held to. Quite obviously, the hyper-religious would fail that requirement. Your shrill screeching about those evilutionist atheists not having a perfect record of every fossil and every intermediate fossil of every creature that ever lived is nothing more than the lunatic rants that afflict the hyper-religious. It can serve only to reinforce one's own preconceptions.

 

[alang1216]

Evolution is the satanic lie creating a distance between you and God. Stop to sin, repent and come back to God, otherwise it will be too late

Scientism as a whole, including ToE, is a lie for those who don't actually understand science to fall for. ToE, unlike biology or chemistry, doesn't have a single bit of falsifiability for it to be called a science.

In terms of science, not falsifiable means if it's true we can't tell. If it's false we can't tell either. That's what ToE is by far.

Actually, that is not true. We have found trillions of fossils and any one of them could have falsified the ToE. None of them did (some are disputed, like the finding of 'human' footprints with dinosaurs that may or may not be real).

LOL! Fossils and geological evidence?! Your so-called fossil evidence and geological evidence are the same thing. They do not prove direct ancestry at all. What exactly is this biological and DNA evidence of yours?

Note how your typical evolutionist true believer doesn't really know what he's talking about. He's just a slogan spouter of popular authority.

You're unwittingly asserting that naturalism is true; therefore, evolution is true. You're unwittingly begging question, brainwash. What precisely is your ontological justification for your religion?

First off, you appear confused as to whom you are replying to (we've all been there) since I never mentioned geological, biological, or DNA evidence. I don't know what slogans you feel are being spouted?

I do believe in both nature and evolution as natural process, nothing unwitting about it. I've never encountered ANY evidence of the supernatural and, until I do, do not believe it exists. Everything I see I believe can be explained by natural processes. As to what came before the Big Bang, I don't know and I'm fine admitting that.

 

[Ringtone]

Evolution is the satanic lie creating a distance between you and God. Stop to sin, repent and come back to God, otherwise it will be too late

So were Adam and Eve Neanderthal or Cro-Magnon?..and why are the dinosaurs not mentioned in length in the bible?..after all they roamed the earth for an awfully long time.

We now know that "Neanderthals" and Cro-Magnons" were akin to modern man in terms of appearance and intelligence. Dinosaurs are of the Mesozoic Era. Hello. Knock. Knock. Anybody home? The Bible was written by men, not dinosaurs. Dinosaurs were already extinct when man appeared. LOL! Your question is both rhetorical and silly.

Akin but not human?..inresting. Guess to admit they were early human would blow the whole Adam and Eve thing up..and just because dinosaurs predated man doesn't explain why they were not refered to in some context in the Bible..knock..knock

I never said they weren't human. Quite the opposite. I pointed out the fact that the initial assertion of evolutionists, who, of course, were merely trying to cram their hypothetical narrative into the evidence that so-called "Neanderthals" and "Cro-Magnons" were something less than or something significantly different than contemporary man in terms of appearance and intelligence has been falsified. You're reading things into my prose that aren't there, perhaps certain preconceived and errant notions about the biblical narrative that exist in your head, notions that you're unwittingly projecting? Apparently these things cause you to think, as you put it, "blow the whole Adam and Eve thing up." Really? How so?

I also pointed out that dinosaurs were extinct by the time man appeared. From whence do you get the notion that the Bible necessarily doesn't entail the existence of dinosaurs or necessarily must? You seem to be seeing things that aren't there . . . imagining things, making things up and such.

 

[alang1216]

Evolution is the satanic lie creating a distance between you and God. Stop to sin, repent and come back to God, otherwise it will be too late

Scientism as a whole, including ToE, is a lie for those who don't actually understand science to fall for. ToE, unlike biology or chemistry, doesn't have a single bit of falsifiability for it to be called a science.

In terms of science, not falsifiable means if it's true we can't tell. If it's false we can't tell either. That's what ToE is by far.

Actually, that is not true. We have found trillions of fossils and any one of them could have falsified the ToE. None of them did (some are disputed, like the finding of 'human' footprints with dinosaurs that may or may not be real).

LOL! Fossils do not prove direct ancestry at all. You're unwittingly asserting that naturalism is true; therefore, evolution is true. You're unwittingly begging question, brainwash. What precisely is your ontological justification for your religion?

Fossils provide irrefutable evidence that life evolved from simple creatures into more complex creatures

There is no evidence of God

How does the mere existence of fossils provide irrefutable evidence of a biological common ancestry of purely natural means?

Behold how the naturalistic mindset still fails to grasp the point I'm making. Zoom! The scientifically indemonstrable nature of their metaphysical presupposition flies right over their heads.

As for God. . . .

There's no evidence for God's existence?! The material realm of being just popped into existence out of an ontological nothingness?! Magic?! LOL! Logic doesn't tell us that a mutable and, therefore, contingent substance, namely, the material realm of being, necessarily began to exist? That an eternal, immutable and, therefore, non-contingent ontological ground of existence must be?

What do you mean by evidence? Something physical? You idiot! Again you unwittingly beg the question. The evidence would necessarily be immaterial, namely, the irrefutable imperatives of logic.

Shut up, you irrational twit, you slogan-spouting moron.

You spout a good number of slogans yourself (I especially like "scientifically indemonstrable nature of their metaphysical presupposition" although "non-contingent ontological ground of existence" is pretty good too).

I doubt anyone will have the patience to answer your question: "How does the mere existence of fossils provide irrefutable evidence of a biological common ancestry of purely natural means?". Try doing your homework first.

 

[Astrostar]

Evolution is a FACT

God is a theory

And, not even a good theory. A decent theory has at least some plausible basis in fact; for "God" there is zero.

 

[Ringtone]

Dinosaur fossils are a trick of the debil!

I'm of the opinion that museum curators are the ones who put them in the ground millions of years ago.

So what, precisely, do the existence of fossils have to do with the hypothesis of evolution, i.e., the purely metaphysical presupposition of a common ancestry? Evolution is not the hypothesis that species have appeared and gone extinct over time. Evolution is the hypothesis that all species are necessarily of a common ancestry via naturalistic means. Hello! Knock. Knock. Anybody home?

Behold the typical ignorance and presumptuous prattle of the mindless slogan spouters of evolution who unwittingly beg the question, who unwittingly presuppose the conclusion in their premise of naturalism and call it science.

I can't help but notice that the more hyper, the hyper-religioner becomes, the angrier they are.

Your fundie christian madrassah obviously neglected a science curriculum so maybe we can help.

Let's define for you that a fossil is the organic remains or an impression of an organism as a mold in rock. A transitional fossil is a fossil which shows structural features and traits common to or intermediate between two other fossils. Transitional fossils show clear relationships between other fossils and can even show details of how particular features transitioned. For example, whales have finger-like ''hands'' in their flippers. Vestigial bones and organs exist in both humans and animals. Are we to believe that your various gods had spare parts left over and perhaps played a cruel joke on the more hyper of the hyper-religious?

Knowledge advances and is confirmed by subjecting hypotheses to tests that explore the validity of one hypothesis from another. Fossil evidence, along with disciplines of paleontology, chemistry, earth science, geology, biology, etc., does this.

Let's propose that the hyper-religious offer a hypothesis for their respective gods and let's subject those tobthe sane standards as science is held to. Quite obviously, the hyper-religious would fail that requirement. Your shrill screeching about those evilutionist atheists not having a perfect record of every fossil and every intermediate fossil of every creature that ever lived is nothing more than the lunatic rants that afflict the hyper-religious. It can serve only to reinforce one's own preconceptions.

Go away, kid, you're boring ,me. There's nothing you can teach me about the hypothesis of evolution or the metaphysically presumptuous claims thereof regarding the fossil record. "Finger-like" bones, as if their structure doesn't serve for flexibility and efficiency. Oh, look, everybody, they're finger-like! LOL!

Yawn

"Hyper-religious, angry"?!

LOL!

Ahhhhhhh, shut up, you silly ass.

 

[Ringtone]

Evolution is the satanic lie creating a distance between you and God. Stop to sin, repent and come back to God, otherwise it will be too late

Scientism as a whole, including ToE, is a lie for those who don't actually understand science to fall for. ToE, unlike biology or chemistry, doesn't have a single bit of falsifiability for it to be called a science.

In terms of science, not falsifiable means if it's true we can't tell. If it's false we can't tell either. That's what ToE is by far.

Actually, that is not true. We have found trillions of fossils and any one of them could have falsified the ToE. None of them did (some are disputed, like the finding of 'human' footprints with dinosaurs that may or may not be real).

LOL! Fossils do not prove direct ancestry at all. You're unwittingly asserting that naturalism is true; therefore, evolution is true. You're unwittingly begging question, brainwash. What precisely is your ontological justification for your religion?

Fossils provide irrefutable evidence that life evolved from simple creatures into more complex creatures

There is no evidence of God

How does the mere existence of fossils provide irrefutable evidence of a biological common ancestry of purely natural means?

Behold how the naturalistic mindset still fails to grasp the point I'm making. Zoom! The scientifically indemonstrable nature of their metaphysical presupposition flies right over their heads.

As for God. . . .

There's no evidence for God's existence?! The material realm of being just popped into existence out of an ontological nothingness?! Magic?! LOL! Logic doesn't tell us that a mutable and, therefore, contingent substance, namely, the material realm of being, necessarily began to exist? That an eternal, immutable and, therefore, non-contingent ontological ground of existence must be?

What do you mean by evidence? Something physical? You idiot! Again you unwittingly beg the question. The evidence would necessarily be immaterial, namely, the irrefutable imperatives of logic.

Shut up, you irrational twit, you slogan-spouting moron.

You spout a good number of slogans yourself (I especially like "scientifically indemonstrable nature of their metaphysical presupposition" although "non-contingent ontological ground of existence" is pretty good too).

I doubt anyone will have the patience to answer your question: "How does the mere existence of fossils provide irrefutable evidence of a biological common ancestry of purely natural means?". Try doing your homework first.

I doubt you have the first clue what I'm even talking about, brainwash.

Evolutionist: Oh, look, species have appeared and gone extinct over time. They have similar biological and genetic structures (as if, mind you, the terrestrial creatures of common design would be radically dissimilar): common ancestry must be true!

LOL!