Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The "angry fundie" thing is just adorable.Ahhhhh, shut up, you silly ass. The various forms of naturalism are metaphysical presuppositions regarding the nature of reality. There's not a damn thing you can teach me about the philosophy of science. I've explained the matter to you before, but you remain a slogan-spouting doofus.
Metaphysics necessarily precedes and has primacy over science.
That display of ignorance is right out of the ID'iot creationer playbook. You might have asked why monkeys are not bipedal and writing Hollywood scripts.
See ya'And of course the atheists, that is to say, the presupposing ontological/metaphysical naturalists who don't know they're presupposing ontological/metaphysical naturalists because they don't grasp the underlying realities of science spout stupid and derail.
Out of here.
You ditzy bitch.See ya'
If your best effort amounts to dumping ID'iot creationer slogans such as "ontological/metaphysical naturalists", retreating to the Disco'tute is your best course of action.
Keep it classy, Laddie.You ditzy bitch.
View attachment 596116
I'll make a prediction for you: the genome of the Covid virus will change based on its encounters with vaccines. It will evolve ways of defeating our medicines like all other drug-resistant pests have done.I've asked a number of you to make a prediction based on Darwin's theories, or to cite a prediction made by experts on Darwinism that has come true *AFTER* they made the prediction.
If you make a prediction based on Darwinian theory, that would be evidence in favor of Darwinian theory. If it comes true, that is. So far, I've gotten either complete silence, a quick change of subject, or examples of Darwinian experts first finding something and then saying, "Oh, yes. Darwinian theory predicted that!"
Here's the definition of "predict:"
say or estimate that (a specified thing) will happen in the future or will be a consequence of something.
So, get it? You can't make a valid prediction after something happens.
I'll give you credit for trying, sincerely.I'll make a prediction for you: the genome of the Covid virus will change based on its encounters with vaccines. It will evolve ways of defeating our medicines like all other drug-resistant pests have done.
And every other drug-resistant parthenogen? Nice dodge though.I'll give you credit for trying, sincerely.
Unfortunately, the COVID virus was engineered to cause as much harm as possible, so it cannot be an example of "natural" selection.
Nice try though.
Nope, I doubt that seriously.Hey MisterBeale! I used to see you on another forum years ago. I think it was the libertarian forum that shut down. I had several different logins, though. I wasn't into poker yet.
Anyway, I agree. Darwinian evolution cannot predict anything. If an area turns cold suddenly, you would think Darwinian theorists would be setting up shop in that area to predict that all the animals would grow thick fur, short limbs, large deposits of body fat, or would migrate south. Then they could cackle in triumph when their prediction came true.
Never seems to happen.
So, it is not a "science" in any but an uninformed layman's colloquial use of the word.
While I would agree with this, it makes some assumptions. If you believe the narrative that Covid evolved in nature, sure, you could go with this. If you believe it was an "accidental," release from a lab, again, then this is all a safe bet.I'll make a prediction for you: the genome of the Covid virus will change based on its encounters with vaccines. It will evolve ways of defeating our medicines like all other drug-resistant pests have done.
You've gone down the conspiracy rabbit hole and lost touch with reality.While I would agree with this, it makes some assumptions. If you believe the narrative that Covid evolved in nature, sure, you could go with this. If you believe it was an "accidental," release from a lab, again, then this is all a safe bet.
. . . if? OTH, you go with speculation that this is all some great plot to bring the world into a one world order under a technocratic 4th industrial revolution, or a "New Normal," that has been in the planning for some time, and that they just might have multiple, progressively engineered, more deadly strains of viruses, just waiting to be released, each more deadly or working in conjunction on top of the last?
First, that the original assault, might be the only assault planned. Or it might not.
I have seen some rather cryptic and sinister interviews with Bill Gates, and let me tell you, he doesn't have the best poker face in the world.
Who knows what the fates will bring. I know I don't, and never make any assumptions anymore.
After 9/11? After watching Trump get elected?
I have seen enough black swans. Anyone that makes such assumptions at this point, IMO, is probably whistling in the dark, b/c they know better.
You didn't talk about every other drug-resistant parthenogen, you talked about a virus that is engineered by designers.And every other drug-resistant parthenogen? Nice dodge though.
Interesting.Nope, I doubt that seriously.
I have only ever been on two forums.
One was a privately run forum, by a good friend of mine, that was so small, it only had about a hundred members or so.
The other was a science based forum that was infested with James Randi skeptics. They leaned very much to the left.
My user name was something entirely different.
This is the only forum I have been on since the second Obama term.
I didn't but never mind. Why do you think we need to get a flu shot every year?You didn't talk about every other drug-resistant parthenogen, you talked about a virus that is engineered by designers.
Make a prediction about a drug-resistant parthenogen or anything else, not engineered.
Because last year's flu shot only worked on a part of the existing flu population. So with that part suppressed, another part of it moved in to take its place.I didn't but never mind. Why do you think we need to get a flu shot every year?
Wow!! I had no idea, thanks. How many different populations of flu are there? Seems I've been getting flu shots for years. You should share what you know with those fools at Harvard Medical:Because last year's flu shot only worked on a part of the existing flu population. So with that part suppressed, another part of it moved in to take its place.
But that isn't making a prediction, and it certainly isn't something that only works if Darwinism is factual.
Well, there you go. "structures are constantly changing" =/= "new species evolving."Wow!! I had no idea, thanks. How many different populations of flu are there? Seems I've been getting flu shots for years. You should share what you know with those fools at Harvard Medical:
Q. It’s flu shot time again. With all of these new ways of making vaccines, why do we still need a new shot each year? Why can’t we get one flu shot that will protect us for the rest of our lives?
A. Many scientists are working on developing just such a "universal" vaccine for the influenza (flu) virus. Why do we need a new shot every year? The influenza virus, like every virus, contains a set of genes that are wrapped in a coat of protein. Vaccines typically stimulate the production of antibodies that attach to outer structures on the protein coat, disabling the virus; indeed, that’s how the influenza vaccine works. Unfortunately, these outer structures are constantly changing, so a new vaccine is needed each year to target those structures on the flu viruses that are currently circulating.
You were given examples of predictions modeled of evolutionary history. Religionists seem unable to use religionism to refute science.Well, there you go. "structures are constantly changing" =/= "new species evolving."
Again, though . . . this thread is for Darwinists to make a prediction based on Darwinism, not for a general debate on evolution. There's already about seventeen of those.
