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.
I think your retreat to slogans you share at Harun Yahya are a poor substitute for your illiteracy regarding science. The ''evodelusionist's'' interpretation of evidence is based on interpretation of the evidence. See how that works? Have you ever stopped to consider that we accept the inescapable conclusions drawn from the physical evidence that life has DESCENDED through millions of years from a common ancestor? We accept evolution because that's what the evidence unambiguously tells us, and for no other reason.
Actually, I don't refuse to address the substance of speciation via common design. You refuse to support your case for supernatural common ''design''. You refuse to support your case for supernatural design because you know you can not do so. Matter and energy conform to and behave according to ''laws'' we are learning about and they happen to behave like they do. The fact that the natural world (as opposed to your undemonstrated supernatural world) operates as it does, does not presume that were necessarily designed by your particular polytheistic gods to do so. If you feel that the properties of nature require that they have been designed by your particular polytheistic gods, please provide evidence of such.
Here is your opportunity to present your evidence for anything, anything at all, that shows ''design'' by one or more supernatural entities.
__________ <----- Here ya' go. Here's a placeholder. Show us the supermagicalism.
If you have any new scientific data on ID'iot creationism, you should come forward with it. Everything so far submitted by ID' creationists has been completely lacking in evidence and totally unsubstantiated.
It is difficult to interpret supernatural evidence as a means to interpret the supernatural because there's, you know, no supernatural evidence in evidence.
When the sky sobs and the wind wails,
When the Earth shakes the dust off Her face—
I discreetly take my leave and fade into the gray.
It seems the curriculum at the madrassah you studied at was not real rigorous toward matters of science or literature.
Why do you post threads in the science section when you have no ability to address science matters and only intend to street corner proselytize?
It must be embarrassing for you. Not having an education in the sciences leaves you to spam the thread because you're unable to address some pretty basic concepts related to biology.It seems the curriculum at the madrassah you studied at was not real rigorous toward matters of science or literature.
Why do you post threads in the science section when you have no ability to address science matters and only intend to street corner proselytize?
My sodden flesh—bleached and rancid, trampled by gleeful feet—lay wasted,
stretched out on hot sands.
Pretty arrogant of man to tell God how he should do things. Man is impatient but God is ageless, maybe evolution is how he likes to work.
Yet here you sit, the brave challenger, shouting into the void on an anonymous political message board, with not a single tool available to challenge the theory you call monstrous without any understanding of it.Pretty arrogant of man to tell God how he should do things. Man is impatient but God is ageless, maybe evolution is how he likes to work.
I agree. That's why I wrote the following in the above:
Evodelusion is the stuff of a gratuitous apriority that axiomatically yields a false interpretation of the evidence; it's a myth, a dream, a bad trip, it's Alice when she's ten feet tall, a fairy tale, a fantasy, a fable, a yarn . . . a long con . . . indeed, a mathematical and engineering monstrosity of human invention.
It has always amazed me how people who profess to believe in God look at the world, obviously a work of God (should he exist), and and choose not to believe their own eyes because of their logic or theology.Pretty arrogant of man to tell God how he should do things. Man is impatient but God is ageless, maybe evol ution is how he likes to work.
I agree. That's why I wrote the following in the above:
Evodelusion is the stuff of a gratuitous apriority that axiomatically yields a false interpretation of the evidence; it's a myth, a dream, a bad trip, it's Alice when she's ten feet tall, a fairy tale, a fantasy, a fable, a yarn . . . a long con . . . indeed, a mathematical and engineering monstrosity of human invention.
I responded with:Pretty arrogant of man to tell God how he should do things. Man is impatient but God is ageless, maybe evolution is how he likes to work.
I agree. That's why I wrote the following in the above:
Evodelusion is the stuff of a gratuitous apriority that axiomatically yields a false interpretation of the evidence; it's a myth, a dream, a bad trip, it's Alice when she's ten feet tall, a fairy tale, a fantasy, a fable, a yarn . . . a long con . . . indeed, a mathematical and engineering monstrosity of human invention.
God is the very definition of supernatural. I'm hearing that God created the Biblical 'kinds' and only then let nature take its course. It seems to me you've dressed up your creationism in some fancy clothes but at its core it is still creationism.
It has always amazed me how people who profess to believe in God look at the world, obviously a work of God (should he exist), and and choose not to believe their own eyes because of their logic or theology.
God created each plant and animal perfectly ... nature won't take it's course and blemish that which is created perfectly ... only Man can corrupt what God sets in motion ... the OP is trying to blend the two philosophical arguments into a single cohesive theory, which is just blind ... evolution isn't philosophy ...
The hypothesis of evodelusion is solely predicated on the metaphysical presupposition of naturalism
I suppose your conspiracy theory is that the documented evidence for biological evolution consists of a vast, global network of evilutionist atheist scientists who have all jointly conspired against Christian extremists.It has always amazed me how people who profess to believe in God look at the world, obviously a work of God (should he exist), and and choose not to believe their own eyes because of their logic or theology.
It always amazes me how evodelusionists fail to grasp the fact that their interpretation of the empirical evidence is predicated on nothing more than their metaphysical presupposition of naturalism.
I responded with:
It is regrettable that the ID’iot creationer ministries churn out such science loathing, ignorance embracing cultists.
To promote the idea that the biological sciences are some vast conspiracy is pretty typical for religious extremists, the Christian Taliban. I’m afraid it is a case that the ID’iot creationers / Christian Taliban and the rational, thinking world are diametrically opposed to one another. Biological evolution as well as all of the physical sciences are rooted in naturalism, which attributes ALL phenomenon in the universe to natural explanations. This is consistent with all of human history and all of human knowledge. Obviously, this explicitly rules out the supernatural, hence the distinction between "natural" and "supernatural". As we see with all claims to supernaturalism by the ID’iot creationers / Christian Taliban, when they are tasked with demonstrating their gods and the supernatural acts performed by their gods, they fail to do so.
One obvious refutation to the ID’iot creationer claim of a 6,000 year old planet is the stratified order of fossil remains. If all organisms lived within such a timeframe as the ID’iot creationers believe, we would expect to see trilobites, brachiopods, dinosaurs, and mammals (including humans) all randomly mixed together in the worldwide blanket of sedimentary layers. This is not what is observed. The fossil record exhibits an order consistent with the theory of evolution (but inconsistent with ID’iot creationism), from simple forms to more complex forms, and from creatures very unlike modern species to those more closely resembling modern species. In addition, there would be no extinction events found in the fossil record. There are at least five major extinction events in the fossil record.
Your best effort was to respond with something about your ''bleached and rancid'' intellect.
Perhaps you should spend more study time at Harun Yahya,
Actually, two of the gods populating christianity: God Sr. and the "Holy Ghost'' are the very definition of supernatural entities.God is the very definition of supernatural. I'm hearing that God created the Biblical 'kinds' and only then let nature take its course. It seems to me you've dressed up your creationism in some fancy clothes but at its core it is still creationism.
God is not the very definition of "supernatural". The term supernatural has various connotations, and there is a vast difference between the concept of divinity of classical theism and that of pagan materialism. The only connotation in which the term entails the divinity of classical theism is that offered, for example, by Merriam Webster: "of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible [or] observable universe".
The essence of biblical creationism is the divine origin and design of terrestrial creatures, and, once again, I hold that the evidence bests supports the notion that all of biological history is a series of creative events—entailing a speciation of a cyclically limited range of adaptive radiation per the mechanisms of genetic mutation, gene flow, genetic drift and natural selection—ultimately predicated on a shared, and systematically altered and transcribed genetic motif of common design over geological time.
Your pejorative language is noted, but utterly irrelevant sans an explanation as to how, precisely, the observable evidence precludes this potentiality.
The atheist in the gaps fallacy that nature did it is a mathematical and engineering monstrocity.
If God created the universe I'd say that is supernatural since it didn't create itself.God is the very definition of supernatural. I'm hearing that God created the Biblical 'kinds' and only then let nature take its course. It seems to me you've dressed up your creationism in some fancy clothes but at its core it is still creationism.
God is not the very definition of "supernatural". The term supernatural has various connotations, and there is a vast difference between the concept of divinity of classical theism and that of pagan materialism. The only connotation in which the term entails the divinity of classical theism is that offered, for example, by Merriam Webster: "of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible [or] observable universe".
The essence of biblical creationism is the divine origin and design of terrestrial creatures, and, once again, I hold that the evidence bests supports the notion that all of biological history is a series of creative events—entailing a speciation of a cyclically limited range of adaptive radiation per the mechanisms of genetic mutation, gene flow, genetic drift and natural selection—ultimately predicated on a shared, and systematically altered and transcribed genetic motif of common design over geological time.
Your pejorative language is noted, but utterly irrelevant sans an explanation as to how, precisely, the observable evidence precludes this potentiality.
The atheist in the gaps fallacy that nature did it is a mathematical and engineering monstrocity.
I've lived many years and have yet to encounter anything I'd attribute to a supernatural power. Until I do I stick with nature alone.It has always amazed me how people who profess to believe in God look at the world, obviously a work of God (should he exist), and and choose not to believe their own eyes because of their logic or theology.
It always amazes me how evodelusionists fail to grasp the fact that their interpretation of the empirical evidence is predicated on nothing more than their metaphysical presupposition of naturalism.
This is my favorite part of the con, really. It illustrates, in a nutshell, the cognitive dissonance and pure dishonesty of the proselytizing snake oil salesmen.No, dummy, the term God does not define the term "supernatural".
That’s pretty darn funny. You unwittingly defined your gods as supernatural entities.Actually, two of the gods populating christianity: God Sr. and the "Holy Ghost'' are the very definition of supernatural entities.
Some song and dance, please. A musical number would be fine.
No, dummy, the term God does not define the term "supernatural". As I told alang, that's nonsensical.
The meaning of the term God = "the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped (as in Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism) as creator and ruler of the universe" (Merriam Webster).
The term supernatural generally denotes "some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature". The only sense in which this applies to the divinity of classical theism goes to the term's connotation regarding that which is "of or relat[es] to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe".
Actually, two of the gods populating christianity: God Sr. and the "Holy Ghost'' are the very definition of supernatural entities.
Some song and dance, please. A musical number would be fine.
