The Stupid Lie called The Theory of Evolution

[Boss]

But I believe it planted 1 life seed and all life on earth.

It's good to have beliefs and faith... it makes you human.

I believe if it could plant one it could plant many.

 

[Hollie]

What evidence do you have against macro evolution?

You've got the scientific method backwards buddy, it's not anyone's place to present evidence against your hypothesis. It's up to you to PROVE your hypothesis. Okay, look.... What evidence do you have against God?

Oh my, bossy. You're really just a very ordinary bible thumper.

 

[sealybobo]

But I believe it planted 1 life seed and all life on earth.

It's good to have beliefs and faith... it makes you human.

I believe if it could plant one it could plant many.

But until you have evidence "it" even exists it is not only dumb to insist or believe it planted anything it is also crazy to speculate it even exists.

I don't know how I ended up with such a perfect life. It's too perfect to have all happened by chance. It must be God likes me. Since I don't know I'm just going to assume it was a God rather than admit I don't know.

Do you need evidence no God is needed to make a human? Just look at our parents. Hell, anyone can make a human.

 

[sealybobo]

What evidence do you have against macro evolution?

You've got the scientific method backwards buddy, it's not anyone's place to present evidence against your hypothesis. It's up to you to PROVE your hypothesis. Okay, look.... What evidence do you have against God?

Oh my, bossy. You're really just a very ordinary bible thumper.

Next boss and I are going to argue if the streets in heaven are really gold. Stay tuned.

And he's so sure they are gold he's going to get mad that we aren't taking him seriously or mock him. There comes a point where ignorance needs mocking.

A good psychiatrist tells his patience they're nuts. And if they don't hear it the first or five hundred times, repeat

 

[sealybobo]

But I believe it planted 1 life seed and all life on earth.

It's good to have beliefs and faith... it makes you human.

I believe if it could plant one it could plant many.

You want us to accept a premise that is false just because our primitive ancestors "always" did. Your premise is that science can't call bullshit on the God hypothesis. Well it did and God has lost popularity. Some day soon 50% won't believe and how long it will take to wake the other 50% up? I'm not talking about you old timer. You'll be dead soon. The next generation will be a lot less gullible than you

 

[sealybobo]

What evidence do you have against macro evolution?

You've got the scientific method backwards buddy, it's not anyone's place to present evidence against your hypothesis. It's up to you to PROVE your hypothesis. Okay, look.... What evidence do you have against God?

Oh my, bossy. You're really just a very ordinary bible thumper.

He doesn't know the difference between faith based beliefs and fact based.

If you show a skeptic all the facts they will question the scientific community on ALL the facts. He's basically a juror on the oj Simpson trial. If he finds even one question that can't be answered, that makes science no better than his delusions. It's sad and frustrating. I see all bosses bad evidence and he doesn't see it as bad evidence. Never will. Luckily he has zero followers

 

[Boss]

But until you have evidence "it" even exists it is not only dumb to insist or believe it planted anything it is also crazy to speculate it even exists.

I'm sorry, I thought I presented my evidence? Didn't we talk about how it's not possible for physical nature to have created itself? What you and others keep demanding is some kind of physical proof for a spiritual thing and that also defies logic. If you have physical proof of something spiritual, it's no longer spiritual.

You want us to accept a premise that is false just because our primitive ancestors "always" did. Your premise is that science can't call bullshit on the God hypothesis. Well it did and God has lost popularity.

I've been clear, I don't give a shit what you accept, it makes no difference to me. Humans have been spiritual since the get-go.. not just the ancients, all human civilizations that ever existed. You claim here that Science "called bullshit on God" but you've failed to provide any evidence for that statement. And then you somehow seem to assume Science is based on popularity and popular thought. That Science proves and disproves on the basis of popularity. It's funny, I don't find that anywhere in the scientific method.

If you show a skeptic all the facts they will question the scientific community on ALL the facts.

You haven't presented any facts!

 

[Hollie]

But until you have evidence "it" even exists it is not only dumb to insist or believe it planted anything it is also crazy to speculate it even exists.

I'm sorry, I thought I presented my evidence? Didn't we talk about how it's not possible for physical nature to have created itself? What you and others keep demanding is some kind of physical proof for a spiritual thing and that also defies logic. If you have physical proof of something spiritual, it's no longer spiritual.

You want us to accept a premise that is false just because our primitive ancestors "always" did. Your premise is that science can't call bullshit on the God hypothesis. Well it did and God has lost popularity.

I've been clear, I don't give a shit what you accept, it makes no difference to me. Humans have been spiritual since the get-go.. not just the ancients, all human civilizations that ever existed. You claim here that Science "called bullshit on God" but you've failed to provide any evidence for that statement. And then you somehow seem to assume Science is based on popularity and popular thought. That Science proves and disproves on the basis of popularity. It's funny, I don't find that anywhere in the scientific method.

If you show a skeptic all the facts they will question the scientific community on ALL the facts.

You haven't presented any facts!

Of course physical nature can create itself, just as gods and spirit realms create themselves.

 

[sealybobo]

But until you have evidence "it" even exists it is not only dumb to insist or believe it planted anything it is also crazy to speculate it even exists.

I'm sorry, I thought I presented my evidence? Didn't we talk about how it's not possible for physical nature to have created itself? What you and others keep demanding is some kind of physical proof for a spiritual thing and that also defies logic. If you have physical proof of something spiritual, it's no longer spiritual.

You want us to accept a premise that is false just because our primitive ancestors "always" did. Your premise is that science can't call bullshit on the God hypothesis. Well it did and God has lost popularity.

I've been clear, I don't give a shit what you accept, it makes no difference to me. Humans have been spiritual since the get-go.. not just the ancients, all human civilizations that ever existed. You claim here that Science "called bullshit on God" but you've failed to provide any evidence for that statement. And then you somehow seem to assume Science is based on popularity and popular thought. That Science proves and disproves on the basis of popularity. It's funny, I don't find that anywhere in the scientific method.

If you show a skeptic all the facts they will question the scientific community on ALL the facts.

You haven't presented any facts!

1. Physical nature has always existed. No spirituality needed. You and the rock you live under have always existed in one form or another. In fact you and the rock once lived inside a sun that died so that you 2 could live. Maybe not even the same star.

2. Your evidence is you have no evidence.
3. You believe because the ancients believed. It's natural for ignorant man to come up with a creator. A real thinker doesn't fall back on that whenever they don't know.
Physical nature can make physical nature. My grandparents created me. Before my parents were born where was I? Who made the spirm that made me? God? The spiritual? Come on man think.

 

[rdean]

God made bodies of all animals and man based on the same Master-plan. All of them eat, digest, egest, respire, copulate, hear, see, taste, etc. So all of them have similar organs to perform these functions. He also graded animals and man according to the complexity of functions He gave them. So amoeba comes near the beginning, fishes and frogs later, followed by cats, dogs, tigers, lions and finally by Man.

The Master-plan of God was obvious to anyone even before Charles Darwin. Charles Darwin made use of this Master-plan for devil's lying purpose. He studied the anatomy of each animal in detail and understood the gradation system of God. He placed all animals on the table starting with the lowest and ending with the highest, Man. And he lied that the higher animals "evolved" from the lower ones, although they were created just like that by God.

The placement of animals in the right order is the only "proof" that Evolutionists are offering to the world and that is not a proof at all. There are no proofs of evolution in the entire history of mankind. And none even before his history, even if we suppose that the earth and its inhabitants were made before the history of man.

I suspect Republicans hatch. They can't possibly be "born". Not again.

 

[sealybobo]

But until you have evidence "it" even exists it is not only dumb to insist or believe it planted anything it is also crazy to speculate it even exists.

I'm sorry, I thought I presented my evidence? Didn't we talk about how it's not possible for physical nature to have created itself? What you and others keep demanding is some kind of physical proof for a spiritual thing and that also defies logic. If you have physical proof of something spiritual, it's no longer spiritual.

You want us to accept a premise that is false just because our primitive ancestors "always" did. Your premise is that science can't call bullshit on the God hypothesis. Well it did and God has lost popularity.

I've been clear, I don't give a shit what you accept, it makes no difference to me. Humans have been spiritual since the get-go.. not just the ancients, all human civilizations that ever existed. You claim here that Science "called bullshit on God" but you've failed to provide any evidence for that statement. And then you somehow seem to assume Science is based on popularity and popular thought. That Science proves and disproves on the basis of popularity. It's funny, I don't find that anywhere in the scientific method.

If you show a skeptic all the facts they will question the scientific community on ALL the facts.

You haven't presented any facts!

Of course physical nature can create itself, just as gods and spirit realms create themselves.

This is just humans hoping they are more than just another animal. But then again this spirit made aids polio lice ants Hitler pigs and the shit that comes out of cows so even if there is a creator, how does that prove anything else boss hypothesizes about it?

I love it when I suggest to boss that maybe a creator planted one seed and all life is related and he says he "believes" that its more likely it planted many seeds, even though evolution and God could call a truce if he just accepted common decent. The next generation of bosses will accept macro evolution but that won't stop them from making all of bosses other bad arguments

 

[Boss]

1. Physical nature has always existed. No spirituality needed. You and the rock you live under have always existed in one form or another. In fact you and the rock once lived inside a sun that died so that you 2 could live. Maybe not even the same star.

Well no, physical nature cannot have always existed. Physical things cannot exist without a space and time in which to exist. Yes, every carbon-based life form that has ever existed is the result of a star converting hydrogen in nuclear fission which just so happens to occur due to an incredible fine tuning of the cosmological constants.

2. Your evidence is you have no evidence.

YOU claimed "Science called bullshit on God." ...It's not my place to present evidence.

3. You believe because the ancients believed. It's natural for ignorant man to come up with a creator. A real thinker doesn't fall back on that whenever they don't know.

It's natural for man to understand his connection to spiritual nature. I believe we've been doing it from the start. In fact, I think human's spiritual evolution is far more fascinating and intriguing than any physical evolution. It is through spirit we are inspired and through inspiration we invented something called Science in order to explore things we don't know. We began to reason out ways to measure the custom-made parameters and variables set by our reality.

Physical nature can make physical nature. My grandparents created me. Before my parents were born where was I? Who made the spirm that made me? God? The spiritual? Come on man think.

That's not physical nature making physical nature, sorry. That's kind of a child-like view that can't be taken seriously. You are a physical organism converting physical matter into other physical matter called your cells. You can't create or destroy matter or energy... Conservation of mass. e=mc2.

Come on man.... think.

 

[sealybobo]

1. Physical nature has always existed. No spirituality needed. You and the rock you live under have always existed in one form or another. In fact you and the rock once lived inside a sun that died so that you 2 could live. Maybe not even the same star.

Well no, physical nature cannot have always existed. Physical things cannot exist without a space and time in which to exist. Yes, every carbon-based life form that has ever existed is the result of a star converting hydrogen in nuclear fission which just so happens to occur due to an incredible fine tuning of the cosmological constants.

2. Your evidence is you have no evidence.

YOU claimed "Science called bullshit on God." ...It's not my place to present evidence.

3. You believe because the ancients believed. It's natural for ignorant man to come up with a creator. A real thinker doesn't fall back on that whenever they don't know.

It's natural for man to understand his connection to spiritual nature. I believe we've been doing it from the start. In fact, I think human's spiritual evolution is far more fascinating and intriguing than any physical evolution. It is through spirit we are inspired and through inspiration we invented something called Science in order to explore things we don't know. We began to reason out ways to measure the custom-made parameters and variables set by our reality.

Physical nature can make physical nature. My grandparents created me. Before my parents were born where was I? Who made the spirm that made me? God? The spiritual? Come on man think.

That's not physical nature making physical nature, sorry. That's kind of a child-like view that can't be taken seriously. You are a physical organism converting physical matter into other physical matter called your cells. You can't create or destroy matter or energy... Conservation of mass. e=mc2.

Come on man.... think.

I get it now. Before you were even the spirm in your dad's balls you were living in the spirit world. But then physical made spiritual.

And before the universe math existed but not physically. It only existed spiritually until someone wrote 1+1=2.

 

[sealybobo]

1. Physical nature has always existed. No spirituality needed. You and the rock you live under have always existed in one form or another. In fact you and the rock once lived inside a sun that died so that you 2 could live. Maybe not even the same star.

Well no, physical nature cannot have always existed. Physical things cannot exist without a space and time in which to exist. Yes, every carbon-based life form that has ever existed is the result of a star converting hydrogen in nuclear fission which just so happens to occur due to an incredible fine tuning of the cosmological constants.

2. Your evidence is you have no evidence.

YOU claimed "Science called bullshit on God." ...It's not my place to present evidence.

3. You believe because the ancients believed. It's natural for ignorant man to come up with a creator. A real thinker doesn't fall back on that whenever they don't know.

It's natural for man to understand his connection to spiritual nature. I believe we've been doing it from the start. In fact, I think human's spiritual evolution is far more fascinating and intriguing than any physical evolution. It is through spirit we are inspired and through inspiration we invented something called Science in order to explore things we don't know. We began to reason out ways to measure the custom-made parameters and variables set by our reality.

Physical nature can make physical nature. My grandparents created me. Before my parents were born where was I? Who made the spirm that made me? God? The spiritual? Come on man think.

That's not physical nature making physical nature, sorry. That's kind of a child-like view that can't be taken seriously. You are a physical organism converting physical matter into other physical matter called your cells. You can't create or destroy matter or energy... Conservation of mass. e=mc2.

Come on man.... think.

God created/caused the universe.

The First Cause Argument, or Cosmological Argument, is internally contradictory and raises the following questions: Who or what created god?, Why should a hypothetical ‘cause’ have any of the common attributes of a god?, Why is the ‘cause’ a specific god?, Why can’t the universe be causeless too? and, most importantly, Why rule out all other possible explanations? It is fundamentally a ‘god of the gaps’ approach. Our current lack of understanding concerning the Universe’s origins does not mean ‘god’ holds any explanatory value. Metaphysical and theistic speculation are not immediately justified or correct simply because we lack a comprehensive scientific model. Uncertainty is the most valid position and one can honestly say “We just don’t know yet”. The argument ignores the fact that our everyday understanding of causality has been arrived at via a posteriori inductive reasoning – which means it might not apply to everything. Time, for instance, appears to have begun with the Big Bang, so there might not have been any ’cause’ for the Universe to be an ‘effect’ of since there was probably no time for a ’cause’ to exist in. Applying concepts like time and causality to the Big Bang might be comparable to asking “What is north of the North Pole?” – ultimately nonsensical and incoherent. Furthermore, even if causality could be established it would not immediately imply the existence of a god as the properties and nature of the ’cause’ could forever remain a mystery or be naturalistic. In fact, something can come from nothing and we are able to observe it in the form of virtual particles and quantum vacuum fluctuations. They explain why the early universe lacked uniformity and provided the seeds for the emergence of structure. These quantum phenomena are also causeless in the sense that they are objectively and irreducibly random, a fact confirmed by tests of non-local realism and Bell’s Theorem.

Theists often state “God is outside of time”. This claim does not actually make their speculation correct. Instead, it brings with it a whole host of problems and may be immediately dismissed as being without basis and a type fallacy known as special pleading.

 

[sealybobo]

Cosmogony is the scientific study of the origins of the universe. When you look up the word, you find this: This article is about scientific theories of the origin of the universe. For non-scientific explanations, see Creation myth

 

[PK1]

Faith, as in full "blind" trust, without any evidence, is not applicable in science.
If you don't believe in scientific consensus, then you are definitely not a scientist ,,, unless you propose a rational alternative explanation.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but "spiritual nature" ain't it.

Spiritual nature cannot be proved with physical science without spiritual nature becoming physical... hence, it would cease to be spiritual. ...

If blind trust (faith) is not acceptable in science, you need to be talking to the people here who believe in abiogenesis and macroevolution. There is no evidence for it. ...
Scientific "consensus" is not science. That is an appeal to popularity.

---
Exactly; "Spiritual nature cannot be proved with physical science" ...
because our perceptions are material.
Our emotional thoughts perceive experiences as "spiritual", also in the physical/material domain.
So, how can you claim a non-emotional "spiritual" domain exists when you can't perceive it with your physical senses?

Faith in macroevolution represents theory, and is based on phylogenetic evidence of common ancestry. I consider it (TOE) as the best explanation for our biological origins.
However, abiogenesis is another matter. We do not yet have credible evidence for it, and my belief is neutral in that regard.
Scientific consensus does not exist for abiogenesis.
I would much rather place my trust in credible experts in their scientific field than others.
If you are diagnosed with a terminal disease, would you rather go to spiritual faith healers, or to medical experts with MDs & PhDs?
.

 

[sealybobo]

Faith, as in full "blind" trust, without any evidence, is not applicable in science.
If you don't believe in scientific consensus, then you are definitely not a scientist ,,, unless you propose a rational alternative explanation.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but "spiritual nature" ain't it.

Spiritual nature cannot be proved with physical science without spiritual nature becoming physical... hence, it would cease to be spiritual. ...

If blind trust (faith) is not acceptable in science, you need to be talking to the people here who believe in abiogenesis and macroevolution. There is no evidence for it. ...
Scientific "consensus" is not science. That is an appeal to popularity.

---
Exactly; "Spiritual nature cannot be proved with physical science" ...
because our perceptions are material.
Our emotional thoughts perceive experiences as "spiritual", also in the physical/material domain.
So, how can you claim a non-emotional "spiritual" domain exists when you can't perceive it with your physical senses?

Faith in macroevolution represents theory, and is based on phylogenetic evidence of common ancestry. I consider it (TOE) as the best explanation for our biological origins.
However, abiogenesis is another matter. We do not yet have credible evidence for it, and my belief is neutral in that regard.
Scientific consensus does not exist for abiogenesis.
I would much rather place my trust in credible experts in their scientific field than others.
If you are diagnosed with a terminal disease, would you rather go to spiritual faith healers, or to medical experts with MDs & PhDs?
.

 

[sealybobo]

Lots of people believe in a god.

Argumentum ad populum. The popularity of an idea says nothing of its veracity.

Geocentrism, a flat earth, creationism, astrology, alchemy and the occult were all once pervasive beliefs.

 

[sealybobo]

1. Physical nature has always existed. No spirituality needed. You and the rock you live under have always existed in one form or another. In fact you and the rock once lived inside a sun that died so that you 2 could live. Maybe not even the same star.

Well no, physical nature cannot have always existed. Physical things cannot exist without a space and time in which to exist. Yes, every carbon-based life form that has ever existed is the result of a star converting hydrogen in nuclear fission which just so happens to occur due to an incredible fine tuning of the cosmological constants.

2. Your evidence is you have no evidence.

YOU claimed "Science called bullshit on God." ...It's not my place to present evidence.

3. You believe because the ancients believed. It's natural for ignorant man to come up with a creator. A real thinker doesn't fall back on that whenever they don't know.

It's natural for man to understand his connection to spiritual nature. I believe we've been doing it from the start. In fact, I think human's spiritual evolution is far more fascinating and intriguing than any physical evolution. It is through spirit we are inspired and through inspiration we invented something called Science in order to explore things we don't know. We began to reason out ways to measure the custom-made parameters and variables set by our reality.

Physical nature can make physical nature. My grandparents created me. Before my parents were born where was I? Who made the spirm that made me? God? The spiritual? Come on man think.

That's not physical nature making physical nature, sorry. That's kind of a child-like view that can't be taken seriously. You are a physical organism converting physical matter into other physical matter called your cells. You can't create or destroy matter or energy... Conservation of mass. e=mc2.

Come on man.... think.

Science can’t explain X, therefore god/theism.

God of the gaps [2]. Argument from Ignorance.

Simply because you or the scientific community lack a complete understanding of something does not imply a theistic explanation carries any value. Even if there exists some topic on which science can never speak, any understanding could potentially evade us forever – supernatural or metaphysical speculation would not automatically be correct. Uncertainty is the most legitimate position.

Lightning, earthquakes, volcanos, disease, mental illness, speciation, planetary orbitsand numerous other phenomena have been historically labelled ‘supernatural’ only to later be more thoroughly and elegantly explained by science. In fact, every mystery ever demonstrably solved has had a non-supernatural explanation. To suggest that science cannot or will not explain a phenomena, and that only theism can, is hubris of the highest order.

Using ‘god’ to explain something explains nothing. God’s supposed powers and how they work are a mystery. An explanation is intended to clarify and extend knowledge. Attributing a phenomenon to the magical powers of a supernatural being does neither. Worse still, this presumption acts to prevent any deeper investigation, being little more than a form of blissful ignorance.

Note: By using ‘god’ to fill gaps in their knowledge theists inadvertently provide a shrinking role for their god as science advances. They also predicate god’s existence on a lack of knowledge, not on any positive argument or evidence.

See also: The God of the Gaps – Neil deGrasse Tyson (a must watch), Open-Mindedness (a must watch), Skewed views of science, The faith cake (a must watch),Richard Feynman on Doubt and Uncertainty (a must watch), Critical Thinking,Magical Thinking, Self-Deception Open-Mindedness (a must watch).

“I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.” – Richard Dawkins

“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.” – Charles Darwin

 

[sealybobo]

But until you have evidence "it" even exists it is not only dumb to insist or believe it planted anything it is also crazy to speculate it even exists.

I'm sorry, I thought I presented my evidence? Didn't we talk about how it's not possible for physical nature to have created itself? What you and others keep demanding is some kind of physical proof for a spiritual thing and that also defies logic. If you have physical proof of something spiritual, it's no longer spiritual.

You want us to accept a premise that is false just because our primitive ancestors "always" did. Your premise is that science can't call bullshit on the God hypothesis. Well it did and God has lost popularity.

I've been clear, I don't give a shit what you accept, it makes no difference to me. Humans have been spiritual since the get-go.. not just the ancients, all human civilizations that ever existed. You claim here that Science "called bullshit on God" but you've failed to provide any evidence for that statement. And then you somehow seem to assume Science is based on popularity and popular thought. That Science proves and disproves on the basis of popularity. It's funny, I don't find that anywhere in the scientific method.

If you show a skeptic all the facts they will question the scientific community on ALL the facts.

You haven't presented any facts!

Of course physical nature can create itself, just as gods and spirit realms create themselves.

But Phenomenon X has a non-physical component.

Baseless assertion. Unfalsifiable. How can you prove it?

There have been numerous claims of the supernatural, none of which have ever been demonstrated to be true. Furthermore, these claims are often mutually contradictory, and people who believe in one form of supernatural or paranormal activity will usually not believe in others due to cognitive bias and wishful thinking.

Proposing a non-physical explanation for an observed or imagined/fabricated phenomena is not a testable hypothesis and is therefore unworthy of serious consideration. It precludes any deeper insight or understanding and offers no means of distinction from any other possible supernatural claim.

There are many as yet unexplained phenomena and anomalies in nature. The scientific approach to these is to say “I don’t know yet” and keep on looking, not to presume an answer which makes us comfortable.

Note: This claim often represents a deep discomfort with uncertainty or ambiguity, demonstrating a lack of critical thinking or poor understanding of a topic. It usually coincides with credulity, which is the tendency to believe in propositions unsupported by evidence. See also: gullibility.

See also: Critical Thinking (a must watch), Open-Mindedness (a must watch), Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman on Doubt and Uncertainty (a must watch), Delusion,Magical Thinking, Superstition, Self-Deception.

“What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.” – Christopher Hitchens