Why Evolution is False and is the biggest fairy tales EVER in our human history

[Ringtone]

So post your evidence for a series of creative events over geological time.

There's something wrong with your thinker.

 

[Hollie]

You said hyper-religious again.

Yes.

I have noticed a pattern of behavior that typifies the hyper_religious. They never leave us much room for rational discussion. Anyone who can claim that all of existence can be resolved by screeching out ''the bible says.... '' is not speaking a language that intersects in any way with science.

 

[BreezeWood]

Magic? Because God doesn't exist? But I already exposed you for a damn fool on that very point. Maybe you weren't paying attention or couldn't connect the dots. Toddsterpatriot's having the very same problem.

Your fallacious syllogism:
1. The evidence evinces a biological history wherein species of increasing variety and complexity appear over geological time.
2. God doesn't exist; i.,e., metaphysical/ontological naturalism is necessarily true.
3. Hence, evolution is necessarily true.

LOL! Your second premise has an odious smell. We're talking beaucoup-junk-in-the-trunk funk here. You assume evolution all along. You presuppose the conclusion in your premise. Your silly-ass argument amounts to evolution is true because evolution is true.

Hey, don't feel too stupid. The very same sort of stupidity flies right over the heads of many evolutionary theists too. Their fallacious thinking is similar:

1. The evidence evinces a biological history wherein species of increasing variety and complexity appear over geological time.
2. God preprogrammed nature to naturally evolve in all aspects of its development; i,e., naturalism is necessarily true.
3. Hence, evolution is necessarily true.

2. God preprogrammed nature to naturally evolve in all aspects of its development; i,e., naturalism is necessarily true.

your christian view - preprogrammed ... whenever was the - pre - and programed what. the initial cell.

from the heavens, the metaphysical physiology evovoled with a personality unique to each being but not all beings as the same.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There's something wrong with your thinker.

Straighten me out with your evidence. LOL!

 

[Woodznutz]

So post your evidence for a series of creative events over geological time.

It's all there, in the geologic record.

 

[Woodznutz]

Yes.

I have noticed a pattern of behavior that typifies the hyper_religious. They never leave us much room for rational discussion. Anyone who can claim that all of existence can be resolved by screeching out ''the bible says.... '' is not speaking a language that intersects in any way with science.

It does if you know where to look.

Hyper religious = scrupulously honest.

 

[FA_Q2]

Actually, evolution is a theory and an opinion. It is one I happen to subscribe to. But it hasn’t been proved. It may not be possible to prove it. But there is plenty of evidence to support the theory, the opinion and the belief.

The existence of God hasn’t been proved, either. I doubt it can ever be proved in this life.

It is not an opinion and a scientific theory is a fact in colloquial language. It has been proven as much as gravity or the germ theory of disease has been proven. Its rejection is no more or less silly than adhering to the old idea that miasma causes illness rather than viruses or bacteria.

There is no such thing as proven in scientific terms, the goal is to DISPROVE a particular theory. If it remains disproven for a hundred years and every single experiment ever devised shows evidence for it, then it is incorrect to call it opinion.

Which is the clear cut case for evolution.

Oddly, many of the seminal discoveries in evolutionary theory have been made by religious people. It is only those that demand they know how God operates, a monumentally arrogant thing to demand, that reject it in favor of their particular interpretation of biblical text.

I wonder how many of those same people think that Jonah actually lived inside a whale?

 

[Woodznutz]

It's a small leap to go from unnatural to supernatural. How unnatural is the earth when compared to the rest of the known universe?

 

[BackAgain]

It is not an opinion and a scientific theory is a fact in colloquial language. It has been proven as much as gravity or the germ theory of disease has been proven. Its rejection is no more or less silly than adhering to the old idea that miasma causes illness rather than viruses or bacteria.

There is no such thing as proven in scientific terms, the goal is to DISPROVE a particular theory. If it remains disproven for a hundred years and every single experiment ever devised shows evidence for it, then it is incorrect to call it opinion.

Which is the clear cut case for evolution.

Oddly, many of the seminal discoveries in evolutionary theory have been made by religious people. It is only those that demand they know how God operates, a monumentally arrogant thing to demand, that reject it in favor of their particular interpretation of biblical text.

I wonder how many of those same people think that Jonah actually lived inside a whale?

Man! Your ignorance is massive enough to form a black hole.

 

[Ringtone]

It is not an opinion and a scientific theory is a fact in colloquial language. It has been proven as much as gravity or the germ theory of disease has been proven. Its rejection is no more or less silly than adhering to the old idea that miasma causes illness rather than viruses or bacteria.

There is no such thing as proven in scientific terms, the goal is to DISPROVE a particular theory. If it remains disproven for a hundred years and every single experiment ever devised shows evidence for it, then it is incorrect to call it opinion.

Which is the clear cut case for evolution.

Oddly, many of the seminal discoveries in evolutionary theory have been made by religious people. It is only those that demand they know how God operates, a monumentally arrogant thing to demand, that reject it in favor of their particular interpretation of biblical text.

I wonder how many of those same people think that Jonah actually lived inside a whale?

It [evolution] has been proven as much as gravity or the germ theory of disease has been proven. Its rejection is no more or less silly than adhering to the old idea that miasma causes illness rather than viruses or bacteria.

Only the most closed-minded, unimaginative, or flat-out ignorant minds would make this claim in the face of the evidence for common design. You're ridiculous.

 

[Hollie]

It [evolution] has been proven as much as gravity or the germ theory of disease has been proven. Its rejection is no more or less silly than adhering to the old idea that miasma causes illness rather than viruses or bacteria.

Only the most closed-minded, unimaginative, or flat-out ignorant minds would make this claim in the face of the evidence for common design. You're ridiculous.

Evidence of common design presumes a common designer.

There is no evidence for either.

You can refute the above by offering evidence.

Do that.

 

[Woodznutz]

Evidence of common design presumes a common designer.

There is no evidence for either.

You can refute the above by offering evidence.

Do that.

That's like saying that tracks in the snow don't necessarily mean that something passed by there. The evidence of creation is the stuff that appears to have been created, which is just about everything. Nothing in the world appears to have evolved, except in the imaginings of evolutionists.

 

[Ringtone]

Evidence of common design presumes a common designer.

There is no evidence for either.

You can refute the above by offering evidence.

Do that.

^^^^^^^^^
Baby talk

 

[FA_Q2]

Man! Your ignorance is massive enough to form a black hole.

Then perhaps you can show where my statement was ignorant.

Or do you just have vapid claims?

 

[FA_Q2]

It [evolution] has been proven as much as gravity or the germ theory of disease has been proven. Its rejection is no more or less silly than adhering to the old idea that miasma causes illness rather than viruses or bacteria.

Only the most closed-minded, unimaginative, or flat-out ignorant minds would make this claim in the face of the evidence for common design. You're ridiculous.

Except you cant show any 'evidence' of common design.

You cannot even define the terms you want to use. There is not even a hypothesis there, just a vapid claim that is not testable, has no relation to reality and refuses to acknowledge even the basic science that has been discovered in the last 100 years.

So who is close minded here?

The one that demands they must be correct based off an interpretation on a book that the VAST majority of people following rejects or the one that is based off of actual facts?

Not one fact brought up by the creationists here. Just a bunch of complaints about evolution that are flat out wrong and the utter inability to even define basic terms like kind.

That word STILL remains undefined by your side because you do not even know what it means.

 

[BackAgain]

Then perhaps you can show where my statement was ignorant.

Or do you just have vapid claims?

I leave the vapidity to you. But I’ll get back here later. Keep your panties dry.

 

[Hollie]

That's like saying that tracks in the snow don't necessarily mean that something passed by there. The evidence of creation is the stuff that appears to have been created, which is just about everything. Nothing in the world appears to have evolved, except in the imaginings of evolutionists.

What appears to have been created? What is the standard for ''appearance''? Is something very big an appearance of supernatural design for religionists?

While standing on the beach, a ship sailing away appears to fall off the edge of the earth. The appearance is that the earth must be flat.

 

[Hollie]

^^^^^^^^^
Baby talk

My comments resulted in you throwing yourself on the floor in a kicking, screaming tantrum. I had to send you for a timeout.

As we know, hyper-religionism / ID'iot creationerism is not a scientific theory but an appeal to fear and superstition. So that I can help you understand, a scientific theory is a detailed explanation that is supported with physical evidence and experimental data. Religionism / ID'iot Creationism is not an explanation for anything. In all of the religionist / ID'iot creationerist literature, you will not find the statement: "Here is how the process of how supernatural creationerism works..." There simply is nothing to offer. There is no physical evidence which supports supernaturalism / ID'iot creationerism. You do not have any positive evidence for your claims, you only collect negative evidence against evolution, which in every case turns out to be erroneous or fabricated.

 

[Ringtone]

My comments resulted in you throwing yourself on the floor in a kicking, screaming tantrum. I had to send you for a timeout.

As we know, hyper-religionism / ID'iot creationerism is not a scientific theory but an appeal to fear and superstition. So that I can help you understand, a scientific theory is a detailed explanation that is supported with physical evidence and experimental data. Religionism / ID'iot Creationism is not an explanation for anything. In all of the religionist / ID'iot creationerist literature, you will not find the statement: "Here is how the process of how supernatural creationerism works..." There simply is nothing to offer. There is no physical evidence which supports supernaturalism / ID'iot creationerism. You do not have any positive evidence for your claims, you only collect negative evidence against evolution, which in every case turns out to be erroneous or fabricated.

The existence of the Universe is the evidence of God's existence, you drooling 'tard of a mindless, terminally stupid lunatic.

 

[Ringtone]

Except you cant show any 'evidence' of common design.

You cannot even define the terms you want to use. There is not even a hypothesis there, just a vapid claim that is not testable, has no relation to reality and refuses to acknowledge even the basic science that has been discovered in the last 100 years.

So who is close minded here?

The one that demands they must be correct based off an interpretation on a book that the VAST majority of people following rejects or the one that is based off of actual facts?

Not one fact brought up by the creationists here. Just a bunch of complaints about evolution that are flat out wrong and the utter inability to even define basic terms like kind.

That word STILL remains undefined by your side because you do not even know what it means.

Bullshit! The evidence is readily consistent with common design.