Ringtone
Platinum Member
- Sep 3, 2019
- 6,142
- 3,522
- 940
There's something wrong with your thinker.So post your evidence for a series of creative events over geological time.
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.
There's something wrong with your thinker.So post your evidence for a series of creative events over geological time.
You said hyper-religious again.
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.
There's something wrong with your thinker.
It's all there, in the geologic record.So post your evidence for a series of creative events over geological time.
It does if you know where to look.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 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.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.
Man! Your ignorance is massive enough to form a black hole.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.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?
Evidence of common design presumes a common designer.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.
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.Evidence of common design presumes a common designer.
There is no evidence for either.
You can refute the above by offering evidence.
Do that.
^^^^^^^^^Evidence of common design presumes a common designer.
There is no evidence for either.
You can refute the above by offering evidence.
Do that.
Then perhaps you can show where my statement was ignorant.Man! Your ignorance is massive enough to form a black hole.
Except you cant show any 'evidence' of common design.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.
I leave the vapidity to you. But I’ll get back here later. Keep your panties dry.Then perhaps you can show where my statement was ignorant.
Or do you just have vapid claims?
What appears to have been created? What is the standard for ''appearance''? Is something very big an appearance of supernatural design for religionists?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.
^^^^^^^^^
Baby talk
The existence of the Universe is the evidence of God's existence, you drooling 'tard of a mindless, terminally stupid lunatic.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.
Bullshit! The evidence is readily consistent with common design.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.