People are going to have to face the reality that there's NO GOD

[Uncensored2008]

No they're not.

I haven't seen you disprove anything I've posted. You run around calling it dogma and yet you won't answer the question of what dogma I've posted.

******CHUCKLE*****

Yes, they are opposites. And I would never attempt the folly of trying to disprove magical nonsense. That's part of the point of it being magical nonsense, and why magical thinkers like you wield it.

View attachment 153186

Point out to me where there's any 'magical nonsense' in my responses.

That should be quite the trick since I've not provided any 'magical nonsense' in my responses.

Still waiting for you to point out that 'religious dogma' you keep saying I'm guilty of promoting.

*****CHUCKLE*****
"Pantheism" is magical nonsense. It is also religious dogma. Why so shy? Be proud of your dogma, else you cheapen it yourself. or shed it, even better.

"Pantheism" is magical nonsense. It is also religious dogma. Why so shy? Be proud of your dogma, else you cheapen it yourself. or shed it, even better.

Gaia worship is magical nonsense, the religion of Stalinists with their global warming dogma. Be proud of your dogma, else you cheapen it yourself. or shed it, even better.

You have it backwards.

Stalinists deny global warming.. They are terra forming. A warmer planet would be beneficial in colder regions, increasing farming and productivity, oil and gas exports, and subsequently national power and wealth, by freeing up ports and regions for development that are presently frozen and blocked by ice.....

Oh?

Want to try that again?

 

[hobelim]

Yes, they are opposites. And I would never attempt the folly of trying to disprove magical nonsense. That's part of the point of it being magical nonsense, and why magical thinkers like you wield it.

View attachment 153186

Point out to me where there's any 'magical nonsense' in my responses.

That should be quite the trick since I've not provided any 'magical nonsense' in my responses.

Still waiting for you to point out that 'religious dogma' you keep saying I'm guilty of promoting.

*****CHUCKLE*****
"Pantheism" is magical nonsense. It is also religious dogma. Why so shy? Be proud of your dogma, else you cheapen it yourself. or shed it, even better.

"Pantheism" is magical nonsense. It is also religious dogma. Why so shy? Be proud of your dogma, else you cheapen it yourself. or shed it, even better.

Gaia worship is magical nonsense, the religion of Stalinists with their global warming dogma. Be proud of your dogma, else you cheapen it yourself. or shed it, even better.

You have it backwards.

Stalinists deny global warming.. They are terra forming. A warmer planet would be beneficial in colder regions, increasing farming and productivity, oil and gas exports, and subsequently national power and wealth, by freeing up ports and regions for development that are presently frozen and blocked by ice.....

Oh?

Want to try that again?

Calling democrats stalinists is rather immature, not to mention stupid.

Youse guys really need to come up with some new material.

Why do you think real stalinists supported trump who immediately began to dismantle environmental protections and restrictions on activities that have been proven scientifically to contribute to global warming??

How could you possibly deny the evidence of global warming if not that your mind has beed defiled and contaminated by soviet propaganda and stalinist horseshit disguised as america first patriotism?

 

[Uncensored2008]

[

Calling democrats stalinists is rather immature, not to mention stupid.

That you believe "facts are stupid" explains a great deal about you.

Youse guys really need to come up with some new material.

Why do you think real stalinists supported trump who immediately began to dismantle environmental protections and restrictions on activities that have been proven scientifically to contribute to global warming??

You didn't support Trump. Comrade.

The issue with Stalinists like you is that you are pathological. Virtually nothing you post is actually so.

Russia is a major supporter of your moronic religion.

http://www.climatechangenews.com/20...pcc-climate-report-to-include-geoengineering/

Further, Russia has not been Communist since 1990 - which is why you democrats no longer love Russia

 

[alang1216]

Again, like I said earlier, the word "supernatural" is something we created to define things that can't be explained by physical nature. Over the years, the things we once thought were "supernatural" phenomenon have been explained and they forever leave the realm of "supernatural" because we then have an explanation. So to say something is "supernatural" simply means you currently don't have a physical explanation. It doesn't mean there isn't one... just that you don't currently have one. In a sense, is that not the exact same thing as relying on "God did it" as a placeholder for explanation?

No matter what the natural world turns out to be, if God created it he is not a part of it, hence supernatural. If he is part of it he has given up control and is subject to its limitations and is no longer all-powerful, omniscient, etc.

I've never heard anything so stupid in my life. God gave you the ability to turn your grunting noises into language so you could communicate with others, not so you could formulate goofy semantics arguments and be absurd.

Apparently he failed miserably. You have recycled the "God of the Gaps" argument, I hope you don't hurt yourself with your verbal contortions

If that is the case, you should be able to easily refute his arguments.....

He said there are gaps in our knowledge of the natural world and it is there that God resides. By definition nature is constrained by space and time just as by definition, God is not. Our knowledge may grow but not our definitions. There may be a 'supernatural', I'm an agnostic so I won't say it is impossible, but it will be outside our universe.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Given your constant attempts to misinform and create confusion about scientific theories and process, i think it's perfectly reasonable to assume you pantheistic dogma includes substituting your own magical thinking for scientific knowledge. I'm sure you would provide many examples of this, if given to a moment of honesty. No?

I'm not the one who believes that just because there's a 90% consensus among scientists for a theoretical model that can't stand up to the data collected and still believe that it's correct... That would be someone like you. Most people would call that...

...Wait for it...

...MAGIC and DOGMA

*****CHUCKLE*****

"I'm not the one who believes that just because there's a 90% consensus among scientists for a theoretical model that can't stand up to the data collected and still believe that it's correct... That would be someone like you."

That's not why I accept the dominant theories, not do i think they can all be called "facts". that's just you, being dishonest, as one would expect from a snake oil salesman. And you are also lying about accepted theories not standing up to the facts.... more embarrassing bullshit dogma that you have fooled yourself into believing is compelling.logic.

View attachment 153313

Yes! Yes! Seek out the witches and unbelievers so you can torture and sacrifice them on your almighty alter of scientific consensus! You don't care if the ice caps were supposed to be gone for... what?... a decade now?,,, You have consensus and the almighty power of the consensus must prevail!

*****CHUCKLE*****

"Seek out the witches and unbelievers so you can torture and sacrifice them on your almighty alter of scientific consensus! You don't care if the ice caps were supposed to be gone for... what?... a decade now?"

Let's unpack the stupidity here:

First of all, ya paranoid freak, nobody is suggesting anything of the sort. Stop trying to make yourself some sort of "martyr", when really you are just a cackling peddler of anti-scientific nonsense. Lending yourself faux martyr status doesn't suddenly make your bullshit, "true".

Secondly, not a single scientist claimed the ice caps would be gone by now, so your comment shows not only utter ignorance of the topic, but the fact that you know less than nothing about the topic. That's right, less than nothing. I.E., not only do you know nothing about the topic, the things you think you know are all wrong. Yes, you have net negative knowledge about the topic. In other words, a teacher would have to spend time simply correcting your dishonest, incorrect bullshit just to get you to the point where your knowledge of the topic is the same as an newborn baby. How embarrassing for you... and it's made even more embarrassing by your aggressiveness. "Aggressively stupid"... it's worse than stupid.

I may be a tad aggressive but I'm not the one being aggressive and abusive. As for the ice caps being gone...



...One of your ^^^high priests^^^ proclaimed in 2009 that the ice caps were supposed to be gone in five years. Now that would have been 2014 that all those polar bears would have no habitat and here we are almost four years later. Did I miss something about how that global warming theory magically divined all of this? Maybe if you manipulate the data 'just so' the next time it won't blow up in your face.

*****CHUCKLE*****

That's yet another shameless lie by you. He said the models predicted it as possible, which was accurate to say. One of these days, you cackling deniers are going to come to the realization that your own ignorance and misunderstanding of simple words and scientific topics is not everyone else's fault.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Again, like I said earlier, the word "supernatural" is something we created to define things that can't be explained by physical nature. Over the years, the things we once thought were "supernatural" phenomenon have been explained and they forever leave the realm of "supernatural" because we then have an explanation. So to say something is "supernatural" simply means you currently don't have a physical explanation. It doesn't mean there isn't one... just that you don't currently have one. In a sense, is that not the exact same thing as relying on "God did it" as a placeholder for explanation?

No matter what the natural world turns out to be, if God created it he is not a part of it, hence supernatural. If he is part of it he has given up control and is subject to its limitations and is no longer all-powerful, omniscient, etc.

I've never heard anything so stupid in my life. God gave you the ability to turn your grunting noises into language so you could communicate with others, not so you could formulate goofy semantics arguments and be absurd.

Apparently he failed miserably. You have recycled the "God of the Gaps" argument, I hope you don't hurt yourself with your verbal contortions

If that is the case, you should be able to easily refute his arguments.....

He said there are gaps in our knowledge of the natural world and it is there that God resides. By definition nature is constrained by space and time just as by definition, God is not. Our knowledge may grow but not our definitions. There may be a 'supernatural', I'm an agnostic so I won't say it is impossible, but it will be outside our universe.

Boss in fact did NOT say that. You decided to pigeon hole his argument in order to build a straw man and avoid offering an actual rebuttal.

 

[hobelim]

You didn't support Trump. Comrade.

The issue with Stalinists like you is that you are pathological. Virtually nothing you post is actually so.

Russia is a major supporter of your moronic religion.

http://www.climatechangenews.com/20...pcc-climate-report-to-include-geoengineering/

By posting an article that shows that russia is more advanced in comprehending the possibilities to deliberately alter the climate only supports what I have said.


Like they wouldn't just go ahead and do it to their own advantage and if western countries and coastal cities are consequently devastated, by mother nature, it would only be a bonus.

Further, Russia has not been Communist since 1990 - which is why you democrats no longer love Russia

Right, its become more like a tyrannical oligarchy empowered by institutional corruption, violence, and organized crime.....

The same kind of system that you have been hoodwinked by a fake law and order snake oil salesman into believing will make America great again.

Yay! Yippee! We're going to pump oil and burn coal!



Comrade? What a maroon. lol...

 

[alang1216]

You know nothing of actual science, but you are a dedicated and obedient Stalinist.

Ironically Stalin was a denier of evolution too. He supported Lamarck. I guess that makes you a Stalinist.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

*I* haven't supported *my* premise?. It's not *my* premise, it's a scientific theory. And it is supported by mountains of mutually supportive evidence. If you don't understand it or the evidence for it, that's your problem, and nobody else's. And considering the lies and ridiculously false things you say about evolution, it is clear that you do not understand it.

Here's what I don't understand... all these pages of posts and you have yet to post any factual EVIDENCE to support your suppositions. You keep wanting to claim "we" have evidence but you're not presenting it for evaluation. You continue to attempt qualifying the evidence with elaborate and elegant descriptors like "mutually supportive" or even "empirical" but you haven't presented the evidence for anyone to make that evaluation. Then, you jump from that to a flurry of insults and denigration, as if I am somehow not worthy of even hearing your evidence.

Haha, there you go again, you charlatan: trying to characterize accepted scientific theories as "my" suppositions. That's an embarrassing, two-bit AM Radio hustler move on your part. As if these are 'my suppositions"....

And no, I will not be spoonfeeding you a century of scientific research, or even any at all. I never claimed you had to take my word for it. Nobody needs to waste their time litigating accepted theories with some hack on the internet. It's far more telling of your untenable and magical claims that you can't mount any actual challenge to any of these ideas, other than impotent attempts to turn all evidence into "not really evidence". You're a dime a dozen, pal. Charlatans like you have been pointing and cackling from the wings since before Galileo. I'll give you a hint how this turns out: you always lose.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

[
"Seek out the witches and unbelievers so you can torture and sacrifice them on your almighty alter of scientific consensus! You don't care if the ice caps were supposed to be gone for... what?... a decade now?"

Let's unpack the stupidity here:

First of all, ya paranoid freak, nobody is suggesting anything of the sort. Stop trying to make yourself some sort of "martyr", when really you are just a cackling peddler of anti-scientific nonsense. Lending yourself faux martyr status doesn't suddenly make your bullshit, "true".

Secondly, not a single scientist claimed the ice caps would be gone by now, so your comment shows not only utter ignorance of the topic, but the fact that you know less than nothing about the topic. That's right, less than nothing. I.E., not only do you know nothing about the topic, the things you think you know are all wrong. Yes, you have net negative knowledge about the topic. In other words, a teacher would have to spend time simply correcting your dishonest, incorrect bullshit just to get you to the point where your knowledge of the topic is the same as an newborn baby. How embarrassing for you... and it's made even more embarrassing by your aggressiveness. "Aggressively stupid"... it's worse than stupid.

Ah, you are blatantly lying, how Stalinist of you...

{
the United Nations body that issued it.

Two years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest and most detailed research into the impact of global warming. A central claim was the world’s glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035.

In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC’s 2007 report.

Another Global Warming Lie Exposed – Himalayan Glaciers NOT Melting

Your religion is the most absurd cult to ever plague human kind.

My comments were about the polar ice caps, Mr. Bait-and-Switch..

And , to address your little denier talking point: the "melt" is still ocurring in that mountain ice, but it is beong outpaced in the short term by higher than expected snowfall. The article you reference -- but which you never actually read and don't understand -- specifically details this.

 

[BreezeWood]

Has anyone posted any evidence of one species giving birth to another yet?

I don't want to miss it if you do. It would be absolutely fascinating

There is abundant evidence. One classic is Darwin's finches:

Darwin's finches are a classical example of an adaptive radiation. Their common ancestor arrived on the Galapagos about two million years ago. During the time that has passed the Darwin's finches have evolved into 15 recognized species differing in body size, beak shape, song and feeding behaviour.

.

Has anyone posted any evidence of one species giving birth to another yet?

Darwin's finches are a classical example of an adaptive radiation. Their common ancestor arrived on the Galapagos about two million years ago.

the occurrence is found in the earliest period of diversified speciation, the finch long before arriving at the Galapagos island, the distinction that created the precursor to the original finch at the beginning of evolution from the primordial template where the change was metamorphic, directed by the metaphysical presence of that being by a single step from one generation to the next.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Has anyone posted any evidence of one species giving birth to another yet?

I don't want to miss it if you do. It would be absolutely fascinating

There is abundant evidence. One classic is Darwin's finches:

Darwin's finches are a classical example of an adaptive radiation. Their common ancestor arrived on the Galapagos about two million years ago. During the time that has passed the Darwin's finches have evolved into 15 recognized species differing in body size, beak shape, song and feeding behaviour.

.

Has anyone posted any evidence of one species giving birth to another yet?

Darwin's finches are a classical example of an adaptive radiation. Their common ancestor arrived on the Galapagos about two million years ago.

the occurrence is found in the earliest period of diversified speciation, the finch long before arriving at the Galapagos island, the distinction that created the precursor to the original finch at the beginning of evolution from the primordial template where the change was metamorphic, directed by the metaphysical presence of that being by a single step from one generation to the next.

The change between species was metamorphic? In what universe? By what hypothesis? By what evidence?

 

[alang1216]

the occurrence is found in the earliest period of diversified speciation, the finch long before arriving at the Galapagos island, the distinction that created the precursor to the original finch at the beginning of evolution from the primordial template where the change was metamorphic, directed by the metaphysical presence of that being by a single step from one generation to the next.

I only speak English so I have no idea what you're trying to say. I ran it through Google Translate but it still came out as nonsense.

 

[alang1216]

Boss in fact did NOT say that. You decided to pigeon hole his argument in order to build a straw man and avoid offering an actual rebuttal.

I anxiously await a clarification.

 

[Boss]

The finches are a great example of micro-evolution. There is no evidence for macro-evolution. Finches didn't evolve into ducks or seagulls.

You are incorrect, they are considered separate species, at least by biologists. They have different genes and don't interbreed allowing the differences to be inherited by subsequent generations.

Yes, separate species within the same genus taxon. That's MICRO-evolution.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

"there is no evidence for macro-evolution"

Shameless liar.

 

[BreezeWood]

the occurrence is found in the earliest period of diversified speciation, the finch long before arriving at the Galapagos island, the distinction that created the precursor to the original finch at the beginning of evolution from the primordial template where the change was metamorphic, directed by the metaphysical presence of that being by a single step from one generation to the next.

I only speak English so I have no idea what you're trying to say. I ran it through Google Translate but it still came out as nonsense.

.

I only speak English so I have no idea what you're trying to say. I ran it through Google Translate but it still came out as nonsense.

you learn well to deflect from example, welcome to the your not alone club.

The evolution of life from its beginning through the development of the metazoa (primitive multicellular organisms) took billions of years. The earth's atmosphere did not contain oxygen when the earth formed 4.6 billion years ago. This reducing environment provided favorable conditions for the natural synthesis of the first organic compounds. The first phospholipid bilayer membranes formed along with primitive RNA and DNA genetic molecules. The membranes adsorbed proteins and the hereditary DNA/RNA material. From these organic molecules, the first primitive prokaryote (simple single cell organism lacking a nucleus) arose. Natural selection began.


where the paragraph ends is where the initial speciation began from an initial template it is foolhardy to not recognize the growing abundance of both life and the various forms that emerged from that time - it is simplistic to argue otherwise with any degree of authority.

metamorphosis is a metaphysical occurrence observable at the present time that is an observable example for the progression from one stage to another that in some form would be the type of vehicle by which evolution occurred to branch the initial template into the ensuing species.

metamorphosis does not produce intermediate examples explains the metaphysical presence within the being.

 

[Boss]

He said there are gaps in our knowledge of the natural world and it is there that God resides.

I've never said anything remotely close to that. God resides everywhere... in the gaps, in the knowledge, it doesn't matter... that's a given from my perspective. So it doesn't answer any question or offer any explanatory value to say "God did it!" It's not any different than a scientist confronted with the enigmatic nature of cosmological constants and golden ratios proclaiming things are that way "just because!"

 

[Boss]

"there is no evidence for macro-evolution"

Shameless liar.

Well all you have to do is present it, Fun Baggs!

Let's go! We're all waiting... where is the evidence?

 

[alang1216]

The finches are a great example of micro-evolution. There is no evidence for macro-evolution. Finches didn't evolve into ducks or seagulls.

You are incorrect, they are considered separate species, at least by biologists. They have different genes and don't interbreed allowing the differences to be inherited by subsequent generations.

Yes, separate species within the same genus taxon. That's MICRO-evolution.

Original post I responded to:

Has anyone posted any evidence of one species giving birth to another yet?

I don't want to miss it if you do. It would be absolutely fascinating

So Boss, you'll admit that species can evolve into other species but no further? Sounds like a rather arbitrary line.

Microevolution, when used by creationists, refers to arbitrarily small evolutionary changes. This usage posits that some kinds of evolution can happen, but the larger changes — referred to as macroevolution — cannot happen naturally.[6] This is the evolutionary equivalent of saying that the mechanism you use to move from your bedroom to the kitchen (i.e., walking) is insufficient to get you from Boston to Los Angeles. In another sense it is like saying that watching objects fall to Earth is "microgravity" but the Sun exerting influence on the planets is "macrogravity" (They might actually have it ready when needed). In short, it is a nonsensical distinction, but a useful concept for creationists to use where the evidence for evolution is impossible to deny.

Microevolution is a concept generally used by creationists to denote evolution, or adaptation, within a species. This is because such adaptations can be extremely obvious and are easily demonstrated — the selective breeding of dogs being a prime example. These adaptations are only arbitrarily small, and a more concrete distinction is lacking. Some attempts have been made to say what does and does not constitute microevolution, but such things are counter-productive to creationists as it prevents them from moving the goalposts afterwards. After all, a very good tactic when faced with new evolutionary evidence is to dismiss it as "microevolution" — and if the distinction is codified, such an act becomes increasingly difficult. As such, the definition of microevolution and macroevolution floats and changes, and in some cases, even the development of a new species (which has been traditionally the cut-off point) has been shoehorned into the microevolution side.