When Is An Evolution Scientist Ever Going To Admit The Other Side May Be Right?

[ReinyDays]

Behold the petulant arrogance of a person that's actually willing to call believers of evolution "mindless imbeciles" while lacking the tools to ever perceive the magnitude of their own ignorance enough to have a reasonable debate. When you make ridiculous claims and demand that they are fact despite having no evidence to back them up, one can't do much but roll their eyes at you. I actually feel bad for you. What is it about your life that makes you so desperate for God that you're willing to come here and constantly bullshit yourself and others?

No evidence?!

Let me help you grasp the actual order of your very own “reasoning” that utterly escapes you and every other evolutionist I’ve encountered on US Message Board.

Responding to another, Steven_R sarcastically writes:

Well, at some point humans branched off and two of our chromosomes fused. . . . So, whatever the common ancestor we and chimps had evolved into two separate species of Homo sapiens and Pan troglodytes.​

​

Either that or God fused two chromosomes in our genome together in an attempt to trick us into thinking we're related to chimps.​

Note that this imbecile is unwittingly presupposing evolution all the while in his premise!

Earlier he writes:

When we finish with why evolution is a lie, our next topic will be why the Sun really goes around the Earth, and that topic will be followed by a presentation entitled "The Four Humours & You: How to Keep in Balance for Fun, Profit, & Health." Make sure you stay to the end when we discuss how dental cavities are caused by tiny worms.​

I then invite this braying jackass to consider something that has never occurred to him. I write:

I have a better idea!​

​

Let's discuss why you believe naturalism, on which the fanciful hypothesis of evolution is predicated, is necessarily true. Then we can discuss how you, not God, tricked yourself into interpreting the available evidence per the gratuitous insertion of an apriority that circularly begs the question and yields the mathematical monstrosity of a biological history entailing an evolutionary branching and transmutational process of speciation from a common ancestry.​

​

Then you might finally perceive the actual reason that biologists of the evolutionary hypothesis believe it to be true, that is, because they presuppose their interpretation of the evidence in their metaphysical premise as they observe that adaptive radiation occurs and that the paleontological record demonstrates that species appeared on Earth in a chronology of generally increasing complexity and variety.​

​

The gratuitous apriority is not observed. It's an assumption and scientifically unfalsifiable.​

​

Hocus Pocus​

​

Make sure you stay to the end when I show you the potentiality that has never occurred to you in all of your unexamined life, namely, that biological history entails a series of creative events per a systematically upgraded and transcribed genetic motif of common design imbued by God to adaptively radiate per the mechanisms of natural selection, genetic mutation, genetic drift, and gene flow over geological time.​

​

Don’t miss out on the fact that a cyclically limited range of adaptive radiation to the taxonomic level of genus is all that we actually observe. The putative evolutionary branching and transmutational speciation from a common ancestry is not and cannot be observed. Not now, not ever!​

​

Bonus points if you should suddenly have the epiphany that the evidence would actually look very similar . . . whether a speciation of common ancestry or a speciation of common design be ultimately true.​

Back to you, Anomalism. . . .

The evolutionists' actual line of reasoning goes like this:

1. Naturalism is necessarily true.​

​

2. The paleontological record depicts the appearances of species in a chronology of generally increasing complexity and variety over geological time.​

​

3. Therefore, biological history necessarily entails an evolutionary branching and transmutational process of speciation from a common ancestry.​

The metaphysical apriority of naturalism is scientifically indemonstrable. It’s an article of faith! The conclusion does not necessarily follow at all. If the apriority is false, so is the conclusion. Your imbecilic line of reasoning, Anomalism, just like that of virtually every other evolutionist I’ve encountered on social media, including Crepitus, mindlessly goes like this:

1. The paleontological record depicts the appearances of species in a chronology of generally increasing complexity and variety over geological time.​

​

2. Therefore, biological history necessarily entails an evolutionary branching and transmutational process of speciation from a common ancestry.​

There's no justification for your conclusion anywhere in sight. Your syllogism is missing something. Your conclusion does not follow at all! Indeed, you're not even consciously aware of the fact that your conclusion is ultimately and circularly predicated on the metaphysics of naturalism! But don’t feel too bad. Most of the trained biologists of the evolutionary hypothesis are likewise oblivious.

By the way, Anomalism, in college, I pulled down virtually all straight A's in advanced courses on biochemistry and evolutionary theory, in exams and papers, and my professors never had so much as an inkling that I believed that the entire edifice was built on sand, namely, the imbecilic apriority of naturalism.

Aside from the fact that for all these many years you've been walking around spouting slogans sans so much as an inkling of the actual reason you believe evolution is true: what, precisely, is your justification for naturalism itself? I dare you to justify it without circularly appealing to naturalism. I double dare you. LOL!

In the meantime, metaphysics necessarily precedes and has primacy over the methodology of scientific inquiry. PoliticalChic and I are among the very few on this board who fully grasp the realities of that. Naturalism cannot even begin to account for the origin of the physical world, let alone for the origin of life and its various forms. The naturalist cannot even provide a universally objective justification for his metaphysical apriority.

But the classical theist can.

1. That which begins to exist, must have a sufficient cause of its existence.​

2. The physical world—per the incontrovertible imperatives of logic, mathematics and physics—began to exist.​

3. The physical world has a sufficient cause of its existence.​

4. The only sufficient cause for its existence would be that of an eternally self-subsistent, immaterial and immutable being of incomparable greatness.​

"In the beginning, God created Heaven and Earth" ...

What lab experiment can we perform to verify this statement? ...

 

[Ringtone]

All the usual “... because I say so”, nonsense from the hyper-religious.

All the usual obtuseness of the typical religious fanatics of naturalism/materialism.

 

[Ringtone]

Behold the petulant arrogance of a person that's actually willing to call believers of evolution "mindless imbeciles" while lacking the tools to ever perceive the magnitude of their own ignorance enough to have a reasonable debate. When you make ridiculous claims and demand that they are fact despite having no evidence to back them up, one can't do much but roll their eyes at you. I actually feel bad for you. What is it about your life that makes you so desperate for God that you're willing to come here and constantly bullshit yourself and others?

No evidence?!

Let me help you grasp the actual order of your very own “reasoning” that utterly escapes you and every other evolutionist I’ve encountered on US Message Board.

Responding to another, Steven_R sarcastically writes:

Well, at some point humans branched off and two of our chromosomes fused. . . . So, whatever the common ancestor we and chimps had evolved into two separate species of Homo sapiens and Pan troglodytes.​

​

Either that or God fused two chromosomes in our genome together in an attempt to trick us into thinking we're related to chimps.​

Note that this imbecile is unwittingly presupposing evolution all the while in his premise!

Earlier he writes:

When we finish with why evolution is a lie, our next topic will be why the Sun really goes around the Earth, and that topic will be followed by a presentation entitled "The Four Humours & You: How to Keep in Balance for Fun, Profit, & Health." Make sure you stay to the end when we discuss how dental cavities are caused by tiny worms.​

I then invite this braying jackass to consider something that has never occurred to him. I write:

I have a better idea!​

​

Let's discuss why you believe naturalism, on which the fanciful hypothesis of evolution is predicated, is necessarily true. Then we can discuss how you, not God, tricked yourself into interpreting the available evidence per the gratuitous insertion of an apriority that circularly begs the question and yields the mathematical monstrosity of a biological history entailing an evolutionary branching and transmutational process of speciation from a common ancestry.​

​

Then you might finally perceive the actual reason that biologists of the evolutionary hypothesis believe it to be true, that is, because they presuppose their interpretation of the evidence in their metaphysical premise as they observe that adaptive radiation occurs and that the paleontological record demonstrates that species appeared on Earth in a chronology of generally increasing complexity and variety.​

​

The gratuitous apriority is not observed. It's an assumption and scientifically unfalsifiable.​

​

Hocus Pocus​

​

Make sure you stay to the end when I show you the potentiality that has never occurred to you in all of your unexamined life, namely, that biological history entails a series of creative events per a systematically upgraded and transcribed genetic motif of common design imbued by God to adaptively radiate per the mechanisms of natural selection, genetic mutation, genetic drift, and gene flow over geological time.​

​

Don’t miss out on the fact that a cyclically limited range of adaptive radiation to the taxonomic level of genus is all that we actually observe. The putative evolutionary branching and transmutational speciation from a common ancestry is not and cannot be observed. Not now, not ever!​

​

Bonus points if you should suddenly have the epiphany that the evidence would actually look very similar . . . whether a speciation of common ancestry or a speciation of common design be ultimately true.​

Back to you, Anomalism. . . .

The evolutionists' actual line of reasoning goes like this:

1. Naturalism is necessarily true.​

​

2. The paleontological record depicts the appearances of species in a chronology of generally increasing complexity and variety over geological time.​

​

3. Therefore, biological history necessarily entails an evolutionary branching and transmutational process of speciation from a common ancestry.​

The metaphysical apriority of naturalism is scientifically indemonstrable. It’s an article of faith! The conclusion does not necessarily follow at all. If the apriority is false, so is the conclusion. Your imbecilic line of reasoning, Anomalism, just like that of virtually every other evolutionist I’ve encountered on social media, including Crepitus, mindlessly goes like this:

1. The paleontological record depicts the appearances of species in a chronology of generally increasing complexity and variety over geological time.​

​

2. Therefore, biological history necessarily entails an evolutionary branching and transmutational process of speciation from a common ancestry.​

There's no justification for your conclusion anywhere in sight. Your syllogism is missing something. Your conclusion does not follow at all! Indeed, you're not even consciously aware of the fact that your conclusion is ultimately and circularly predicated on the metaphysics of naturalism! But don’t feel too bad. Most of the trained biologists of the evolutionary hypothesis are likewise oblivious.

By the way, Anomalism, in college, I pulled down virtually all straight A's in advanced courses on biochemistry and evolutionary theory, in exams and papers, and my professors never had so much as an inkling that I believed that the entire edifice was built on sand, namely, the imbecilic apriority of naturalism.

Aside from the fact that for all these many years you've been walking around spouting slogans sans so much as an inkling of the actual reason you believe evolution is true: what, precisely, is your justification for naturalism itself? I dare you to justify it without circularly appealing to naturalism. I double dare you. LOL!

In the meantime, metaphysics necessarily precedes and has primacy over the methodology of scientific inquiry. PoliticalChic and I are among the very few on this board who fully grasp the realities of that. Naturalism cannot even begin to account for the origin of the physical world, let alone for the origin of life and its various forms. The naturalist cannot even provide a universally objective justification for his metaphysical apriority.

But the classical theist can.

1. That which begins to exist, must have a sufficient cause of its existence.​

2. The physical world—per the incontrovertible imperatives of logic, mathematics and physics—began to exist.​

3. The physical world has a sufficient cause of its existence.​

4. The only sufficient cause for its existence would be that of an eternally self-subsistent, immaterial and immutable being of incomparable greatness.​

"In the beginning, God created Heaven and Earth" ...

What lab experiment can we perform to verify this statement? ...

You're not very bright, are you? What lab experiment can we perform to verify the imperatives of logic and mathematics? The imperatives of eternalism and sufficient causation? We don't scientifically affirm them. We intuit them and necessarily assume their reliability in order to do science in the first place. Are you implying that they're not reliable? Prove it!

Naturalists and materialists assume their reliability, except when they arbitrarily don't . . . when the ramifications thereof falsify their metaphysics. LOL! Then they go all retardedly obtuse.

 

[Hollie]

All the usual “... because I say so”, nonsense from the hyper-religious.

All the usual obtuseness of the typical religious fanatics of naturalism/materialism.

Nothing obtuse. Just an observation of the inability of the fundie zealot to offer a coherent argument.

But yes, how strange that naturalism is a religion, at least according to the fundie zealot. I never knew that accepting a natural world (as opposed to the supernatural world of the religious zealot) made one a "naturalist". Wait, what?

Well, then I suppose that if naturalism/materialism is untrue, we should all anticipate that you are about to demonstrate some of these multitudinous flaws? Great. Let’s see how you do...

I understand well that the religious zealot does not believe in any natural/material existence. As we have read, that position frees you to ignore all reasoning and evidence for naturalism/materialism, since you don’t believe them to be real anyway. It is a fascinating position, but one that has the potential to teach us absolutely nothing of utility. It is as futile as the religious zealot's attempt to draft magic and supernaturalism into his arguments by using models appealing to various "gods” he refuses to demonstrate. Why do you bother?

Now, in the only example of intelligent creators we really have empirical experience with (i.e. human beings), creation is an act that never occurs ex nihilo. All innovation is actually the modification of preexisting material. The general religious zealot's position is that there was no such preexisting material from which their gods “created.” All material is itself the original innovation of the gods, literally appearing ex nihilo. They simply will it, and it is, with the stereotypical explanation, "...because I say so".

Fascinating.

 

[Hollie]

Behold the petulant arrogance of a person that's actually willing to call believers of evolution "mindless imbeciles" while lacking the tools to ever perceive the magnitude of their own ignorance enough to have a reasonable debate. When you make ridiculous claims and demand that they are fact despite having no evidence to back them up, one can't do much but roll their eyes at you. I actually feel bad for you. What is it about your life that makes you so desperate for God that you're willing to come here and constantly bullshit yourself and others?

No evidence?!

Let me help you grasp the actual order of your very own “reasoning” that utterly escapes you and every other evolutionist I’ve encountered on US Message Board.

Responding to another, Steven_R sarcastically writes:

Well, at some point humans branched off and two of our chromosomes fused. . . . So, whatever the common ancestor we and chimps had evolved into two separate species of Homo sapiens and Pan troglodytes.​

​

Either that or God fused two chromosomes in our genome together in an attempt to trick us into thinking we're related to chimps.​

Note that this imbecile is unwittingly presupposing evolution all the while in his premise!

Earlier he writes:

When we finish with why evolution is a lie, our next topic will be why the Sun really goes around the Earth, and that topic will be followed by a presentation entitled "The Four Humours & You: How to Keep in Balance for Fun, Profit, & Health." Make sure you stay to the end when we discuss how dental cavities are caused by tiny worms.​

I then invite this braying jackass to consider something that has never occurred to him. I write:

I have a better idea!​

​

Let's discuss why you believe naturalism, on which the fanciful hypothesis of evolution is predicated, is necessarily true. Then we can discuss how you, not God, tricked yourself into interpreting the available evidence per the gratuitous insertion of an apriority that circularly begs the question and yields the mathematical monstrosity of a biological history entailing an evolutionary branching and transmutational process of speciation from a common ancestry.​

​

Then you might finally perceive the actual reason that biologists of the evolutionary hypothesis believe it to be true, that is, because they presuppose their interpretation of the evidence in their metaphysical premise as they observe that adaptive radiation occurs and that the paleontological record demonstrates that species appeared on Earth in a chronology of generally increasing complexity and variety.​

​

The gratuitous apriority is not observed. It's an assumption and scientifically unfalsifiable.​

​

Hocus Pocus​

​

Make sure you stay to the end when I show you the potentiality that has never occurred to you in all of your unexamined life, namely, that biological history entails a series of creative events per a systematically upgraded and transcribed genetic motif of common design imbued by God to adaptively radiate per the mechanisms of natural selection, genetic mutation, genetic drift, and gene flow over geological time.​

​

Don’t miss out on the fact that a cyclically limited range of adaptive radiation to the taxonomic level of genus is all that we actually observe. The putative evolutionary branching and transmutational speciation from a common ancestry is not and cannot be observed. Not now, not ever!​

​

Bonus points if you should suddenly have the epiphany that the evidence would actually look very similar . . . whether a speciation of common ancestry or a speciation of common design be ultimately true.​

Back to you, Anomalism. . . .

The evolutionists' actual line of reasoning goes like this:

1. Naturalism is necessarily true.​

​

2. The paleontological record depicts the appearances of species in a chronology of generally increasing complexity and variety over geological time.​

​

3. Therefore, biological history necessarily entails an evolutionary branching and transmutational process of speciation from a common ancestry.​

The metaphysical apriority of naturalism is scientifically indemonstrable. It’s an article of faith! The conclusion does not necessarily follow at all. If the apriority is false, so is the conclusion. Your imbecilic line of reasoning, Anomalism, just like that of virtually every other evolutionist I’ve encountered on social media, including Crepitus, mindlessly goes like this:

1. The paleontological record depicts the appearances of species in a chronology of generally increasing complexity and variety over geological time.​

​

2. Therefore, biological history necessarily entails an evolutionary branching and transmutational process of speciation from a common ancestry.​

There's no justification for your conclusion anywhere in sight. Your syllogism is missing something. Your conclusion does not follow at all! Indeed, you're not even consciously aware of the fact that your conclusion is ultimately and circularly predicated on the metaphysics of naturalism! But don’t feel too bad. Most of the trained biologists of the evolutionary hypothesis are likewise oblivious.

By the way, Anomalism, in college, I pulled down virtually all straight A's in advanced courses on biochemistry and evolutionary theory, in exams and papers, and my professors never had so much as an inkling that I believed that the entire edifice was built on sand, namely, the imbecilic apriority of naturalism.

Aside from the fact that for all these many years you've been walking around spouting slogans sans so much as an inkling of the actual reason you believe evolution is true: what, precisely, is your justification for naturalism itself? I dare you to justify it without circularly appealing to naturalism. I double dare you. LOL!

In the meantime, metaphysics necessarily precedes and has primacy over the methodology of scientific inquiry. PoliticalChic and I are among the very few on this board who fully grasp the realities of that. Naturalism cannot even begin to account for the origin of the physical world, let alone for the origin of life and its various forms. The naturalist cannot even provide a universally objective justification for his metaphysical apriority.

But the classical theist can.

1. That which begins to exist, must have a sufficient cause of its existence.​

2. The physical world—per the incontrovertible imperatives of logic, mathematics and physics—began to exist.​

3. The physical world has a sufficient cause of its existence.​

4. The only sufficient cause for its existence would be that of an eternally self-subsistent, immaterial and immutable being of incomparable greatness.​

"In the beginning, God created Heaven and Earth" ...

What lab experiment can we perform to verify this statement? ...

You're not very bright, are you? What lab experiment can we perform to verify the imperatives of logic and mathematics? The imperatives of eternalism and sufficient causation? We don't scientifically affirm them. We intuit them and necessarily assume their reliability in order to do science in the first place. Are you implying that they're not reliable? Prove it!

Naturalists and materialists assume their reliability, except when they arbitrarily don't . . . when the ramifications thereof falsify their metaphysics. LOL! Then they go all retardedly obtuse.

A lab is not required for mathematical proofs. Metaphysics, per your definition, is the realm of the religious zealot. Your "pwoofs" are under the burqa of "... because I say so".

How about a nice hot cup of tea and a coma?

 

[Ringtone]

Behold the petulant arrogance of a person that's actually willing to call believers of evolution "mindless imbeciles" while lacking the tools to ever perceive the magnitude of their own ignorance enough to have a reasonable debate. When you make ridiculous claims and demand that they are fact despite having no evidence to back them up, one can't do much but roll their eyes at you. I actually feel bad for you. What is it about your life that makes you so desperate for God that you're willing to come here and constantly bullshit yourself and others?

No evidence?!

Let me help you grasp the actual order of your very own “reasoning” that utterly escapes you and every other evolutionist I’ve encountered on US Message Board.

Responding to another, Steven_R sarcastically writes:

Well, at some point humans branched off and two of our chromosomes fused. . . . So, whatever the common ancestor we and chimps had evolved into two separate species of Homo sapiens and Pan troglodytes.​

​

Either that or God fused two chromosomes in our genome together in an attempt to trick us into thinking we're related to chimps.​

Note that this imbecile is unwittingly presupposing evolution all the while in his premise!

Earlier he writes:

When we finish with why evolution is a lie, our next topic will be why the Sun really goes around the Earth, and that topic will be followed by a presentation entitled "The Four Humours & You: How to Keep in Balance for Fun, Profit, & Health." Make sure you stay to the end when we discuss how dental cavities are caused by tiny worms.​

I then invite this braying jackass to consider something that has never occurred to him. I write:

I have a better idea!​

​

Let's discuss why you believe naturalism, on which the fanciful hypothesis of evolution is predicated, is necessarily true. Then we can discuss how you, not God, tricked yourself into interpreting the available evidence per the gratuitous insertion of an apriority that circularly begs the question and yields the mathematical monstrosity of a biological history entailing an evolutionary branching and transmutational process of speciation from a common ancestry.​

​

Then you might finally perceive the actual reason that biologists of the evolutionary hypothesis believe it to be true, that is, because they presuppose their interpretation of the evidence in their metaphysical premise as they observe that adaptive radiation occurs and that the paleontological record demonstrates that species appeared on Earth in a chronology of generally increasing complexity and variety.​

​

The gratuitous apriority is not observed. It's an assumption and scientifically unfalsifiable.​

​

Hocus Pocus​

​

Make sure you stay to the end when I show you the potentiality that has never occurred to you in all of your unexamined life, namely, that biological history entails a series of creative events per a systematically upgraded and transcribed genetic motif of common design imbued by God to adaptively radiate per the mechanisms of natural selection, genetic mutation, genetic drift, and gene flow over geological time.​

​

Don’t miss out on the fact that a cyclically limited range of adaptive radiation to the taxonomic level of genus is all that we actually observe. The putative evolutionary branching and transmutational speciation from a common ancestry is not and cannot be observed. Not now, not ever!​

​

Bonus points if you should suddenly have the epiphany that the evidence would actually look very similar . . . whether a speciation of common ancestry or a speciation of common design be ultimately true.​

Back to you, Anomalism. . . .

The evolutionists' actual line of reasoning goes like this:

1. Naturalism is necessarily true.​

​

2. The paleontological record depicts the appearances of species in a chronology of generally increasing complexity and variety over geological time.​

​

3. Therefore, biological history necessarily entails an evolutionary branching and transmutational process of speciation from a common ancestry.​

The metaphysical apriority of naturalism is scientifically indemonstrable. It’s an article of faith! The conclusion does not necessarily follow at all. If the apriority is false, so is the conclusion. Your imbecilic line of reasoning, Anomalism, just like that of virtually every other evolutionist I’ve encountered on social media, including Crepitus, mindlessly goes like this:

1. The paleontological record depicts the appearances of species in a chronology of generally increasing complexity and variety over geological time.​

​

2. Therefore, biological history necessarily entails an evolutionary branching and transmutational process of speciation from a common ancestry.​

There's no justification for your conclusion anywhere in sight. Your syllogism is missing something. Your conclusion does not follow at all! Indeed, you're not even consciously aware of the fact that your conclusion is ultimately and circularly predicated on the metaphysics of naturalism! But don’t feel too bad. Most of the trained biologists of the evolutionary hypothesis are likewise oblivious.

By the way, Anomalism, in college, I pulled down virtually all straight A's in advanced courses on biochemistry and evolutionary theory, in exams and papers, and my professors never had so much as an inkling that I believed that the entire edifice was built on sand, namely, the imbecilic apriority of naturalism.

Aside from the fact that for all these many years you've been walking around spouting slogans sans so much as an inkling of the actual reason you believe evolution is true: what, precisely, is your justification for naturalism itself? I dare you to justify it without circularly appealing to naturalism. I double dare you. LOL!

In the meantime, metaphysics necessarily precedes and has primacy over the methodology of scientific inquiry. PoliticalChic and I are among the very few on this board who fully grasp the realities of that. Naturalism cannot even begin to account for the origin of the physical world, let alone for the origin of life and its various forms. The naturalist cannot even provide a universally objective justification for his metaphysical apriority.

But the classical theist can.

1. That which begins to exist, must have a sufficient cause of its existence.​

2. The physical world—per the incontrovertible imperatives of logic, mathematics and physics—began to exist.​

3. The physical world has a sufficient cause of its existence.​

4. The only sufficient cause for its existence would be that of an eternally self-subsistent, immaterial and immutable being of incomparable greatness.​

"In the beginning, God created Heaven and Earth" ...

What lab experiment can we perform to verify this statement? ...

You're not very bright, are you? What lab experiment can we perform to verify the imperatives of logic and mathematics? The imperatives of eternalism and sufficient causation? We don't scientifically affirm them. We intuit them and necessarily assume their reliability in order to do science in the first place. Are you implying that they're not reliable? Prove it!

Naturalists and materialists assume their reliability, except when they arbitrarily don't . . . when the ramifications thereof falsify their metaphysics. LOL! Then they go all retardedly obtuse.

A lab is not required for mathematical proofs. Metaphysics, per your definition, is the realm of the religious zealot. Your "pwoofs" are under the burqa of "... because I say so".

How about a nice hot cup of tea and a coma?

 

[Ringtone]

All the usual “... because I say so”, nonsense from the hyper-religious.

All the usual obtuseness of the typical religious fanatics of naturalism/materialism.

Nothing obtuse. Just an observation of the inability of the fundie zealot to offer a coherent argument.

But yes, how strange that naturalism is a religion, at least according to the fundie zealot. I never knew that accepting a natural world (as opposed to the supernatural world of the religious zealot) made one a "naturalist". Wait, what?

Well, then I suppose that if naturalism/materialism is untrue, we should all anticipate that you are about to demonstrate some of these multitudinous flaws? Great. Let’s see how you do...

I understand well that the religious zealot does not believe in any natural/material existence. As we have read, that position frees you to ignore all reasoning and evidence for naturalism/materialism, since you don’t believe them to be real anyway. It is a fascinating position, but one that has the potential to teach us absolutely nothing of utility. It is as futile as the religious zealot's attempt to draft magic and supernaturalism into his arguments by using models appealing to various "gods” he refuses to demonstrate. Why do you bother?

Now, in the only example of intelligent creators we really have empirical experience with (i.e. human beings), creation is an act that never occurs ex nihilo. All innovation is actually the modification of preexisting material. The general religious zealot's position is that there was no such preexisting material from which their gods “created.” All material is itself the original innovation of the gods, literally appearing ex nihilo. They simply will it, and it is, with the stereotypical explanation, "...because I say so".

Fascinating.

 

[Hollie]

Behold the petulant arrogance of a person that's actually willing to call believers of evolution "mindless imbeciles" while lacking the tools to ever perceive the magnitude of their own ignorance enough to have a reasonable debate. When you make ridiculous claims and demand that they are fact despite having no evidence to back them up, one can't do much but roll their eyes at you. I actually feel bad for you. What is it about your life that makes you so desperate for God that you're willing to come here and constantly bullshit yourself and others?

No evidence?!

Let me help you grasp the actual order of your very own “reasoning” that utterly escapes you and every other evolutionist I’ve encountered on US Message Board.

Responding to another, Steven_R sarcastically writes:

Well, at some point humans branched off and two of our chromosomes fused. . . . So, whatever the common ancestor we and chimps had evolved into two separate species of Homo sapiens and Pan troglodytes.​

​

Either that or God fused two chromosomes in our genome together in an attempt to trick us into thinking we're related to chimps.​

Note that this imbecile is unwittingly presupposing evolution all the while in his premise!

Earlier he writes:

When we finish with why evolution is a lie, our next topic will be why the Sun really goes around the Earth, and that topic will be followed by a presentation entitled "The Four Humours & You: How to Keep in Balance for Fun, Profit, & Health." Make sure you stay to the end when we discuss how dental cavities are caused by tiny worms.​

I then invite this braying jackass to consider something that has never occurred to him. I write:

I have a better idea!​

​

Let's discuss why you believe naturalism, on which the fanciful hypothesis of evolution is predicated, is necessarily true. Then we can discuss how you, not God, tricked yourself into interpreting the available evidence per the gratuitous insertion of an apriority that circularly begs the question and yields the mathematical monstrosity of a biological history entailing an evolutionary branching and transmutational process of speciation from a common ancestry.​

​

Then you might finally perceive the actual reason that biologists of the evolutionary hypothesis believe it to be true, that is, because they presuppose their interpretation of the evidence in their metaphysical premise as they observe that adaptive radiation occurs and that the paleontological record demonstrates that species appeared on Earth in a chronology of generally increasing complexity and variety.​

​

The gratuitous apriority is not observed. It's an assumption and scientifically unfalsifiable.​

​

Hocus Pocus​

​

Make sure you stay to the end when I show you the potentiality that has never occurred to you in all of your unexamined life, namely, that biological history entails a series of creative events per a systematically upgraded and transcribed genetic motif of common design imbued by God to adaptively radiate per the mechanisms of natural selection, genetic mutation, genetic drift, and gene flow over geological time.​

​

Don’t miss out on the fact that a cyclically limited range of adaptive radiation to the taxonomic level of genus is all that we actually observe. The putative evolutionary branching and transmutational speciation from a common ancestry is not and cannot be observed. Not now, not ever!​

​

Bonus points if you should suddenly have the epiphany that the evidence would actually look very similar . . . whether a speciation of common ancestry or a speciation of common design be ultimately true.​

Back to you, Anomalism. . . .

The evolutionists' actual line of reasoning goes like this:

1. Naturalism is necessarily true.​

​

2. The paleontological record depicts the appearances of species in a chronology of generally increasing complexity and variety over geological time.​

​

3. Therefore, biological history necessarily entails an evolutionary branching and transmutational process of speciation from a common ancestry.​

The metaphysical apriority of naturalism is scientifically indemonstrable. It’s an article of faith! The conclusion does not necessarily follow at all. If the apriority is false, so is the conclusion. Your imbecilic line of reasoning, Anomalism, just like that of virtually every other evolutionist I’ve encountered on social media, including Crepitus, mindlessly goes like this:

1. The paleontological record depicts the appearances of species in a chronology of generally increasing complexity and variety over geological time.​

​

2. Therefore, biological history necessarily entails an evolutionary branching and transmutational process of speciation from a common ancestry.​

There's no justification for your conclusion anywhere in sight. Your syllogism is missing something. Your conclusion does not follow at all! Indeed, you're not even consciously aware of the fact that your conclusion is ultimately and circularly predicated on the metaphysics of naturalism! But don’t feel too bad. Most of the trained biologists of the evolutionary hypothesis are likewise oblivious.

By the way, Anomalism, in college, I pulled down virtually all straight A's in advanced courses on biochemistry and evolutionary theory, in exams and papers, and my professors never had so much as an inkling that I believed that the entire edifice was built on sand, namely, the imbecilic apriority of naturalism.

Aside from the fact that for all these many years you've been walking around spouting slogans sans so much as an inkling of the actual reason you believe evolution is true: what, precisely, is your justification for naturalism itself? I dare you to justify it without circularly appealing to naturalism. I double dare you. LOL!

In the meantime, metaphysics necessarily precedes and has primacy over the methodology of scientific inquiry. PoliticalChic and I are among the very few on this board who fully grasp the realities of that. Naturalism cannot even begin to account for the origin of the physical world, let alone for the origin of life and its various forms. The naturalist cannot even provide a universally objective justification for his metaphysical apriority.

But the classical theist can.

1. That which begins to exist, must have a sufficient cause of its existence.​

2. The physical world—per the incontrovertible imperatives of logic, mathematics and physics—began to exist.​

3. The physical world has a sufficient cause of its existence.​

4. The only sufficient cause for its existence would be that of an eternally self-subsistent, immaterial and immutable being of incomparable greatness.​

"In the beginning, God created Heaven and Earth" ...

What lab experiment can we perform to verify this statement? ...

You're not very bright, are you? What lab experiment can we perform to verify the imperatives of logic and mathematics? The imperatives of eternalism and sufficient causation? We don't scientifically affirm them. We intuit them and necessarily assume their reliability in order to do science in the first place. Are you implying that they're not reliable? Prove it!

Naturalists and materialists assume their reliability, except when they arbitrarily don't . . . when the ramifications thereof falsify their metaphysics. LOL! Then they go all retardedly obtuse.

A lab is not required for mathematical proofs. Metaphysics, per your definition, is the realm of the religious zealot. Your "pwoofs" are under the burqa of "... because I say so".

How about a nice hot cup of tea and a coma?

View attachment 442441

Whack a fundie.

 

[Hollie]

All the usual “... because I say so”, nonsense from the hyper-religious.

All the usual obtuseness of the typical religious fanatics of naturalism/materialism.

Nothing obtuse. Just an observation of the inability of the fundie zealot to offer a coherent argument.

But yes, how strange that naturalism is a religion, at least according to the fundie zealot. I never knew that accepting a natural world (as opposed to the supernatural world of the religious zealot) made one a "naturalist". Wait, what?

Well, then I suppose that if naturalism/materialism is untrue, we should all anticipate that you are about to demonstrate some of these multitudinous flaws? Great. Let’s see how you do...

I understand well that the religious zealot does not believe in any natural/material existence. As we have read, that position frees you to ignore all reasoning and evidence for naturalism/materialism, since you don’t believe them to be real anyway. It is a fascinating position, but one that has the potential to teach us absolutely nothing of utility. It is as futile as the religious zealot's attempt to draft magic and supernaturalism into his arguments by using models appealing to various "gods” he refuses to demonstrate. Why do you bother?

Now, in the only example of intelligent creators we really have empirical experience with (i.e. human beings), creation is an act that never occurs ex nihilo. All innovation is actually the modification of preexisting material. The general religious zealot's position is that there was no such preexisting material from which their gods “created.” All material is itself the original innovation of the gods, literally appearing ex nihilo. They simply will it, and it is, with the stereotypical explanation, "...because I say so".

Fascinating.

View attachment 442440

Whack a fundie.

 

[ReinyDays]

You're not very bright, are you? What lab experiment can we perform to verify the imperatives of logic and mathematics? The imperatives of eternalism and sufficient causation? We don't scientifically affirm them. We intuit them and necessarily assume their reliability in order to do science in the first place. Are you implying that they're not reliable? Prove it!
Naturalists and materialists assume their reliability, except when they arbitrarily don't . . . when the ramifications thereof falsify their metaphysics. LOL! Then they go all retardedly obtuse.

Logic and mathematics are based on assumptions ... or axioms if you like ... do you know what an mathematical axiom is? ... name one, just one ... let's see how bright you are ...

No lab experiment, then it's not science ... what you spew is philosophy; "eternalism", "metaphysics", how special ... important questions, for sure, but not questions that science can address ... science is about what is observable, measurable and can be duplicated ... Our Lord's creation was a unique event, it cannot be duplicated, thus is outside the realm of science ...

If you believe God created Heaven and Earth, then it's not that big of a step to believe God created this with rhyme and reason ... we commit no sin trying to cipher out Our Lord's will ... and marvel at the good works that can be had ... I'm sorry if I offend your warmongering here, but it is the peacemakers who are blessed before God's eye ... as He commands us ...

 

[Ringtone]

You're not very bright, are you? What lab experiment can we perform to verify the imperatives of logic and mathematics? The imperatives of eternalism and sufficient causation? We don't scientifically affirm them. We intuit them and necessarily assume their reliability in order to do science in the first place. Are you implying that they're not reliable? Prove it!
Naturalists and materialists assume their reliability, except when they arbitrarily don't . . . when the ramifications thereof falsify their metaphysics. LOL! Then they go all retardedly obtuse.

Logic and mathematics are based on assumptions ... or axioms if you like ... do you know what an mathematical axiom is? ... name one, just one ... let's see how bright you are ...

No lab experiment, then it's not science ... what you spew is philosophy; "eternalism", "metaphysics", how special ... important questions, for sure, but not questions that science can address ... science is about what is observable, measurable and can be duplicated ... Our Lord's creation was a unique event, it cannot be duplicated, thus is outside the realm of science ...

If you believe God created Heaven and Earth, then it's not that big of a step to believe God created this with rhyme and reason ... we commit no sin trying to cipher out Our Lord's will ... and marvel at the good works that can be had ... I'm sorry if I offend your warmongering here, but it is the peacemakers who are blessed before God's eye ... as He commands us ...

Ahhhhhhh, shut up you silly ass.

 

[james bond]

Our Lord's creation was a unique event, it cannot be duplicated, thus is outside the realm of science ...

So you do get that part of it, but why don't you get the rest?

No lab experiment, then it's not science ... what you spew is philosophy; "eternalism", "metaphysics", how special ... important questions, for sure, but not questions that science can address ... science is about what is observable, measurable and can be duplicated ... Our Lord's creation was a unique event, it cannot be duplicated, thus is outside the realm of science ...

How else does one explain the beginning of space and time when there was nothing? All we have is the Bible and KCA that was developed because we learned there was a beginning to the universe. What I am claiming is creation science.

Remember, before that atheist science hypothesized the universe existed forever. I don't think even secular science said that was able to be duplicated, so you're wrong. Science claims now there could've been a multiverse and it can't be duplicated; It just is. However, the atheist science won't go for a created universe. Do you know why? There are other factors besides God.

If you believe God created Heaven and Earth, then it's not that big of a step to believe God created this with rhyme and reason ... we commit no sin trying to cipher out Our Lord's will ... and marvel at the good works that can be had ... I'm sorry if I offend your warmongering here, but it is the peacemakers who are blessed before God's eye ... as He commands us ...

Here's where you go wrong because that isn't what is stated in the Bible.

One can't go just part way with God. It's either you are with Jesus or against Jesus as he stated. One has to take the leap of faith on their own.

ETA: Here's a couple things Jesus and the Bible said about "Leap of Faith."

"Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” John 20:29

"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen" Hebrews 11:1

 

[ReinyDays]

How else does one explain the beginning of space and time when there was nothing?

Why must this be explained? ... it is ... is that so difficult for you to accept ...

If you believe God created Heaven and Earth, then it's not that big of a step to believe God created this with rhyme and reason ... we commit no sin trying to cipher out Our Lord's will ... and marvel at the good works that can be had ... I'm sorry if I offend your warmongering here, but it is the peacemakers who are blessed before God's eye ... as He commands us ...

Here's where you go wrong because that isn't what is stated in the Bible.
One can't go just part way with God. It's either you are with Jesus or against Jesus as he stated. One has to take the leap of faith on their own.

Sermon on the Mount ... read it yourself someday ... Jesus never talked about "creation science" ... but then Jesus never spread the message of hatred ... gee, I wonder why? ...

 

[ChemEngineer]

In the meantime, metaphysics necessarily precedes and has primacy over the methodology of scientific inquiry.

I do not recall ever reading this statement stated so succinctly.

That said, let me caution you, Friend, against using the petty name-calling which so infects the godless Left. It is unseemly and only takes you down closer to their level in the mire.

A>B>C>D is not science, it is unintelligent

A topnotch WordPress.com site

TheEvolutionFraud.wordpress.com

In a nutshell, any naturalistic synthesis of polypeptides is statistically insuperable.
Let's examine just one protein, viz., titin, in human muscles.

It consists of 33,450 amino acid residues, precisely folded.

Selecting each of 20 different L-amino acids in the precise sequence of titin necessitates a probability of 1/20 to the 33,450th power, just for starters.
How is the folding of the protein so precisely determined? At random?
1/20 to the 33,450th power is ridiculously improbable. Reasonable men would call it impossible. But that is just for ONE protein. Humans have at least 5,000 of them.

You'll burn up your scientific calculator counting the number of zeroes.

Oh, one final consideration. Peptide bonds versus non-peptide bonds. They are roughly equally probable. So take 1/2 to the 33,450 and multiply that by 1/20 to the 33,450th.... before taking folding into account.

 

[james bond]

Why must this be explained? ... it is ... is that so difficult for you to accept ...

It cannot be replicated in experiment. It cannot be explained using secular science and that's what atheist science tries to do and fails.

The creator explained, but people and atheist scientists don't believe him because to them it's religion. It can be explained using creation science. To get past the religion, on has to take a leap of faith and then everything changes.

Sermon on the Mount ... read it yourself someday ... Jesus never talked about "creation science" ... but then Jesus never spread the message of hatred ... gee, I wonder why? ...

I have, but Matthew's not an easy book to read, learn, and do. For me, it takes constant readings in order to make certain I do not backslide. Have you read it and continue to follow it?

 

[Hollie]

In the meantime, metaphysics necessarily precedes and has primacy over the methodology of scientific inquiry.

I do not recall ever reading this statement stated so succinctly.

That said, let me caution you, Friend, against using the petty name-calling which so infects the godless Left. It is unseemly and only takes you down closer to their level in the mire.

A>B>C>D is not science, it is unintelligent

A topnotch WordPress.com site

TheEvolutionFraud.wordpress.com

In a nutshell, any naturalistic synthesis of polypeptides is statistically insuperable.
Let's examine just one protein, viz., titin, in human muscles.

It consists of 33,450 amino acid residues, precisely folded.

Selecting each of 20 different L-amino acids in the precise sequence of titin necessitates a probability of 1/20 to the 33,450th power, just for starters.
How is the folding of the protein so precisely determined? At random?
1/20 to the 33,450th power is ridiculously improbable. Reasonable men would call it impossible. But that is just for ONE protein. Humans have at least 5,000 of them.

You'll burn up your scientific calculator counting the number of zeroes.

Oh, one final consideration. Peptide bonds versus non-peptide bonds. They are roughly equally probable. So take 1/2 to the 33,450 and multiply that by 1/20 to the 33,450th.... before taking folding into account.

Oh, gawd. Not that cut and paste nonsense, again.

 

[Ringtone]

In the meantime, metaphysics necessarily precedes and has primacy over the methodology of scientific inquiry.

I do not recall ever reading this statement stated so succinctly.

That said, let me caution you, Friend, against using the petty name-calling which so infects the godless Left. It is unseemly and only takes you down closer to their level in the mire.

A>B>C>D is not science, it is unintelligent

A topnotch WordPress.com site

TheEvolutionFraud.wordpress.com

In a nutshell, any naturalistic synthesis of polypeptides is statistically insuperable.
Let's examine just one protein, viz., titin, in human muscles.

It consists of 33,450 amino acid residues, precisely folded.

Selecting each of 20 different L-amino acids in the precise sequence of titin necessitates a probability of 1/20 to the 33,450th power, just for starters.
How is the folding of the protein so precisely determined? At random?
1/20 to the 33,450th power is ridiculously improbable. Reasonable men would call it impossible. But that is just for ONE protein. Humans have at least 5,000 of them.

You'll burn up your scientific calculator counting the number of zeroes.

Oh, one final consideration. Peptide bonds versus non-peptide bonds. They are roughly equally probable. So take 1/2 to the 33,450 and multiply that by 1/20 to the 33,450th.... before taking folding into account.

Fair enough. I'm afraid the abject stupidity of self deception in the prevailing culture has sorely tested my patience.

To your observation regarding the naturalistic synthesis of polypeptides. . . .

As you know, that's just the beginning of the problems for abiogenesis. From my article:

[T]here’s absolutely no pathway for amino acids to fabricate the hundreds of thousands of proteins found in living organisms by themselves from the bottom up. It takes more than a random collection of amino acids to make life. They must be assembled in a meticulously elaborate fashion in order to perform useful or desirable functions. Without the necessary information contained in preexisting nucleic acids, the result would be a collection of gobbledygook, and nucleic acids cannot evolve without the infrastructural and catalytic properties of preexisting proteins. In other words, DNA synthesis relies on the presence of infrastructural and enzymatic proteins, and protein synthesis relies on the encoded, genetic information in DNA and the coded translations of that information in RNA. And while RNA polymers are simpler than DNA polymers and have both informational and enzymatic properties, they cannot evolve sans preexisting DNA. What we have here is an interdependent circle of irreducible necessity, and the RNA-World hypothesis is riddled with prohibitive problems and paradoxes that mulishly defy resolution at every turn—the most daunting of the problems being (1) RNA polymers’ instability outside living cells and (2) their rate of fatal errors in replication sans DNA.​

 

[ChemEngineer]

In other words, DNA synthesis relies on the presence of infrastructural and enzymatic proteins, and protein synthesis relies on the encoded, genetic information in DNA and the coded translations of that information in RNA. And while RNA polymers are simpler than DNA polymers and have both informational and enzymatic properties, they cannot evolve sans preexisting DNA. What we have here is an interdependent circle of irreducible necessity, and the RNA-World hypothesis is riddled with prohibitive problems and paradoxes that mulishly defy resolution at every turn—the most daunting of the problems being (1) RNA polymers’ instability outside living cells and (2) their rate of fatal errors in replication sans DNA.

So what's your point? (wink, snort, nudge)

 

[surada]

If apes and humans are too different, then they cannot possibly be related. Darwin just had a hypothesis. He wasn't able to back it up with real science and evidence. Furthermore, we still have apes and all are not bipedal.

3-D Human Genome Radically Different from Chimp
"All plant and animal genomes studied so far exhibit complex and distinct three-dimensional (3-D) structures in their chromosome configurations depending on the type of cell (e.g., heart, liver, brain, etc.). Given the incredible variability among genome configurations within a single type of creature, let alone that which exists between creatures (e.g., human vs. chimpanzee), this area of evolutionary comparison has been difficult for secular researchers. Now a new study published in Trends in Genetics evaluates research in this emerging field that shows the human 3-D genome is distinctly unique to humans, confirming previous research that showed it is as different compared to chimp as it is to mouse."

3-D Human Genome Radically Different from Chimp

All plant and animal genomes studied so far exhibit complex and distinct three-dimensional (3-D) structures in their chromosome configurations depending on the type of cell (e.g., heart, liver, brain, etc.). Given the incredible variability among genome configurations within a single type of...

www.icr.org

The earth is much older than Genesis.


World's oldest cave art hunt from 44,000 years ago shows ...

Latest Science News & Technology News | Daily Mail Online

Stay up-to-date with the latest science and technology news from Daily Mail including scientific discoveries, pictures, new technology, and more.

www.dailymail.co.uk

...
Dec 11, 2019 · The world's oldest cave art: Indonesian cave painting that shows mythical figures using spears to kill pigs was created 44,000 years ago. Paintings in red were found in limestone cave on ...

 

[Hollie]

In other words, DNA synthesis relies on the presence of infrastructural and enzymatic proteins, and protein synthesis relies on the encoded, genetic information in DNA and the coded translations of that information in RNA. And while RNA polymers are simpler than DNA polymers and have both informational and enzymatic properties, they cannot evolve sans preexisting DNA. What we have here is an interdependent circle of irreducible necessity, and the RNA-World hypothesis is riddled with prohibitive problems and paradoxes that mulishly defy resolution at every turn—the most daunting of the problems being (1) RNA polymers’ instability outside living cells and (2) their rate of fatal errors in replication sans DNA.

So what's your point? (wink, snort, nudge)

His point is: He doesn't understand biology. Neither do you.

Note my use of bold, gargantuan text for dramatic affect.