This is what you keep failing to understand. All my sources are from your side of the argument, i.e., evolutionists. "LegionOnomaMoi” is also an evolutionist but he is knowledgeable and ethical. See his post # 2266.
Darwin's Illusion | Page 114 | Religious Forums
and yes, they all insist that...
All relative entities/references must end at “The Absolute” at the very top of the hierarchy. Logically, there is no other way unless you adapt a fallacious circular reasoning or infinite regression.
Relative/contingent entities constitute the norm of our entire realm. The Absolute is...
Yes, we are born with a “conscience” that gives us an “inclination” towards moral conduct, but it doesn’t define it. Before we discuss the need for “definition”, I have to ask what is “conscience” to you? Is it merely interactions of matter governed by natural laws that yield a dictated outcome...
I personally don’t agree to make such distinction. The roots are the same and the overlap is huge. Science is born from natural philosophy and I think science still has the genes of natural philosophy but with a methodology that is more focused on observation/experimentation, regardless the...
The core discussion of this thread was the ToE. If you agree that the topic of the thread came to an end, then next is to have a fresh perspective of life/reality that is free from the illusions of Neo-Darwinism.
Are you talking on behalf of the God that may or may not exist!! Your wishful thinking is pathetic. You keep making empty claims merely because you said so. Maybe it’s enough for you, but you should know that its meaningless for everyone else.
This what you fail to understand, it's not my post. It’s a post by an EVOLUTIONIST like yourself. Do you understand? but he is Knowledgeable and ethical. Again, See his post # 2266
Darwin's Illusion | Page 114 | Religious Forums
Keep dreaming, you have challenged no one and I cherry picked nothing.
Do you think “LegionOnomaMoi" (an evolutionist) is cherry picking as well? See his post # 2266.
Darwin's Illusion | Page 114 | Religious Forums
Wake up, the contemporary theory of evolution, i.e., the Modern...
My point is specific/clear. Again, my point is the fact that the contemporary theory of evolution, i.e., the Modern Synthesis/Neo-Darwinism is an outdated theory because latest 21st century scientific finds disproved all of its central assumptions. Currently, there is no agreed upon framework to...
In the Cambrian Period all major animal phyla with complexity/sophistication of the biological structures comparable to modern life started appearing in the fossil record. In addition, the major body plans of the Cambrian life exhibited considerable morphological isolation from one another.
In...
Don’t you already know that I’m a Muslim? Why asking about what you do know?
Morality becomes relative only when it’s up to every individual to define it, but when the defining criteria are ordained by the Creator for everyone to follow, then it’s not a matter of a relative view/preference.
I...
I neither made nor can make such claim, did I? I only try to stay on the path of righteousness and hope I would be safe, but God is the only judge.
On the other hand, in your post # 3926 you claimed to be safe, again, is there anything other than your wishful thinking to back such claim? Why do...
This is nothing but “pathetic denial” as previously said by another informed evolutionist "LegionOnomaMoi". If you were confident about your stance, you wouldn’t deny the facts. It’s pathetic. See his post # 2266.
Darwin's Illusion | Page 114 | Religious Forums
Again, it’s not about Noble but...
If every individual decides on a base for himself, morality will essentially stay relative.
What is the basis to define a morality base?
Meaningless empty claims/wishful thinking as usual. Even if this is the case for you (which I know it’s not), can you expect the same to be true for every...
Wake up! We did talk about the Ediacaran period before. See my post #3287
Again, in the Ediacaran period only macroscopic fossils of soft-bodied organisms were found. There are no ancestors or transitional forms leading to the Cambrian creatures were found in the Ediacaran period.
Noble's paper in question (#753 & #781) is not the only paper that challenged/disproved all the fundamental assumptions of Neo-Darwinism; many other papers/scientists did the same. We discussed that before on this thread, you seem to forget, I’ll repeat. You’re free to hold tight to obsolete...