Darwin's Illusion

[LIIA]

For years many of us on the science side eagerly awaited the day when this wasn't a debate any more. Well, that day is here, and we need to accept it and move on to other things.

It looks like you've already done that, which is commendable. More of us need to follow your example.

You wish.

You are not on the science side, you are on the side of denial and concealment of the scientific facts (in case you’re not ignorant of it) as clearly explained to you by another honest, ethical and knowledgeable evolutionist. He showed you an example of rare qualities that many on that side of the argument are lacking. If you want to win an argument, your best choice is to debate ethically. If you really want to follow an example, follow his. If you can.

 

[LIIA]

You can always try to refute gravity where I live. Let's go for a hike. You will have numerous opportunities to do so.

When did Cladking try to refute gravity?

 

[LIIA]

Now, there may well be alternative to the current theory of Evolution, but some biologists have offered some alternatives, but so far, these alternatives have fallen short in the testing department.

I am “open” to alternative solutions to physics fields or to biology fields, and to other sciences, but until they are testable and more importantly tested, these alternatives aren’t “science”.

Yes, any alternative theory should be verified/tested otherwise it cannot be accepted as scientific theory. On the other hand, if new evidence emerges against an already accepted theory, then the outdated theory gets disproved. Science is ever changing. It’s neither logical nor scientific to insist on framework in contradiction with empirical evidence. The implementation of the naturalistic posteriori view shouldn’t turn into a commitment to a priori.

See #2399.
Darwin's Illusion | Page 120 | Religious Forums

 

[Subduction Zone]

You still fail to get it, I don’t need to look them up, as I said many times, I only quote evolutionist scientists because you wouldn’t accept otherwise, would you? My point is not what anyone believes or doesn’t believe, My point is the absence of established agreed upon theoretical framework, unless it gets established, any claims are baseless, do you understand? See #2399

Darwin's Illusion | Page 120 | Religious Forums

What you need to do is to find scientific evidence that supports you. But unfortunately you appear to be scientifically illiterate. For example you should not say "evolutionists" when you mean scientists.

And thank you for admitting that you were wrong again by referring to one of your old refuted posts.

 

[Subduction Zone]

When did Cladking try to refute gravity?

Can't you follow a conversation? He appears to reject gravity as well. I offered to help him in his research.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, any alternative theory should be verified/tested otherwise it cannot be accepted as scientific theory. On the other hand, if new evidence emerges against an already accepted theory, then the outdated theory gets disproved. Science is ever changing. It’s neither logical nor scientific to insist on framework in contradiction with empirical evidence. The implementation of the naturalistic posteriori view shouldn’t turn into a commitment to a priori.

See #2399.
Darwin's Illusion | Page 120 | Religious Forums

Too bad that you have no understanding of how theories work or how they are tested. None of the sources that you brought up even tried to refute the general concept of evolution. There is endless evidence for that general concept. All that is being debated is how it happened. Even if there was a changeover to this new concept evolution would still be a fact.

You would still be an ape and be related to a pig. There is no scientific evidence for your beliefs.

 

[Subduction Zone]

By the way, @LIIA you could always try to properly support your beliefs. That is what you should be trying to do anyway. Even if by some miracle you proved evolution to be wrong, and frankly you do not have the ability to, that would still not be evidence that a magic sky daddy made two mud people come alive. Your beliefs are still proven wrong even if evolution itself is proven wrong. You are fighting a pointless battle at this time.

The good news is that evolution does not refute Islam itself. It only refutes your version of Islam. If Genesis has to be true for your version of god to be true than your god has been refuted. Many Muslims understand this and do not make the mistake of treating the Abrahamic creation myths as fact. In Christianity they work fine as morality tales. They should work the same in Islam.

 

[rational experiences]

A human man whose mind says I'm a God.

Okay theist human you are human first the thinker. Or are you going to continue lying?

You don't own mass the body where energy it's type formed.

Earth O planet formed in space. Rock energy holding of energy. Energy variant masses as types.

Gases formed as natural bodies of masses. As. Gas in space.

Space law formed mass of two variations. Not the same.

Water is a mass.

Humans aren't mass.

Your theory energy is taken from mass.

Humans aren't mass nor own mass.

Humans however said I own thin king about mass.

Is your consciousness human a thinker owner of why mass as energy exists?

No.

So you are all just liars.

As humans science is using earths bases as the human. Pretending by egotism you own it as your claim is I want to use it then change it!!!

Yes.

To claim I own it gave you authority as a man human now I own it ....so now I can change it.

First men with family humans present were not scientists ...not theists ...did not own your inherited consciousness!

Correct.

Mind thinking human had changed.

By mass gained atmospheric causes...star fall returned. That you observed had destroyed giant dinosaur life.

So scientists say gained rock burning dusts energy mass above from out of space changed life biology on earth with gained ice.

As a human.

Yes

That advice isn't science.... is it any human theist whose rational?

No it isn't science.

As a human said my legal position is versus king lord rich man.

I'll name myself celibate and a pope instead.

Didn't you as a legal human rights position...saving life on earth?

Yes. Exact.

Didn't you legally proclaim no human is allowed to look at ..thesis or listen to the medium....heavens status about dead of the past. All corpses now?

Yes. As scientific human theists are proven evil thinkers.

As what you SEE is exact. Natural human first one observation is natural only. Non contestable.

Machines don't even exist in laws. And metal cold is only held in gods earth body law as a seam.

No machine ever owned status above of natural human observation. It was in fact looking into the past as microbial separateness only.

Not whole form.

As a dust was formed in earth inside of a fixed held O planet mass and atmospheric body when suns nuclear mass converted earth with a non alight immaculate atmosphere.

Dusts or particles only existed with gases alight and not mass fused.

The ruling.

You see a monkey. Spiritual human man conscious awareness says it's not a human. First position spiritual man and awareness is our teaching only.

Theist argues. Yet you are a human. There is no argument.

So spiritual consciousness of an observing human said....when a human dies....conscious life ends.

Biology however is still living on a microbial level. Which proved a human by not being present alive when they are present at all times alive seeing.... did not transform back in evolution biology to a lesser being the monkey type.

By both being alive as the human in thinking status living microbiology only. Order hierarchy.

Seeing we all are in a living breathing oxygen status.... live in holy water above us. Each one body a separate biological type.

Proven by any one body dying does not affect the living body of the same species. Observed.

 

[LIIA]

And thank you for admitting that you were wrong again by referring to one of your old refuted posts.

See #2399.

Darwin's Illusion | Page 120 | Religious Forums

 

[LIIA]

Can't you follow a conversation? He appears to reject gravity as well. I offered to help him in his research.

You don’t understand what he meant.

 

[LIIA]

Too bad that you have no understanding of how theories work or how they are tested. None of the sources that you brought up even tried to refute the general concept of evolution. There is endless evidence for that general concept. All that is being debated is how it happened. Even if there was a changeover to this new concept evolution would still be a fact.

You would still be an ape and be related to a pig. There is no scientific evidence for your beliefs.

Empty denial

 

[LIIA]

By the way, @LIIA you could always try to properly support your beliefs. That is what you should be trying to do anyway. Even if by some miracle you proved evolution to be wrong, and frankly you do not have the ability to, that would still not be evidence that a magic sky daddy made two mud people come alive. Your beliefs are still proven wrong even if evolution itself is proven wrong. You are fighting a pointless battle at this time.

The good news is that evolution does not refute Islam itself. It only refutes your version of Islam. If Genesis has to be true for your version of god to be true than your god has been refuted. Many Muslims understand this and do not make the mistake of treating the Abrahamic creation myths as fact. In Christianity they work fine as morality tales. They should work the same in Islam.

Irrelevant nonsense

 

[Subduction Zone]

See #2399.

Darwin's Illusion | Page 120 | Religious Forums

I already told you that you do not need to keep admitting that you are wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Irrelevant nonsense

No, that is what you post. What you just did is called "projection". You have false beliefs that are nonsense so you accuse others of your sins.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Empty denial

Yes. That is all that you have. That is why so many have put you on ignore.

But thanks for using the short form for once.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You don’t understand what he meant.

I know him better than you do.

 

[rational experiences]

If men can't ask a basic question.

If I pretend I know I can take in law...presence now. Convert it now myself. Gaining a result just my own as a human.......

Instead their human mind says I owned what I caused the reaction.

Oh inside your body bio you own have those exact substances and reactions then?

No he says I don't. Is the science answer...natural humans advice is first.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I realized a while ago that this "debate" is effectively dead and that creationists really don't have any new arguments, which means any attempts at debate are going to just be rehashing of old talking points, most of which are decades old. IOW, the "incessant parroting of dead claims" as you so aptly described it.

I really need to let it go and stop engaging with the tiny handful of creationists who are left. For years many of us on the science side eagerly awaited the day when this wasn't a debate any more. Well, that day is here, and we need to accept it and move on to other things.

It looks like you've already done that, which is commendable. More of us need to follow your example.

I think that even this relict population should be addressed, at least initially. Just to point out their irrational, baseless arguments for any that may not have run into their nonsensical claims before. It is always possible, that it may get someone to think.

When creationists have reached the level where they are posting as self-appointed experts on anonymous internet forums and preaching the revealed truth of their "expertise" as fact, engaging with them to any great extent is just an exercise in futility. It isn't as if we are debating Michael Behe on here. In the end, when pressed to rationality, even he had to admit the failure of his own ideas. That what he wished as fact was just his own beliefs and desires with no real evidence to demonstrate those beliefs.

The minute the ministry of artificial gaps was manufactured to manifest belief in a personal doctrine that is turned into an ad campaign for Denis Noble says touch your toes, I should have walked away. When I read that beavers were farming fish for food, I should have rolled up the carpet. When the trillionth claim that the science is rejected from a "thorough review of the evidence and theory" by another person that doesn't show any knowledge of the subject, I should have bounced. But it can be compelling.

But the reality isn't an illogical, laughable claim that some scientists think that the theory of evolution should be expanded on their claims that new data isn't fully addressed by the theory as it stands, means that we have no theory. That creationists don't understand that age-old, empty nonsense means that, whoosh, gravity doesn't exist. It is the argument itself that matters to them. Getting people, even educated people, especially educated people, to maintain engagement with these dead arguments, is the goal. The evidence of decades reveals it is all that is available for creationists to bring to bear.

I'll do it again. It can be fun. For a time. That nonsense should be met with the facts and the best understanding available at least for any passerby that might be tempted to stop thinking and be drawn in by the plethora of logical fallacies and intensity.

Still, you have to stop feeding the pigeons sometime.

Save yourself the trouble of responding here. Not only am I ignoring the unimportant, this thread is dead and I will no longer be watching it.

You have a good day, I hope to chat with you and a few others here on more interesting threads elsewhere.

 

[cladking]

When did Cladking try to refute gravity?

It's not enough to agree with doctrine. If you don't use the same words as doctrine then you are still a heretic.

Pointing out the flaws in models, interpretations, and definitions is no way to endear yourself to the faithful.

 

[LIIA]

Yes. That is all that you have. That is why so many have put you on ignore.

But thanks for using the short form for once.

You’re welcome. The reason for the short form is because you said nothing of value.

If the prerequisite of a process is not possible, then the process is not possible. Let alone if the mechanisms of the process are also disproved.

The prerequisite of evolution is a perfect organism that has all functional vital systems/life processes essentially required to allow the organism to grow, reproduce, survive and pass gradual slow changes to offspring. If the prerequisite of evolution is not possible, then evolution is not possible especially if all the fundamental assumptions of the theory are challenged/disproved for being in contradiction with new empirical evidence.

Everything was discussed in this thread boils down to the summary of facts regarding the current status of the ToE today as clarified in #2399.

Darwin's Illusion | Page 120 | Religious Forums

The ToE is an assumption that was taking as an axiom but there is nothing to justify the axiom given the fact that today there is no theoretical framework capable of providing explanation consistent with new empirical evidence.

Evolution is an assumption without any ground to stand on. Abiogenesis is not a scientific theory, and the Modern synthesis was disproved. Every observation we see in the real-world points to a directed adaptation process not a random evolution. See #2399.