The Darwin Delusion

[Anti-thesisofreason]

Since what's considered "logical" to atheists is imaginary animals turning into people, then of course, they can't understand logic. That's why they reject the biblical account of creation for making up stories of their imaginations which don't happen in reality.

Please supply us with evidence and references for your ideas so we can also become enlightened.

 

[Father Heathen]

so an ape becoming a human is logic according to you right?

Yes, but it's a deliberately dishonest and disingenuous misrepresentation when you refer to it like that. I thought Islam forbade deceit..

 

[Gharib]

Yes, but it's a deliberately dishonest and disingenuous misrepresentation when you refer to it like that. I thought Islam forbade deceit..

how am i being deceitfull?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Yes, but it's a deliberately dishonest and disingenuous misrepresentation when you refer to it like that. I thought Islam forbade deceit..

Hmmm, if someone doesn't have the intelligence to understand their own intellectual dishonesty, are they really being deceitful? Interesting.

 

[Father Heathen]

Since what's considered "logical" to atheists is imaginary animals turning into people, then of course, they can't understand logic. That's why they reject the biblical account of creation for making up stories of their imaginations which don't happen in reality.

How do imaginary animals leave behind real remains? When you apply The Scientific Method, The Theory of Evolution stands up while literal interpretations of ancient creation myths does not.

 

[Gharib]

Can you provide references for this claim?

yeah sure

have you heard of the creature called the Archaeopteryx?

this magical being is soposedly the transitional link between dinosaurs and birds and yet it has no half and half lung to suppor this claim made by evolutionists, it has a lung that is similar to that of modern birds.

it has a bony tale, it has got a beack with teath also, it has got featheres, but it has got no half and half lung.

it has magically poofed from a dinosaur into this half bird half diosaur thingi.

 

[Father Heathen]

how am i being deceitfull?

Straw man fallacy.

 

[Gharib]

Straw man fallacy.

are you saying that humans didn't evolve from apes, and i lied in my post?

 

[Magic Man]

are you saying that humans didn't evolve from apes, and i lied in my post?

He's saying that "an ape turns into a human" is not an equivalent statement to "humans evolved from an ape-like species".

 

[Gharib]

He's saying that "an ape turns into a human" is not an equivalent statement to "humans evolved from an ape-like species".

well you guys know what i'm talkig about, do i need to explain that i simple terms word for word?

 

[Father Heathen]

well you guys know what i'm talkig about, do i need to explain that i simple terms word for word?

No, we don't. It makes it look like you have absolutely no understanding of the actual process when you present it in such a ridicilous and inaccurate fashion. Natural selection is a very long process of gradual changes between each generation, not an instantaneous "poof" from one species into another as you've implied. Also, all modern primates (including us) have evolved from a similar ancestor. It was "ape-like" but to call it an ape confuses it with the modern ape when they were not the same species. Evolution is logical, but the way you portray it is not. It's misleading and dishonest.

 

[Anti-thesisofreason]

yeah sure

have you heard of the creature called the Archaeopteryx?

this magical being is soposedly the transitional link between dinosaurs and birds and yet it has no half and half lung to suppor this claim made by evolutionists, it has a lung that is similar to that of modern birds.

it has a bony tale, it has got a beack with teath also, it has got featheres, but it has got no half and half lung.

it has magically poofed from a dinosaur into this half bird half diosaur thingi.

What do you mean half and half lung???

 

[Gharib]

What do you mean half and half lung???

a lung that is not like that of a reptile, and not like that of a bird, due to being in a state of change. due to the bones of the animal changing gradually over many years, and so a lung that is similar to a reptile and to a bird wich can be supported by the chest bone of that particular fossil, shoud exist.

but it doesn't

 

[Carico]

Can you provide references for this claim?

Yeah. One person looks at a fossil of what he thinks is a tiny lizard and another person looks at the same fossil and claims it's the forerunner of humans. It just depends on what each person wants to see.

 

[Gharib]

No, we don't. It makes it look like you have absolutely no understanding of the actual process when you present it in such a ridicilous and inaccurate fashion. Natural selection is a very long process of gradual changes between each generation, not an instantaneous "poof" from one species into another as you've implied. Also, all modern primates (including us) have evolved from a similar ancestor. It was "ape-like" but to call it an ape confuses it with the modern ape when they were not the same species. Evolution is logical, but the way you portray it is not. It's misleading and dishonest.

see you understand that theory very well, so why would it be necessary for me to be so very specific and use every word, rather than just get to the main point, which i believe i did.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

see you understand that theory very well, so why would it be necessary for me to be so very specific and use every word, rather than just get to the main point, which i believe i did.

His understanding of evolutionary theory isn't in question.

 

[Gharib]

His understanding of evolutionary theory isn't in question.

i know it isn't, but it is relevant to what i said in my first post to him.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

i know it isn't, but it is relevant to what i said in my first post to him.

Re-read for comprehension.

 

[Father Heathen]

see you understand that theory very well, so why would it be necessary for me to be so very specific and use every word, rather than just get to the main point, which i believe i did.

Because it makes it look like you're ignorant and have no understanding about what you're trying to argue against. You try to imply that it's illogical by portraying it inaccurately. If your stance requires you to be dishonest to defend it, then maybe it's not worth defending.

 

[Gharib]

Because it makes it look like you're ignorant and have no understanding about what you're trying to argue against. You try to imply that it's illogical by portraying it inaccurately. If your stance requires you to be dishonest to defend it, then maybe it's not worth defending.

oh like you or anyother evolutionists has never said to us creationists "did creatures just magically poof out of knowhere"? as if thats how it happened.

and can we stick to the topic