I Love Jesus and I Accept Evolution

[7djengo7]

Done and done.

I like how, when errorists like Arthur Brain have stonewalled against a challenge, they think it is somehow useful to lie about it by saying that they have already met the challenge, instead of just honestly trying, right that instant, to meet the challenge, or honestly admitting that they have not met, and cannot meet, the challenge.

Keep up the stonewalling, Professor Brain!

 

[Arthur Brain]

No more than you should have had a comma after the word "You" at the start of this post. But, I'll be happy to hear you try to tell me exactly why you say I should, Professor.

Oh, I'm not a professor but thanks!

Oh, man, you angered me so, I took a hammer to your nacho cheese face avatar, and now you owe me a new monitor. Again, Professor, I'm all ears if you wish to embarrass yourself by trying to explain why you imagine there should be a comma where you said there should be a comma. Have fun.

Well, it's called grammar.

If by "pedantic", you mean dull and unimaginative, then, from what I've seen, everything is pedantic on your part.

Well, not real interested in changing the definitions of words so I'll pass.

Too bad for you, then, that you've absolutely no understanding of anything.

Oh, it's devastating. How the hell I managed to bluff my way through A levels and diplomas is still mystifying to me...

It's impossible for me to correct your errors, especially your many cognitive ones. All I can do is to point them out. One of your lesser errors is that you got the wrong emoji, here. This is the one that would have been accurate in expressing your mood:

Oh, even that one wouldn't have come close to expressing my absolute seething rage dude...

Hey, I give you kudos for at least having admitted that you don't consider yourself to be engaging rationally. You are, though, meaninglessly parroting the phrase, "scientific theory". That's why, so far, you've needed to stonewall against my questions.

You do? Why thank you, that just made my night! :cloud9:

Although all I actually did was point out what a theory is in terms of science.

Your problem is that you mean nothing by the word, "theory". That is why you have had to stonewall against my questions.

Well, of course "I" don't mean anything by it. I've merely pointed out what the term "theory" means in context when applied to science.

Ah, right. Above. Because that's where all your hot air rises to--far away from reason, which is down here on the ground, where I like to hang out.

Yes, I'm just a regular helium balloon...

Why do you feel the need to be a hypocrite, accusing me of needlessly capitalizing some letters, while turning around and needlessly capitalizing the initial of your word, "caps"?

Well, it seems to have had an effect as you're not "shouting" anymore. Still ranting a bit but nothing you can't bring under control in time. Do you play a lot of console games by any chance, just out of interest?

So soon you repeat your hypocrisy, needlessly capitalizing another word: "cheerleader".

Well, the "cheerleader" part shouldn't have been capitalized to be fair but it would only be hypocrisy if I had a tendency to post words in all caps. I don't.

Thanks for acknowledging your awareness of what you're pejoratively calling "the word salad", because you're further advertising your mental incompetence to actually try to address what I wrote, seeing as you are forced to stonewall against it. You've made it clear that you're aware of the challenge, and that you know, as well as I know, that you must fail to meet the challenge. What's bizarre is that you seem proud of yourself for your incompetence to meet the challenge.

Okay, seriously, at least some mayonnaise next time?

What theory? No theory is called "the theory of evolution", so what (if any) theory are you referring to by your above highlighted phrase, "the theory"??

https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/theory-evolution/

Also, I mean in context of the actual thread?

 

[Arthur Brain]

I like how, when errorists like Arthur Brain have stonewalled against a challenge, they think it is somehow useful to lie about it by saying that they have already met the challenge, instead of just honestly trying, right that instant, to meet the challenge, or honestly admitting that they have not met, and cannot meet, the challenge.

Keep up the stonewalling, Professor Brain!

Well, I'm not sure how it's "stonewalling" to directly address a misconception where it comes to how science operates exactly. It certainly doesn't operate on "assumptions".

 

[7djengo7]

Oh, I'm not a professor but thanks!

But you profess to know so much falsehood and nonsense. That doesn't make you a professor? Well, in any case, you are a poser.

Well, it's called grammar.

You know how to write the word, 'grammar', too, Professor? It's amusing that you imagine that, by nothing more than your having written the word, 'grammar', you have justified your idiotic complaint that I had not placed a comma where you imagine I ought to have placed a comma. Of course, you and I both know that you were wrong when you said that I should have placed a comma there.

Well, not real [sic] interested in changing the definitions of words so I'll pass.

Hypocritically, you are obviously "not real [sic] interested in" employing proper grammar, while acting like a brat and accusing others' proper grammar of being faulty. Nor are you interested in looking up the definitions of words in dictionaries!

Definition of pedantic 1 : of, relating to, or being a pedant a pedantic teacher 2 : narrowly, stodgily, and often ostentatiously learned a pedantic insistence that we follow the rules exactly 3 : unimaginative, dull

Oh, it's devastating. How the hell I managed to bluff my way through A levels and diplomas is still mystifying to me...

Um, your indoctrinators were as committed to irrationality and ignorance as they molded you to be?

Oh, even that one wouldn't have come close to expressing my absolute seething rage dude...

Oh.

Although all I actually did was point out what a theory is in terms of science.

Here, you're simply repeating your falsehood.

Well, of course "I" don't mean anything by it.

You are correct: you do not mean anything by the word, "theory". That's why, when you say the word "theory" in the context of this thread, you are doing no more than meaninglessly parroting it. Why do you consider such behavior to be rational?

I've merely pointed out what the term "theory" means in context when applied to science.

What you wrote, here, is gobbledygook.

Yes, I'm just a regular helium balloon...

OK.

Well, it seems to have had an effect as you're not "shouting" anymore.

Oh, I'm sorry, little Ms. Snowflake. I did not realize that emphasizing a word by means of all-caps would seem like shouting to you. Especially inasmuch as shouting is something one does with a mouth and a voice box, and not with a computer keyboard and text.

Still ranting a bit but nothing you can't bring under control in time. Do you play a lot of console games by any chance, just out of interest?

How many do you mean by "a lot"?

Is there something wrong with playing a console game?

Well, the "cheerleader" part shouldn't have been capitalized to be fair but it would only be hypocrisy if I had a tendency to post words in all caps. I don't.

False. Your hypocrisy was in your accusation that my capitalization was needless. Why you gotta play ignorant the rare times you actually know something?

Why don't you specify what (if anything) you mean by "tendency", here, and then try to justify your saying that I have "a tendency to post words in all caps", and that you don't?

Do you really imagine that there is something wrong with writing one or more words all in capital letters?

https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/theory-evolution/

That's not even a sentence.

Why can you not think for yourself? Either you have to lie by saying you've answered a question, when you haven't answered it, or you have to try to outsource to one of the sources of your own indoctrination, because you are too incompetent to think on your own two feet. These are some of the things what make you the poser that you are.

Also, I mean in context of the actual thread?

That's you, once more, doing whatever silliness you can grasp in order to stonewall. Thanks again for your stonewalling, Professor.

 

[ok doser]

And? What's this supposed to show exactly apart from a bunch of names?

Well, for one thing, it shows that you don't know squat about the purpose of references in a scholarly article

 

[6days]

Theories come about because of evidence, not the other way around.

Clearly that is not true when it comes to ToE. It is a 'theory' that exist in spite of all of the evidence against it. It always has been a non-falsifiable belief that interprets evidence to fit a priori beliefs. Virtually everything that was thought true at the time of the Scopes trial has been proven false by science... And yet the 'theory' lives on. Both good design and bad design are argued as evidence that fits the belief. Functionality and non functionality are claimed as evidence. Essentially with ToE, it doesn't matter what the evidence is... The 'theory' exists because of beliefs.

 

[Stripe]

The source of an argument has no bearing on whether an argument is valid or invalid.

It's called a genetic fallacy for a reason.

lain:

Darwinists are fooled by the word "genetic" in the term. They think that automatically makes it a good thing. :chuckle:

 

[Alate_One]

:doh:


what

a

moron :nono:

When you have different methods of dating that all converge on the same answer, we can be fairly certain they're not just "assumptions". And one thing we can be very certain of, is that the earth is definitely older than 4000-6000 years.

And for those actually interested in learning something. I highly recommend this episode of Cosmos- the clean room.

 

[Alate_One]

Oddly enough just after I started this thread, my church started doing a sermon series on Genesis. In a nutshell the pastors have said, Genesis is not a science textbook.

 

[ok doser]

When you have different methods of dating that all converge on the same answer, we can be fairly certain they're not just "assumptions". And one thing we can be very certain of, is that the earth is definitely older than 4000-6000 years.

And for those actually interested in learning something. I highly recommend this episode of Cosmos- the clean room.

Now address artie's statement that I was responding to

 

[Stripe]

Genesis is not a science textbook.

This phrase does not mean anything.

Genesis tells us what it is:

This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created.
Gen. 2:4​

 

[ok doser]

... A 24 hour day requires the sun for one thing ...

So, if you're at the north pole during the winter solstice, you can't have a 24 hour day?

Or if it's really cloudy?

Or if you work in a basement laboratory, as I did for years?

 

[6days]

Oddly enough just after I started this thread, my church started doing a sermon series on Genesis. In a nutshell the pastors have said, Genesis is not a science textbook

Change the first two letters of the first word in that statement. Remove the 'Od' and replace with 'Sa'.

Sadly enough your church is also preaching a compromised gospel. Jesus suffered physical death at the cross, because physical death entered our world when first Adam sinned. (Romans 5, 1st Corinthians 15 and others) Your church has compromised on that and many other plain teachings of scripture.

 

[Arthur Brain]

But you profess to know so much falsehood and nonsense. That doesn't make you a professor? Well, in any case, you are a poser.

Well, I don't profess to know falsehood and nonsense for starters...

You know how to write the word, 'grammar', too, Professor? It's amusing that you imagine that, by nothing more than your having written the word, 'grammar', you have justified your idiotic complaint that I had not placed a comma where you imagine I ought to have placed a comma. Of course, you and I both know that you were wrong when you said that I should have placed a comma there.

Why yes, I do. Also, it wasn't a complaint but rather an observation and a correct one.

Hypocritically, you are obviously "not real [sic] interested in" employing proper grammar, while acting like a brat and accusing others' proper grammar of being faulty. Nor are you interested in looking up the definitions of words in dictionaries!

Definition of pedantic 1 : of, relating to, or being a pedant a pedantic teacher 2 : narrowly, stodgily, and often ostentatiously learned a pedantic insistence that we follow the rules exactly 3 : unimaginative, dull

Well, your grammar in a preceding post was faulty but it's of no great consequence. It wouldn't have made much sense with or without a comma in fairness. Think I'll leave the bratty antics to you if it's all the same.

Um, your indoctrinators were as committed to irrationality and ignorance as they molded you to be

Hmm, so you equate having advanced qualifications with irrationality and ignorance?

Interesting. Bonkers but interesting.

Oh.

Oh yes, I was just livid beyond words (and emoticons)...

Here, you're simply repeating your falsehood.

Well, no. I was repeating what a theory is in regards to science. It's not a falsehood to describe what the term means in context. You might not like it but that's nobody else's problem.

You are correct: you do not mean anything by the word, "theory". That's why, when you say the word "theory" in the context of this thread, you are doing no more than meaninglessly parroting it. Why do you consider such behavior to be rational?

Why do you consider it rational to object to how the term applies to science?

What you wrote, here, is gobbledygook.

Only if you have reading comprehension difficulties.

Oh, I'm sorry, little Ms. Snowflake. I did not realize that emphasizing a word by means of all-caps would seem like shouting to you. Especially inasmuch as shouting is something one does with a mouth and a voice box, and not with a computer keyboard and text.

It's pretty common knowledge, google it.

How many do you mean by "a lot"?

Is there something wrong with playing a console game?

It's not so much the amount of games but time spent playing them. Can be unhealthy if not kept in check and you come across as an "angry gamer." It goes some way to explaining your aggression and need to be confrontational simply with people who have an alternate viewpoint to yours.

False. Your hypocrisy was in your accusation that my capitalization was needless. Why you gotta play ignorant the rare times you actually know something?

Why don't you specify what (if anything) you mean by "tendency", here, and then try to justify your saying that I have "a tendency to post words in all caps", and that you don't?

Do you really imagine that there is something wrong with writing one or more words all in capital letters?

It depends on how it's done and the frequency. Noting that you had a tendency to do so would only be hypocritical if I were doing the same. I don't. Generally, if I want to emphasize a word or point I'll underline it or bold it.

That's not even a sentence.

It was a link that proved there is such a thing as the theory of evolution.

Why can you not think for yourself? Either you have to lie by saying you've answered a question, when you haven't answered it, or you have to try to outsource to one of the sources of your own indoctrination, because you are too incompetent to think on your own two feet. These are some of the things what make you the poser that you are.

Well, unless the definition of independent thought has changed to "must agree with everything 7djengo7 posits" then I'm more than capable of such. That's one of the reasons I left a fundamentalist church some years back because it stifled challenges to teaching. Linking to a source that refutes ignorance is hardly lacking critical thinking skills.

That's you, once more, doing whatever silliness you can grasp in order to stonewall. Thanks again for your stonewalling, Professor.

Well, no. You stated that there is no such thing as the theory of evolution. You were directly shown to be in error. Best just to acknowledge it.

 

[Arthur Brain]

When you have different methods of dating that all converge on the same answer, we can be fairly certain they're not just "assumptions". And one thing we can be very certain of, is that the earth is definitely older than 4000-6000 years.

And for those actually interested in learning something. I highly recommend this episode of Cosmos- the clean room.

I used to love watching Cosmos when I was young.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Clearly that is not true when it comes to ToE. It is a 'theory' that exist in spite of all of the evidence against it. It always has been a non-falsifiable belief that interprets evidence to fit a priori beliefs. Virtually everything that was thought true at the time of the Scopes trial has been proven false by science... And yet the 'theory' lives on. Both good design and bad design are argued as evidence that fits the belief. Functionality and non functionality are claimed as evidence. Essentially with ToE, it doesn't matter what the evidence is... The 'theory' exists because of beliefs.

I'm sorry 6days but unless you're into some sort of global scientific conspiracy then the ToE came about because of the evidence. Unlike creationism there is no pre-set conclusion where data needs to be shoehorned to fit a set of beliefs. Science simply doesn't work that way. The age of the universe is set over 13.7 billion years old. Has that been arrived at through personal agendas that run rampant through the global scientific community as well? If evolution had been "proven false" it would have been discarded. It hasn't.

 

[genuineoriginal]

And? What's this supposed to show exactly apart from a bunch of names?

The purpose of the article was to show that many evolutionary geologists are recognizing that the circular reasoning used to date the fossil layers is a problem.
The "bunch of names" are names of evolutionary geologists and the papers they published in peer reviewed evolutionist science journals where the quotes came from.

 

[Arthur Brain]

The purpose of the article was to show that many evolutionary geologists are recognizing that the circular reasoning used to date the fossil layers is a problem.
The "bunch of names" are names of evolutionary geologists and the papers they published in peer reviewed evolutionist science journals where the quotes came from.

Hmm, having googled J.E. O'Rourke, it seems as though his "recent" paper from the mid 70's wasn't even quoted properly and hardly the most reliable source to begin with. The author himself was hardly beyond criticism either.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part5.html

 

[6days]

sorry 6days but .... If evolution had been "proven false" it would have been discarded. It hasn't.

Common ancestry is a non falsifiable belief system. It doesn't matter what the evidence is, it can be explained to fit the belief. Even a rabbit in the Cambrian (which we do not expect in the biblical creation model) would somehow be explained to fit common ancestry.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Common ancestry is a non falsifiable belief system. It doesn't matter what the evidence is, it can be explains to fit the belief. Even a rabbit in the Cambrian (which we do not expect in the biblical creation model) would somehow be explained to fit common ancestry.

It came about because of the evidence, just like how the age of the universe has been determined to be over 13 billion years old.