Evolution is a Lie

[Delphiki]

Fortunately, your understanding of texts and metaphysics does not come into play.

There is no understanding of metaphysics. The observable fact that most people who believe in metaphysics can't agree on anything regarding the subject is evidence of that.

Name any other person on this site that shares the same understanding of text and metaphysics as you do. Just one. You can't because you're delusion is that only you have the proper understanding.

The property of intelligence is not isolated to metaphysics but overlaps into the physical and from there you reference it for understanding.

Intelligence doesn't "overlap" into the physical. Intelligence is a physical and physiological product of the brain, and can be measured and observed. If my "intelligence" you mean "God", then that is not physical, nor can be measured or observed.

You also have physical man which can be detected through physical means.

Duh. See? Even this unnecessarily complicated way to say "We know there are humans because we can see them."... that's what I'm talking about. You're not fooling anyone. Many of us already have a far better idea of your intelligence level than you do.

Through physical science you have Intelligent Design.

No, you don't. Where have any of the physical sciences ever explained intelligent design? Behe has already been debunked here, so no repeating yourself.

The stage is set- all this just for you. You are asked to provide evidence for the purely naturalistic unintelligent origination of man.

Again? If you didn't absorb it the first few thousand times, why would I bother now. That's not my job, after all. Get a text book, take a class, read some research papers in the biological field, or just pay attention in science class... Any of these things should explain it. Otherwise if you're too slow or just too stubborn to accept what we know as fact about life, that's you're own problem. Frankly, I'm sick of repeating myself -- and I'm sure I'm not the only one here. A random trek around this forum will provide you with bounds of evidence and explanations for our naturalistic origins, you just need to stop pretending you don't see it.

At the same time, that same random trek around these forums won't turn up any piece of evidence for the metaphysical, or intelligent design, or the biblical creation story.

 

[Greg1234]

There is no understanding of metaphysics. The observable fact that most people who believe in metaphysics can't agree on anything regarding the subject is evidence of that.

Name any other person on this site that shares the same understanding of text and metaphysics as you do. Just one. You can't because you're delusion is that only you have the proper understanding.

Fortunately, your understanding of texts and metaphysics does not come into play

Intelligence doesn't "overlap" into the physical. Intelligence is a physical and physiological product of the brain, and can be measured and observed. If my "intelligence" you mean "God", then that is not physical, nor can be measured or observed.

Good. So the property of intelligence is not isolated to metaphysics but overlaps into the physical and from there you reference it for understanding.

Duh. See? Even this unnecessarily complicated way to say "We know there are humans because we can see them."... that's what I'm talking about. You're not fooling anyone. Many of us already have a far better idea of your intelligence level than you do.

Yes, you also have physical man which can be detected through physical means.

No, you don't. Where have any of the physical sciences ever explained intelligent design? Behe has already been debunked here, so no repeating yourself.

Then use this as motivation to...(continued below) by the by, nothing was "debunked"

Again? If you didn't absorb it the first few thousand times, why would I bother now. That's not my job, after all. Get a text book, take a class, read some research papers in the biological field, or just pay attention in science class... Any of these things should explain it. Otherwise if you're too slow or just too stubborn to accept what we know as fact about life, that's you're own problem. Frankly, I'm sick of repeating myself -- and I'm sure I'm not the only one here. A random trek around this forum will provide you with bounds of evidence and explanations for our naturalistic origins, you just need to stop pretending you don't see it.

...provide evidence for the purely naturalistic unintelligent origination of man.

At the same time, that same random trek around these forums won't turn up any piece of evidence for the metaphysical, or intelligent design, or the biblical creation story.

(See above)

 

[Delphiki]

It appears I've found a dead end in your reasoning (or lack thereof, rather). I'm finished talking to you. My only advice is that you seek help - not the metaphysical kind, but of the psychiatric kind.

 

[Tomatoman]

Fortunately, your understanding of texts and metaphysics does not come into play


Good. So the property of intelligence is not isolated to metaphysics but overlaps into the physical and from there you reference it for understanding.


Yes, you also have physical man which can be detected through physical means.


Then use this as motivation to...(continued below) by the by, nothing was "debunked"



...provide evidence for the purely naturalistic unintelligent origination of man.


(See above)

This, folks, is a perfect example of why creationists are laughed at.

 

[Greg1234]

It appears I've found a dead end in your reasoning (or lack thereof, rather). I'm finished talking to you. My only advice is that you seek help - not the metaphysical kind, but of the psychiatric kind.

tsk

 

[AV1611VET]

tsk

It's called 'venting'.

First, they try to understand us, then they try and negotiate with us, then they vent.

Most of them remind me of Sanballat.

You can't mind your own business and count, you can't post in an old thread, you can't quote the Bible, you can't free think, you can't espouse basic doctrine, you can't do anything to please them -- except agree with them or leave.

 

[Tomatoman]

It's called 'venting'.

First, they try to understand us, then they try and negotiate with us, then they vent.

Most of them remind me of Sanballat.

It's called trying to help. Sadly, when someone is delusional and in denial about it, it is very difficult to get through to them.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's called trying to help.

Uh-huh.

Sadly, when someone is delusional and in denial about it, it is very difficult to get through to them.

You mean uncooperative?

 

[Skaloop]

You mean uncooperative?

That too, I suppose. But in addition to the other things, not in replacement of them.

 

[AV1611VET]

That too, I suppose. But in addition to the other things, not in replacement of them.

Of course -- I'm sure the dictionary doesn't have enough words to describe us, does it?

 

[dad]

Why is pretty safe to assume that?

Well, I think the future is the key to the past. In the future, the bible lists many animals. Such as the lion and wolf. God is known to carry over the kinds from one age to another. I guess His pets are safe.

 

[dad]

so cats aren't a kind?

Firstly, just because lions are, does not rule out that cats also may not be. I personally doubt it, but am willing to look at evidence.

 

[dad]

Oh, so it's not really defined so you creationists can pretty much set it to whatever supports the crazy idea du jour?

No. There are clues. Bible believers would tend to work with what God has given, rather than make stuff up like so called science does.

You can't define what exactly a 'kind' is, yet it's still used in arguments. At least we have an honest definition for whatever we're arguing about

A created kind was a group or type of creature created on earth by God in creation week. A kind also can be used to refer to any kind of animal that has evolved or adapted from them since.

So a wolf is a kind, but it can interbreed with dingos, dogs, coyotes, and golden jackals, and produce fertile offspring? What 'kind' are the offspring?

I am not sure that an ability to interbreed is what determines a kind? Man breeds all sorts of stuff in labs...does that mean he is a rat, or bacteria? Perhaps wicked pre flood men interbred with apes or monkeys...? There seems to be a lot of similar genetic stuff there for example with chimps..? Anyhow, if dingos and dogs and coyotes all evolved from the wolf kind, I suppose that might do it..? Either way, you can't set up manmade criteria for what a kind is.....based on the present state of creatures no less!

 

[sandwiches]

There is no understanding of metaphysics. The observable fact that most people who believe in metaphysics can't agree on anything regarding the subject is evidence of that.

I agree with this. While "metaphysicists" are wondering what things "really" are or whether or not anything exists at all, empiricists are sending people to the moon, curing diseases, making our lives easier and safer, etc.

 

[sandwiches]

Of course -- I'm sure the dictionary doesn't have enough words to describe us, does it?

You're person AV, not several, unless you think you're royalty or God, which wouldn't surprise me one bit to be honest.

 

[sandwiches]

No. There are clues. Bible believers would tend to work with what God has given, rather than make stuff up like so called science does.

Let me fix that for you:
"Bible believers would tend to work with what they believe an invisible, unverifiable, indemonstrable entity has given them through fallible, verifiably incorrect writings, rather than accept how things really are like science does."

 

[dad]

Let me fix that for you:
"Bible believers would tend to work with what they believe an invisible, unverifiable, indemonstrable entity has given them through fallible, verifiably incorrect writings, rather than accept how things really are like science does."

Science doesn't accept kinds, though. It doesn't even know they existed except for the bible. By the way, every single time you claim a bible mistake, it is a mistake of yours, and limited tools of knowledge whereby to judge what went on.

 

[Tomatoman]

Of course -- I'm sure the dictionary doesn't have enough words to describe us, does it?

Delusional covers it nicely, thank-you.

 

[Delphiki]

Science doesn't accept kinds, though.

I bet if there was a clear definition of what a "kind" is, the term might have a chance. We've asked you before and you gave a very internally inconsistent and unclear answer. Until then, it's not going to be a taxological term.

Until then, we have Kingdom Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species, etc.

 

[sandwiches]

Science doesn't accept kinds, though.

Why should it?