Discussion:
"Evolutionists"
Add Reply
Amazing Answers
2018-06-11 15:40:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Evolutionist

Evolutionists like to tell us that the word “evolutionist” is a falsehood, an invention of creationists.

This claim probably emanated from Talkorigins in threads in which evolutionists were continually upset that I referred to evolutionists as opposed to creationists. I guess they don’t like the “ist” in the evolutionist. In alt.atheism Jeanne Douglas kept asking the question, “what is an evolutionist”?


Actually, Charles Darwin used the word evolutionist. You can find the word “evolutionists” used all the time in evolutionist written books and publications. Take for example this article in Evolution journal:

Certainty and Circularity in Evolutionary Taxonomy

Evolution 21: 174-189 March, 1967

“It was only a matter of time until the evolutionists themselves were accused of reasoning in vicious circles.”

I just selected ONE sentence from this article of which the word “evolutionist” is used many more times.
Amazing Answers
2018-06-11 21:14:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Amazing Answers
Evolutionist
Evolutionists like to tell us that the word “evolutionist” is a falsehood, an invention of creationists.
This claim probably emanated from Talkorigins in threads in which evolutionists were continually upset that I referred to evolutionists as opposed to creationists. I guess they don’t like the “ist” in the evolutionist. In alt.atheism Jeanne Douglas kept asking the question, “what is an evolutionist”?
Certainty and Circularity in Evolutionary Taxonomy
Evolution 21: 174-189 March, 1967
“It was only a matter of time until the evolutionists themselves were accused of reasoning in vicious circles.”
I just selected ONE sentence from this article of which the word “evolutionist” is used many more times.
correct.
Yap Honghor
2018-06-11 23:59:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Amazing Answers
Post by Amazing Answers
Evolutionist
Evolutionists like to tell us that the word “evolutionist” is a falsehood, an invention of creationists.
This claim probably emanated from Talkorigins in threads in which evolutionists were continually upset that I referred to evolutionists as opposed to creationists. I guess they don’t like the “ist” in the evolutionist. In alt.atheism Jeanne Douglas kept asking the question, “what is an evolutionist”?
Certainty and Circularity in Evolutionary Taxonomy
Evolution 21: 174-189 March, 1967
“It was only a matter of time until the evolutionists themselves were accused of reasoning in vicious circles.”
I just selected ONE sentence from this article of which the word “evolutionist” is used many more times.
correct.
Anything from a donkey is all dumb and never correct....
Amazing Answers
2018-06-12 03:07:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by Amazing Answers
Post by Amazing Answers
Evolutionist
Evolutionists like to tell us that the word “evolutionist” is a falsehood, an invention of creationists.
This claim probably emanated from Talkorigins in threads in which evolutionists were continually upset that I referred to evolutionists as opposed to creationists. I guess they don’t like the “ist” in the evolutionist. In alt.atheism Jeanne Douglas kept asking the question, “what is an evolutionist”?
Certainty and Circularity in Evolutionary Taxonomy
Evolution 21: 174-189 March, 1967
“It was only a matter of time until the evolutionists themselves were accused of reasoning in vicious circles.”
I just selected ONE sentence from this article of which the word “evolutionist” is used many more times.
correct.
Anything from a donkey is all dumb and never correct....
That was scientific.
hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
2018-06-12 04:07:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Amazing Answers
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by Amazing Answers
Post by Amazing Answers
Evolutionist
Evolutionists like to tell us that the word “evolutionist” is a falsehood, an invention of creationists.
This claim probably emanated from Talkorigins in threads in which evolutionists were continually upset that I referred to evolutionists as opposed to creationists. I guess they don’t like the “ist” in the evolutionist. In alt.atheism Jeanne Douglas kept asking the question, “what is an evolutionist”?
Certainty and Circularity in Evolutionary Taxonomy
Evolution 21: 174-189 March, 1967
“It was only a matter of time until the evolutionists themselves were accused of reasoning in vicious circles.”
I just selected ONE sentence from this article of which the word “evolutionist” is used many more times.
correct.
Anything from a donkey is all dumb and never correct.
That was scientific.
No, it was something no one but you and other Christian Fundies
care about.
Amazing Answers
2018-06-12 05:37:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
Post by Amazing Answers
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by Amazing Answers
Post by Amazing Answers
Evolutionist
Evolutionists like to tell us that the word “evolutionist” is a falsehood, an invention of creationists.
This claim probably emanated from Talkorigins in threads in which evolutionists were continually upset that I referred to evolutionists as opposed to creationists. I guess they don’t like the “ist” in the evolutionist. In alt.atheism Jeanne Douglas kept asking the question, “what is an evolutionist”?
Certainty and Circularity in Evolutionary Taxonomy
Evolution 21: 174-189 March, 1967
“It was only a matter of time until the evolutionists themselves were accused of reasoning in vicious circles.”
I just selected ONE sentence from this article of which the word “evolutionist” is used many more times.
correct.
Anything from a donkey is all dumb and never correct.
That was scientific.
No, it was something no one but you and other Christian Fundies
care about.
why do you believe that?
Amazing Answers
2018-06-12 03:07:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by Amazing Answers
Post by Amazing Answers
Evolutionist
Evolutionists like to tell us that the word “evolutionist” is a falsehood, an invention of creationists.
This claim probably emanated from Talkorigins in threads in which evolutionists were continually upset that I referred to evolutionists as opposed to creationists. I guess they don’t like the “ist” in the evolutionist. In alt.atheism Jeanne Douglas kept asking the question, “what is an evolutionist”?
Certainty and Circularity in Evolutionary Taxonomy
Evolution 21: 174-189 March, 1967
“It was only a matter of time until the evolutionists themselves were accused of reasoning in vicious circles.”
I just selected ONE sentence from this article of which the word “evolutionist” is used many more times.
correct.
Anything from a donkey is all dumb and never correct....
Not.
Yap Honghor
2018-06-17 12:46:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by Amazing Answers
Post by Amazing Answers
Evolutionist
Evolutionists like to tell us that the word “evolutionist” is a falsehood, an invention of creationists.
This claim probably emanated from Talkorigins in threads in which evolutionists were continually upset that I referred to evolutionists as opposed to creationists. I guess they don’t like the “ist” in the evolutionist. In alt.atheism Jeanne Douglas kept asking the question, “what is an evolutionist”?
Certainty and Circularity in Evolutionary Taxonomy
Evolution 21: 174-189 March, 1967
“It was only a matter of time until the evolutionists themselves were accused of reasoning in vicious circles.”
I just selected ONE sentence from this article of which the word “evolutionist” is used many more times.
correct.
Anything from a donkey is all dumb and never correct....
Not.
You donkey is not authorized to deny....
Amazing Answers
2018-06-17 13:39:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by Amazing Answers
Post by Amazing Answers
Evolutionist
Evolutionists like to tell us that the word “evolutionist” is a falsehood, an invention of creationists.
This claim probably emanated from Talkorigins in threads in which evolutionists were continually upset that I referred to evolutionists as opposed to creationists. I guess they don’t like the “ist” in the evolutionist. In alt.atheism Jeanne Douglas kept asking the question, “what is an evolutionist”?
Certainty and Circularity in Evolutionary Taxonomy
Evolution 21: 174-189 March, 1967
“It was only a matter of time until the evolutionists themselves were accused of reasoning in vicious circles.”
I just selected ONE sentence from this article of which the word “evolutionist” is used many more times.
correct.
Anything from a donkey is all dumb and never correct....
Not.
You donkey is not authorized to deny....
A donkey will do what a donkey will do. But if there's no donkey there's nothing to deny.
Tim
2018-06-17 15:31:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Amazing Answers
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by Amazing Answers
Post by Amazing Answers
Evolutionist
Evolutionists like to tell us that the word “evolutionist” is a falsehood, an invention of creationists.
This claim probably emanated from Talkorigins in threads in which evolutionists were continually upset that I referred to evolutionists as opposed to creationists. I guess they don’t like the “ist” in the evolutionist. In alt.atheism Jeanne Douglas kept asking the question, “what is an evolutionist”?
Certainty and Circularity in Evolutionary Taxonomy
Evolution 21: 174-189 March, 1967
“It was only a matter of time until the evolutionists themselves were accused of reasoning in vicious circles.”
I just selected ONE sentence from this article of which the word “evolutionist” is used many more times.
correct.
Anything from a donkey is all dumb and never correct....
Not.
You donkey is not authorized to deny....
A donkey will do what a donkey will do. But if there's no donkey there's nothing to deny.
You believe that you're a donkey brain.
Amazing Answers
2018-06-18 03:10:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tim
Post by Amazing Answers
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by Amazing Answers
Post by Amazing Answers
Evolutionist
Evolutionists like to tell us that the word “evolutionist” is a falsehood, an invention of creationists.
This claim probably emanated from Talkorigins in threads in which evolutionists were continually upset that I referred to evolutionists as opposed to creationists. I guess they don’t like the “ist” in the evolutionist. In alt.atheism Jeanne Douglas kept asking the question, “what is an evolutionist”?
Certainty and Circularity in Evolutionary Taxonomy
Evolution 21: 174-189 March, 1967
“It was only a matter of time until the evolutionists themselves were accused of reasoning in vicious circles.”
I just selected ONE sentence from this article of which the word “evolutionist” is used many more times.
correct.
Anything from a donkey is all dumb and never correct....
Not.
You donkey is not authorized to deny....
A donkey will do what a donkey will do. But if there's no donkey there's nothing to deny.
You believe that you're a donkey brain.
you left your Donkey Time Corralle again.
Tim
2018-06-18 08:32:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Amazing Answers
Post by Tim
Post by Amazing Answers
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by Amazing Answers
Post by Amazing Answers
Evolutionist
Evolutionists like to tell us that the word “evolutionist” is a falsehood, an invention of creationists.
This claim probably emanated from Talkorigins in threads in which evolutionists were continually upset that I referred to evolutionists as opposed to creationists. I guess they don’t like the “ist” in the evolutionist. In alt.atheism Jeanne Douglas kept asking the question, “what is an evolutionist”?
Certainty and Circularity in Evolutionary Taxonomy
Evolution 21: 174-189 March, 1967
“It was only a matter of time until the evolutionists themselves were accused of reasoning in vicious circles.”
I just selected ONE sentence from this article of which the word “evolutionist” is used many more times.
correct.
Anything from a donkey is all dumb and never correct....
Not.
You donkey is not authorized to deny....
A donkey will do what a donkey will do. But if there's no donkey there's nothing to deny.
You believe that you're a donkey brain.
you left your Donkey Time Corralle again.
You're rodeo-centric, and you believe that you're a donkey brain.
Amazing Answers
2018-06-18 13:57:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tim
Post by Amazing Answers
Post by Tim
Post by Amazing Answers
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by Amazing Answers
Post by Amazing Answers
Evolutionist
Evolutionists like to tell us that the word “evolutionist” is a falsehood, an invention of creationists.
This claim probably emanated from Talkorigins in threads in which evolutionists were continually upset that I referred to evolutionists as opposed to creationists. I guess they don’t like the “ist” in the evolutionist. In alt.atheism Jeanne Douglas kept asking the question, “what is an evolutionist”?
Certainty and Circularity in Evolutionary Taxonomy
Evolution 21: 174-189 March, 1967
“It was only a matter of time until the evolutionists themselves were accused of reasoning in vicious circles.”
I just selected ONE sentence from this article of which the word “evolutionist” is used many more times.
correct.
Anything from a donkey is all dumb and never correct....
Not.
You donkey is not authorized to deny....
A donkey will do what a donkey will do. But if there's no donkey there's nothing to deny.
You believe that you're a donkey brain.
you left your Donkey Time Corralle again.
You're rodeo-centric, and you believe that you're a donkey brain.
I'm not and you're plagiarizing me. You're back down at the ranch again.
Tim
2018-06-18 18:54:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Amazing Answers
Post by Tim
Post by Amazing Answers
Post by Tim
Post by Amazing Answers
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by Amazing Answers
Post by Amazing Answers
Evolutionist
Evolutionists like to tell us that the word “evolutionist” is a falsehood, an invention of creationists.
This claim probably emanated from Talkorigins in threads in which evolutionists were continually upset that I referred to evolutionists as opposed to creationists. I guess they don’t like the “ist” in the evolutionist. In alt.atheism Jeanne Douglas kept asking the question, “what is an evolutionist”?
Certainty and Circularity in Evolutionary Taxonomy
Evolution 21: 174-189 March, 1967
“It was only a matter of time until the evolutionists themselves were accused of reasoning in vicious circles.”
I just selected ONE sentence from this article of which the word “evolutionist” is used many more times.
correct.
Anything from a donkey is all dumb and never correct....
Not.
You donkey is not authorized to deny....
A donkey will do what a donkey will do. But if there's no donkey there's nothing to deny.
You believe that you're a donkey brain.
you left your Donkey Time Corralle again.
You're rodeo-centric, and you believe that you're a donkey brain.
I'm not and you're plagiarizing me.
You are, and I'm not plagiarizing you.
Post by Amazing Answers
You're back down at the ranch again.
No, but you never left. And you're plagiarizing me, fake christian.
Cloud Hobbit
2018-06-18 03:30:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Amazing Answers
A donkey will do what a donkey will do. But if there's no donkey there's nothing to deny.
It's exactly the same with God.
You can't deny what isn't there.
Yap Honghor
2018-06-18 11:03:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Amazing Answers
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by Amazing Answers
Post by Amazing Answers
Evolutionist
Evolutionists like to tell us that the word “evolutionist” is a falsehood, an invention of creationists.
This claim probably emanated from Talkorigins in threads in which evolutionists were continually upset that I referred to evolutionists as opposed to creationists. I guess they don’t like the “ist” in the evolutionist. In alt.atheism Jeanne Douglas kept asking the question, “what is an evolutionist”?
Certainty and Circularity in Evolutionary Taxonomy
Evolution 21: 174-189 March, 1967
“It was only a matter of time until the evolutionists themselves were accused of reasoning in vicious circles.”
I just selected ONE sentence from this article of which the word “evolutionist” is used many more times.
correct.
Anything from a donkey is all dumb and never correct....
Not.
You donkey is not authorized to deny....
A donkey will do what a donkey will do. But if there's no donkey there's nothing to deny.
But you, being a donkey, do not want to do what a donkey suppose to....
Amazing Answers
2018-06-18 13:58:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by Amazing Answers
Post by Amazing Answers
Evolutionist
Evolutionists like to tell us that the word “evolutionist” is a falsehood, an invention of creationists.
This claim probably emanated from Talkorigins in threads in which evolutionists were continually upset that I referred to evolutionists as opposed to creationists. I guess they don’t like the “ist” in the evolutionist. In alt.atheism Jeanne Douglas kept asking the question, “what is an evolutionist”?
Certainty and Circularity in Evolutionary Taxonomy
Evolution 21: 174-189 March, 1967
“It was only a matter of time until the evolutionists themselves were accused of reasoning in vicious circles.”
I just selected ONE sentence from this article of which the word “evolutionist” is used many more times.
correct.
Anything from a donkey is all dumb and never correct....
Not.
You donkey is not authorized to deny....
You're always talking donkey and are not authorized to do so.
Tim
2018-06-18 18:56:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Amazing Answers
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by Amazing Answers
Post by Amazing Answers
Evolutionist
Evolutionists like to tell us that the word “evolutionist” is a falsehood, an invention of creationists.
This claim probably emanated from Talkorigins in threads in which evolutionists were continually upset that I referred to evolutionists as opposed to creationists. I guess they don’t like the “ist” in the evolutionist. In alt.atheism Jeanne Douglas kept asking the question, “what is an evolutionist”?
Certainty and Circularity in Evolutionary Taxonomy
Evolution 21: 174-189 March, 1967
“It was only a matter of time until the evolutionists themselves were accused of reasoning in vicious circles.”
I just selected ONE sentence from this article of which the word “evolutionist” is used many more times.
correct.
Anything from a donkey is all dumb and never correct....
Not.
You donkey is not authorized to deny....
You're always talking donkey and are not authorized to do so.
You believe you're a donkey brain and that you're authorized to donkey talk. If you didn't why would you talk so much rodeo mumbo-jumbo?
Amazing Answers
2018-06-19 20:35:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tim
Post by Amazing Answers
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by Amazing Answers
Post by Amazing Answers
Evolutionist
Evolutionists like to tell us that the word “evolutionist” is a falsehood, an invention of creationists.
This claim probably emanated from Talkorigins in threads in which evolutionists were continually upset that I referred to evolutionists as opposed to creationists. I guess they don’t like the “ist” in the evolutionist. In alt.atheism Jeanne Douglas kept asking the question, “what is an evolutionist”?
Certainty and Circularity in Evolutionary Taxonomy
Evolution 21: 174-189 March, 1967
“It was only a matter of time until the evolutionists themselves were accused of reasoning in vicious circles.”
I just selected ONE sentence from this article of which the word “evolutionist” is used many more times.
correct.
Anything from a donkey is all dumb and never correct....
Not.
You donkey is not authorized to deny....
You're always talking donkey and are not authorized to do so.
You believe you're a donkey brain and that you're authorized to donkey talk. If you didn't why would you talk so much rodeo mumbo-jumbo?
You're always projecting even though you are unauthorized to do so.
duke
2018-06-20 20:45:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 19 Jun 2018 13:35:26 -0700 (PDT), Amazing Answers
Post by Amazing Answers
Post by Tim
Post by Amazing Answers
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by Amazing Answers
Post by Amazing Answers
Evolutionist
Evolutionists like to tell us that the word “evolutionist” is a falsehood, an invention of creationists.
This claim probably emanated from Talkorigins in threads in which evolutionists were continually upset that I referred to evolutionists as opposed to creationists. I guess they don’t like the “ist” in the evolutionist. In alt.atheism Jeanne Douglas kept asking the question, “what is an evolutionist”?
Certainty and Circularity in Evolutionary Taxonomy
Evolution 21: 174-189 March, 1967
“It was only a matter of time until the evolutionists themselves were accused of reasoning in vicious circles.”
I just selected ONE sentence from this article of which the word “evolutionist” is used many more times.
correct.
Anything from a donkey is all dumb and never correct....
Not.
You donkey is not authorized to deny....
You're always talking donkey and are not authorized to do so.
You believe you're a donkey brain and that you're authorized to donkey talk. If you didn't why would you talk so much rodeo mumbo-jumbo?
You're always projecting even though you are unauthorized to do so.
Wow, triangle has hit bottom now.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of the NT Word of God is not to inform as it did in
the OT,but instead to form us in the very image of Jesus Christ.
*****
Tim
2018-06-21 18:49:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
On Tue, 19 Jun 2018 13:35:26 -0700 (PDT), Amazing Answers
Post by Amazing Answers
Post by Tim
Post by Amazing Answers
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by Amazing Answers
Post by Amazing Answers
Evolutionist
Evolutionists like to tell us that the word “evolutionist” is a falsehood, an invention of creationists.
This claim probably emanated from Talkorigins in threads in which evolutionists were continually upset that I referred to evolutionists as opposed to creationists. I guess they don’t like the “ist” in the evolutionist. In alt.atheism Jeanne Douglas kept asking the question, “what is an evolutionist”?
Certainty and Circularity in Evolutionary Taxonomy
Evolution 21: 174-189 March, 1967
“It was only a matter of time until the evolutionists themselves were accused of reasoning in vicious circles.”
I just selected ONE sentence from this article of which the word “evolutionist” is used many more times.
correct.
Anything from a donkey is all dumb and never correct....
Not.
You donkey is not authorized to deny....
You're always talking donkey and are not authorized to do so.
You believe you're a donkey brain and that you're authorized to donkey talk. If you didn't why would you talk so much rodeo mumbo-jumbo?
You're always projecting even though you are unauthorized to do so.
Wow, triangle has hit bottom now.
I've come nowhere near hitting you, fat boy. You'll know it when I do.
duke
2018-06-22 17:22:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tim
Post by duke
On Tue, 19 Jun 2018 13:35:26 -0700 (PDT), Amazing Answers
Post by Amazing Answers
Post by Tim
Post by Amazing Answers
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by Amazing Answers
Post by Amazing Answers
Evolutionist
Evolutionists like to tell us that the word “evolutionist” is a falsehood, an invention of creationists.
This claim probably emanated from Talkorigins in threads in which evolutionists were continually upset that I referred to evolutionists as opposed to creationists. I guess they don’t like the “ist” in the evolutionist. In alt.atheism Jeanne Douglas kept asking the question, “what is an evolutionist”?
Certainty and Circularity in Evolutionary Taxonomy
Evolution 21: 174-189 March, 1967
“It was only a matter of time until the evolutionists themselves were accused of reasoning in vicious circles.”
I just selected ONE sentence from this article of which the word “evolutionist” is used many more times.
correct.
Anything from a donkey is all dumb and never correct....
Not.
You donkey is not authorized to deny....
You're always talking donkey and are not authorized to do so.
You believe you're a donkey brain and that you're authorized to donkey talk. If you didn't why would you talk so much rodeo mumbo-jumbo?
You're always projecting even though you are unauthorized to do so.
Wow, triangle has hit bottom now.
I've come nowhere near hitting you, fat boy. You'll know it when I do.
You can't. You're down on the bottom now.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of the NT Word of God is not to inform as it did in
the OT,but instead to form us in the very image of Jesus Christ.
*****
Tim
2018-06-22 18:37:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by duke
On Tue, 19 Jun 2018 13:35:26 -0700 (PDT), Amazing Answers
Post by Amazing Answers
Post by Tim
Post by Amazing Answers
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by Amazing Answers
Post by Amazing Answers
Evolutionist
Evolutionists like to tell us that the word “evolutionist” is a falsehood, an invention of creationists.
This claim probably emanated from Talkorigins in threads in which evolutionists were continually upset that I referred to evolutionists as opposed to creationists. I guess they don’t like the “ist” in the evolutionist. In alt.atheism Jeanne Douglas kept asking the question, “what is an evolutionist”?
Certainty and Circularity in Evolutionary Taxonomy
Evolution 21: 174-189 March, 1967
“It was only a matter of time until the evolutionists themselves were accused of reasoning in vicious circles.”
I just selected ONE sentence from this article of which the word “evolutionist” is used many more times.
correct.
Anything from a donkey is all dumb and never correct....
Not.
You donkey is not authorized to deny....
You're always talking donkey and are not authorized to do so.
You believe you're a donkey brain and that you're authorized to donkey talk. If you didn't why would you talk so much rodeo mumbo-jumbo?
You're always projecting even though you are unauthorized to do so.
Wow, triangle has hit bottom now.
I've come nowhere near hitting you, fat boy. You'll know it when I do.
You can't. You're down on the bottom now.
In your dreams, fat boy.

Tim
2018-06-21 18:48:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Amazing Answers
Post by Tim
Post by Amazing Answers
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by Amazing Answers
Post by Amazing Answers
Evolutionist
Evolutionists like to tell us that the word “evolutionist” is a falsehood, an invention of creationists.
This claim probably emanated from Talkorigins in threads in which evolutionists were continually upset that I referred to evolutionists as opposed to creationists. I guess they don’t like the “ist” in the evolutionist. In alt.atheism Jeanne Douglas kept asking the question, “what is an evolutionist”?
Certainty and Circularity in Evolutionary Taxonomy
Evolution 21: 174-189 March, 1967
“It was only a matter of time until the evolutionists themselves were accused of reasoning in vicious circles.”
I just selected ONE sentence from this article of which the word “evolutionist” is used many more times.
correct.
Anything from a donkey is all dumb and never correct....
Not.
You donkey is not authorized to deny....
You're always talking donkey and are not authorized to do so.
You believe you're a donkey brain and that you're authorized to donkey talk. If you didn't why would you talk so much rodeo mumbo-jumbo?
You're always projecting even though you are unauthorized to do so.
You're always a donkey brain.
Amazing Answers
2018-06-22 05:35:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tim
Post by Amazing Answers
Post by Tim
Post by Amazing Answers
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by Amazing Answers
Post by Amazing Answers
Evolutionist
Evolutionists like to tell us that the word “evolutionist” is a falsehood, an invention of creationists.
This claim probably emanated from Talkorigins in threads in which evolutionists were continually upset that I referred to evolutionists as opposed to creationists. I guess they don’t like the “ist” in the evolutionist. In alt.atheism Jeanne Douglas kept asking the question, “what is an evolutionist”?
Certainty and Circularity in Evolutionary Taxonomy
Evolution 21: 174-189 March, 1967
“It was only a matter of time until the evolutionists themselves were accused of reasoning in vicious circles.”
I just selected ONE sentence from this article of which the word “evolutionist” is used many more times.
correct.
Anything from a donkey is all dumb and never correct....
Not.
You donkey is not authorized to deny....
You're always talking donkey and are not authorized to do so.
You believe you're a donkey brain and that you're authorized to donkey talk. If you didn't why would you talk so much rodeo mumbo-jumbo?
You're always projecting even though you are unauthorized to do so.
You're always a donkey brain.
You continue to prove it.
Tim
2018-06-22 08:39:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Amazing Answers
Post by Tim
Post by Amazing Answers
Post by Tim
Post by Amazing Answers
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by Amazing Answers
Post by Amazing Answers
Evolutionist
Evolutionists like to tell us that the word “evolutionist” is a falsehood, an invention of creationists.
This claim probably emanated from Talkorigins in threads in which evolutionists were continually upset that I referred to evolutionists as opposed to creationists. I guess they don’t like the “ist” in the evolutionist. In alt.atheism Jeanne Douglas kept asking the question, “what is an evolutionist”?
Certainty and Circularity in Evolutionary Taxonomy
Evolution 21: 174-189 March, 1967
“It was only a matter of time until the evolutionists themselves were accused of reasoning in vicious circles.”
I just selected ONE sentence from this article of which the word “evolutionist” is used many more times.
correct.
Anything from a donkey is all dumb and never correct....
Not.
You donkey is not authorized to deny....
You're always talking donkey and are not authorized to do so.
You believe you're a donkey brain and that you're authorized to donkey talk. If you didn't why would you talk so much rodeo mumbo-jumbo?
You're always projecting even though you are unauthorized to do so.
You're always a donkey brain.
You continue to prove it.
No, you do that. I just draw you out into the light where you are exposed.

You believe that you're a donkey brain.
Yap Honghor
2018-06-21 09:38:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Amazing Answers
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by Amazing Answers
Post by Amazing Answers
Evolutionist
Evolutionists like to tell us that the word “evolutionist” is a falsehood, an invention of creationists.
This claim probably emanated from Talkorigins in threads in which evolutionists were continually upset that I referred to evolutionists as opposed to creationists. I guess they don’t like the “ist” in the evolutionist. In alt.atheism Jeanne Douglas kept asking the question, “what is an evolutionist”?
Certainty and Circularity in Evolutionary Taxonomy
Evolution 21: 174-189 March, 1967
“It was only a matter of time until the evolutionists themselves were accused of reasoning in vicious circles.”
I just selected ONE sentence from this article of which the word “evolutionist” is used many more times.
correct.
Anything from a donkey is all dumb and never correct....
Not.
You donkey is not authorized to deny....
You're always talking donkey and are not authorized to do so.
I have been authorized by all the donkey believers in this world to take you to task...
hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
2018-06-12 04:04:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Amazing Answers
Post by Amazing Answers
Evolutionist
Evolutionists like to tell us that the word “evolutionist” is a falsehood, an invention of creationists.
This claim probably emanated from Talkorigins in threads in which evolutionists were continually upset that I referred to evolutionists as opposed to creationists. I guess they don’t like the “ist” in the evolutionist. In alt.atheism Jeanne Douglas kept asking the question, “what is an evolutionist”?
Certainty and Circularity in Evolutionary Taxonomy
Evolution 21: 174-189 March, 1967
“It was only a matter of time until the evolutionists themselves were accused of reasoning in vicious circles.”
I just selected ONE sentence from this article of which the word “evolutionist” is used many more times.
correct.
Writing to yourself yet again, John McCoy?
Amazing Answers
2018-06-12 05:35:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
Post by Amazing Answers
Post by Amazing Answers
Evolutionist
Evolutionists like to tell us that the word “evolutionist” is a falsehood, an invention of creationists.
This claim probably emanated from Talkorigins in threads in which evolutionists were continually upset that I referred to evolutionists as opposed to creationists. I guess they don’t like the “ist” in the evolutionist. In alt.atheism Jeanne Douglas kept asking the question, “what is an evolutionist”?
Certainty and Circularity in Evolutionary Taxonomy
Evolution 21: 174-189 March, 1967
“It was only a matter of time until the evolutionists themselves were accused of reasoning in vicious circles.”
I just selected ONE sentence from this article of which the word “evolutionist” is used many more times.
correct.
Writing to yourself yet again, John McCoy?
if you won't do it, who will?
Yap Honghor
2018-06-11 23:58:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Amazing Answers
Evolutionist
Evolutionists like to tell us that the word “evolutionist” is a falsehood, an invention of creationists.
This claim probably emanated from Talkorigins in threads in which evolutionists were continually upset that I referred to evolutionists as opposed to creationists. I guess they don’t like the “ist” in the evolutionist. In alt.atheism Jeanne Douglas kept asking the question, “what is an evolutionist”?
Certainty and Circularity in Evolutionary Taxonomy
Evolution 21: 174-189 March, 1967
“It was only a matter of time until the evolutionists themselves were accused of reasoning in vicious circles.”
I just selected ONE sentence from this article of which the word “evolutionist” is used many more times.
Evolutionists are followers of reality and science...
You have hard time realizing that???
hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
2018-06-12 04:03:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Amazing Answers
Evolutionist
Evolutionists like to tell us that the word “evolutionist” is a falsehood, an invention of creationists.
This claim probably emanated from Talkorigins in threads in which evolutionists were continually upset that I referred to evolutionists as opposed to creationists. I guess they don’t like the “ist” in the evolutionist. In alt.atheism Jeanne Douglas kept asking the question, “what is an evolutionist”?
There he goes again.
Post by Amazing Answers
Certainty and Circularity in Evolutionary Taxonomy
Evolution 21: 174-189 March, 1967
“It was only a matter of time until the evolutionists themselves were accused of reasoning in vicious circles.”
I just selected ONE sentence from this article of which the word “evolutionist” is used many more times.
So?
%
2018-06-12 04:27:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
Post by Amazing Answers
Evolutionist
Evolutionists like to tell us that the word “evolutionist” is a falsehood, an invention of creationists.
This claim probably emanated from Talkorigins in threads in which evolutionists were continually upset that I referred to evolutionists as opposed to creationists. I guess they don’t like the “ist” in the evolutionist. In alt.atheism Jeanne Douglas kept asking the question, “what is an evolutionist”?
There he goes again.
Post by Amazing Answers
Certainty and Circularity in Evolutionary Taxonomy
Evolution 21: 174-189 March, 1967
“It was only a matter of time until the evolutionists themselves were accused of reasoning in vicious circles.”
I just selected ONE sentence from this article of which the word “evolutionist” is used many more times.
So?
good answer , where'd you get it
Christopher A. Lee
2018-06-12 12:54:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 21:03:22 -0700 (PDT), "hypatiab7(hypatiab7)"
Post by hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
Post by Amazing Answers
Evolutionist
Evolutionists
No such thing, outside the dishonesty of creationists who need to
imagine that evolution is an ideology, not a scientific fact, ie with
so much confirmation it
Post by hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
Post by Amazing Answers
like to tell us that the word “evolutionist” is a
falsehood, an invention of creationists.
The way this liar uses it, is a transparent, offensive falsehood, an
invention of creationists.
Post by hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
Post by Amazing Answers
This claim probably emanated from Talkorigins in threads in
which evolutionists were continually upset that I referred to
evolutionists as opposed to creationists. I guess they don’t
like the “ist” in the evolutionist.
More deliberate dishonesty. What these liars pretend is "evolutionism"
is simply living in the real world and accepting the results of more
than a century and a half of objective research which has led to
whole new sciences and technologies we would not even have without it
and that have transformed the way we live today.

He knows it's nothing to do with liking and everything to do with
achieving communication, which cannot happen when he misuses
language.

Trouble is, his "mind" switches off when presented with objective
facts which contradict his brainwashing, due cognitive dissonance.

It's like these liars calling people living in the world of reality,
"gravityists"

On the rare occasions I've seen one of these madmen defining
"evolutionist", it's "someone who believes in evolution" but evolution
isn't a belief so (the way they use it) there are no such people.
Post by hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
Post by Amazing Answers
In alt.atheism Jeanne Douglas kept asking the question, “what is
an evolutionist”?
To bring the point home that the way McShifforbrains uses it, is a
thoroughly dishonest attempt to level the playing field between
objective reality and his deluded fantasy.
Post by hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
There he goes again.
Deliberately being both dishonest and stupid.
Post by hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
Post by Amazing Answers
Actually, Charles Darwin used the word evolutionist. You can find the word
When the word meant what the Liars For God use it as today - before it
was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

"In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it
would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I suppose that
apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not
merit equal time in physics classrooms."

- Stephen Jay Gould
Post by hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
Post by Amazing Answers
“evolutionists” used all the time in evolutionist written books and
By people using the language of creationist liars like McShitforbrains
McCoy, to try and get through to them and failing because in their
minds, its use seems to confirm that it is merely a belief or an
ideology.

Around these morons, you have to take care to use language
unambiguously because they will always filter it through their deluded
fantasy.

Jeanne, I and others try to do this - and instead of taking any
notice, these morons become even more dishonest.
Post by hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
Post by Amazing Answers
Certainty and Circularity in Evolutionary Taxonomy
Evolution 21: 174-189 March, 1967
“It was only a matter of time until the evolutionists themselves
were accused of reasoning in vicious circles.”
Did the author of this out-of-context mined quote explain what the
word was supposed to mean?

Because, no matter how often creationists lie about it, evolution
isn't an -ism.
Post by hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
Post by Amazing Answers
I just selected ONE sentence from this article of which the word
“evolutionist” is used many more times.
To be dishonest in yet another thread he started based upon
creationist lies, because he refuses to understand that evolution
isn't what he imagines.
Post by hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
So?
I just wish that people who know what evolution actually is, wouldn't
fall into the creationists' linguistic trap. Because when they use the
creationists' dishonest language it gives tacit acceptance of their
meaning. Thus confirming it in what passes for creationists' minds.
Amazing Answers
2018-06-13 12:48:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 21:03:22 -0700 (PDT), "hypatiab7(hypatiab7)"
Post by hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
Post by Amazing Answers
Evolutionist
Evolutionists
No such thing, outside the dishonesty of creationists who need to
imagine that evolution is an ideology, not a scientific fact, ie with
so much confirmation it
just name one example, just one example of creationist dishonesty.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
Post by Amazing Answers
like to tell us that the word “evolutionist” is a
falsehood, an invention of creationists.
The way this liar uses it, is a transparent, offensive falsehood, an
invention of creationists.
Post by hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
Post by Amazing Answers
This claim probably emanated from Talkorigins in threads in
which evolutionists were continually upset that I referred to
evolutionists as opposed to creationists. I guess they don’t
like the “ist” in the evolutionist.
More deliberate dishonesty. What these liars pretend is "evolutionism"
is simply living in the real world and accepting the results of more
than a century and a half of objective research which has led to
whole new sciences and technologies we would not even have without it
and that have transformed the way we live today.
He knows it's nothing to do with liking and everything to do with
achieving communication, which cannot happen when he misuses
language.
Trouble is, his "mind" switches off when presented with objective
facts which contradict his brainwashing, due cognitive dissonance.
It's like these liars calling people living in the world of reality,
"gravityists"
On the rare occasions I've seen one of these madmen defining
"evolutionist", it's "someone who believes in evolution" but evolution
isn't a belief so (the way they use it) there are no such people.
Post by hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
Post by Amazing Answers
In alt.atheism Jeanne Douglas kept asking the question, “what is
an evolutionist”?
To bring the point home that the way McShifforbrains uses it, is a
thoroughly dishonest attempt to level the playing field between
objective reality and his deluded fantasy.
Post by hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
There he goes again.
Deliberately being both dishonest and stupid.
Post by hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
Post by Amazing Answers
Actually, Charles Darwin used the word evolutionist. You can find the word
When the word meant what the Liars For God use it as today - before it
was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
"In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it
would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I suppose that
apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not
merit equal time in physics classrooms."
- Stephen Jay Gould
Post by hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
Post by Amazing Answers
“evolutionists” used all the time in evolutionist written books and
By people using the language of creationist liars like McShitforbrains
McCoy, to try and get through to them and failing because in their
minds, its use seems to confirm that it is merely a belief or an
ideology.
Around these morons, you have to take care to use language
unambiguously because they will always filter it through their deluded
fantasy.
Jeanne, I and others try to do this - and instead of taking any
notice, these morons become even more dishonest.
Post by hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
Post by Amazing Answers
Certainty and Circularity in Evolutionary Taxonomy
Evolution 21: 174-189 March, 1967
“It was only a matter of time until the evolutionists themselves
were accused of reasoning in vicious circles.”
Did the author of this out-of-context mined quote explain what the
word was supposed to mean?
Because, no matter how often creationists lie about it, evolution
isn't an -ism.
Post by hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
Post by Amazing Answers
I just selected ONE sentence from this article of which the word
“evolutionist” is used many more times.
To be dishonest in yet another thread he started based upon
creationist lies, because he refuses to understand that evolution
isn't what he imagines.
Post by hypatiab7(hypatiab7)
So?
I just wish that people who know what evolution actually is, wouldn't
fall into the creationists' linguistic trap. Because when they use the
creationists' dishonest language it gives tacit acceptance of their
meaning. Thus confirming it in what passes for creationists' minds.
default
2018-06-12 08:36:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 08:40:31 -0700 (PDT), Amazing Answers
Post by Amazing Answers
Evolutionist
Evolutionists like to tell us that the word “evolutionist” is a falsehood, an invention of creationists.
This claim probably emanated from Talkorigins in threads in which evolutionists were continually upset that I referred to evolutionists as opposed to creationists. I guess they don’t like the “ist” in the evolutionist. In alt.atheism Jeanne Douglas kept asking the question, “what is an evolutionist”?
Certainty and Circularity in Evolutionary Taxonomy
Evolution 21: 174-189 March, 1967
“It was only a matter of time until the evolutionists themselves were accused of reasoning in vicious circles.”
I just selected ONE sentence from this article of which the word “evolutionist” is used many more times.
Congratulations, all that verbiage and you made no significant point.
Malte Runz
2018-06-12 09:24:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 08:40:31 -0700 (PDT), Amazing Answers
Post by Amazing Answers
Evolutionist
Evolutionists like to tell us that the word “evolutionist” is a falsehood, an invention of creationists.
The problem lies in the way creationists use the label. 'Hindus
believe that ...' 'Christians believe that ...' 'Evolutionists believe
that ...'.
Accepting that evolution is a fact is not adhering to a set of dogmas
dug out of some ancient guy's ass. When creationists use the term
"evolutionist" it's a dishonest attempt to pull science down to their
primitive level of understanding and explaining the physical world
around us all.

(snip)
--
Malte Runz
Christopher A. Lee
2018-06-12 12:57:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 11:24:37 +0200, Malte Runz
Post by default
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 08:40:31 -0700 (PDT), Amazing Answers
Post by Amazing Answers
Evolutionist
Evolutionists like to tell us that the word “evolutionist” is a
falsehood, an invention of creationists.
The problem lies in the way creationists use the label. 'Hindus
believe that ...' 'Christians believe that ...' 'Evolutionists believe
that ...'.
Accepting that evolution is a fact is not adhering to a set of dogmas
dug out of some ancient guy's ass. When creationists use the term
"evolutionist" it's a dishonest attempt to pull science down to their
primitive level of understanding and explaining the physical world
around us all.
Exactly. And when non-creationists use the word, it gives tacit
acceptance of the creationist meaning with all its nuances.
Post by default
(snip)
Malte Runz
2018-06-12 20:43:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 07:57:46 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 11:24:37 +0200, Malte Runz
Post by default
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 08:40:31 -0700 (PDT), Amazing Answers
Post by Amazing Answers
Evolutionist
Evolutionists like to tell us that the word “evolutionist” is a
falsehood, an invention of creationists.
The problem lies in the way creationists use the label. 'Hindus
believe that ...' 'Christians believe that ...' 'Evolutionists believe
that ...'.
Accepting that evolution is a fact is not adhering to a set of dogmas
dug out of some ancient guy's ass. When creationists use the term
"evolutionist" it's a dishonest attempt to pull science down to their
primitive level of understanding and explaining the physical world
around us all.
Exactly. And when non-creationists use the word, it gives tacit
acceptance of the creationist meaning with all its nuances.
"Darwinist" is another good one.
--
Malte Runz
John Locke
2018-06-12 14:26:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 11:24:37 +0200, Malte Runz
Post by default
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 08:40:31 -0700 (PDT), Amazing Answers
Post by Amazing Answers
Evolutionist
Evolutionists like to tell us that the word “evolutionist” is a falsehood, an invention of creationists.
The problem lies in the way creationists use the label. 'Hindus
believe that ...' 'Christians believe that ...' 'Evolutionists believe
that ...'.
Accepting that evolution is a fact is not adhering to a set of dogmas
dug out of some ancient guy's ass. When creationists use the term
"evolutionist" it's a dishonest attempt to pull science down to their
primitive level of understanding and explaining the physical world
around us all.
..yes, spot on. Employing labels in a demanding manor is a
common tactic for creationists. They see science as a
challenge to their nonsensical god beliefs and will attempt to
undermine science in any manner they deem appropriate.
Post by default
(snip)
Malte Runz
2018-06-12 20:40:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 07:26:41 -0700, John Locke
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 11:24:37 +0200, Malte Runz
Post by default
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 08:40:31 -0700 (PDT), Amazing Answers
Post by Amazing Answers
Evolutionist
Evolutionists like to tell us that the word “evolutionist” is a falsehood, an invention of creationists.
The problem lies in the way creationists use the label. 'Hindus
believe that ...' 'Christians believe that ...' 'Evolutionists believe
that ...'.
Accepting that evolution is a fact is not adhering to a set of dogmas
dug out of some ancient guy's ass. When creationists use the term
"evolutionist" it's a dishonest attempt to pull science down to their
primitive level of understanding and explaining the physical world
around us all.
..yes, spot on. Employing labels in a demanding manor is a
common tactic for creationists. They see science as a
challenge to their nonsensical god beliefs and will attempt to
undermine science in any manner they deem appropriate.
And where it turns from silly, yet somewhat annoying, to hilariously
absurd is when the creationist say 'Evolution is also just a
religion!'
--
Malte Runz
aaa
2018-06-12 16:03:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by default
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 08:40:31 -0700 (PDT), Amazing Answers
Post by Amazing Answers
Evolutionist
Evolutionists like to tell us that the word “evolutionist” is a falsehood, an invention of creationists.
The problem lies in the way creationists use the label. 'Hindus
believe that ...' 'Christians believe that ...' 'Evolutionists believe
that ...'.
Accepting that evolution is a fact is not adhering to a set of dogmas
dug out of some ancient guy's ass. When creationists use the term
"evolutionist" it's a dishonest attempt to pull science down to their
primitive level of understanding and explaining the physical world
around us all.
(snip)
Science is only a provisional human belief subjected to change and
modification as the human understanding of the nature of the human
existence advances, is it not? How is science any more believable than
any other human belief on the face of planet?

Still, that is assuming that evolution has anything to do with science,
when in fact as a mere theory of life, evolution can only be defined as
a theory of philosophy instead.

Now, if we can recognize that evolution is just another philosophical
theory the same as any other religious theories on the face of planet to
explain life, we should see no fundamental difference between an
evolutionist and a superstitious ghost chaser. Both should be recognized
as pseudo-scientists.
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
Smiler
2018-06-12 21:39:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by default
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 08:40:31 -0700 (PDT), Amazing Answers
Post by Amazing Answers
Evolutionist
Evolutionists like to tell us that the word “evolutionist” is a
falsehood, an invention of creationists.
The problem lies in the way creationists use the label. 'Hindus
believe that ...' 'Christians believe that ...' 'Evolutionists believe
that ...'.
Accepting that evolution is a fact is not adhering to a set of dogmas
dug out of some ancient guy's ass. When creationists use the term
"evolutionist" it's a dishonest attempt to pull science down to their
primitive level of understanding and explaining the physical world
around us all.
(snip)
Science is only a provisional human belief subjected to change and
modification as the human understanding of the nature of the human
existence advances, is it not? How is science any more believable than
any other human belief on the face of planet?
Because it has EVIDENCE, unlike you and your insane beliefs.
Post by aaa
Still, that is assuming that evolution has anything to do with science,
when in fact as a mere theory of life, evolution can only be defined as
a theory of philosophy instead.
Bullshit.
Post by aaa
Now, if we can recognize that evolution is just another philosophical
theory the same as any other religious theories on the face of planet to
explain life, we should see no fundamental difference between an
evolutionist and a superstitious ghost chaser. Both should be recognized
as pseudo-scientists.
That pseudo-scientist would be you.
--
Smiler, The godless one. a.a.# 2279
All gods are tailored to order. They're made
to exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
aaa
2018-06-13 02:32:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by default
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 08:40:31 -0700 (PDT), Amazing Answers
Post by Amazing Answers
Evolutionist
Evolutionists like to tell us that the word “evolutionist” is a
falsehood, an invention of creationists.
The problem lies in the way creationists use the label. 'Hindus
believe that ...' 'Christians believe that ...' 'Evolutionists believe
that ...'.
Accepting that evolution is a fact is not adhering to a set of dogmas
dug out of some ancient guy's ass. When creationists use the term
"evolutionist" it's a dishonest attempt to pull science down to their
primitive level of understanding and explaining the physical world
around us all.
(snip)
Science is only a provisional human belief subjected to change and
modification as the human understanding of the nature of the human
existence advances, is it not? How is science any more believable than
any other human belief on the face of planet?
Because it has EVIDENCE, unlike you and your insane beliefs.
Not true. I have shown you the spiritual evidence. You are too blind to
recognize such evidence. That's due to your own lack of philosophical
understanding. You can't blame me for that.
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Still, that is assuming that evolution has anything to do with science,
when in fact as a mere theory of life, evolution can only be defined as
a theory of philosophy instead.
Bullshit.
It's a simple fact you don't want to admit.
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Now, if we can recognize that evolution is just another philosophical
theory the same as any other religious theories on the face of planet to
explain life, we should see no fundamental difference between an
evolutionist and a superstitious ghost chaser. Both should be recognized
as pseudo-scientists.
That pseudo-scientist would be you.
I can't be a pseudo-scientist because I don't even claim to be a
scientist. Sadly, the evolutionists don't know what to do without
claiming to be scientists. Their total misunderstanding of science and
their total lack of understanding of philosophy should make them the
laughingstock of the modern world.
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
Smiler
2018-06-13 23:24:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by default
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 08:40:31 -0700 (PDT), Amazing Answers
Post by Amazing Answers
Evolutionist
Evolutionists like to tell us that the word “evolutionist” is a
falsehood, an invention of creationists.
The problem lies in the way creationists use the label. 'Hindus
believe that ...' 'Christians believe that ...' 'Evolutionists
believe that ...'.
Accepting that evolution is a fact is not adhering to a set of dogmas
dug out of some ancient guy's ass. When creationists use the term
"evolutionist" it's a dishonest attempt to pull science down to their
primitive level of understanding and explaining the physical world
around us all.
(snip)
Science is only a provisional human belief subjected to change and
modification as the human understanding of the nature of the human
existence advances, is it not? How is science any more believable than
any other human belief on the face of planet?
Because it has EVIDENCE, unlike you and your insane beliefs.
Not true. I have shown you the spiritual evidence.
You have shown no such thing, liar.
Post by aaa
You are too blind to recognize such evidence.
You are too insane to recognise that it isn't evidence, merely your
unevidenced belief.
Post by aaa
That's due to your own lack of philosophical
understanding. You can't blame me for that.
That's due to your own paedophilia. You can't blame me for that.
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Still, that is assuming that evolution has anything to do with
science, when in fact as a mere theory of life, evolution can only be
defined as a theory of philosophy instead.
Bullshit.
It's a simple fact you don't want to admit.
Facts are evidenced. Your bullshit isn't.
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Now, if we can recognize that evolution is just another philosophical
theory the same as any other religious theories on the face of planet
to explain life, we should see no fundamental difference between an
evolutionist and a superstitious ghost chaser. Both should be
recognized as pseudo-scientists.
That pseudo-scientist would be you.
I can't be a pseudo-scientist because I don't even claim to be a
scientist.
Yet you claim to know the SLoT better than a real scientist.
Post by aaa
Sadly, the evolutionists don't know what to do without
claiming to be scientists. Their total misunderstanding of science and
their total lack of understanding of philosophy should make them the
laughingstock of the modern world.
It is you who is the laughing stock around here.
--
Smiler, The godless one. a.a.# 2279
All gods are tailored to order. They're made
to exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
aaa
2018-06-16 02:24:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by default
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 08:40:31 -0700 (PDT), Amazing Answers
Post by Amazing Answers
Evolutionist
Evolutionists like to tell us that the word “evolutionist” is a
falsehood, an invention of creationists.
The problem lies in the way creationists use the label. 'Hindus
believe that ...' 'Christians believe that ...' 'Evolutionists
believe that ...'.
Accepting that evolution is a fact is not adhering to a set of dogmas
dug out of some ancient guy's ass. When creationists use the term
"evolutionist" it's a dishonest attempt to pull science down to their
primitive level of understanding and explaining the physical world
around us all.
(snip)
Science is only a provisional human belief subjected to change and
modification as the human understanding of the nature of the human
existence advances, is it not? How is science any more believable than
any other human belief on the face of planet?
Because it has EVIDENCE, unlike you and your insane beliefs.
Not true. I have shown you the spiritual evidence.
You have shown no such thing, liar.
That's just your blind denial. You need to realize your own blindness.
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
You are too blind to recognize such evidence.
You are too insane to recognise that it isn't evidence, merely your
unevidenced belief.
That's what you believe, but you have no evidence to support your such
belief.
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
That's due to your own lack of philosophical
understanding. You can't blame me for that.
That's due to your own paedophilia. You can't blame me for that.
What I said is a fact you can't deny. If you are capable to understand
philosophy, you would have realized the spiritual evidence I have shown.
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Still, that is assuming that evolution has anything to do with
science, when in fact as a mere theory of life, evolution can only be
defined as a theory of philosophy instead.
Bullshit.
It's a simple fact you don't want to admit.
Facts are evidenced. Your bullshit isn't.
That only proves your spiritual blindness.
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Now, if we can recognize that evolution is just another philosophical
theory the same as any other religious theories on the face of planet
to explain life, we should see no fundamental difference between an
evolutionist and a superstitious ghost chaser. Both should be
recognized as pseudo-scientists.
That pseudo-scientist would be you.
I can't be a pseudo-scientist because I don't even claim to be a
scientist.
Yet you claim to know the SLoT better than a real scientist.
I do.

:-)
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Sadly, the evolutionists don't know what to do without
claiming to be scientists. Their total misunderstanding of science and
their total lack of understanding of philosophy should make them the
laughingstock of the modern world.
It is you who is the laughing stock around here.
I don't think so. Based on my simple understanding in philosophy and in
the second law, I have proven evolution wrong too many times.
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
Smiler
2018-06-17 00:39:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by default
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 08:40:31 -0700 (PDT), Amazing Answers
Post by Amazing Answers
Evolutionist
Evolutionists like to tell us that the word “evolutionist” is a
falsehood, an invention of creationists.
The problem lies in the way creationists use the label. 'Hindus
believe that ...' 'Christians believe that ...' 'Evolutionists
believe that ...'.
Accepting that evolution is a fact is not adhering to a set of
dogmas dug out of some ancient guy's ass. When creationists use the
term "evolutionist" it's a dishonest attempt to pull science down
to their primitive level of understanding and explaining the
physical world around us all.
(snip)
Science is only a provisional human belief subjected to change and
modification as the human understanding of the nature of the human
existence advances, is it not? How is science any more believable
than any other human belief on the face of planet?
Because it has EVIDENCE, unlike you and your insane beliefs.
Not true. I have shown you the spiritual evidence.
You have shown no such thing, liar.
That's just your blind denial. You need to realize your own blindness.
That's just your total insanity. You need to realize your paedophilia.
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
You are too blind to recognize such evidence.
You are too insane to recognise that it isn't evidence, merely your
unevidenced belief.
That's what you believe, but you have no evidence to support your such
belief.
That's what you believe, but you have no evidence to support your such belief.
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
That's due to your own lack of philosophical understanding. You can't
blame me for that.
That's due to your own paedophilia. You can't blame me for that.
What I said is a fact you can't deny. If you are capable to understand
philosophy, you would have realized the spiritual evidence I have shown.
What I said is a fact you can't deny. If you were capable of understanding
your paedophilia, you would have realised that you are insane.
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Still, that is assuming that evolution has anything to do with
science, when in fact as a mere theory of life, evolution can only
be defined as a theory of philosophy instead.
Bullshit.
It's a simple fact you don't want to admit.
Facts are evidenced. Your bullshit isn't.
That only proves your spiritual blindness.
That only proves your paedophilia.
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Now, if we can recognize that evolution is just another
philosophical theory the same as any other religious theories on the
face of planet to explain life, we should see no fundamental
difference between an evolutionist and a superstitious ghost chaser.
Both should be recognized as pseudo-scientists.
That pseudo-scientist would be you.
I can't be a pseudo-scientist because I don't even claim to be a
scientist.
Yet you claim to know the SLoT better than a real scientist.
I do.
Your elephantiasis of the ego is showing again, Bloaty Head.
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Sadly, the evolutionists don't know what to do without claiming to be
scientists. Their total misunderstanding of science and their total
lack of understanding of philosophy should make them the laughingstock
of the modern world.
It is you who is the laughing stock around here.
I don't think
We know that.
Post by aaa
so. Based on my simple understanding in philosophy and in
the second law, I have proven evolution wrong too many times.
Where 'too many times' == zero.
--
Smiler, The godless one. a.a.# 2279
All gods are tailored to order. They're made
to exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Christopher A. Lee
2018-06-17 06:59:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by default
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 08:40:31 -0700 (PDT), Amazing Answers
Post by Amazing Answers
Evolutionist
Evolutionists like to tell us that the word “evolutionist” is a
falsehood, an invention of creationists.
The problem lies in the way creationists use the label. 'Hindus
believe that ...' 'Christians believe that ...' 'Evolutionists
believe that ...'.
Accepting that evolution is a fact is not adhering to a set of
dogmas dug out of some ancient guy's ass. When creationists use the
term "evolutionist" it's a dishonest attempt to pull science down
to their primitive level of understanding and explaining the
physical world around us all.
(snip)
Science is only a provisional human belief subjected to change and
modification as the human understanding of the nature of the human
existence advances, is it not? How is science any more believable
than any other human belief on the face of planet?
Because it has EVIDENCE, unlike you and your insane beliefs.
Not true. I have shown you the spiritual evidence.
You have shown no such thing, liar.
That's just your blind denial. You need to realize your own blindness.
That's just your total insanity. You need to realize your paedophilia.
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
You are too blind to recognize such evidence.
You are too insane to recognise that it isn't evidence, merely your
unevidenced belief.
That's what you believe, but you have no evidence to support your such belief.
That's what you believe, but you have no evidence to support your such belief.
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
That's due to your own lack of philosophical understanding. You can't
blame me for that.
That's due to your own paedophilia. You can't blame me for that.
What I said is a fact you can't deny. If you are capable to understand
philosophy, you would have realized the spiritual evidence I have shown.
What I said is a fact you can't deny. If you were capable of understanding
your paedophilia, you would have realised that you are insane.
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Still, that is assuming that evolution has anything to do with
science, when in fact as a mere theory of life, evolution can only
be defined as a theory of philosophy instead.
Bullshit.
It's a simple fact you don't want to admit.
Facts are evidenced. Your bullshit isn't.
That only proves your spiritual blindness.
That only proves your paedophilia.
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Now, if we can recognize that evolution is just another
philosophical theory the same as any other religious theories on the
face of planet to explain life, we should see no fundamental
difference between an evolutionist and a superstitious ghost chaser.
Both should be recognized as pseudo-scientists.
That pseudo-scientist would be you.
I can't be a pseudo-scientist because I don't even claim to be a
scientist.
Yet you claim to know the SLoT better than a real scientist.
I do.
Your elephantiasis of the ego is showing again, Bloaty Head.
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Sadly, the evolutionists don't know what to do without claiming to be
scientists. Their total misunderstanding of science and their total
lack of understanding of philosophy should make them the laughingstock
of the modern world.
It is you who is the laughing stock around here.
I don't think
We know that.
Post by aaa
so. Based on my simple understanding in philosophy and in
the second law, I have proven evolution wrong too many times.
Where 'too many times' == zero.
Which is more mentally ill?

That he believes the neverending nonsense he has been obsessively
wiping in our faces for so long, which is nothing to do with our
atheism - or he doesn't but does it anyway?
aaa
2018-06-18 14:54:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by default
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 08:40:31 -0700 (PDT), Amazing Answers
Post by Amazing Answers
Evolutionist
Evolutionists like to tell us that the word “evolutionist” is a
falsehood, an invention of creationists.
The problem lies in the way creationists use the label. 'Hindus
believe that ...' 'Christians believe that ...' 'Evolutionists
believe that ...'.
Accepting that evolution is a fact is not adhering to a set of
dogmas dug out of some ancient guy's ass. When creationists use the
term "evolutionist" it's a dishonest attempt to pull science down
to their primitive level of understanding and explaining the
physical world around us all.
(snip)
Science is only a provisional human belief subjected to change and
modification as the human understanding of the nature of the human
existence advances, is it not? How is science any more believable
than any other human belief on the face of planet?
Because it has EVIDENCE, unlike you and your insane beliefs.
Not true. I have shown you the spiritual evidence.
You have shown no such thing, liar.
That's just your blind denial. You need to realize your own blindness.
That's just your total insanity. You need to realize your paedophilia.
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
You are too blind to recognize such evidence.
You are too insane to recognise that it isn't evidence, merely your
unevidenced belief.
That's what you believe, but you have no evidence to support your such belief.
That's what you believe, but you have no evidence to support your such belief.
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
That's due to your own lack of philosophical understanding. You can't
blame me for that.
That's due to your own paedophilia. You can't blame me for that.
What I said is a fact you can't deny. If you are capable to understand
philosophy, you would have realized the spiritual evidence I have shown.
What I said is a fact you can't deny. If you were capable of understanding
your paedophilia, you would have realised that you are insane.
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Still, that is assuming that evolution has anything to do with
science, when in fact as a mere theory of life, evolution can only
be defined as a theory of philosophy instead.
Bullshit.
It's a simple fact you don't want to admit.
Facts are evidenced. Your bullshit isn't.
That only proves your spiritual blindness.
That only proves your paedophilia.
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Now, if we can recognize that evolution is just another
philosophical theory the same as any other religious theories on the
face of planet to explain life, we should see no fundamental
difference between an evolutionist and a superstitious ghost chaser.
Both should be recognized as pseudo-scientists.
That pseudo-scientist would be you.
I can't be a pseudo-scientist because I don't even claim to be a
scientist.
Yet you claim to know the SLoT better than a real scientist.
I do.
Your elephantiasis of the ego is showing again, Bloaty Head.
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Sadly, the evolutionists don't know what to do without claiming to be
scientists. Their total misunderstanding of science and their total
lack of understanding of philosophy should make them the laughingstock
of the modern world.
It is you who is the laughing stock around here.
I don't think
We know that.
Post by aaa
so. Based on my simple understanding in philosophy and in
the second law, I have proven evolution wrong too many times.
Where 'too many times' == zero.
Blind denial.
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
Tim
2018-06-18 18:57:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by default
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 08:40:31 -0700 (PDT), Amazing Answers
Post by Amazing Answers
Evolutionist
Evolutionists like to tell us that the word “evolutionist” is a
falsehood, an invention of creationists.
The problem lies in the way creationists use the label. 'Hindus
believe that ...' 'Christians believe that ...' 'Evolutionists
believe that ...'.
Accepting that evolution is a fact is not adhering to a set of
dogmas dug out of some ancient guy's ass. When creationists use the
term "evolutionist" it's a dishonest attempt to pull science down
to their primitive level of understanding and explaining the
physical world around us all.
(snip)
Science is only a provisional human belief subjected to change and
modification as the human understanding of the nature of the human
existence advances, is it not? How is science any more believable
than any other human belief on the face of planet?
Because it has EVIDENCE, unlike you and your insane beliefs.
Not true. I have shown you the spiritual evidence.
You have shown no such thing, liar.
That's just your blind denial. You need to realize your own blindness.
That's just your total insanity. You need to realize your paedophilia.
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
You are too blind to recognize such evidence.
You are too insane to recognise that it isn't evidence, merely your
unevidenced belief.
That's what you believe, but you have no evidence to support your such belief.
That's what you believe, but you have no evidence to support your such belief.
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
That's due to your own lack of philosophical understanding. You can't
blame me for that.
That's due to your own paedophilia. You can't blame me for that.
What I said is a fact you can't deny. If you are capable to understand
philosophy, you would have realized the spiritual evidence I have shown.
What I said is a fact you can't deny. If you were capable of understanding
your paedophilia, you would have realised that you are insane.
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Still, that is assuming that evolution has anything to do with
science, when in fact as a mere theory of life, evolution can only
be defined as a theory of philosophy instead.
Bullshit.
It's a simple fact you don't want to admit.
Facts are evidenced. Your bullshit isn't.
That only proves your spiritual blindness.
That only proves your paedophilia.
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Now, if we can recognize that evolution is just another
philosophical theory the same as any other religious theories on the
face of planet to explain life, we should see no fundamental
difference between an evolutionist and a superstitious ghost chaser.
Both should be recognized as pseudo-scientists.
That pseudo-scientist would be you.
I can't be a pseudo-scientist because I don't even claim to be a
scientist.
Yet you claim to know the SLoT better than a real scientist.
I do.
Your elephantiasis of the ego is showing again, Bloaty Head.
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Sadly, the evolutionists don't know what to do without claiming to be
scientists. Their total misunderstanding of science and their total
lack of understanding of philosophy should make them the laughingstock
of the modern world.
It is you who is the laughing stock around here.
I don't think
We know that.
Post by aaa
so. Based on my simple understanding in philosophy and in
the second law, I have proven evolution wrong too many times.
Where 'too many times' == zero.
Blind denial.
That's just another one of your tired old blind assertions.
aaa
2018-06-19 16:30:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tim
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by default
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 08:40:31 -0700 (PDT), Amazing Answers
Post by Amazing Answers
Evolutionist
Evolutionists like to tell us that the word “evolutionist” is a
falsehood, an invention of creationists.
The problem lies in the way creationists use the label. 'Hindus
believe that ...' 'Christians believe that ...' 'Evolutionists
believe that ...'.
Accepting that evolution is a fact is not adhering to a set of
dogmas dug out of some ancient guy's ass. When creationists use the
term "evolutionist" it's a dishonest attempt to pull science down
to their primitive level of understanding and explaining the
physical world around us all.
(snip)
Science is only a provisional human belief subjected to change and
modification as the human understanding of the nature of the human
existence advances, is it not? How is science any more believable
than any other human belief on the face of planet?
Because it has EVIDENCE, unlike you and your insane beliefs.
Not true. I have shown you the spiritual evidence.
You have shown no such thing, liar.
That's just your blind denial. You need to realize your own blindness.
That's just your total insanity. You need to realize your paedophilia.
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
You are too blind to recognize such evidence.
You are too insane to recognise that it isn't evidence, merely your
unevidenced belief.
That's what you believe, but you have no evidence to support your such belief.
That's what you believe, but you have no evidence to support your such belief.
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
That's due to your own lack of philosophical understanding. You can't
blame me for that.
That's due to your own paedophilia. You can't blame me for that.
What I said is a fact you can't deny. If you are capable to understand
philosophy, you would have realized the spiritual evidence I have shown.
What I said is a fact you can't deny. If you were capable of understanding
your paedophilia, you would have realised that you are insane.
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Still, that is assuming that evolution has anything to do with
science, when in fact as a mere theory of life, evolution can only
be defined as a theory of philosophy instead.
Bullshit.
It's a simple fact you don't want to admit.
Facts are evidenced. Your bullshit isn't.
That only proves your spiritual blindness.
That only proves your paedophilia.
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Now, if we can recognize that evolution is just another
philosophical theory the same as any other religious theories on the
face of planet to explain life, we should see no fundamental
difference between an evolutionist and a superstitious ghost chaser.
Both should be recognized as pseudo-scientists.
That pseudo-scientist would be you.
I can't be a pseudo-scientist because I don't even claim to be a
scientist.
Yet you claim to know the SLoT better than a real scientist.
I do.
Your elephantiasis of the ego is showing again, Bloaty Head.
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Sadly, the evolutionists don't know what to do without claiming to be
scientists. Their total misunderstanding of science and their total
lack of understanding of philosophy should make them the laughingstock
of the modern world.
It is you who is the laughing stock around here.
I don't think
We know that.
Post by aaa
so. Based on my simple understanding in philosophy and in
the second law, I have proven evolution wrong too many times.
Where 'too many times' == zero.
Blind denial.
That's just another one of your tired old blind assertions.
Prove it. What is it blind to?
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
Cloud Hobbit
2018-06-21 03:29:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Blind denial.
That's just another one of your tired old blind assertions.
Prove it. What is it blind to?
- show quoted text -

Reality.
aaa
2018-06-21 17:50:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
Blind denial.
That's just another one of your tired old blind assertions.
Prove it. What is it blind to?
- show quoted text -
Reality.
How?
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
Tim
2018-06-21 18:48:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Tim
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by default
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 08:40:31 -0700 (PDT), Amazing Answers
Post by Amazing Answers
Evolutionist
Evolutionists like to tell us that the word “evolutionist” is a
falsehood, an invention of creationists.
The problem lies in the way creationists use the label. 'Hindus
believe that ...' 'Christians believe that ...' 'Evolutionists
believe that ...'.
Accepting that evolution is a fact is not adhering to a set of
dogmas dug out of some ancient guy's ass. When creationists use the
term "evolutionist" it's a dishonest attempt to pull science down
to their primitive level of understanding and explaining the
physical world around us all.
(snip)
Science is only a provisional human belief subjected to change and
modification as the human understanding of the nature of the human
existence advances, is it not? How is science any more believable
than any other human belief on the face of planet?
Because it has EVIDENCE, unlike you and your insane beliefs.
Not true. I have shown you the spiritual evidence.
You have shown no such thing, liar.
That's just your blind denial. You need to realize your own blindness.
That's just your total insanity. You need to realize your paedophilia.
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
You are too blind to recognize such evidence.
You are too insane to recognise that it isn't evidence, merely your
unevidenced belief.
That's what you believe, but you have no evidence to support your such belief.
That's what you believe, but you have no evidence to support your such belief.
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
That's due to your own lack of philosophical understanding. You can't
blame me for that.
That's due to your own paedophilia. You can't blame me for that.
What I said is a fact you can't deny. If you are capable to understand
philosophy, you would have realized the spiritual evidence I have shown.
What I said is a fact you can't deny. If you were capable of understanding
your paedophilia, you would have realised that you are insane.
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Still, that is assuming that evolution has anything to do with
science, when in fact as a mere theory of life, evolution can only
be defined as a theory of philosophy instead.
Bullshit.
It's a simple fact you don't want to admit.
Facts are evidenced. Your bullshit isn't.
That only proves your spiritual blindness.
That only proves your paedophilia.
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Now, if we can recognize that evolution is just another
philosophical theory the same as any other religious theories on the
face of planet to explain life, we should see no fundamental
difference between an evolutionist and a superstitious ghost chaser.
Both should be recognized as pseudo-scientists.
That pseudo-scientist would be you.
I can't be a pseudo-scientist because I don't even claim to be a
scientist.
Yet you claim to know the SLoT better than a real scientist.
I do.
Your elephantiasis of the ego is showing again, Bloaty Head.
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Sadly, the evolutionists don't know what to do without claiming to be
scientists. Their total misunderstanding of science and their total
lack of understanding of philosophy should make them the laughingstock
of the modern world.
It is you who is the laughing stock around here.
I don't think
We know that.
Post by aaa
so. Based on my simple understanding in philosophy and in
the second law, I have proven evolution wrong too many times.
Where 'too many times' == zero.
Blind denial.
That's just another one of your tired old blind assertions.
Prove it. What is it blind to?
You proved it when you made a blind assertion without any evidence. You should really stop pretending that you know anything about debate, argumentation, and philosophy.
Christopher A. Lee
2018-06-21 19:10:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tim
Post by aaa
Post by Tim
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by default
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 08:40:31 -0700 (PDT), Amazing Answers
Post by Amazing Answers
Evolutionist
Evolutionists like to tell us that the word “evolutionist” is a
falsehood, an invention of creationists.
The problem lies in the way creationists use the label. 'Hindus
believe that ...' 'Christians believe that ...' 'Evolutionists
believe that ...'.
Accepting that evolution is a fact is not adhering to a set of
dogmas dug out of some ancient guy's ass. When creationists use the
term "evolutionist" it's a dishonest attempt to pull science down
to their primitive level of understanding and explaining the
physical world around us all.
(snip)
Science is only a provisional human belief subjected to change and
modification as the human understanding of the nature of the human
existence advances, is it not? How is science any more believable
than any other human belief on the face of planet?
Because it has EVIDENCE, unlike you and your insane beliefs.
Not true. I have shown you the spiritual evidence.
You have shown no such thing, liar.
That's just your blind denial. You need to realize your own blindness.
That's just your total insanity. You need to realize your paedophilia.
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
You are too blind to recognize such evidence.
You are too insane to recognise that it isn't evidence, merely your
unevidenced belief.
That's what you believe, but you have no evidence to support your such belief.
That's what you believe, but you have no evidence to support your such belief.
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
That's due to your own lack of philosophical understanding. You can't
blame me for that.
That's due to your own paedophilia. You can't blame me for that.
What I said is a fact you can't deny. If you are capable to understand
philosophy, you would have realized the spiritual evidence I have shown.
What I said is a fact you can't deny. If you were capable of understanding
your paedophilia, you would have realised that you are insane.
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Still, that is assuming that evolution has anything to do with
science, when in fact as a mere theory of life, evolution can only
be defined as a theory of philosophy instead.
Bullshit.
It's a simple fact you don't want to admit.
Facts are evidenced. Your bullshit isn't.
That only proves your spiritual blindness.
That only proves your paedophilia.
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Now, if we can recognize that evolution is just another
philosophical theory the same as any other religious theories on the
face of planet to explain life, we should see no fundamental
difference between an evolutionist and a superstitious ghost chaser.
Both should be recognized as pseudo-scientists.
That pseudo-scientist would be you.
I can't be a pseudo-scientist because I don't even claim to be a
scientist.
Yet you claim to know the SLoT better than a real scientist.
I do.
Your elephantiasis of the ego is showing again, Bloaty Head.
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Sadly, the evolutionists don't know what to do without claiming to be
scientists. Their total misunderstanding of science and their total
lack of understanding of philosophy should make them the laughingstock
of the modern world.
It is you who is the laughing stock around here.
I don't think
We know that.
Post by aaa
so. Based on my simple understanding in philosophy and in
the second law, I have proven evolution wrong too many times.
Where 'too many times' == zero.
Blind denial.
That's just another one of your tired old blind assertions.
Prove it. What is it blind to?
You proved it when you made a blind assertion without any
evidence. You should really stop pretending that you know
anything about debate, argumentation, and philosophy.
Or pretty much anything else.

Which we wouldn't even know, if he had the commonsense and courtesy to
keep his nonsense to himself.
aaa
2018-06-21 20:54:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tim
Post by aaa
Post by Tim
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by default
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 08:40:31 -0700 (PDT), Amazing
Post by Amazing Answers
Evolutionist
Evolutionists like to tell us that the word
“evolutionist” is a falsehood, an invention of
creationists.
The problem lies in the way creationists use the
label. 'Hindus believe that ...' 'Christians
believe that ...' 'Evolutionists believe that
...'. Accepting that evolution is a fact is not
adhering to a set of dogmas dug out of some
ancient guy's ass. When creationists use the term
"evolutionist" it's a dishonest attempt to pull
science down to their primitive level of
understanding and explaining the physical world
around us all.
(snip)
Science is only a provisional human belief
subjected to change and modification as the human
understanding of the nature of the human existence
advances, is it not? How is science any more
believable than any other human belief on the face
of planet?
Because it has EVIDENCE, unlike you and your insane
beliefs.
Not true. I have shown you the spiritual evidence.
You have shown no such thing, liar.
That's just your blind denial. You need to realize your own blindness.
That's just your total insanity. You need to realize your
paedophilia..
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
You are too blind to recognize such evidence.
You are too insane to recognise that it isn't evidence,
merely your unevidenced belief.
That's what you believe, but you have no evidence to
support your such belief.
That's what you believe, but you have no evidence to support your such belief.
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
That's due to your own lack of philosophical
understanding. You can't blame me for that.
That's due to your own paedophilia. You can't blame me
for that.
What I said is a fact you can't deny. If you are capable to
understand philosophy, you would have realized the
spiritual evidence I have shown.
What I said is a fact you can't deny. If you were capable of
understanding your paedophilia, you would have realised that
you are insane.
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Still, that is assuming that evolution has anything
to do with science, when in fact as a mere theory
of life, evolution can only be defined as a theory
of philosophy instead.
Bullshit.
It's a simple fact you don't want to admit.
Facts are evidenced. Your bullshit isn't.
That only proves your spiritual blindness.
That only proves your paedophilia.
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Now, if we can recognize that evolution is just
another philosophical theory the same as any other
religious theories on the face of planet to
explain life, we should see no fundamental
difference between an evolutionist and a
superstitious ghost chaser. Both should be
recognized as pseudo-scientists.
That pseudo-scientist would be you.
I can't be a pseudo-scientist because I don't even
claim to be a scientist.
Yet you claim to know the SLoT better than a real
scientist.
I do.
Your elephantiasis of the ego is showing again, Bloaty Head.
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Sadly, the evolutionists don't know what to do without
claiming to be scientists. Their total
misunderstanding of science and their total lack of
understanding of philosophy should make them the
laughingstock of the modern world.
It is you who is the laughing stock around here.
I don't think
We know that.
Post by aaa
so. Based on my simple understanding in philosophy and in
the second law, I have proven evolution wrong too many
times.
Where 'too many times' == zero.
Blind denial.
That's just another one of your tired old blind assertions.
Prove it. What is it blind to?
You proved it when you made a blind assertion without any evidence.
You should really stop pretending that you know anything about
debate, argumentation, and philosophy.
That's not an answer to my question. You claim it's blind assertion.
What is it blind to according to you?

If you can't answer that, then it should be obvious that the blindness
belongs to you instead.
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
Tim
2018-06-22 08:37:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Tim
Post by aaa
Post by Tim
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by default
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 08:40:31 -0700 (PDT), Amazing
Post by Amazing Answers
Evolutionist
Evolutionists like to tell us that the word
“evolutionist” is a falsehood, an invention of
creationists.
The problem lies in the way creationists use the
label. 'Hindus believe that ...' 'Christians
believe that ...' 'Evolutionists believe that
...'. Accepting that evolution is a fact is not
adhering to a set of dogmas dug out of some
ancient guy's ass. When creationists use the term
"evolutionist" it's a dishonest attempt to pull
science down to their primitive level of
understanding and explaining the physical world
around us all.
(snip)
Science is only a provisional human belief
subjected to change and modification as the human
understanding of the nature of the human existence
advances, is it not? How is science any more
believable than any other human belief on the face
of planet?
Because it has EVIDENCE, unlike you and your insane
beliefs.
Not true. I have shown you the spiritual evidence.
You have shown no such thing, liar.
That's just your blind denial. You need to realize your own blindness.
That's just your total insanity. You need to realize your
paedophilia..
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
You are too blind to recognize such evidence.
You are too insane to recognise that it isn't evidence,
merely your unevidenced belief.
That's what you believe, but you have no evidence to
support your such belief.
That's what you believe, but you have no evidence to support your such belief.
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
That's due to your own lack of philosophical
understanding. You can't blame me for that.
That's due to your own paedophilia. You can't blame me
for that.
What I said is a fact you can't deny. If you are capable to
understand philosophy, you would have realized the
spiritual evidence I have shown.
What I said is a fact you can't deny. If you were capable of
understanding your paedophilia, you would have realised that
you are insane.
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Still, that is assuming that evolution has anything
to do with science, when in fact as a mere theory
of life, evolution can only be defined as a theory
of philosophy instead.
Bullshit.
It's a simple fact you don't want to admit.
Facts are evidenced. Your bullshit isn't.
That only proves your spiritual blindness.
That only proves your paedophilia.
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Now, if we can recognize that evolution is just
another philosophical theory the same as any other
religious theories on the face of planet to
explain life, we should see no fundamental
difference between an evolutionist and a
superstitious ghost chaser. Both should be
recognized as pseudo-scientists.
That pseudo-scientist would be you.
I can't be a pseudo-scientist because I don't even
claim to be a scientist.
Yet you claim to know the SLoT better than a real
scientist.
I do.
Your elephantiasis of the ego is showing again, Bloaty Head.
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Sadly, the evolutionists don't know what to do without
claiming to be scientists. Their total
misunderstanding of science and their total lack of
understanding of philosophy should make them the
laughingstock of the modern world.
It is you who is the laughing stock around here.
I don't think
We know that.
Post by aaa
so. Based on my simple understanding in philosophy and in
the second law, I have proven evolution wrong too many
times.
Where 'too many times' == zero.
Blind denial.
That's just another one of your tired old blind assertions.
Prove it. What is it blind to?
You proved it when you made a blind assertion without any evidence.
You should really stop pretending that you know anything about
debate, argumentation, and philosophy.
That's not an answer to my question. You claim it's blind assertion.
What is it blind to according to you?
I already told you. You need to learn how to read.
Post by aaa
If you can't answer that, then it should be obvious that the blindness
belongs to you instead.
I already answered it. So obviously the blindness is yours.
aaa
2018-06-22 16:36:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tim
Post by aaa
Post by Tim
Post by aaa
Post by Tim
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by default
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 08:40:31 -0700 (PDT), Amazing
Post by Amazing Answers
Evolutionist
Evolutionists like to tell us that the word
“evolutionist” is a falsehood, an invention of
creationists.
The problem lies in the way creationists use the
label. 'Hindus believe that ...' 'Christians
believe that ...' 'Evolutionists believe that
...'. Accepting that evolution is a fact is not
adhering to a set of dogmas dug out of some
ancient guy's ass. When creationists use the term
"evolutionist" it's a dishonest attempt to pull
science down to their primitive level of
understanding and explaining the physical world
around us all.
(snip)
Science is only a provisional human belief
subjected to change and modification as the human
understanding of the nature of the human existence
advances, is it not? How is science any more
believable than any other human belief on the face
of planet?
Because it has EVIDENCE, unlike you and your insane
beliefs.
Not true. I have shown you the spiritual evidence.
You have shown no such thing, liar.
That's just your blind denial. You need to realize your own blindness.
That's just your total insanity. You need to realize your
paedophilia..
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
You are too blind to recognize such evidence.
You are too insane to recognise that it isn't evidence,
merely your unevidenced belief.
That's what you believe, but you have no evidence to
support your such belief.
That's what you believe, but you have no evidence to support
your such belief.
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
That's due to your own lack of philosophical
understanding. You can't blame me for that.
That's due to your own paedophilia. You can't blame me
for that.
What I said is a fact you can't deny. If you are capable to
understand philosophy, you would have realized the
spiritual evidence I have shown.
What I said is a fact you can't deny. If you were capable of
understanding your paedophilia, you would have realised that
you are insane.
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Still, that is assuming that evolution has anything
to do with science, when in fact as a mere theory
of life, evolution can only be defined as a theory
of philosophy instead.
Bullshit.
It's a simple fact you don't want to admit.
Facts are evidenced. Your bullshit isn't.
That only proves your spiritual blindness.
That only proves your paedophilia.
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Now, if we can recognize that evolution is just
another philosophical theory the same as any other
religious theories on the face of planet to
explain life, we should see no fundamental
difference between an evolutionist and a
superstitious ghost chaser. Both should be
recognized as pseudo-scientists.
That pseudo-scientist would be you.
I can't be a pseudo-scientist because I don't even
claim to be a scientist.
Yet you claim to know the SLoT better than a real
scientist.
I do.
Your elephantiasis of the ego is showing again, Bloaty Head.
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Sadly, the evolutionists don't know what to do without
claiming to be scientists. Their total
misunderstanding of science and their total lack of
understanding of philosophy should make them the
laughingstock of the modern world.
It is you who is the laughing stock around here.
I don't think
We know that.
Post by aaa
so. Based on my simple understanding in philosophy and in
the second law, I have proven evolution wrong too many
times.
Where 'too many times' == zero.
Blind denial.
That's just another one of your tired old blind assertions.
Prove it. What is it blind to?
You proved it when you made a blind assertion without any evidence.
You should really stop pretending that you know anything about
debate, argumentation, and philosophy.
That's not an answer to my question. You claim it's blind assertion.
What is it blind to according to you?
I already told you. You need to learn how to read.
Post by aaa
If you can't answer that, then it should be obvious that the blindness
belongs to you instead.
I already answered it. So obviously the blindness is yours.
By failing to answer the question, I hope you realize that you have just
lost the argument.
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
Tim
2018-06-22 18:36:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Tim
Post by aaa
Post by Tim
Post by aaa
Post by Tim
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by default
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 08:40:31 -0700 (PDT), Amazing
Post by Amazing Answers
Evolutionist
Evolutionists like to tell us that the word
“evolutionist” is a falsehood, an invention of
creationists.
The problem lies in the way creationists use the
label. 'Hindus believe that ...' 'Christians
believe that ...' 'Evolutionists believe that
...'. Accepting that evolution is a fact is not
adhering to a set of dogmas dug out of some
ancient guy's ass. When creationists use the term
"evolutionist" it's a dishonest attempt to pull
science down to their primitive level of
understanding and explaining the physical world
around us all.
(snip)
Science is only a provisional human belief
subjected to change and modification as the human
understanding of the nature of the human existence
advances, is it not? How is science any more
believable than any other human belief on the face
of planet?
Because it has EVIDENCE, unlike you and your insane beliefs.
Not true. I have shown you the spiritual evidence.
You have shown no such thing, liar.
That's just your blind denial. You need to realize your own blindness.
That's just your total insanity. You need to realize your
paedophilia..
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
You are too blind to recognize such evidence.
You are too insane to recognise that it isn't evidence,
merely your unevidenced belief.
That's what you believe, but you have no evidence to
support your such belief.
That's what you believe, but you have no evidence to support
your such belief.
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
That's due to your own lack of philosophical
understanding. You can't blame me for that.
That's due to your own paedophilia. You can't blame me for that.
What I said is a fact you can't deny. If you are capable to
understand philosophy, you would have realized the
spiritual evidence I have shown.
What I said is a fact you can't deny. If you were capable of
understanding your paedophilia, you would have realised that
you are insane.
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Still, that is assuming that evolution has anything
to do with science, when in fact as a mere theory
of life, evolution can only be defined as a theory
of philosophy instead.
Bullshit.
It's a simple fact you don't want to admit.
Facts are evidenced. Your bullshit isn't.
That only proves your spiritual blindness.
That only proves your paedophilia.
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Now, if we can recognize that evolution is just
another philosophical theory the same as any other
religious theories on the face of planet to
explain life, we should see no fundamental
difference between an evolutionist and a
superstitious ghost chaser. Both should be
recognized as pseudo-scientists.
That pseudo-scientist would be you.
I can't be a pseudo-scientist because I don't even
claim to be a scientist.
Yet you claim to know the SLoT better than a real
scientist.
I do.
Your elephantiasis of the ego is showing again, Bloaty Head.
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Sadly, the evolutionists don't know what to do without
claiming to be scientists. Their total
misunderstanding of science and their total lack of
understanding of philosophy should make them the
laughingstock of the modern world.
It is you who is the laughing stock around here.
I don't think
We know that.
Post by aaa
so. Based on my simple understanding in philosophy and in
the second law, I have proven evolution wrong too many times.
Where 'too many times' == zero.
Blind denial.
That's just another one of your tired old blind assertions.
Prove it. What is it blind to?
You proved it when you made a blind assertion without any evidence.
You should really stop pretending that you know anything about
debate, argumentation, and philosophy.
That's not an answer to my question. You claim it's blind assertion.
What is it blind to according to you?
I already told you. You need to learn how to read.
Post by aaa
If you can't answer that, then it should be obvious that the blindness
belongs to you instead.
I already answered it. So obviously the blindness is yours.
By failing to answer the question, I hope you realize that you have just
lost the argument.
I did answer the question, you just can't read, idiot.
Atlatl Axolotl
2018-06-13 00:37:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by default
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 08:40:31 -0700 (PDT), Amazing Answers
Post by Amazing Answers
Evolutionist
Evolutionists like to tell us that the word “evolutionist” is a falsehood, an invention of creationists.
The problem lies in the way creationists use the label. 'Hindus
believe that ...' 'Christians believe that ...' 'Evolutionists believe
that ...'.
Accepting that evolution is a fact is not adhering to a set of dogmas
dug out of some ancient guy's ass. When creationists use the term
"evolutionist" it's a dishonest attempt to pull science down to their
primitive level of understanding and explaining the physical world
around us all.
(snip)
..
Post by aaa
Science is only a provisional human belief subjected to change and
modification as the human understanding of the nature of the human
existence advances, is it not? How is science any more believable than
any other human belief on the face of planet?
Good point. In fact if you are unfortunate enough to contract ebola,
be bitten by a rabid animal, or be horribly injured in a car accident,
I would suggest you avoid all the options offered you by
so called "medical science", and consult a philosopher instead.

AA
Post by aaa
Still, that is assuming that evolution has anything to do with science,
when in fact as a mere theory of life, evolution can only be defined as
a theory of philosophy instead.
Now, if we can recognize that evolution is just another philosophical
theory the same as any other religious theories on the face of planet to
explain life, we should see no fundamental difference between an
evolutionist and a superstitious ghost chaser. Both should be recognized
as pseudo-scientists.
--
Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
Christopher A. Lee
2018-06-13 01:49:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 17:37:02 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by aaa
Post by default
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 08:40:31 -0700 (PDT), Amazing Answers
Post by Amazing Answers
Evolutionist
Evolutionists like to tell us that the word “evolutionist” is a falsehood, an invention of creationists.
The problem lies in the way creationists use the label. 'Hindus
believe that ...' 'Christians believe that ...' 'Evolutionists believe
that ...'.
Accepting that evolution is a fact is not adhering to a set of dogmas
dug out of some ancient guy's ass. When creationists use the term
"evolutionist" it's a dishonest attempt to pull science down to their
primitive level of understanding and explaining the physical world
around us all.
(snip)
..
Post by aaa
Science is only a provisional human belief subjected to change and
modification as the human understanding of the nature of the human
existence advances, is it not? How is science any more believable than
any other human belief on the face of planet?
What a fucking moron.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Good point. In fact if you are unfortunate enough to contract ebola,
be bitten by a rabid animal, or be horribly injured in a car accident,
I would suggest you avoid all the options offered you by
so called "medical science", and consult a philosopher instead.
AA
They imagine its self-correcting nature is a weakness - and that if it
is not 100% correct then it's 100% wrong.

Even though it gets asymptotically closer to the correct answer with
each iteration.

But for some reason they expect scientists to come up with the whole
story in something like a revelation - talk about projection.
aaa
2018-06-13 15:22:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by aaa
Post by default
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 08:40:31 -0700 (PDT), Amazing Answers
Post by Amazing Answers
Evolutionist
Evolutionists like to tell us that the word “evolutionist” is a falsehood, an invention of creationists.
The problem lies in the way creationists use the label. 'Hindus
believe that ...' 'Christians believe that ...' 'Evolutionists believe
that ...'.
Accepting that evolution is a fact is not adhering to a set of dogmas
dug out of some ancient guy's ass. When creationists use the term
"evolutionist" it's a dishonest attempt to pull science down to their
primitive level of understanding and explaining the physical world
around us all.
(snip)
..
Post by aaa
Science is only a provisional human belief subjected to change and
modification as the human understanding of the nature of the human
existence advances, is it not? How is science any more believable than
any other human belief on the face of planet?
Good point. In fact if you are unfortunate enough to contract ebola,
be bitten by a rabid animal, or be horribly injured in a car accident,
I would suggest you avoid all the options offered you by
so called "medical science", and consult a philosopher instead.
Fortunately, I don't have to contract Ebola, be bitten by a rabid
animal, or be horribly injured in a car accident on a daily basis, but I
do need to live my life according to the philosophy of Jesus Christ in
each and every day.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
AA
Post by aaa
Still, that is assuming that evolution has anything to do with science,
when in fact as a mere theory of life, evolution can only be defined as
a theory of philosophy instead.
Now, if we can recognize that evolution is just another philosophical
theory the same as any other religious theories on the face of planet to
explain life, we should see no fundamental difference between an
evolutionist and a superstitious ghost chaser. Both should be recognized
as pseudo-scientists.
--
Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
Atlatl Axolotl
2018-06-13 19:54:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by aaa
Post by default
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 08:40:31 -0700 (PDT), Amazing Answers
Post by Amazing Answers
Evolutionist
Evolutionists like to tell us that the word “evolutionist” is a falsehood, an invention of creationists.
The problem lies in the way creationists use the label. 'Hindus
believe that ...' 'Christians believe that ...' 'Evolutionists believe
that ...'.
Accepting that evolution is a fact is not adhering to a set of dogmas
dug out of some ancient guy's ass. When creationists use the term
"evolutionist" it's a dishonest attempt to pull science down to their
primitive level of understanding and explaining the physical world
around us all.
(snip)
..
...
Post by aaa
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by aaa
Science is only a provisional human belief subjected to change and
modification as the human understanding of the nature of the human
existence advances, is it not? How is science any more believable than
any other human belief on the face of planet?
Good point. In fact if you are unfortunate enough to contract ebola,
be bitten by a rabid animal, or be horribly injured in a car accident,
I would suggest you avoid all the options offered you by
so called "medical science", and consult a philosopher instead.
Fortunately, I don't have to contract Ebola, be bitten by a rabid
animal, or be horribly injured in a car accident on a daily basis, but I
do need to live my life according to the philosophy of Jesus Christ in
each and every day.
And when you suffered brain damage, may we assume you
shunned all the ministrations and palliatives offered by medical
science?


AA
Post by aaa
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
AA
Post by aaa
Still, that is assuming that evolution has anything to do with science,
when in fact as a mere theory of life, evolution can only be defined as
a theory of philosophy instead.
Now, if we can recognize that evolution is just another philosophical
theory the same as any other religious theories on the face of planet to
explain life, we should see no fundamental difference between an
evolutionist and a superstitious ghost chaser. Both should be recognized
as pseudo-scientists.
--
Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
--
Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
Smiler
2018-06-13 23:27:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by aaa
Post by default
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 08:40:31 -0700 (PDT), Amazing Answers
Post by Amazing Answers
Evolutionist
Evolutionists like to tell us that the word “evolutionist” is a
falsehood, an invention of creationists.
The problem lies in the way creationists use the label. 'Hindus
believe that ...' 'Christians believe that ...' 'Evolutionists
believe that ...'.
Accepting that evolution is a fact is not adhering to a set of
dogmas dug out of some ancient guy's ass. When creationists use the
term "evolutionist" it's a dishonest attempt to pull science down
to their primitive level of understanding and explaining the
physical world around us all.
(snip)
..
...
Post by aaa
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by aaa
Science is only a provisional human belief subjected to change and
modification as the human understanding of the nature of the human
existence advances, is it not? How is science any more believable
than any other human belief on the face of planet?
Good point. In fact if you are unfortunate enough to contract ebola,
be bitten by a rabid animal, or be horribly injured in a car accident,
I would suggest you avoid all the options offered you by so called
"medical science", and consult a philosopher instead.
Fortunately, I don't have to contract Ebola, be bitten by a rabid
animal, or be horribly injured in a car accident on a daily basis, but
I do need to live my life according to the philosophy of Jesus Christ
in each and every day.
And when you suffered brain damage, may we assume you shunned all the
ministrations and palliatives offered by medical science?
He certainly appears to have shunned psychotherapy.
--
Smiler, The godless one. a.a.# 2279
All gods are tailored to order. They're made
to exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
aaa
2018-06-14 11:44:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by aaa
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by aaa
Post by default
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 08:40:31 -0700 (PDT), Amazing Answers
Post by Amazing Answers
Evolutionist
Evolutionists like to tell us that the word “evolutionist” is a falsehood, an invention of creationists.
The problem lies in the way creationists use the label. 'Hindus
believe that ...' 'Christians believe that ...' 'Evolutionists believe
that ...'.
Accepting that evolution is a fact is not adhering to a set of dogmas
dug out of some ancient guy's ass. When creationists use the term
"evolutionist" it's a dishonest attempt to pull science down to their
primitive level of understanding and explaining the physical world
around us all.
(snip)
..
...
Post by aaa
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by aaa
Science is only a provisional human belief subjected to change and
modification as the human understanding of the nature of the human
existence advances, is it not? How is science any more believable than
any other human belief on the face of planet?
Good point. In fact if you are unfortunate enough to contract ebola,
be bitten by a rabid animal, or be horribly injured in a car accident,
I would suggest you avoid all the options offered you by
so called "medical science", and consult a philosopher instead.
Fortunately, I don't have to contract Ebola, be bitten by a rabid
animal, or be horribly injured in a car accident on a daily basis, but I
do need to live my life according to the philosophy of Jesus Christ in
each and every day.
And when you suffered brain damage, may we assume you
shunned all the ministrations and palliatives offered by medical
science?
It's exactly the other way around. I was shunned by medical science but
have found help from God. The fact I'm here debating you despite my
untreatable brain injury should be the evidence of God's miracle.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
AA
Post by aaa
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
AA
Post by aaa
Still, that is assuming that evolution has anything to do with science,
when in fact as a mere theory of life, evolution can only be defined as
a theory of philosophy instead.
Now, if we can recognize that evolution is just another philosophical
theory the same as any other religious theories on the face of planet to
explain life, we should see no fundamental difference between an
evolutionist and a superstitious ghost chaser. Both should be recognized
as pseudo-scientists.
--
Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
--
Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
--
God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.
Amazing Answers
2018-06-13 12:46:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by default
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 08:40:31 -0700 (PDT), Amazing Answers
Post by Amazing Answers
Evolutionist
Evolutionists like to tell us that the word “evolutionist” is a falsehood, an invention of creationists.
The problem lies in the way creationists use the label. 'Hindus
believe that ...' 'Christians believe that ...' 'Evolutionists believe
that ...'.
Accepting that evolution is a fact is not adhering to a set of dogmas
dug out of some ancient guy's ass. When creationists use the term
"evolutionist" it's a dishonest attempt to pull science down to their
primitive level of understanding and explaining the physical world
around us all.
(snip)
--
Malte Runz
just name one, just one example where I misrepresented evolutionists.
Malte Runz
2018-06-13 17:15:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 05:46:47 -0700 (PDT), Amazing Answers
Post by Amazing Answers
Post by default
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 08:40:31 -0700 (PDT), Amazing Answers
Post by Amazing Answers
Evolutionist
Evolutionists like to tell us that the word “evolutionist” is a falsehood, an invention of creationists.
The problem lies in the way creationists use the label. 'Hindus
believe that ...' 'Christians believe that ...' 'Evolutionists believe
that ...'.
Accepting that evolution is a fact is not adhering to a set of dogmas
dug out of some ancient guy's ass. When creationists use the term
"evolutionist" it's a dishonest attempt to pull science down to their
primitive level of understanding and explaining the physical world
around us all.
(snip)
--
Malte Runz
just name one, just one example where I misrepresented evolutionists.
I'm not going to sift through all your old posts, but you can be sure
I'll point it out next time you do it.
--
Malte Runz
Christopher A. Lee
2018-06-13 18:48:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 19:15:48 +0200, Malte Runz
Post by Malte Runz
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 05:46:47 -0700 (PDT), Amazing Answers
Post by Amazing Answers
Post by default
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 08:40:31 -0700 (PDT), Amazing Answers
Post by Amazing Answers
Evolutionist
Evolutionists like to tell us that the word “evolutionist” is a falsehood, an invention of creationists.
That was one example of the misrepresentation he pretends he doesn't
do.
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Amazing Answers
Post by default
The problem lies in the way creationists use the label. 'Hindus
believe that ...' 'Christians believe that ...' 'Evolutionists believe
that ...'.
Accepting that evolution is a fact is not adhering to a set of dogmas
dug out of some ancient guy's ass. When creationists use the term
"evolutionist" it's a dishonest attempt to pull science down to their
primitive level of understanding and explaining the physical world
around us all.
(snip)
--
Malte Runz
just name one, just one example where I misrepresented evolutionists.
I'm not going to sift through all your old posts, but you can be sure
I'll point it out next time you do it.
He misrepresents them by calling them "evolutionists".
Malte Runz
2018-06-13 19:14:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 13:48:48 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 19:15:48 +0200, Malte Runz
Post by Malte Runz
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 05:46:47 -0700 (PDT), Amazing Answers
Post by Amazing Answers
Post by default
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 08:40:31 -0700 (PDT), Amazing Answers
Post by Amazing Answers
Evolutionist
Evolutionists like to tell us that the word “evolutionist” is a falsehood, an invention of creationists.
That was one example of the misrepresentation he pretends he doesn't
do.
Missed the obvious one!
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Amazing Answers
Post by default
The problem lies in the way creationists use the label. 'Hindus
believe that ...' 'Christians believe that ...' 'Evolutionists believe
that ...'.
Accepting that evolution is a fact is not adhering to a set of dogmas
dug out of some ancient guy's ass. When creationists use the term
"evolutionist" it's a dishonest attempt to pull science down to their
primitive level of understanding and explaining the physical world
around us all.
(snip)
--
Malte Runz
just name one, just one example where I misrepresented evolutionists.
I'm not going to sift through all your old posts, but you can be sure
I'll point it out next time you do it.
He misrepresents them by calling them "evolutionists".
And that one, too...
--
Malte Runz
Peter Pan
2018-06-13 21:14:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Malte Runz
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 13:48:48 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 19:15:48 +0200, Malte Runz
Post by Malte Runz
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 05:46:47 -0700 (PDT), Amazing Answers
Post by Amazing Answers
Post by default
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 08:40:31 -0700 (PDT), Amazing Answers
Post by Amazing Answers
Evolutionist
Evolutionists like to tell us that the word “evolutionist” is a falsehood, an invention of creationists.
That was one example of the misrepresentation he pretends he doesn't
do.
Missed the obvious one!
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Amazing Answers
Post by default
The problem lies in the way creationists use the label. 'Hindus
believe that ...' 'Christians believe that ...' 'Evolutionists believe
that ...'.
Accepting that evolution is a fact is not adhering to a set of dogmas
dug out of some ancient guy's ass. When creationists use the term
"evolutionist" it's a dishonest attempt to pull science down to their
primitive level of understanding and explaining the physical world
around us all.
(snip)
--
Malte Runz
just name one, just one example where I misrepresented evolutionists.
I'm not going to sift through all your old posts, but you can be sure
I'll point it out next time you do it.
He misrepresents them by calling them "evolutionists".
And that one, too...
There's this bit:...

"Ask evolutionists about the evolutionary proof of
man/[monkey][ape][unknown common ancestor] in the
form of paleontological data [actual bones] and
suddenly you're talking about something else.
Maybe you hear something like, "wells, the
majority of scientists believe evolution [no proof
given]" or in other words, in regard to the
paleontological data, "skip that part." "

Claiming that "evolutionists" run away from the fossil
record is pretty misrepresentative.
Malte Runz
2018-06-13 22:33:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Pan
Post by Malte Runz
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 13:48:48 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 19:15:48 +0200, Malte Runz
Post by Malte Runz
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 05:46:47 -0700 (PDT), Amazing Answers
Post by Amazing Answers
Post by default
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 08:40:31 -0700 (PDT), Amazing Answers
Post by Amazing Answers
Evolutionist
Evolutionists like to tell us that the word “evolutionist” is a falsehood, an invention of creationists.
That was one example of the misrepresentation he pretends he doesn't
do.
Missed the obvious one!
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Amazing Answers
Post by default
The problem lies in the way creationists use the label. 'Hindus
believe that ...' 'Christians believe that ...' 'Evolutionists believe
that ...'.
Accepting that evolution is a fact is not adhering to a set of dogmas
dug out of some ancient guy's ass. When creationists use the term
"evolutionist" it's a dishonest attempt to pull science down to their
primitive level of understanding and explaining the physical world
around us all.
(snip)
--
Malte Runz
just name one, just one example where I misrepresented evolutionists.
I'm not going to sift through all your old posts, but you can be sure
I'll point it out next time you do it.
He misrepresents them by calling them "evolutionists".
And that one, too...
There's this bit:...
"Ask evolutionists about the evolutionary proof of
man/[monkey][ape][unknown common ancestor] in the
form of paleontological data [actual bones] and
suddenly you're talking about something else.
Maybe you hear something like, "wells, the
majority of scientists believe evolution [no proof
given]" or in other words, in regard to the
paleontological data, "skip that part." "
Claiming that "evolutionists" run away from the fossil
record is pretty misrepresentative.
It would probably be easier to find posts where he doesn't
misrepresent ... eh, whatchamacallit... you know who I mean.
--
Malte Runz
TT Liams
2018-06-13 23:24:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Pan
Post by Malte Runz
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 13:48:48 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 19:15:48 +0200, Malte Runz
Post by Malte Runz
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 05:46:47 -0700 (PDT), Amazing Answers
On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 2:24:37 AM UTC-7, Malte Runz
Post by default
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 08:40:31 -0700 (PDT), Amazing Answers
Post by Amazing Answers
Evolutionist
Evolutionists like to tell us that the word “evolutionist”
is a falsehood, an invention of creationists.
Post by Peter Pan
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Christopher A. Lee
That was one example of the misrepresentation he pretends he doesn't
do.
Missed the obvious one!
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Malte Runz
Post by default
The problem lies in the way creationists use the label.
'Hindus
Post by Peter Pan
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Malte Runz
Post by default
believe that ...' 'Christians believe that ...'
'Evolutionists believe
Post by Peter Pan
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Malte Runz
Post by default
that ...'.
Accepting that evolution is a fact is not adhering to a set of dogmas
dug out of some ancient guy's ass. When creationists use the term
"evolutionist" it's a dishonest attempt to pull science down to their
primitive level of understanding and explaining the physical world
around us all.
(snip)
--
Malte Runz
just name one, just one example where I misrepresented
evolutionists.
Post by Peter Pan
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Malte Runz
I'm not going to sift through all your old posts, but you can be sure
I'll point it out next time you do it.
He misrepresents them by calling them "evolutionists".
And that one, too...
There's this bit:...
"Ask evolutionists about the evolutionary proof of
man/[monkey][ape][unknown common ancestor] in the
form of paleontological data [actual bones] and
suddenly you're talking about something else.
Maybe you hear something like, "wells, the
majority of scientists believe evolution [no proof
given]" or in other words, in regard to the
paleontological data, "skip that part." "
Claiming that "evolutionists" run away from the fossil
record is pretty misrepresentative.
Evolution can be proved even without any reference to the fossil
record. The fossil record, at this point, is just icing on the cake.
Amazing Butthole don't no that cause he's a rumdum & want's to be a
rumdum.
%
2018-06-13 23:27:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Amazing Answers
Post by Peter Pan
Post by Malte Runz
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 13:48:48 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 19:15:48 +0200, Malte Runz
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 05:46:47 -0700 (PDT), Amazing Answers
On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 2:24:37 AM UTC-7, Malte Runz
Post by default
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 08:40:31 -0700 (PDT), Amazing Answers
Post by Amazing Answers
Post by Amazing Answers
Evolutionist
Evolutionists like to tell us that the word “evolutionist”
is a falsehood, an invention of creationists.
Post by Peter Pan
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Christopher A. Lee
That was one example of the misrepresentation he pretends he
doesn't
Post by Peter Pan
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Christopher A. Lee
do.
Missed the obvious one!
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by default
The problem lies in the way creationists use the label.
'Hindus
Post by Peter Pan
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by default
believe that ...' 'Christians believe that ...'
'Evolutionists believe
Post by Peter Pan
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by default
that ...'.
Accepting that evolution is a fact is not adhering to a set
of dogmas
Post by Peter Pan
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by default
dug out of some ancient guy's ass. When creationists use the
term
Post by Peter Pan
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by default
"evolutionist" it's a dishonest attempt to pull science down
to their
Post by Peter Pan
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by default
primitive level of understanding and explaining the physical
world
Post by Peter Pan
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by default
around us all. > >>>> > >>>> (snip)
Post by Amazing Answers
-- > >>>> Malte Runz
just name one, just one example where I misrepresented
evolutionists.
Post by Peter Pan
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
I'm not going to sift through all your old posts, but you can
be sure
Post by Peter Pan
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
I'll point it out next time you do it.
He misrepresents them by calling them "evolutionists".
And that one, too...
There's this bit:...
    "Ask evolutionists about the evolutionary proof of
     man/[monkey][ape][unknown common ancestor] in the
     form of paleontological data [actual bones] and
     suddenly you're talking about something else.      Maybe you hear
something like, "wells, the
     majority of scientists believe evolution [no proof
     given]" or in other words, in regard to the
     paleontological data, "skip that part." "
Claiming that "evolutionists" run away from the fossil
record is pretty misrepresentative.
Evolution can be proved even without any reference to the fossil record.
The fossil record, at this point, is just icing on the cake. Amazing
Butthole don't no that cause he's a rumdum & want's to be a rumdum.
hi tom
TT Liams
2018-06-14 00:00:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by %
Post by Amazing Answers
Post by Peter Pan
Post by Malte Runz
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 13:48:48 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 19:15:48 +0200, Malte Runz
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 05:46:47 -0700 (PDT), Amazing Answers
On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 2:24:37 AM UTC-7, Malte Runz
Post by default
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 08:40:31 -0700 (PDT), Amazing Answers
Post by Amazing Answers
Post by Amazing Answers
Evolutionist
Evolutionists like to tell us that the word
“evolutionist”
Post by %
Post by Amazing Answers
is a falsehood, an invention of creationists.
Post by Peter Pan
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Christopher A. Lee
That was one example of the misrepresentation he pretends he
doesn't
Post by Peter Pan
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Christopher A. Lee
do.
Missed the obvious one!
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by default
The problem lies in the way creationists use the label.
'Hindus
Post by Peter Pan
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by default
believe that ...' 'Christians believe that ...'
'Evolutionists believe
Post by Peter Pan
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by default
that ...'.
Accepting that evolution is a fact is not adhering to a set
of dogmas
Post by Peter Pan
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by default
dug out of some ancient guy's ass. When creationists use the
term
Post by Peter Pan
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by default
"evolutionist" it's a dishonest attempt to pull science down
to their
Post by Peter Pan
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by default
primitive level of understanding and explaining the
physical
Post by %
Post by Amazing Answers
world
Post by Peter Pan
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by default
around us all. > >>>> > >>>> (snip)
Post by Amazing Answers
-- > >>>> Malte Runz
just name one, just one example where I misrepresented
evolutionists.
Post by Peter Pan
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
I'm not going to sift through all your old posts, but you can
be sure
Post by Peter Pan
Post by Malte Runz
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
I'll point it out next time you do it.
He misrepresents them by calling them "evolutionists".
And that one, too...
There's this bit:...
    "Ask evolutionists about the evolutionary proof of
     man/[monkey][ape][unknown common ancestor] in the
     form of paleontological data [actual bones] and
     suddenly you're talking about something else.      Maybe you hear
something like, "wells, the
     majority of scientists believe evolution [no proof
     given]" or in other words, in regard to the
     paleontological data, "skip that part." "
Claiming that "evolutionists" run away from the fossil
record is pretty misrepresentative.
Evolution can be proved even without any reference to the fossil record.
The fossil record, at this point, is just icing on the cake.
Amazing
Post by %
Post by Amazing Answers
Butthole don't no that cause he's a rumdum & want's to be a
rumdum.
Post by %
hi tom
I'm not Tom or Rudy.
Tim
2018-06-13 21:28:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Amazing Answers
Post by default
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 08:40:31 -0700 (PDT), Amazing Answers
Post by Amazing Answers
Evolutionist
Evolutionists like to tell us that the word “evolutionist” is a falsehood, an invention of creationists.
The problem lies in the way creationists use the label. 'Hindus
believe that ...' 'Christians believe that ...' 'Evolutionists believe
that ...'.
Accepting that evolution is a fact is not adhering to a set of dogmas
dug out of some ancient guy's ass. When creationists use the term
"evolutionist" it's a dishonest attempt to pull science down to their
primitive level of understanding and explaining the physical world
around us all.
(snip)
--
Malte Runz
just name one, just one example where I misrepresented evolutionists.
You do it every time you put quotation marks around "evolutionists" supposed claims, without citing the source.
Amazing Answers
2018-06-14 03:59:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tim
Post by Amazing Answers
Post by default
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 08:40:31 -0700 (PDT), Amazing Answers
Post by Amazing Answers
Evolutionist
Evolutionists like to tell us that the word “evolutionist” is a falsehood, an invention of creationists.
The problem lies in the way creationists use the label. 'Hindus
believe that ...' 'Christians believe that ...' 'Evolutionists believe
that ...'.
Accepting that evolution is a fact is not adhering to a set of dogmas
dug out of some ancient guy's ass. When creationists use the term
"evolutionist" it's a dishonest attempt to pull science down to their
primitive level of understanding and explaining the physical world
around us all.
(snip)
--
Malte Runz
just name one, just one example where I misrepresented evolutionists.
You do it every time you put quotation marks around "evolutionists" supposed claims, without citing the source.
where did I not cite?
Tim
2018-06-14 18:52:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Amazing Answers
Post by Tim
Post by Amazing Answers
Post by default
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 08:40:31 -0700 (PDT), Amazing Answers
Post by Amazing Answers
Evolutionist
Evolutionists like to tell us that the word “evolutionist” is a falsehood, an invention of creationists.
The problem lies in the way creationists use the label. 'Hindus
believe that ...' 'Christians believe that ...' 'Evolutionists believe
that ...'.
Accepting that evolution is a fact is not adhering to a set of dogmas
dug out of some ancient guy's ass. When creationists use the term
"evolutionist" it's a dishonest attempt to pull science down to their
primitive level of understanding and explaining the physical world
around us all.
(snip)
--
Malte Runz
just name one, just one example where I misrepresented evolutionists.
You do it every time you put quotation marks around "evolutionists" supposed claims, without citing the source.
where did I not cite?
Where _you_ made a statement, placed it in quotes, attributed it to some scientist, but failed to name the scientist and the context or article you got it from. And you did that because you weren't quoting a scientist, you were just making a strawman argument. If you doubt this feel free to go look up some of your previous posts. That I have to remind you of it only shows that you're a fool who can't remember what he posts or you're a dishonest intellectual coward.
%
2018-06-14 18:56:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tim
Post by Amazing Answers
Post by Tim
Post by Amazing Answers
Post by default
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 08:40:31 -0700 (PDT), Amazing Answers
Post by Amazing Answers
Evolutionist
Evolutionists like to tell us that the word “evolutionist” is a falsehood, an invention of creationists.
The problem lies in the way creationists use the label. 'Hindus
believe that ...' 'Christians believe that ...' 'Evolutionists believe
that ...'.
Accepting that evolution is a fact is not adhering to a set of dogmas
dug out of some ancient guy's ass. When creationists use the term
"evolutionist" it's a dishonest attempt to pull science down to their
primitive level of understanding and explaining the physical world
around us all.
(snip)
--
Malte Runz
just name one, just one example where I misrepresented evolutionists.
You do it every time you put quotation marks around "evolutionists" supposed claims, without citing the source.
where did I not cite?
Where _you_ made a statement, placed it in quotes, attributed it to some scientist, but failed to name the scientist and the context or article you got it from. And you did that because you weren't quoting a scientist, you were just making a strawman argument. If you doubt this feel free to go look up some of your previous posts. That I have to remind you of it only shows that you're a fool who can't remember what he posts or you're a dishonest intellectual coward.
can you site everything you have ever said lip balm face
m***@gmail.com
2018-06-13 14:56:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
You have to look at the root
of why atheists love the evolution
theory.

Atheists only accept fact, not
subjective opinion, like about
what is beautiful.

In evolution theory the atheists
can talk about beauty, morality,
as if it is all fact. That beauty
is a survival mechanism,
a way to attract mates,
a measure of likelyhood to leave
offspring. The evolution theory
is loaded with subjective
terminology like differential
reproductive "success", "beneficial"
mutations, "struggling for" survival.

They can talk about character of
people in terms of it being
survival traits. So they can judge
the content of character, as a
scientific fact.

So all love, hate, anger, kindness,
joy, are not spiritual and subjective,
but material and objective.

So the root ideology of atheists is
really best explained as "objectivism"
defined as solely accepting the
validity of objective fact, and not
accepting the validity of subjective
opinion.
Smiler
2018-06-13 23:31:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
You have to look at the root of why atheists love the evolution theory.
Atheists only accept fact, not subjective opinion, like about what is
beautiful.
In evolution theory the atheists can talk about beauty, morality,
as if it is all fact. That beauty is a survival mechanism,
a way to attract mates,
a measure of likelyhood to leave offspring. The evolution theory is
loaded with subjective terminology like differential reproductive
"success", "beneficial" mutations, "struggling for" survival.
They can talk about character of people in terms of it being survival
traits. So they can judge the content of character, as a scientific
fact.
So all love, hate, anger, kindness, joy, are not spiritual and
subjective,
but material and objective.
So the root ideology of atheists is really best explained as
"objectivism"
defined as solely accepting the validity of objective fact, and not
accepting the validity of subjective opinion.
My subjective opinion is that is bullshit.
--
Smiler, The godless one. a.a.# 2279
All gods are tailored to order. They're made
to exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Loading...