Search results

makes sense

Is Kent Hovind on this forum?

Darwin lived in the 19th century, dude. He was still a better scientist than any modern day creationist. Our understanding of evolution has dwarfed Darwin's ideas. Who in their right mind would immortalize and worship one man? The creation model adds one non-parsimonious element: a...

First, there are no Darwinists in the world today. The theorem of evolution today includes natural selection and genetics. Apes and Humans had a common ancestor.

Photosynthesis of plants eaten by herbivores eaten by carnivores. Grade school stuff. They exist now, yes. Purely chemical processes lead to the molecules that support life. They are self-assembling.

Then you are not Gilligan. You are more like the ape or one of the head-hunters to be most accurate. You are not in the main cast and say little of consequence.

If I wanted your particular input on this matter I would have drawn your attention to it. Your post was a good jumping off point to a discussion which you repeatedly refuse to have. Sorry, to have addressed your name directly. That was a rhetorical devise. You are welcome here if you choose to...

I misjudged the Bible. I thought nothing was said about trans rights.

Also as yet unproven. Religious books carry no weight outside the religion. Placing an explanation outside the bounds of our understood reality is no explanation at all. It's just a hypothesis with no operational definitions.

Look inward. You could understand if you wanted to.

Here is something Huck Finn demonstrated that the Bible did not do as well on: Slavery is wrong; racism is wrong.

The current energy system of life on earth is not closed. The sun impacts the ecosystem in a fashion that reduces entropy. See above. Also, chemical reactions can in a limited way produce temporary increases in energy withiin a particular interaction ( though waste products and overall...

I challenge you to steel-man my position!

When you did not negate my question about the creative arts. Read great literature and then see if you say that.

Fictional analysis of the human condition are not lies. I would argue the adventures of Huck Finn and the tragedy of Othello provide more valuable lessons than most Bible verses. That's fine, but why must that preclude all else?

So, the case that rape cannot occur within a marital couple was less stupid? Are you referring to my claim or the faux claim within used to make a point? Just because entropy occurs in a closed system does not that it must in an open system. Just because entropy occurs overall in a closed...

That there is a supernatural realm. Yes.

It's almost like you used up your power to imagine on your religion and have nothing left for the creative arts?

Wow. So you get to believe something without evidence and require precise rigor on the other side. Convenient. Lazy.

Pointing out hypocrisy on the other side is not a fallacy. Either the evidence provided to support the notion is valid or it is not. Of course you people here ignore the evidence, offer no evidence of your own, and offer a bold conclusion. What is that fallacy called?