Evolutionism: A belief in something that cannot be in action nor absolutely proven, hence it is outside of the scientific method. It is a a dogma held dear by its followers as a metapysical position vainly clung to by faith, without works. It is a hallucination pronounced in accordance with one's metaphysical wish to eliminate the concepts of judgement, eternity, and Hell, therefore assigned a place of supreme importance in the propaganda matrix of the heathen.

A truly magnificent post! Rubbish from beginning to end.

... therefore assigned a place of supreme importance in the propaganda matrix of the heathen.


One must consider that the "propaganda matrix" under consideration is constructed by the heathen as an alibi for the sentiments generated by what is left of the heathen's seared conscience. The "propaganda matrix" increases in scope and inanity as a positive function of time.

Evolutionism: A belief in something that cannot be in action nor absolutely proven, hence it is outside of the scientific method. It is a a dogma held dear by its followers as a metapysical position vainly clung to by faith, without works. It is a hallucination pronounced in accordance with one's metaphysical wish to eliminate the concepts of judgement, eternity, and Hell, therefore assigned a place of supreme importance in the propaganda matrix of the heathen.

Can you repeat that in English?

Evolutionism: A belief in something that cannot be in action nor absolutely proven, hence it is outside of the scientific method. It is a a dogma held dear by its followers as a metapysical position vainly clung to by faith, without works. It is a hallucination pronounced in accordance with one's metaphysical wish to eliminate the concepts of judgement, eternity, and Hell, therefore assigned a place of supreme importance in the propaganda matrix of the heathen.

Evolution is not a belief, it is a fact. The Theory of Evolution explains how this could have occurred, and if it is not "absolutely proven", so what? Very few theories are considered absolute fact.

Can you repeat that in English?^

Evolution is not a belief, it is a fact. The Theory of Evolution explains how this could have occurred, and if it is not "absolutely proven", so what? Very few theories are considered absolute fact.


This conjecture of evolutionism - this theory - "is a fact," according to the Spidergoat. Yet the same Spidergoat goes on to say that "if it is not 'absolutely proven', so what? Very few theories are considered absolute fact."

And so we see, from the testimony of a card-carrying faithful believer in the metaphysical speculations of evolutionism, the faith which is held so dear.

Yes it is a fact, but so what if it is not absolutely proven, after all, by grace are they (the evolutionists) comforted by faith.

This conjecture of evolutionism - this theory - "is a fact," according to the Spidergoat. Yet the same Spidergoat goes on to say that "if it is not 'absolutely proven', so what? Very few theories are considered absolute fact."

And so we see, from the testimony of a card-carrying faithful believer in the metaphysical speculations of evolutionism, the faith which is held so dear.

Yes it is a fact, but so what if it is not absolutely proven, after all, by grace are they (the evolutionists) comforted by faith.

False equivalence.

Guess it is proven, just not absolutely. Hey, it 'could have happened':D

Guess it is proven, just not absolutely. Hey, it 'could have happened':D

Evolution will stand until an explanation that better fits the observed evidence is found. Though there is virtually no chance chance that the entire theory would be discarded. But constant minor revisions are to be expected as more evidence is found.

I'm amused by what its detractors have to offer in its place.

False equivalence.


How so, old sport?

This conjecture of evolutionism - this theory - "is a fact," according to the Spidergoat. Yet the same Spidergoat goes on to say that "if it is not 'absolutely proven', so what? Very few theories are considered absolute fact."

And so we see, from the testimony of a card-carrying faithful believer in the metaphysical speculations of evolutionism, the faith which is held so dear.

Yes it is a fact, but so what if it is not absolutely proven, after all, by grace are they (the evolutionists) comforted by faith.

you have shown yourself as the next of a long line of religous people who just don't understand science to be a theory it has to have evidence to support it and it does

you have shown yourself as the next of a long line of religous people who just don't understand science to be a theory it has to have evidence to support it and it does


That statement is a syntactic nightmare and ambiguous. Proofread your posts. Perhaps try to recast it in an intelligible manner. You may want to add a preposition or a demonstrative pronoun somewhere.

That statement is a syntactic nightmare and ambiguous. Proofread your posts. Perhaps try to recast it in an intelligible manner. You may want to add a preposition or a demonstrative pronoun somewhere.

how the hell is it ambiguous. i was just say you know jack about the rules of science. it was an intelligible manner and i find your comment on my posts hard to understand when use are overly verbose.

nor might i have add said anything to prove your point then ramblings of the metaphyischal

how the hell is it ambiguous. i was just say you know jack about the rules of science. it was an intelligible manner and i find your comment on my posts hard to understand when use are overly verbose.

nor might i have add said anything to prove your point then ramblings of the metaphyischal


Is English not your native tongue? This last post of yours is even more gramatically incoherent. Obviously you are trying to say something, but you are not communicating it. Maybe you should type your posts on a WORD document and follow the spelling and grammar guidelines. That will eliminate some of the ambiguity.

Then grab an undergraduate Philosophy Of Science text and read about what a theory is, and compare it with the Spidergoat's hedging which begat this little discussion.

Let me know if I can be of any more assistance.
God bless you.

It is false equivalence to portray TOE as requiring faith, thereby putting it in the same plane as religion. The faith required for TOE is that we can believe our senses. This is nothing like religious faith.

"TOH"?

Sorry, TOE. I'm tired.

Is English not your native tongue? This last post of yours is even more gramatically incoherent. Obviously you are trying to say something, but you are not communicating it. Maybe you should type your posts on a WORD document and follow the spelling and grammar guidelines. That will eliminate some of the ambiguity.

Then grab an undergraduate Philosophy Of Science text and read about what a theory is, and compare it with the Spidergoat's hedging which begat this little discussion.

Let me know if I can be of any more assistance.
God bless you.

i know what a scientific theory is and i knew i spelt words wrong but i don't have enough respect for to correct them.and although my grammar is not perfect it still allows for easy understanding so either you don't understand what me basic premise is or you know you cannot refute my logic and decided to attack me. and your still refusing to defend your premise which lends me to believe you know it bs.
and spidergoat's way of explaining it is not great but still works to explain it roughly in that it has evidence to back it up but that it is not garanteed to be the way science views it forever. instead of complaining about his word choice i would like to see you defend your premise or keep silent and let those with a better understanding of the topic discuss it.

OK, TOE then.

On one hand we have the issue of to what degree and when we can believe our senses. Volumes have been written on that topic.

Also, we have the issue of how the evidence is interpreted. Evolutionists and creationists are looking at the same evidence, but drawing different conclusions. So it becomes a philosophical issue.

OK, TOE then.

On one hand we have the issue of to what degree and when we can believe our senses. Volumes have been written on that topic.

Also, we have the issue of how the evidence is interpreted. Evolutionists and creationists are looking at the same evidence, but drawing different conclusions. So it becomes a philosophical issue.

creationists refuse to look at the evidence and go by the bible how is that "looking at the same evidence"

i know what a scientific theory is and i knew i spelt words wrong but i don't have enough respect for to correct them.and although my grammar is not perfect it still allows for easy understanding so either you don't understand what me basic premise is or you know you cannot refute my logic and decided to attack me. and your still refusing to defend your premise which lends me to believe you know it bs.
and spidergoat's way of explaining it is not great but still works to explain it roughly in that it has evidence to back it up but that it is not garanteed to be the way science views it forever. instead of complaining about his word choice i would like to see you defend your premise or keep silent and let those with a better understanding of the topic discuss it.


ROTFLMAO.

I certainly did not attack you, I am trying to untangle your rhetoric, that's all. So relax.

As for " ... your still refusing to defend your premise ... ", remember that it was the Spidergoat who went from "fact" to "could have" to "if it is not "absolutely proven", so what?" to "Very few theories are considered absolute fact."

So his initial assertion of "fact" was seriously compromised by his own testimony.

creationists refuse to look at the evidence and go by the bible how is that "looking at the same evidence"


Not necessarily so. Creationists are not all Bible believers. The creation model is independent of the Biblical record, and can be evaluated solely in terms of the scientific data.

For example, if one examines texts titled Scientific Creationism and What Is Creation Science? one will not see a single Biblical reference in any of the hundreds of pages of discussion.

To make a long story short, consider the evolution model and the creation model. Then contemplate what each model would predict with respect to topics A, B, C, D, etc. Then examine the evidence.

One will find that the scientific data strongly support the creation model and contradict the evolution model. One will also find that the evolution model is full of a supposedly "explanatory vocabulary" that actually explains nothing and that even generates a false impression of what the facts are.

Additionally, evolution is much more "religious" in essence than creationism. Not only does the creation model explain the scientific data better than the evolution model, but evolution serves as the basic philosophy for many more religions of the world than does creation.