[W:381:2733***]Darwinism Descending

[marke]

Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

That doesn't seem to show any support for anything.

There is no scientific support for the various theories of the origins of matter and energy because those evidences cannot be seen and measured by scientific means.

 

[Angel]

Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

Secularists claim the data all support godless theories of the origin of life and matter. That is not true. Secularist interpretations of data support godless theories of origins, but Christian interpretations of the same data support the creation theory.

That doesn't seem to show any support for anything.

There is no scientific support for the various theories of the origins of matter and energy because those evidences cannot be seen and measured by scientific means.

Be advised: you're operating way above RAMOSS's pay grade here. His scientism makes it impossible for him to follow you.

 

[RAMOSS]

Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

There is no scientific support for the various theories of the origins of matter and energy because those evidences cannot be seen and measured by scientific means.

And where did you get that idea?

 

[Angel]

Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

There is no scientific support for the various theories of the origins of matter and energy because those evidences cannot be seen and measured by scientific means.

Be advised: you're operating way above RAMOSS's pay grade here. His scientism makes it impossible for him to follow you.

There is no scientific support for the various theories of the origins of matter and energy because those evidences cannot be seen and measured by scientific means.

And where did you get that idea?

See what I mean?

 

[gfm7175]

Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

Pretending that 'facts' are not things known or proved to be true and then playing word games with 'objective truth' is mendacious but, it is not my concern now.

You are making the word fact synonymous with truth... While I can understand the way you're using the word, it's not philosophically correct. You are describing a truth. A fact is shorthand predicate accepted by all parties. It speeds up conversation. It doesn't even have to be true...

 

[RAMOSS]

Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

You are making the word fact synonymous with truth... While I can understand the way you're using the word, it's not philosophically correct. You are describing a truth. A fact is shorthand predicate accepted by all parties. It speeds up conversation. It doesn't even have to be true...

Please show that the 'philosophical truth' is more than just speculation, opinion, and confirmation bias.

 

[Angel]

Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

Please show that the 'philosophical truth' is more than just speculation, opinion, and confirmation bias.

And how would you go about showing that your posts are "more than just speculation, opinion, and confirmation bias"? Can you riddle us that?

 

[Gina]

Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

Moderator's Warning:

Though many months ago, here is the previous in-thread: Moderator's Warning: The topic is not you all. Knock off the personal snarks or you'll be removed. Those who continue to snark and bait each other, no matter how light, will be removed and possibly with points. You all are NOT the topic.

 

[Quaestio]

Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

Jeez. I think I’ve heard this before.

Yep, so have I.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Re: Darwinism Descending[W:381]

And how would you go about showing that your posts are "more than just speculation, opinion, and confirmation bias"? Can you riddle us that?

Yes, by citing real world evidence in support of his arguments like he often does.