Sumerians show why a natural interpretation of evolution is false

a reply to: Phantom423

They're wrong about what?

You seem to think that these 500 peer reviewed juornals and 200,000 research papers support your interpretation of evolution. Scientific materialism is a philosophy. There's no law that says science has to be viewed through the eyes of materialism or naturalism.

This is why I say there's an intelligent design interpretation of evolution and a natural interpretation of evolution. A natural interpretation of evolution is a fantasy.

Darwinist act like science supports their philosophy by default.

I haven't seen cooperton discount any of these 200,000 research papers. He's just saying they don't support your belief in materialism or naturalism. Again, you say that cooperton has to PROVE that they're wrong but like I said you have to tell us wrong about what? I haven't seen him say that any of these research papers are wrong, it's just you're wrong in your interpretation of these papers. They don't support materialism or naturalism in any way, shape or form.

There's scientific materialism and scientific idealism. An intelligent design interpretation of evolution would be under scientific idealism. There's nothing in those 200,000 papers or 500 peer reviewed journals that supports materialism or naturalism.

The concrete evidence of eggs before chickens is the fossil record, as you well know. You choose not to believe it.

You can look up the evidence for everything else yourself, but I know you won't because it doesn't concur with your dogma.

a reply to: Phantom423

You said:

The same applies to you:

I agree and I and others have shown over and over again that a natural interpretation of evolution is a fantasy.

You seem to be confused. You mention the 500 peer reviewed journals and 200,000 research papers like I have to prove that they're wrong. I never said they were wrong. I just have to prove your materialist interpretation of these papers is wrong and I and others have done that time and time again in thread after thread.

Evolution isn't synonymous with the philosophies of materialism and naturalism. Those 200,000 research papers support evolution not your materialist or naturalist philosophy. The arguments from you and your Darwinist cohorts are woefully lacking and almost non existent. This is because you try to debate as if those 200,000 research papers support your materialist belief by default which they don't.

originally posted by: neoholographic
It's obvious that there was an explosion of knowledge that happened almost instantly.

Or just the opposite.

There was a lot of knowledge, a physical pole shift, frozen everything, displaced oceans of water ... and poof ... just a handful of survivors.

If one has no idea how hard surviving what I'm talking about would be like ... move outdoors for six months. And remember, the technological society we live in today is incapable of re-creating the Pyramid **Complex** at Giza.

a reply to: Phantom423

You're starting to sound unhinged like the dragon guy.

I don't have to prove they're wrong. I never said they're wrong. I said your materialist interpretation of their work is wrong. You're sounding like Marco Rubio in that debate with Chris Christie when he kept repeating the same thing like a broken record.

Again, I never claimed that they were wrong. I claimed that your materialist interpretation is wrong. Your philosophy isn't synonymous with the 200,000 research papers. They're 2 separate things. One is the 200,000 papers that I never said was wrong so I don't have to prove they're wrong. Two, is the convoluted materialist or naturalist interpretation of evolution that I and others have shown is a house of cards.

I'm not in a debate with evolution. I'm in a debate with your fantastical, materialist interpretation of evolution.

a reply to: neoholographic

Good grief fool, Evolution, just like anthropomorphic global climate change is settled science. You gonna tell me next that the earth is flat?

a reply to: TonyS

He's already tried to sell his flat Earth theory - crashed and burned. Never came back.

originally posted by: Snarl

There was a lot of knowledge, a physical pole shift, frozen everything, displaced oceans of water ... and poof ... just a handful of survivors.

If one has no idea how hard surviving what I'm talking about would be like ... move outdoors for six months. And remember, the technological society we live in today is incapable of re-creating the Pyramid **Complex** at Giza.

They've found reservoirs of water beneath the earth, about which the researcher said:

"We should be grateful for this deep reservoir,” says Jacobsen. “If it wasn’t there, it would be on the surface of the Earth, and mountain tops would be the only land poking out.”

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: neoholographic

Good grief fool, Evolution, just like anthropomorphic global climate change is settled science. You gonna tell me next that the earth is flat?

Show one example of an organism evolving into another kind of organism. Mice remain mice, fruit flies remain fruit flies, microbes remain microbes. You simply have faith that they can evolve, because there is no science that records it as a possibility.

originally posted by: cooperton
Show one example of an organism evolving into another kind of organism. Mice remain mice, fruit flies remain fruit flies, microbes remain microbes. You simply have faith that they can evolve, because there is no science that records it as a possibility.

This is the thing one should always throw straight into the face on any Evolutionist. Darwin published his theory more than 100 years ago. Not even a hint of evolutionary evidence has surfaced. Yep, that was a period at the end of the last sentence.

I don't care how many papers are written or how many times they've been peer reviewed. All they've done is group themselves into a single bowl of discredited Scientists (with a capitol S).

Science (science) is demonstrable and repeatable ... unless a Scientist needs to ignore that itty-bitty PITA part of it.

Hahahahahahahahahahaha

originally posted by: Snarl

This is the thing one should always throw straight into the face on any Evolutionist. Darwin published his theory more than 100 years ago. Not even a hint of evolutionary evidence has surfaced. Yep, that was a period at the end of the last sentence.

I don't care how many papers are written or how many times they've been peer reviewed. All they've done is group themselves into a single bowl of discredited Scientists (with a capitol S).

Science (science) is demonstrable and repeatable ... unless a Scientist needs to ignore that itty-bitty PITA part of it.

Hahahahahahahahahahaha

Yeah phantom is making an appeal to majority and appeal to authority fallacy all in one post that she keeps repeating like a parrot. Notice how she can't find one instance of a population of organisms evolving? Moths remain moths. Finches remain finches.

Given over 100 years of laboratory artificial selection and there is still no trace of an organism transitioning into another kind of organism. It is because organisms cannot go outside particular bounds, as the research has shown since there are no examples of a population of organisms evolving

originally posted by: TerraLiga
The concrete evidence of eggs before chickens is the fossil record, as you well know. You choose not to believe it.

Give the most compelling piece of evidence you can find. From my research, dinosaurs are found to have soft tissue which contains radioactive carbon that is dated to some time less than 40,000 years ago. There's also immense evidence that humans witnessed dinosaurs. They described them with pictures and literature. Since evidence insists dinosaurs were of a more recent past, the evolutionary timeline is even less possible

originally posted by: cooperton
Yeah phantom is making an appeal to majority and appeal to authority fallacy all in one post that she keeps repeating like a parrot. Notice how she can't find one instance of a population of organisms evolving? Moths remain moths. Finches remain finches.

I just sorted the thread on her comments alone. Am surprised she hasn't been warned by the mods for thread drift.

There are over 500 peer-reviewed journals in evolutionary biology and over 200,000 research papers. It's incumbent on YOU to prove YOU'RE right and they're wrong.

Science (science) is science ... it is both demonstrable and repeatable. When she mentions her 500 peer-reviewed journals, has she ever done you the courtesy of identifying which one contains experiments demonstrating ... and then repeating ... an evolutionary change ... you know ... when something like a dog turns into a cat?

I wanna see the really cool trick ... you know ... the one where they turn the cat back into a dog?

ETA: I forgot ... that's a magic trick ... not science (demonstrable and repeatable).

a reply to: Snarl

I wanna see the really cool trick ... you know ... the one where they turn the cat back into a dog.

Cite one biology textbook or research paper that says that a cat can be turned into a dog. All you need is one. Thanks.

originally posted by: Phantom423
Cite one biology textbook or research paper that says that a cat can be turned into a dog. All you need is one. Thanks.

If I could ... that would end the debate once and for all. Since I can't ... evolution must not be a proven theory. Huh?

a reply to: Snarl

Such acute logical thinking. Why don't you try philosophy. Or better yet, how about reading read textbooks and research papers. Idiot.