For Those Who Still Insist That There Was Election Fraud

[Arthur Brain]

Of course it has.



As luck would have it, I provide reasons for what I believe.

Oh, no. No.

You never call anyone names.





Your beliefs about whales don't mean much when they aren't here to protect you.

The screeching is all yours.



Naw.

Address the issues sensibly. Stop screeching. Who knows. You might be able to convince someone of something. Offering nothing but hysteria and insults ain't gonna change nothing.



It was ages ago. It hasn't survived. But there were enough fanboys clapping like seals, someone is bound to recollect.

And if they don't, oh well. I don't care.

You sure seem to.

Um, no, you don't. You just assert stuff that veers from the ridiculous to bizarre and it's gotten beyond boring. The "screeching" is simply yours as are the tropes. I wouldn't remotely expect someone as you to be convinced of anything that challenges their narrative. Conspiracy nuts aren't exactly renowned for objectivity and critical thinking skills after all.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Please quote any post where Alate & Barb "schooled" anyone... I've love to see it.

Sure:

I Love Jesus and I Accept Evolution

Evolution is a well supported scientific idea attested by a wide variety of scientific data and Jesus Christ is a singular figure in human history with strong evidence of being different from every other person that has ever lived. His death burial and resurrection are unique and leads me to...

theologyonline.com

 

[marke]

"Science is the process of throwing theories out"?

Don't quit your day job Stripe...

In the early 1980s a couple of Bible-rejecting secularists came up with the Chicxulub asteroid theory to explain the mysterious dinosaur extinction. Without going into a lot of detail let's just admit that theory, though popular among secular Bible-rejecters, is full of crap. Nevertheless, secularists are still coming up with new theories to debunk old theories, none of which have much irrefutable scientific evidence to support them.

New theory behind Chicxulub impactor that killed the dinosaurs

New theory explains origin of comet that killed the dinosaurs.

news.harvard.edu

The new theory echoes one put forth by another Harvard professor, cosmologist Lisa Randall, in her 2015 book “Dark Matter and the Dinosaurs.” In the book, she theorized that a massive comet from the Oort Cloud could have been sprung from there by a plane of dark matter and sent toward Earth, causing the catastrophe that devastated the dinosaurs.

 

[marke]

Of course "Darwinism" isn't a theory, that's just some dumb trope you keep throwing about. Evolution, however, most certainly is and your risible nonsense about it being a cult kept alive by God hating anti science blah blah blah only serves to show just how clueless and dishonest you are where it comes to matters science. It hasn't "failed" any such thing and you've just embarrassed yourself once again on the score. No wonder you buy into conspiracy drivel.

Of course science discards things that don't hold up to scrutiny, that's not the same as science being the process of throwing theories out.

Science has disproven evolution but that does not matter to devout evolutionists who will believe any old stupid thing rather than believe God.

 

[Right Divider]

Sure:

I Love Jesus and I Accept Evolution

Evolution is a well supported scientific idea attested by a wide variety of scientific data and Jesus Christ is a singular figure in human history with strong evidence of being different from every other person that has ever lived. His death burial and resurrection are unique and leads me to...

theologyonline.com

That's a THREAD.... show a POST where they were "schooling".

 

[marke]

It is a legitimate theory for sure. You may not like it but so what?

Evolutionists defend evolution like crooked democrats defend voter fraud. They may even know the truth but they would rather die than believe it.

George Wald

• “I do not want to believe in God. Therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation leading to evolution.”
  

 

[marke]

No, when you assert something as downright idiotic that the theory of evolution is a "cult" that's kept alive by anti science atheists blah blah blah then you are a bonafide moron. You remove yourself from anything resembling even the veneer of reasoned discourse with asininity like that and that's just on you. No wonder you were the subject of mockery in that thread you alluded to earlier, you more than deserved it.

Yes, science throws things out that don't hold up to scrutiny. If you can't understand how that doesn't equate to science being the process of throwing theories out then no wonder you struggle with simple terms and definitions...

God-rejecters are like cultists in their devotion to the devil's lies, like evolution.

 

[Stripe]

Um, no, you don't.

Here it is again: Darwinism has failed the entropy test.

There it is right there. It would take some kind of insane conspiracy theorist to deny that.

You just assert stuff that veers from the ridiculous to bizarre and it's gotten beyond boring. The "screeching" is simply yours as are the tropes. I wouldn't remotely expect someone as you to be convinced of anything that challenges their narrative. Conspiracy nuts aren't exactly renowned for objectivity and critical thinking skills after all.

 

[marke]

Only Stripe could turn a thread about election fraud into a thread about "darwinists" and "evolution".

Maybe evolution can explain the survival of the most crooked in politics.

 

[Arthur Brain]

That's a THREAD.... show a POST where they were "schooling".

From the get go. Have a read.

 

[marke]

Well, no you don't. Stating that evolution is a cult propped up by anti science atheists and whatnot can't be reasoned, it's simply a monumentally dumb thing to assert. That's on you. Not only is it dumb it's dishonest. The two main people on this forum who handed you your head on a plate on a regular basis regarding evolution and else are both believers. The theory of evolution is acknowledged on a global scale among people with a myriad beliefs, that's just fact. When you espouse the asinine as you have with this "cult" nonsense then you've removed yourself from reason which again, is solely on you. Evolution has failed no such thing.

Your next is ironically laughable. You are captain trope himself and have been schooled more than a group of whales.

You haven't really "got" anything. If you can't understand the difference then buy a dictionary. Oh, and as much as it's been fun as ever with this little sideline, if you want to continue then tag me in a thread on topic with it from here on in thanks and I'll address it there.

The Scopes Monkey Trial put evolution theories on trial in a back-handed way, and every theory and piece of evolution 'evidence' like the Piltdown man and '180 vestigial organs in the human body' was debunked.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Here it is again: Darwinism has failed the entropy test.

There it is right there. It would take some kind of insane conspiracy theorist to deny that.

You just assert stuff that veers from the ridiculous to bizarre and it's gotten beyond boring. The "screeching" is simply yours as are the tropes. I wouldn't remotely expect someone as you to be convinced of anything that challenges their narrative. Conspiracy nuts aren't exactly renowned for objectivity and critical thinking skills after all.

Nope. Your projection is lame as ever also.

 

[Stripe]

Sure:

I Love Jesus and I Accept Evolution

Evolution is a well supported scientific idea attested by a wide variety of scientific data and Jesus Christ is a singular figure in human history with strong evidence of being different from every other person that has ever lived. His death burial and resurrection are unique and leads me to...

theologyonline.com

The very first reply exposes the Darwinist. They call their ideas "science," committing the logical fallacy of begging the question.

Schooled?

They don't even pass the first and simplest test.

 

[marke]

Well, considering that there were two posters on here who are both professional scientists and believers who extolled evolution then that kinda kicks evolution as being some "atheistic cult" into touch in itself. You can buy into whatever bunk you want RD. If you think the same as Stripe then you're as dumb as he is. If you actually do have some semblance of integrity where it comes to science you'd be chiding Stripe for asserting such nonsense, not supporting him.

Of what value is a high reputation among scientists if the scientist of reputation openly admits he will believe a lie before he will ever believe the truth?

George Wald, Nobel laureate:

• “I do not want to believe in God. Therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation leading to evolution.”
  

 

[marke]

You most certainly don't if you're stupid enough to think that the theory of evolution is associated with atheism, cult or associated in science. That is the remit of dope mentality.

That isn't cute, it's just thick.

Deluded evolutionist: I believe in God and in evolution but God's word, the Bible, is full of crap.

 

[marke]

The theory of evolution has failed no such thing. You can assert it as much as you like, it still won't mean anything.

You're not being called names. If you assert something as ridiculous as the ToE being some atheistic cult then that is simply a monumentally dumb thing to say and it's not insulting to point that out. You typed it so it's on you. That's yet more out there conspiracy drivel on your part which is on par with the oddballs who still think that Trump was defrauded of the last election.

You know fine well that both Alate & Barb are believers so no link should even be necessary. They schooled you often enough through the years on here.

The screeching is all yours and you're actually spamming up my thread with your silly "Darwinist" soundbites. Go do it elsewhere thanks.

How is the theory that life has been evolving and adding new genetic information from unknown and unintelligent sources for hundreds of millions of years not debunked by the law of entropy?

 

[Right Divider]

From the get go. Have a read.

I've read it.
They schooled nobody.
Show a POST where you think someone got schooled.

 

[Skeeter]

The very first reply exposes the Darwinist. They call their ideas "science," committing the logical fallacy of begging the question.

Schooled?

They don't even pass the first and simplest test.

 

[Stripe]

From the get go. Have a read.

Blablaman in that thread tried defending eye evolution using a source that admitted they had no idea how eyes evolved:

Bold claim. However, reading your quote shows no evidence, just descriptions of what there is. Moreover, the challenge is not addressed.

Perhaps you didn't read it.

The ancestral configuration of the vertebrate head has long been an intriguing topic in comparative morphology and evolutionary biology.

And they still have no idea.

One peculiar component of the vertebrate head is the presence of extra-ocular muscles (EOMs), the developmental mechanism and evolution of which remain to be determined.

See?

No?

Let me spell it out clearly for you. Here, we'll type slowly:

The challenge: Describe how this evolved.
Meyers: I don't know.
Your source: It is not known how this evolved (ie, I don't know).

It must be embarrassing to consistently have your own sources admit that they can't solve the problem you Googled them to answer.

Next time perhaps read them first?

No?

OK. :idunno:

Talk about being podded.

 

[Arthur Brain]

The very first reply exposes the Darwinist. They call their ideas "science," committing the logical fallacy of begging the question.

Schooled?

They don't even pass the first and simplest test.

Yes, you were. However, given that you have difficulty understanding basic terms and definitions in general as evidenced with your bizarre ramblings on here you're certainly free to "think" that you weren't.