Re: Why Harshman Cannot Prove Macroevolution


unrestrained_hand@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Ray Martinez wrote:
> > John Harshman wrote:
> > > Ray Martinez wrote:
> > >
> > > > John: you do not know how to handle a compliment. Your entire post and
> > > > replies show how irrational and enraged you really are.
> > >
> > > I really think it would be better for you and everyone else if nobody
> > > replied to your posts.
> >
> > Talibanism = the way Darwinism stays in power.....John is advocating
> > the atheist way of history: ban your opponents to Siberia/murder.
>
> Why do you think that suggesting there is no merit in holding a
> discussion with you is the same as a sentence to a concentration camp
> or murder?
>

Then why are you responding ?

John cannot refute so he calls for banishment = the atheist way.

And what are you doing while evading the point of atheist behavior
during the last century ?

Behavior which John Harshman advocated without even being aware. The
point is that atheists have a natural criminal mind towards persons who
point out their nonsense.


> I might be miffed if a stranger refused to speak with me, but I would
> not be devastated, impoverished, tortured, isolated, or killed.
>

John advocated banishment - the criminal atheist way of history. He did
it on the Internet no less. Harshman stereotypically represents the
Fundamentalists of Scientism: the bad element of Science who happens to
have the ability to pass classes and obtain a license (diploma) to
legitimize the illegitimacy of atheist philosophy under the cover of
science. The school he went to should rescind his diploma and be
embarrassed that such a clown would stain the meaning of scholar:
protector of truth.

John has spammed the debate with deliberate nonsense evading the facts.
Macroevolution is assumed supported by the educational credentials of
con artists daring anyone to point out that they have no
clothes/evidence.


> You are given to hyperbole.
>

You should not use words that you do not understand.

> >
> > John:
> >
> > What is the term used to describe the belief that living things
> > originate from other living things and not from the God of Genesis ?
> >
> > The weight of Genesis will make this Darwinian con artist betray his
> > own philosophy and its product (macroevolution).
> >
>
> What weight?
> How would it make anyone do anything?
> I doubt you know John's philosphy.

Atheism/Darwinism/Naturalism = synonymous = not a matter of opinion.


> I assume you mean by his philosphy
> the science of evolution, since you speak of its "product". It is the
> study of macroevolution, not its cause. And science per se is not
> philosophy. It is a method for learning how things work.
>

Herein lies the basic confusion that all persons of your ape to man
myth are befuddled with: total ignorance about philosophy.

Everyone has a philosophical worldview - especially Darwinism.

Science is the objective discovery of God's creation. Darwinism is the
atheist philosophical manipulation of reality attempting to emulate the
prestige and power of Victorian/modern Bishops which they crave.

Your predictable ignorance, like Harshman's, concerning science and
philosophy is of no surprise since both of you are Darwinists = God
senseless morons dressed in suits.


> > This simple point proves Darwinism is a con wholly supported by
> > perceived educational credentials and daring anyone to point out the
> > Emperor has no clothes/evidence; except the ability to pass classes
> > presided over by a fellow Darwinist.
>
> So why *do humans have a plantaris tendon?
>

How did the eye or ear or brain evolve step by tiny step ?

Why does the female reproductive mechanism emit a scent that only
attracts the sperm cell that it was designed to attract (step by tiny
step) ?

Any Darwinist will spam a senseless atheistic answer hopefully
supported by educational credentials to shield the lunacy.

ID is an observable fact - always has been. Only Darwinists cannot see
ID and the Bible tells us why. God has scorned you for attempting to
scorn Him. All of your idiotic arguments and explanations are proof.

Macro has no evidence, unless you assert so anyway = proof of Romans 1
blinding penalty. That is the evidence of macro.


Ray

.

Loading