How to perform science without using "methodological naturalism."

“the check is in the mail”.

I’m a Creationist’s worse nightmare. A science educated and knowledgeable pro-science poster who can refute Creo nonsense all day long. :slightly_smiling_face:


This is not true of the representation of European mammals where 80% of a represented form are found in Europe! More that this worldwide. This evidense shows a contradiction from evolutionary principles as per j gould and dr. Kurt wise.

I have been around this once before and have to move on as folks think im a nut for repeating myself over and over again

Not that he ever had any credible ones to start with. But there’s no reason to pick on Greg. He’s admitted many times he doesn’t understand the scientific evidence even a little and is merely clinging to his literal Genesis interpretation from force of habit.

1 Like

Please Greg, not that brutally bad lie from Wise again. Didn’t we beat that one into a bloody pulp the last few times you posted it?


Can we call you the “terminator?” Do you have an Australian accent?

[Dad humor]

“Call me whatever you want, just don’t call me late for dinner”

[/Dad humor]


1 Like

The only presupposition I see is that no fossil, no matter what it looks like, can be transitional. All you have is denial.

In the real world of science, we actually look at the evidence. What we see are fossils that have both human and ape features. We call those transitional hominids.

Why don’t you prove me wrong. Describe for me the features a fossil would need to be transitional between humans and other apes, according to you. I bet you can’t do it.


What does this mean, even? It looks like English, but it isn’t. It’s nonsense.


This topic was automatically closed after 63 minutes. New replies are no longer allowed.