Evolution is a Religion - VIII

As you construe them, which is a biased view.

According to you, we must all bow down to your OPINIONS and consider them true. BS.

 

Yet according to you, all things come from this god which must include evolution. Where are the churches for this "religion" and the defamation of it, except for you?

 

I'm not "construing" anything... Read the laws for yourself...

 

My personal belief is that the God of Christianity exists. If Evolution is true, then I believe that Evolution came from the Christian God and is overseen by the Christian God. God is not a necessary component of Evolution, though, so God is irrelevant to the discussion of whether Evolution is a religion or not, or whether Evolution is true or not.

Religion need not have a physical church building.

 

??Science is based on observation.

Your formalization idea means that the explanation part of the theory is removed.
For example evolution, one of the most important theories in all of science, a foundation of all modern biology can not be reduced to an equation.

Why would you suggest removing the very heart of a theory like that?

 

No, the age of rocks is determined by many methods that do not have anything to do with fossils that may or may not be found in them.

 

Actually, the reverse is true. It is you who have no idea of the truth of what you claim and act as if any diversion from your message does

I have and they are open to interpretation. You continue to choose the interpretation that pleases your biased view. Always to one side, never considering that they may be wrong.

 

You still try to have it both ways. As always.

And if you notice, all religions have a gathering place, usually a building. You just can't admit that there is a possibility that you are wrong. And, as usual, you are.

 

I assure you that there is not one neoatheist here that comprehends what you just said because atheologically its a sin to read beyond the first sentence in a dictionary or understand the full scope and meaning of any word that does not fully 100% support the 'lack'.

In atheology, worshippers of the atheist god Pemba has only one commandment that demands 'Thou shalt lack' at all times. Meet the neoatheist god: https://www.godchecker.com/african-mythology/PEMBA/

 

I had hoped that you and your BS thinking and claims would skip this thread as you obviously have nothing of worth to contribute.

 

Everyone knows thats just a worn out thoroughly debunked cover story for positions neoatheists cant defend.

 

I'm not suggesting that.

The theory still exists all the same. A law is simply a theory that has been formalized (usually by way of mathematics). If a theory has not or cannot be formalized, then there is no law. Formalization of a theory into a law does not take away the theory.

 

Such as?

I'm not claiming that you are wrong. I'm simply interested in the specific examples that you are making reference to when you say "many methods [having nothing to do with fossils]"...

 

They are not open to interpretation. They say what they say. If you "re-interpret" them, then you are no longer talking about the law, but about something else...

 

Nope. That's you, good sir.

A "gathering place" is not a necessary component of religion. Heck, even within Christianity, I don't have to gather at a physical church building in order to be a Christian. I merely need to believe that Jesus Christ exists and is who he says he is (meaning that the contents of the Holy Bible are true (ie, I am a sinner who needs saving)).

You again, good sir.

 

Which is exactly what you do and have no problem doing. If someone else follows your example you get all upset and attempt to defame them.

 

You seem to think that denial of your own actions and words is a good defense and projecting your own actions and claims onto someone else is helpful to you. As usual, you are wrong.

 

Time for you to do some actual research to educate yourself. You wish others to do so for you so that you ca deny it and say you have never seen it. That is your method of operation, as always.

 

I'm telling you precisely what the laws say. I'm not attempting to change them in any way.

 

What you interpret them as saying. Not the same thing as what they actually say. As displayed, you have no background except you imagination to back up anything that you say.

 

These "arguments" keep getting more and more nonsensical.

I do not have a yacht. I lack a yacht. According to your logic, that means I have a yacht and my yacht is Pemba.
My best friend does not have a personal trainer. He lacks a personal trainer. According to your logic, that means he has a personal trainer and his personal trainer is Pemba.
My dog does not have an employer. He lacks an employer. According to your logic, that means he has an employer and his employer is Pemba.

 

I will only say that having that guy on ignore is more entertaining than he was. Piecing together his pointless diatribe from the replies alone is pretty fun without the annoyance instilled by reading and responding to pointless trolling.

 

And I’ve proven your claim wrong.

You’ve shown that you have no idea what either of those are. This is basic 6th grade level science. Your position has been completely demolished.

 

Nope. What I have done is directly refuted your hilarious bullshit, with direct links to actual science.

 

No, I'm telling you what they actually say. Read them for yourself... Don't take my word for it...