Natural Selection Seems Insufficient

[Deesse23]

A very basic education in any science, particularly the ones you are criticizing and a demonstration of yours that you actually have understood your lessons. What Level of scientific education do you have?


...unless your are so ignorant you dont know how ignorant you are. The people you may criticize are potentially wrong, but you possibly are too ignorant to make valid points against them.
On what basis do you determine that evolution is wrong? Its a well established theory for over 100 years and entire generations of scientist have devoted their entire life to critically examine it. So far there is a mountain of evidence in favour of it and nothing has been presented yet to disprove it. Are you so arrogant to believe these hordes of PhD holders who invested their entire professional lives, did some "stupid" mistakes like missing that 2+2=4 or that consciousness can only come from consciousness. DO you seriously think that was never considered?
Your entire attitude shows me  that you did NOT have any scientific education, because you lack the humility to LISTEN and UNDERSTAND before you try to criticize. Me and many of my co-students were the same, in our first year at university, and we were QUICKLY disabused of the notion that our professors who had decades of study and lecture under their belt did some "stupid mistakes" and that we "exposed" this stupidity.

I am going to shortly address, passing by so to say, that you not only dont know what you are criticizing, you dont even know what you believe. When i told you the trinity is incoherent you answered by suggesting you understand trinity as partialism. Actually partialism is a heresy, and the trinitarian belief is the belief that all three entities (God, Jesus, Holy Spirit) are the SAME entity at the same time. This mere fact should make you stop in your track immediately and critically examine your beliefs and epistemology. Add to that the fact that most christians disagree with your theology, most philosophers with your philosophy and scientists with your claims about science.

Please let that sink in for a second before you hit the reply button.

Please don't lecture me on traditional assessments of Christian heresy. These assessments are formulated by the same kinds of scholars who
(1) Admit that the traditional theory of the Incarnation is incomprehensible and self-contradictory.
(2) Claim that an immutable God became man.
(3) Claim that God is immaterial, therefore indivisible into parts, and yet is a Trinity. 
(4) Claim that God is already fully/exhaustively present at every point in space - and yet pours out His Holy Spirit! Pours it where? Where He was already there?

These are examples of historic idiocy, and I can show you more.

Even Millard J. Erickson, whose systematic theology textbook is the most popular one in seminaries today, or at least was such in his heyday, admitted that the traditional rendition of the Trinity is logically "absurd from the human standpoint" (his words).

You made a heretic statement of partialism while clearly being completely ignorant/oblivious of the fact you were. You completely missed the point, as usual, and are backpedaling now. You defended Trinity when i called it incoherent. You didnt know that the trinity is NOT about your god having three parts. You didnt know the theology of your own religion. Now you quickly looked it up and condemn it yourself. 

The earth is not flat genesis 1 is wrong on every single claim, bats aren't birds, we have found nobody  dwelling in the outer atmosphere, and Trinity is logically incoherent

The Trinity is incoherent? Identifying three subsections of a material mind is incoherent?  In that case, which one cell of your brain is the real you? I mean, you're saying that multiple parts is incoherent, right? As usual, you're not making any sense.

Bolding mine