Why should I or anyone take your meaningless denial seriously?
Don’t you as other evolutionists, hold the evolution as an axiom? If you do, bias is inevitable.
Consciousness and intelligence are inseparable. Consciousness is the root. Intelligence is only one of the manifestations of consciousness. Without consciousness, there is no intelligence.
I don’t know what is your definition of intelligence or why you deny it but before you deny it, you need...
My argument here is about the facts not biased interpretations.
As an established palaeontologist, I’m quoting Gould only to establish the fact of extreme rarity of what can be considered as a transitional form in the fossil record. This is the point and its already established.
The...
#519, 521, 522, 523, 525, 526, 528, etc.
Proponents of the ToE are either those who rely on outdated scientific material without much understanding or awareness of the latest in the field (other than their wish that they do) and others who are simply ignorant blind followers, but almost in all...
Absolutely, only a true ignorant would disagree.
A pure materialistic interpretation entails that moral values are meaningless products of randomness. There is no place for it in the first place, neither right nor wrong, neither good nor evil, neither justice nor injustice. These are moral...
Other than wishful thinking, what gives the evolution hypothesis the status of an axiom?
An axiom means self-evidently true (unfalsifiable hypothesis), which means that researchers don’t have any option to interpret the observations otherwise. Which necessarily results fallacious/noncredible...
The “Escherichia Coli” experiment is another example of false interpretation of observations and misrepresentation of scientific finds that would confuse the uninformed.
In his book “the greatest show on earth”, Richard Dawkins claimed that Richard Lenski’s research shows new information...
I understand your point to stay away from nonsense but an appropriate level of knowledge is required to assess the validity of other views and gain confidence in your own.
Many people adapt their premise based on a mere desire or inclination to follow a scientific dogma or a religious group...
It’s only your wishful thinking, the new information is what triggered a need for EES and replacement of the standard theory. See #160 & # 484.
The more we know, the more it becomes evident that the MS had failed. Your meaningless denial doesn’t change the facts. see # 484
Again!! I gave you a single point as you requested but you insist to jump all over the place and continuously move the goalposts. You’re not serious. Your claim that the material in #397 are cherry picked and outdated was refuted.
Take care
Indeed I’m. The Modern Synthesis that you believe in is an 80-year-old obsolete theory that started in early to mid 20th century (approximately between 1920–1942 when Julian Huxley coined the term). You may not be aware of it, but you are all holding an obsolete view from the 40’s.
The Modern...
If you want others to agree, then you have to logically demonstrate the validity of your point. If you do but yet they don’t agree, then it’s not your fault.
Why (how) did you diverge? You input the data, you assess it against a reference of your specific trusted criteria, and you make a...
I appreciate your rationality but I have a different opinion.
No, statistical significance is an important measure of the probability of a hypothesis being true with respect to the acceptable level of uncertainty regarding the true answer.
The context is different. A single diamond proves...
I agree, you and I know that it was born dead but for others it’s not that simple, they hold a stubborn false premise, if you want to help them to see why the theory is false, you have to elaborate and walk them through it step-by-step.
You may think its simple enough to ask others to look at...
That’s Pathetic; you kept requesting one point at a time. I gave you a single simple point and you failed miserably. Don’t get yourself distracted by my arguments with others, focus on yours and stop the silly excuses.
Again, The point was your claim in #400 that my referenced articles in # 397...
You asked for a single point, I gave it to you and you failed. Pathetic.
You were responding to #410, If you want to prove me wrong go back to #410 and refute my single point (which is refuting your claims that my referenced articles are 40 years out of date.). If you cannot, then stop your...