Total nonsense. I thought #727 should've been enough for you to understand the context of the argument but apparently you didn’t get it. Try to focus, we shouldn’t run in circles and keep repeating the same argument again and again.
The context here is not placing blames on specific people or...
This is totally illogical. The context here is not about biology or scientific advancement but rather about the toxic influence of the fundamental concept of evolution/natural selection with respect to racism and morality. The fundamental concept of evolution never changed since the very...
Adaptation would create variants but the changes are always very limited. It’s a variation of existing info similar to what happened in the “Escherichia Coli” experiment when an existing silent citrate transporter got activated. Its not a new info but rather directed alteration of existing info...
The question here is not about evolution or anthropology, it’s about your understanding of what an axiom is? Did you teach what an axiom is for 30 years?
An axiom is self evidently true, it serves as a premise or starting point for further reasoning. The status of an axiom is not dependent on a...
Your view appears to be somehow influenced by pantheism but your understanding of consciousness is not clear.
In the case of humans, do you believe that we have individual relative consciousness or a collective consciousness?
Anything can be described as an event. That doesn’t really shed...
Definitions are irrelevant. We are not talking about definitions. We are talking about adapted ideology as inspired or influenced by ideas/concepts of a theory.
If you adapt the concept that nature only moves forward through the selection of the fittest, then it’s a betrayal to the law of...
That is amusing, you’re using my argument but switching places. If you like to use my argument in your favor, you should adapt my premise first. It doesn’t work otherwise.
But no. It’s quite the opposite, you’re the one who denies science and deceives himself. Science is what disproved all...
The nodes of the evolutionary trees are hypothetical common ancestors. That’s what it is. If you don’t agree, provide your own definition. If you don’t know what it is, then you cannot use it as evidence to support your view.
The argument here is about the rarity of data (not just mere...
I can’t speak for these people but I can speak for what I see in your case.
You response do show unconscious doubt in your own belief about the ToE as evident in your very response to #753.
Your response shows that You’re aware of the weakness of your premise, that is why you totally avoid...
THE LATEST 21st CENTURY SCIENCE DISPROVED ALL THE CENTRAL ASSUMPTIONS OF THE MODERN SYNTHESIS (NEO-DARWINISM). NO EXCEPTION
A) The mainstream theory of evolution “ToE” is the “Modern Synthesis” which is a mid-20th century view of evolution, based on random mutations accumulating to produce...
Your confused and illogical opinion is meaningless.
Irrelevant nonsense, his non-involvement in crimes against humanity that happened before him has nothing to do with the later Influence of his widespread toxic ideas that promoted later crimes.
Nice list, what is your point of listing all...
I didn’t expect that from you. You’re making too many logical errors this time, which is mainly attributed to holding a false axiom.
-You cannot use Gould’s own statements to confirm the rarity of intermediates as your proof of the contrary. It doesn’t make any sense.
- You don’t know the...
This thread is about Darwin’s illusion and why the ToE is false. This is the focus of my posts.
It’s not me who rejected all fundamental principles of the Modern Synthesis, the top scientists and latest finds in the field did. See # 484 & 494.
“Punctuated Equilibrium” contradicts “Phyletic...
You can see the truth in what I said. Don’t you? Why do you insist to deceive yourself? Is it to win an argument? Is it worth it?
Do you deny that the evolutionary view eliminates the justification for any morality?
Do you deny that the evolutionary ideas supported the view that divides...
Live forms adapt as a result of directed mutation, which would cause a variant.
If a variant losses the ability of interbreeding with original species then the process is called speciation but is it really a new species?
Galápago finches have different beaks, they are considered different...
You’re making a logical error. Do you understand what an axiom is?
An axiom is necessarily self-evidently true. It’s a starting point/principle that can be used to draw conclusions but the conclusions as the end product, don’t give the axiom its “self-evident” status. That doesn’t make any...
We’re born with certain axiomatic foundations integrated in our consciousness that structure the characteristics of our awareness. Its what allow us to gain knowledge and grow (which would be otherwise impossible). It’s similar to the example of BIOS or operating system in a computer, without it...