Flitting between usernames, giving yourself frubals only shows you as the great deceiver on here. To think you’ve been doing this for 20 years, is weird.
Tokens? You clearly cannot be debated appearing to be using delusional terminology.
You and no one else has seen DNA being made from scratch, it can never happen on its own if you know anything about chemistry, you are clearly delusional about that.
The radiometric dating is done on several samples not just one and it obviously isn’t observed when they through a wealth of data out that doesn’t fit.
I’m not bothering with that nonsense google link babbling about the reasons for homosexuality, the link didn’t open anyway saving me time. As mentioned before I can see all the holes in reasoning in the number of science papers I have bothered to read finding all explanations fanciful...
There is no such thing, that’s a term attributed through retrospect, looking at gene mutations. In theory any reproduction can survive, and there’s no reason organisms grow in size.
They have found bones that’s all, they want them to be the right age and if they are being truthful with the find, they guess the age and asked someone else to date the rocks, using a falsifiable method, where the bones were supposedly found, all collusion.
You want to believe something with an accumulation of collusion and false evidence. What is ‘survival’, where does that come from. What about ‘fittest’, what is that if not observing these phenomena without explaining. I would require these terms explaining and not someone saying “oh they just...
You obviously ignore the build up of faith in the Bible, required before the Bible predicted there would be a falling away from the faith. Impressive after 2000 years which was also predicted but I will leave you in the dark about that.
That’s just collusion helping spread a lie. Some aspects of evolution like mutations and observed changes within a species are indeed fact but that does not prove other theory and importantly confirm the made up evolutionary tree of life by arranging random fossils found in the ground into a...
Then you check it against the jumbled up fossil record with no genetic material unless they have soft tissue from 65 million years ago. Is this a new stand up comedy routine?
I see you’ve repeated this which must make you think it is important. I suspect it is a load of inconsequential nonsense not related to ToE. Genetics hasn’t proven ToE, it has all been retrospection and a lot of assumption.
I laughed at your signature: "Reality is not what you perceive it to...
You have arrived at that conclusion by looking at changes in genes retrospectively. You haven’t proved your tree of life or disproved creation in the slightest.