Atheists and their jargon of insults

[Subduction Zone]

Others seem to think that I have. Only you seem to disagree. I hate repeating myself to people that have shown that they cannot be honest so when I know that I have done something all that I require is an admission that you did not understand a post made to you earlier. It does no good to repeat the whole post and that was why I offered to do the extra work of baby stepping it for you.

Only those that also do not understand the concept of evidence. You have a tendency to use very poor sources. I have tried to help you on that.

Here is what you should be doing, There is nothing wrong with getting ideas from right wing sources, but it is never a good idea to use them. They are wrong far too often just as far left wing sources are wrong far too often. I do not use far left wing sources. You can get your idea from your right wing source and then go a one that is neutral such as Reuters or the AP. They have search functions. Put the names and the basic claims in their search functions and if they confirm it you are pretty safe. If they do not then you are probably wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh my, more falsehoods. I hate putting people on ignore. But you tempt me.

When have I been rude when you were not debating properly first?

 

[Eli G]

If some of them say that humans are apes, what else can you expect from them?

Actually, one of them even say that there is not different on the intelligence of humans and animals. Can someone say such a ridiculous thing and consider themselves literate in something?

In reality, I'm not interested in disqualifications like certain people are... but if I dedicated myself to doing it like them, I would already have an immense collection of ridiculous things autographed by these "wise men who proclaim themselves defenders of science".

 

[Laniakea]

Only those that also do not understand the concept of evidence. You have a tendency to use very poor sources. I have tried to help you on that.

Here is what you should be doing, There is nothing wrong with getting ideas from right wing sources, but it is never a good idea to use them. They are wrong far too often just as far left wing sources are wrong far too often. I do not use far left wing sources. You can get your idea from your right wing source and then go a one that is neutral such as Reuters or the AP. They have search functions. Put the names and the basic claims in their search functions and if they confirm it you are pretty safe. If they do not then you are probably wrong.

IOW, a claim is only true if a leftist source says it is.
Hey, maybe we should just have a government agency decide what's true and what isn't. Then we can just abolish free speech since people will simply disagree anyway.

 

[Laniakea]

When have I been rude when you were not debating properly first?

Uh oh! Looks like you're in the Projection Zone.
Think about that for your next username.

 

[Laniakea]

When have I been rude when you were not debating properly first?

You are projecting heavily again. The problem may be that you conflate honesty with rudeness.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Uh oh! Looks like you're in the Projection Zone.
Think about that for your next username.

And you just demonstrated that you are the rude one. When you cannot support yourself you name call and accuse others of your sins.

You just did the same in your next post.

So like your other false claims about politicians all you can do about me is to make false claims as well.

 

[Laniakea]

And you just demonstrated that you are the rude one. When you cannot support yourself you name call and accuse others of your sins.

You just did the same in your next post.

So like your other false claims about politicians all you can do about me is to make false claims as well.

When have I been rude when you were not debating properly first?

 

[Subduction Zone]

When have I been rude when you were not debating properly first?

Please, quit playing that silly game. You are now just admitting that you are wrong.

This also what you do when you know that you are wrong. You start making personal attacks against others rather than debating the facts.

Would you like to get back to the facts?

 

[YoursTrue]

Please, quit playing that silly game. You are now just admitting that you are wrong.

This also what you do when you know that you are wrong. You start making personal attacks against others rather than debating the facts.

Would you like to get back to the facts?

Try this: "https://volcanology.geol.ucsb.edu/facies.htm"
Let's see if you want to maintain your stand that National Geographic was wrong when it said lava can carry sediment, ok?
See how you can work on this. "The interaction between volcanism and sedimentation and development of concurrent facies are governed largely by two factors. These are that (1) active volcanism produces abundant sediment that is rapidly delivered to sites of deposition, and (2) lateral changes are the result of flow transformations. During eruptions, large volumes of pyroclastic and hydroclastic sediment are released far more rapidly than any process of production of epiclastic particles"

 

[Subduction Zone]

Try this: "https://volcanology.geol.ucsb.edu/facies.htm"
Let's see if you want to maintain your stand that National Geographic was wrong when it said lava can carry sediment, ok?
See how you can work on this. "The interaction between volcanism and sedimentation and development of concurrent facies are governed largely by two factors. These are that (1) active volcanism produces abundant sediment that is rapidly delivered to sites of deposition, and (2) lateral changes are the result of flow transformations. During eruptions, large volumes of pyroclastic and hydroclastic sediment are released far more rapidly than any process of production of epiclastic particles"

You are just trying to erase a real wall that is there. You keep conflating sedimentary rocks with volcanic. Though if you wanted to you could call those rocks "sedimentary" but even your source points out that they are volcanic and therefore would be more properly classified as igneous:

"Volcaniclastic facies "

Try again.

 

[Revoltingest]

I know, they are magically delicious! Sounds like a great idea for dinner.

But they're very lean and gamey.

 

[Valjean]

"Speciation" is a modern invented term. Evolutionists don't even agree on what that could be exactly.

The categories are conveniences, the boundaries somewhat arbitrary.
What year, for example, did Latin turn into French?

Change occurs. Species become extinct. Populations diversify -- sometimes to the point that a certain population becomes noticeably different from a parent population.

 

[Valjean]

"Speciation" is the process by which species are created. And species are, as I just said, those who can produce fertile offspring.

This is not a hard and fast definition, and it does not reflect the degree of general change. The designations, as I said, are Linnaean conveniences. Cladograms more acccurately reflect genetic relationships..

 

[F1fan]

No matter how much I clarify the detail, many on the forum will remain confused about my disbelief in the evolution of species.

It is evident to me that in nature many things, practically all of them, evolve, because they continue to change, adapting to new circumstances, etc. That, of course, includes clearly visible physical changes in some living organisms.

The problem is this: these changes do not generate new species out of previous species. Although the changes I speak of above are evident, there is no evidence that one species has become another through many small changes.

The known laws of genetics admit that changes have limitations, and that when they exceed certain limits, new generations die or regress. I don't have to discuss that with anyone; you just have to learn basic notions about genetics and mutations...

When evolutionists dare to use microevolution as a justification for the emergence of new, non-existent species, they invent things that they have never verified but assume to be true through speculation.

Where are creationist labs? Where are the experts in creationism? Why don't universities teach creationism as real science?

 

[Valjean]

It sounds more fictional that nature invents genetic laws as if it were a divine entity with its own consciousness. No law is dictated just because, by itself.

Natural laws just are. they dictate how the physics and chemistry of the world unfold.

 

[Valjean]

I submit that its good enough for our purposes here in this thread, with this particular poster

It was the best we could manage in the '60s, before we had comparative genetics.

 

[Pogo]

Where are creationist labs? Where are the experts in creationism? Why don't universities teach creationism as real science?

Patriot University, Alma Mater of Dr.Kent Hovind.

 

[Eli G]

Natural laws just are. they dictate how the physics and chemistry of the world unfold.

Psss. That sounds like magic.

 

[Laniakea]

Please, quit playing that silly game. You are now just admitting that you are wrong.

This also what you do when you know that you are wrong. You start making personal attacks against others rather than debating the facts.

Would you like to get back to the facts?

You said I was rude, and I ask you when, and you call that an attack.
I'm ready to hear your "facts" you offered to get back to.