Darwin's Illusion

[Subduction Zone]

I've listed dozens of observations in changes in life that are sudden and this is another. If you closely monitor the growth of children you'll see that it is never even. They'll go for long periods with no measurable growth and then short periods where they grow significantly.

Such is the nature of life.

I cannot remember any examples, but so what? Just because some changes are sudden does not mean that all of them are. That is the logic of hasty generalization. In geology there are examples of both. Plate movement is the cause of large scale earth quakes, but not all plate movement results in large scale earthquakes. In fact the norm appears to be small tremors that often go unnoticed. To see earthquakes like the recent on in Turkey and Syria and think that all such motions have to be deadly need to go to Iceland. Iceland has about 500 earthquakes a week. But most go unnoticed. A lot of small changes add up to large ones. The fault in Turkey is a plate border similar to that of the San Andreas fault. There are long times between movements so the movements tend to be large scale and violent. We can see small scale changes occurring in biology constantly, but deniers of science think for some odd reason that those do not count.

 

[cladking]

We can see small scale changes occurring in biology constantly,

These are more appropriately called "individual differences" in most cases. They will be far more noticeable as a "species" adapts to a gradually changing environment. As stated previously gradual changes in environments are unusual hence there is no such thing as Evolution caused by survival of the fittest. If a change occurs individuals adapt until the niche stabilizes. Obviously nothing in nature is truly stable so all species are in the process or on the verge of punctuated equilibrium. This is the proper interpretation of the "fossil record".

 

[Subduction Zone]

These are more appropriately called "individual differences" in most cases. They will be far more noticeable as a "species" adapts to a gradually changing environment. As stated previously gradual changes in environments are unusual hence there is no such thing as Evolution caused by survival of the fittest. If a change occurs individuals adapt until the niche stabilizes. Obviously nothing in nature is truly stable so all species are in the process or on the verge of punctuated equilibrium. This is the proper interpretation of the "fossil record".

Exactly the answer that I predicted from science deniers. Walking around in your house only consists of microsteps. Those are just local differences. It would be impossible to walk a half a mile to the local supermarket by relying on those.

And he is back to his strawman of "survival of the fittest". He would have guessed it.

 

[cladking]

Exactly the answer that I predicted from science deniers. Walking around in your house only consists of microsteps. Those are just local differences. It would be impossible to walk a half a mile to the local supermarket by relying on those.

It would certainly be impossible if there's a half mile wide river between you full of crocodiles. There are places in Utah that the shortest distance between points half a mile apart is 50 or 60 miles.

The question is whether a species can get here from there since they obviously did. The question is how did they get here and how will they get where they are going. The question is what drives them to change at all; spoiler alert, it's not survival of the fittest.

And he is back to his strawman of "survival of the fittest". He would have guessed it.

And you never stop with the word games.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It would certainly be impossible if there's a half mile wide river between you full of crocodiles. There are places in Utah that the shortest distance between points half a mile apart is 50 or 60 miles.

The question is whether a species can get here from there since they obviously did. The question is how did they get here and how will they get where they are going. The question is what drives them to change at all; spoiler alert, it's not survival of the fittest.




And you never stop with the word games.

And now ridiculous strawman arguments when you are obviously wrong. You would need to prove that there is a river full of crocodiles. Last time I checked there was none.

A weak excuse is not a refutation.

 

[YoursTrue]

Right now you are just talking about yourself.

Nah. Whatever you say must be true, right? Bye for now...

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nah. Whatever you say must be true, right? Bye for now...

You know that I can support my claims. You, like him, are incredibly ignorant when it comes to the sciences. You both refuse to learn the basics.

Why is that? Why are you afraid to even learn the basics of science?

You can do better than that. Don't you claim to be a Christian? Try to think how a Christian should act.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It would certainly be impossible if there's a half mile wide river between you full of crocodiles. There are places in Utah that the shortest distance between points half a mile apart is 50 or 60 miles.

The question is whether a species can get here from there since they obviously did. The question is how did they get here and how will they get where they are going. The question is what drives them to change at all; spoiler alert, it's not survival of the fittest.

LOL! The man that accuses others of playing word games is playing word games again.

And you never stop with the word games.

No, that is projection on your part. When you insist on using improper terminology and then base your arguments on improper terminology not being correct that is playing word games.

Try again, and see if you can properly support your claims.

 

[rational experiences]

Scientists only a human like the rest of us can think.

You however are a human adult.

Your baby innocent self just one human wasn't a theist first. History self says theism is lying.

A human baby created your life.

You lie for invention the want of it. Basic human advice.

Invention the only body that does not exist first. In the life presence of a human thinking.

All other one bodies by two in species does exist.

It doesn't exist upon your thoughts as you arent a God. You however false image the body by science quotes.

Presence of one said science begins with zero.

So 01 is 10.

God is ten as God owns life by two zeros protecting us above us and below us. Two zeros owns supports any one said a human.

As man's teaching relativity genesis changed in earth was about and to humans who conjured metals from deep space pressures in theism first.

Not in actual creation. As they begin with dusts.

All reacted metals changes revealing into its presence stated converting was achieved by suns mass attack in history. Of earths mass.

Why science is a machines liar. Machine virtually had already been converted into just dusts.

In plain word use a machine doesn't exist first. You brought a machines mass back from its god pre destruction. Seamed melt earth layers of metals now dusts.

Medical science understanding present biology was to assist present hurt family.

Once not a monetary trade... health was dealt with naturally without greed.

Human greed changed how information is now used.

No presence no awareness and no awareness means no presence by type my human review. Why a non present human type in an ape says non present human consciousness also.

No man is God was said to human theists who theories humans non presence in beasts or garden body types.

Was biblical revelation why the gardens body was evicted off earths face. Body mother earth bared naked of her flowers and coverings.

Statement science had combusted the nature type. Was when mans brain mind heard other voices speaking. As brain chemicals changed burnt sacrificed.

Brain prickling. Which I endured myself.

Brother scientist I'm not Jesus the man. Why men sacrificed his own bio life by head thinking as a human theist a circle phi.

Is all yours.

The teaching God created the image in the heavens of a small amount of microbial genesis. The microbe mass removed out of woods body out of animals and out of humans bio health.

Was the medical teaching why human life animal life DNA genesis had changed by men with machines.

As no man is God.

All of gods types are one only as substances.

And earths plates erupted conveyed by carpenter tectonics by putting new dust types upon earths face that assisted to change healthy pre living biology.

Absorbed into evaporating water as osmosis.

The Multi coloured dusts he said. Dusts that God mass caused not the actual father of Jesus phi.

It was a total human scientists self review why science of man caused sacrificed life. DNA genesis changed.

As God he said owned only all ones in zero space law. Not mutations not any one.

Man uses science to recognise mutation as he caused it by man's science. Was his owned advice.

Natural selection.

As phenomena attack is nature sporadic. As seen in cow UFO body deaths organ blood removed. Men of science said it gets naturally selected a mutation in biology.

Aren't you all just so kind!

 

[YoursTrue]

You know that I can support my claims. You, like him, are incredibly ignorant when it comes to the sciences. You both refuse to learn the basics.

Why is that? Why are you afraid to even learn the basics of science?

You can do better than that. Don't you claim to be a Christian? Try to think how a Christian should act.

You know that I can support my claims. You, like him, are incredibly ignorant when it comes to the sciences. You both refuse to learn the basics.

Why is that? Why are you afraid to even learn the basics of science?

You can do better than that. Don't you claim to be a Christian? Try to think how a Christian should act.

I understand you want to defend the theory of evolution and also believe life emerged from a few cells without the use of divine force. I'm not afraid of science but I don't agree with the theory of evolution. I am not about to discuss the scientific complications of the theory, but upon review what you say and what scientists have written about the theory, I no longer believe evolution came about by natural selection as evolutionists might say.

 

[YoursTrue]

You know that I can support my claims. You, like him, are incredibly ignorant when it comes to the sciences. You both refuse to learn the basics.

Why is that? Why are you afraid to even learn the basics of science?

You can do better than that. Don't you claim to be a Christian? Try to think how a Christian should act.

You say you can support your claims. Certainly not with scientific experiments. Last I read humans evolved from a rat like animal. I no longer believe these claims as postulated. Since there are corresponding chromosomes in various animals, such as gorillas and humans, it does not mean they all evolved as considered by biologists. P.S. I'm not afraid to learn the basics, as you said. I do not believe any longer that the progress of life on earth happened by means of chemical reactions pertaining to natural selection. I am not going beyond that now. Not because I'm afraid to buy because I see what scientists say but again...beyond fossils and genes there is little to nothing. One might decide about when or how it happened in reference to evolution but I believe what the Bible says more than what scientists say about natural selection of all animal and plant structures. Do I think genetics play a part in some differences? Certainly, yes.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I understand you want to defend the theory of evolution and also believe life emerged from a few cells without the use of divine force. I'm not afraid of science but I don't agree with the theory of evolution. I am not about to discuss the scientific complications of the theory, but upon review what you say and what scientists have written about the theory, I no longer believe evolution came about by natural selection as evolutionists might say.

There is no need to "defend".

Do you think that one needs to defend gravity? I know. learning new things that tell you that cherished beliefs are wrong can be scary. But if you were wrong wouldn't you want to know?

And natural selection is only one part of evolution. There are other driving forces besides that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You say you can support your claims. Certainly not with scientific experiments. Last I read humans evolved from a rat like animal. I no longer believe these claims as postulated. Since there are corresponding chromosomes in various animals, such as gorillas and humans, it does not mean they all evolved as considered by biologists.

You do not know what a scientific experiment is. Technically every new fossil find is an experiment.

And you keep nattering about "belief". What you should be doing is learning. If you learned it would not be a mere belief.

Once again, why are you so afraid?

 

[YoursTrue]

There is no need to "defend".

Do you think that one needs to defend gravity? I know. learning new things that tell you that cherished beliefs are wrong can be scary. But if you were wrong wouldn't you want to know?

And natural selection is only one part of evolution. There are other driving forces besides that.

Gravity is different than evolution. I believe you will argue with this, but gravity is virtually incontrovertible because of the fact that we are stuck to the ground in general. Evolution is different. I know you don't want to hear this, but rats remain rats and birds remain birds. I'm not going any further with this now.

 

[YoursTrue]

You do not know what a scientific experiment is. Technically every new fossil find is an experiment.

And you keep nattering about "belief". What you should be doing is learning. If you learned it would not be a mere belief.

It wouldn't be? Ok, later...

 

[Subduction Zone]

Gravity is different than evolution. I believe you will argue with this, but gravity is virtually incontrovertible because of the fact that we are stuck to the ground in general. Evolution is different. I know you don't want to hear this, but rats remain rats and birds remain birds. I'm not going any further with this now.

How is evolution different? You can see it on the micro level just as what we see is the "micro level" for gravity.

Can you see a planet orbiting a star? The evidence is there, but you will have to rely on others for it. There really is no difference except for the fact that we have more evidence for evolution at all levels than we do have for gravity.

The only one stopping you from learning is you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It wouldn't be? Ok, later...

What do you think that a scientific experiment is? Try to describe what one does and how one does it.

 

[rational experiences]

O earth a mass one body yet owning lots of diverse any type of one body.

Men of science said gods. Exact.

You look at it as a human god you see it. You name it. As a man god. Anything itself you look at. Anyone type. You observe first. Then use machines to look at what an eye can't see.

Machines don't exist first. Consciousness hence says you did not need to look at what you cannot see.

You give self permission to fiddle with it. It's what you do.

The word fiddle comes to a man's realisation. Guilty perverse man in control past in Rome. Nero. You think you are advised.. you blame man and men of the past ..you murdered him.

Same applied reasoning to Galileo...lie gaol.

Saying he was past life linked as just a man to brothers who caused falling star to hit then burn Rome. So you Stab him to death claiming it gods terms justifiable. Law of nature.

Theism about man of science and science history suns star mass.

Holy wanderer in space laws. Rocks in space laws that are not hitting earth. Was law.

A between sun to earth in distanc the mass a moon stopped. Distance suns mass by law didn't hit earth. As planetoid moons stopped hitting planets.

So the other types planet masses hadn't converted like earth mass had. Which obviously was hit. They own lots of stopped moons. Evidence space laws.

So men say a hole no core is scattered mass. Laws of space can change and cause it. Evidence.

They look at Pluto...very small not scattered.

All that evidence a science mind compiles. Says between Pluto's mass to earths mass I can resource earths mass. To the amount not an earth or planet.

Is the type of assessing you don't realise.

Human minds compute by itself as a ancient scientific effect. Man Inventor of trained counting.

In life every status is one of itself.

Science hence said Pluto's not a planet. As you use light space travel distance...equate theme light in space terms.

Reasons. I said God in law was 10.

As men on earth I agreed to try to remove the universal God.

The third planet. Earth.

So I preached no man is God. Holy three the only law on earth.

Reason. Nothing is space.
Mass is in nothing but not as owning nothing it's mass. Density.

To thesis change I must give mass nothing darkness extreme cold light.

By activating a converting pont to mass as a hot nothing.

Cold mass heated alight nothing a conversion by destruction.

I learnt the sun was only a consumer of energy to be light. I made nothing holes in earth. Man's sin. My exact thesis about earth mass. Is science.

I learnt UFO mass nearness forces power to shut down also. By written testimonials. Witnesses.

Reason as vacuum forces are pulling sun star mass away back into space. As that energy mass isn't a gas heavens.

As the mass beginning heavens was inside earths mass as told. Legal spirit gas body.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Have you ever encountered a creationist
who was able to ever admit to any error?

There's something fundamental to the
personality type, it's like this hard rigid bubble
they live in, the least flaw would shatter it.

It might be best to leave such people alone,
the shattered mess might not be pretty.

I think you are right. My latest engagement seems to see that out. No matter how much reason and evidence is supplied, the doubling down on Dunning-Kruger seems to be the only response.

The chief goal seems to be to keep the debate alive and the attention alive. After a certain point there is no return for any effort.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Poor Darwin. Maybe he'll change his mind if he's resurrected.

I cannot answer the latter, but why, upon being so successful in establishing the basis of a branch of science, would he change his mind and why would it matter, given the science is not based on him, but on the evidence?