How can you justify the sheer complexity that evolution would have to evolve?

[shunyadragon]

I did not do any name caling .. that was you doing the name calling .. running around crying "Clueless" because you got Chaos theory backwards and your claims about science were false.. which begs the question who you were referring to as "Clueless"

More silly slang, name calling and funny faces. Nothing of consequence.

 

[shunyadragon]

Come on….
“Hanging… (on what?) on nothing”!

No neck, or ceiling, or rear-view mirror.

Nothing!


I think your response shows a certain blindness.
Certainly a bias.

Nothing?? The gravity of the sun holds the earth in orbit.

The extreme bias against science is your case. The description of the earth in the Biblical account also describes the earth is fixed in space, which is not compatible with simple science.

The problem with this it is not different than the ancient cosmology of the Greeks and Babylonians, Phoenicians and Sumerian and no not scientifically accurate, because this cosmology includes a geocentric cosmos earth that is fixed in the center with a flat or partially curved floating in water with all the heavenly bodies fixed in the firmament.

Even tho there’s no empirical evidence that evolutionary processes can build complex machinery in the cell, like the flagellum, yet you’re willing to accept even the weakest of philosophical arguments for such methods, over strong evidence in support of the Bible.

There is not any independent evidence for the Biblical Creation account and the Biblical Cosmos. The scientific knowledge is based on objective verifiable evidence NOT philosophical arguments.

It is acknowledged in academia that the Bible contains a large amount of poetic speech.

True, but academia also acknowledges that there is absolutely no evidence to support the Biblical Cosmos and Creation accounts inclusing mythical accounts like Noah's Flood.

Even we speak that way at times.
It doesn’t make what we say, any less true.

Lack of objective verifiable evidence and verifiable evidence to the contrary to the Biblical account determines beyond any reasonable doubt it is not true,

It’s late… “raqía” means more than just a dome. Yet the atmosphere can act as a protective shield.
More coming.

Take care.

 

[YoursTrue]

Like I said, you are not the one to be talking about lack of evidence.

As it is, some of you just post your opinions.

 

[YoursTrue]

Nothing?? The gravity of the sun holds the earth in orbit.

The extreme bias against science is your case. The description of the earth in the Biblical account also describes the earth is fixed in space, which is not compatible with simple science.

The problem with this it is not different than the ancient cosmology of the Greeks and Babylonians, Phoenicians and Sumerian and no not scientifically accurate, because this cosmology includes a geocentric cosmos earth that is fixed in the center with a flat or partially curved floating in water with all the heavenly bodies fixed in the firmament.

There is not any independent evidence for the Biblical Creation account and the Biblical Cosmos. The scientific knowledge is based on objective verifiable evidence NOT philosophical arguments.

True, but academia also acknowledges that there is absolutely no evidence to support the Biblical Cosmos and Creation accounts inclusing mythical accounts like Noah's Flood.

Lack of objective verifiable evidence and verifiable evidence to the contrary to the Biblical account determines beyond any reasonable doubt it is not true,

Someone said recently that it is amazing that all this life came out of a strip of cells. My answer to that is: yup. It sure is amazing...

 

[YoursTrue]

but it is the lawyers that win or lose the trials, not the sciences.

There are those wrongfully convicted, we know that. And then there are some lawyers who make it a mission to battle wrongful convictions. And then there are judges that refuse to be moved. That based on?? evidence?

 

[YoursTrue]

There is if you can apply critical reasoning to the problem.

This is why I keep trying to teach you the scientific method and the concept of evidence, but since you can see that applying those refutes some of your personal beliefs you keep avoiding learning. The Ostrich Defense does not work in reality.

OK, so since you say you are trying to teach me, perhaps you can explain in your own words (with purported evidence scientists provide) about the "Devonian Period."

 

[Pogo]

As it is, some of you just post your opinions.

You never post evidence, only claims that the evidence isn't good enough for you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK, so since you say you are trying to teach me, perhaps you can explain in your own words (with purported evidence scientists provide) about the "Devonian Period."

No, you do not get to start in the middle of something that you do not understand. That is usually just a dishonest distraction that people will use when they do not want to learn. You need to learn the basics first.

A child that wants to learn to read does not get to demand that they start with Harry Potter before they even learn the alphabet.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, you do not get to start in the middle of something that you do not understand. That is usually just a dishonest distraction that people will use when they do not want to learn. You need to learn the basics first.

A child that wants to learn to read does not get to demand that they start with Harry Potter before they even learn the alphabet.

I had a feeling you would take up the offer. Based on previous responses of yours.

 

[Pogo]

I had a feeling you would take up the offer. Based on previous responses of yours.

Based on previous observations of ours. explanations are met with agreement and claims of understanding and then returned with specious complaints not to the point but around them. latest one is that if we can't provide infinitely variable sequence of fossils then the previously agreed idea that a temporal series of fossils can be representative of a sequence is not evidence of a transition sequence.

Any time you want to demonstrate what is wrong with something with evidence we will listen but till then, not worth our time any more to feed you information you will just ignore with a strawman.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I had a feeling you would take up the offer. Based on previous responses of yours.

I would take up an honest offer. When you use a smiley in the way that you just did you demonstrated that your offer was not valid.

 

[McBell]

No, you do not get to start in the middle of something that you do not understand. That is usually just a dishonest distraction that people will use when they do not want to learn. You need to learn the basics first.

A child that wants to learn to read does not get to demand that they start with Harry Potter before they even learn the alphabet.

this very point you cite right here is the reveal that the offer to learn is not honest.

 

[YoursTrue]

I would take up an honest offer. When you use a smiley in the way that you just did you demonstrated that your offer was not valid.

Oh? Sometimes I smile and I will reflect that. Sorry you feel that way. OK. Don't try if you don't want to. Anyway, have a good day, and I will put a smile on the end.

 

[YoursTrue]

this very point you cite right here is the reveal that the offer to learn is not honest.

Again, untrue. And I have a slight smile. So don't bother offering your opinion without substance, it's ok. And yes, I smile. But you don't I suppose. Bye for now. Meantime you say you believe in God...ok...whatever...(have a good one...)

 

[YoursTrue]

Based on previous observations of ours. explanations are met with agreement and claims of understanding and then returned with specious complaints not to the point but around them. latest one is that if we can't provide infinitely variable sequence of fossils then the previously agreed idea that a temporal series of fossils can be representative of a sequence is not evidence of a transition sequence.

Any time you want to demonstrate what is wrong with something with evidence we will listen but till then, not worth our time any more to feed you information you will just ignore with a strawman.

what you fail and evidently what some others here also fail to realize is that I DO understand the theory. I do not agree with it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh? Sometimes I smile and I will reflect that. Sorry you feel that way. OK. Don't try if you don't want to. Anyway, have a good day, and I will put a smile on the end.

And that again shows that you are not being honest. This is a serious matter.

Everyone has pointed out how you refuse to learn. Your promises are sadly of no value since you have gone back on your word far too many times. If you apologize I will still try to help you.

 

[YoursTrue]

Oh. And lest we forget, gorillas are remaining as of yet gorillas, humans remain humans, and fish, despite the claims of evolution from them to land dwellers, are remaining as fish.

 

[Subduction Zone]

what you fail and evidently what some others here also fail to realize is that I DO understand the theory. I do not agree with it.

Then you just admitted to being an open liar quite often. Most, if not all of your attempted arguments against the theory of evolution demonstrate a severe lack of understanding of the topic. That would mean that you were openly lying when you made those arguments since they are of no value.

 

[YoursTrue]

And that again shows that you are not being honest. This is a serious matter.

Everyone has pointed out how you refuse to learn. Your promises are sadly of no value since you have gone back on your word far too many times. If you apologize I will still try to help you.

I see not everyone here agrees with the theory you espouse, so maybe you can be magnanimous and teach the theory for the sake of all here. Yes, I'm smiling...

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh. And lest we forget, gorillas are remaining as of yet gorillas, humans remain humans, and fish, despite the claims of evolution from them to land dwellers, are remaining as fish.

And there you go admitting that you do not understand the theory of evolution.