Irony of the evolutionary belief

[Dan From Smithville]

So, now you admit that evolution is a fake theory. You clearly stated that you don't believe in it above. End of debate goodbye

There are no crocoducks. They are a fiction created by a man that doesn't understand science and have a clue. Rejecting this fiction as a straw man is a reasonable response and does not reflect a rejection of the theory.

Try as you might, your efforts are spinning in the mud. Good luck with that.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Another comprehension fail followed by more assertions without evidence.

I didn't see that coming. No really. Totally unexpected.

 

[Pogo]

I didn't see that coming. No really. Totally unexpected.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Support your claim…………..please quote the alleged straw man

I already did. I even told you what page it was on. When you ignore the explanations that others give to you you are in no position to demand that they support their claims again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So, now you admit that evolution is a fake theory. You clearly stated that you don't believe in it above. End of debate goodbye

Such an epic fail. If you want to learn people here will gladly help you. If you want to keep claiming that your own God is a liar, you are free to do that as well.

 

[YoursTrue]

Another comprehension fail followed by more assertions without evidence.

Charles Philips and I do not agree on certain points, but you provide no "evidence" anyway. Just to say, nothing personal of course.

 

[YoursTrue]

Such an epic fail. If you want to learn people here will gladly help you. If you want to keep claiming that your own God is a liar, you are free to do that as well.

You are kidding, of course, when you say people here will gladly help him? hmmm, where's the evidence that they or you will?

 

[McBell]

You are kidding, of course, when you say people here will gladly help him? hmmm, where's the evidence that they or you will?

Before anyone can teach anything the first thing that has to happen is the student needs to pull their head out of their backside.

 

[YoursTrue]

Before anyone can teach anything the first thing that has to happen is the student needs to pull their head out of their backside.

First you have to start teaching. And then answer questions from your students, McBell.

 

[YoursTrue]

O yes, @McBell, I mean answers that make sense...not some abstruse information that even the informants (scientists) are not sure about...

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are kidding, of course, when you say people here will gladly help him? hmmm, where's the evidence that they or you will?

People have offered to explain evolution to him. I have others have. What makes you think that no one has done this?

 

[Subduction Zone]

First you have to start teaching. And then answer questions from your students, McBell.

No, he has a valid point. To prove my point he has at least one "winner" fruble.

 

[YoursTrue]

People have offered to explain evolution to him. I have others have. What makes you think that no one has done this?

The evidence. Nothing you and your cohorts say show answers that make sense, unfortunately. You were asked to start teaching but have to think about it. Oh well...

 

[YoursTrue]

No, he has a valid point. To prove my point he has at least one "winner" fruble.

Perhaps for some. Nothing you OR McBell has said shows that you can (1) answer questions, and (2) explain and detail with information and -- evidence. So I won't start now because you guys have it in the sand.

 

[F1fan]

You are often so wrong at so many levels that one is tempted to think that you do it on purpose to avoid and change the topic

Am I often wrong? This is your response to me explaining to you why predictions in a hypothesis need to follow facts (and logic). You offer no rebuttal to my explantion, just complain as if you, a person with no functional knowledge of science, is an expert.

There's no controvercy of what a hypothesis is, you just lack knowledge and avoid correcting your errors.

Before you complain about me pointing out your error here, it's all here and in my previous post.

The key word is “logically” ……. Yes predictions are expected to follow from the hypothesis but they are not expected to follow LOGICALLY……..do you see the difference?

No, you aren't explaining what you mean. Should science follow ILLOGICALLY? What the hell?

Logic isn't really part of science. In the colloquial sense sciemnce is a logical process because there has to be a sequence of facts, data, method, and testing that comes to an objective conclusion.

To follow logically means that there can´t be other alternatives (even if these other alternatives are unlikely or even impossible according to the laws of nature)…………..few if any predictions in science could ever rich such a high level.

In science a hypothesis needs to account for ALL facts, and ALL data, You can't cherry pick to get the conclusions you want. So using ALL data and facts means the prediction will be limited to a very small probablity of alternatives. And even that said the alternatives won't be far from what the prediction is.

You seem to be suffering from ignorance of how scince works, black and white thinking, and looking to create gaps for a God to be shoehorned into.

 

[YoursTrue]

People have offered to explain evolution to him. I have others have. What makes you think that no one has done this?

So you said you'll think about where to start with your teaching of evolution. Do you remember that? I do. So I guess you're still thinking...lol...

 

[McBell]

First you have to start teaching. And then answer questions from your students, McBell.

O yes, @McBell, I mean answers that make sense...not some abstruse information that even the informants (scientists) are not sure about...

You have been offered numerous times the chance to be taught about evolution.
the problem is that you are not wanting to learn about evolution.
You are much more interested in trying to poke holes in evolution.
So much so you ask questions the the best most honest answer to is "WTF are you talking about?"

 

[YoursTrue]

OK, guys and gals -- have a good evening.

 

[McBell]

Perhaps for some. Nothing you OR McBell has said shows that you can (1) answer questions, and (2) explain and detail with information and -- evidence. So I won't start now because you guys have it in the sand.

Nothing you have shown reveals you can understand even the most basic of answers.
And since you are unable to understand the answer, you claim there was no answer given.

That is not an "us" problem.
That is a completely "you" problem.

 

[YoursTrue]

You have been offered numerous times the chance to be taught about evolution.
the problem is that you are not wanting to learn about evolution.
You are much more interested in trying to poke holes in evolution.
So much so you ask questions the the best most honest answer to is "WTF are you talking about?"

I must have forgotten when you offered to teach me about evolution. So I guess it's over -- that's ok. You use what I consider obscene language and I don't continue in that manner. So please eliminate oscene phrases from your comments, thank you.