Shocking claim to Macro-evolution!

[nPeace]

I think you know perfectly well and this is trolling. Nobody can be that stupid.

I'm not too sure about that.
Bye.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Okay, I will take little steps. In this post, when I asked
1. Is it based on science?
Surely you must have understood what "it" referred to, in order to answer positively or negatively.
So what did you answer yes to? What is "it"?

You were talking about vestigial organs and yes, it is "based on science".

You did after all include a link. You seem to think that it was not based upon science. Why would you come to such a conclusion?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not too sure about that.
Bye.

You do realize that you implied that you may be "that stupid" don't you? Not the best response.

 

[nPeace]

You do realize that you implied that you may be "that stupid" don't you? Not the best response.

Yes I know. That's a good thing, because I really should have responded differently.
Something like, Have a good day, Bye.
Too late to change it now.

 

[nPeace]

You were talking about vestigial organs and yes, it is "based on science".

You did after all include a link. You seem to think that it was not based upon science. Why would you come to such a conclusion?

Step by step.
My next question was...
2. Is it based on experimental observation?
I asked you to explain using this....
Additionally, what experiments show that male's nipples are useless?
Since I wanted to give you something specific, since there are so many.
Can you show an example for number 2?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Step by step.
My next question was...
2. Is it based on experimental observation?
I asked you to explain using this....
Additionally, what experiments show that male's nipples are useless?
Since I wanted to give you something specific, since there are so many.
Can you show an example for number 2?

"Experimental observation" is a clunky term and not well defined. Better to ask if it was based upon empirical evidence. But yes, it is .


And before you ask your third question you need to define what you mean by the word "assume". Words quite often have different meanings. I told you the sort of assumptions that scientists are allowed to make. That is the assumption that concepts previously shown to be correct are still correct. They "assume" that the law of gravity still holds. They do not check it out for every experiment or observation. They assume that the laws of entropy are still in effect. They do not retest the concept every time a new idea comes out.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You do realize that you implied that you may be "that stupid" don't you? Not the best response.

Do not knock him when he posts honestly, even if it is subconsciously.

 

[nPeace]

"Experimental observation" is a clunky term and not well defined. Better to ask if it was based upon empirical evidence. But yes, it is .


And before you ask your third question you need to define what you mean by the word "assume". Words quite often have different meanings. I told you the sort of assumptions that scientists are allowed to make. That is the assumption that concepts previously shown to be correct are still correct. They "assume" that the law of gravity still holds. They do not check it out for every experiment or observation. They assume that the laws of entropy are still in effect. They do not retest the concept every time a new idea comes out.

Okay. I'll get to number 3 soon.
You didn't show what the experiment and observation was though.
I'll be back tomorrow, to take a look, so you have a lot of time.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

"Experimental observation" is a clunky term and not well defined. Better to ask if it was based upon empirical evidence. But yes, it is .


And before you ask your third question you need to define what you mean by the word "assume". Words quite often have different meanings. I told you the sort of assumptions that scientists are allowed to make. That is the assumption that concepts previously shown to be correct are still correct. They "assume" that the law of gravity still holds. They do not check it out for every experiment or observation. They assume that the laws of entropy are still in effect. They do not retest the concept every time a new idea comes out.

What is he going on about now? I have sort of lost track.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Okay. I'll get to number 3 soon.
You didn't show what the experiment and observation was though.
I'll be back tomorrow, to take a look, so you have a lot of time.

You were too general in your post. Don't blame others for unclear answers when you asked unclear questions. You only asked if it came from observation. You did not ask for details.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What is he going on about now? I have sort of lost track.

Oh he is complaining because he asked vague questions and he got the same sort of answers.

 

[exchemist]

I'm not too sure about that.
Bye.

....[click]......

 

[nPeace]

You were too general in your post. Don't blame others for unclear answers when you asked unclear questions. You only asked if it came from observation. You did not ask for details.

Oh? I thought it was a general question. How much more general can I get than this?
Additionally, what experiments show that male's nipples are useless?

Do you feel like i am blaming you for something? Why?
I only stated what was true, that you did not address the question.
You chose to answer the what I consider, the no-brainer, part of the post.

However, it's cool. I did not really expect differently. You would actually have surprised me, if you had provided any supportive information.

It seems to me, that the conclusions arrived at with vestigial organs, is similar to how they arrive at the conclusion for "Junk" DNA.
It seems to be in line with "the only sort of assumption that scientists are allowed to make".

Bye, bye.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh? I thought it was a general question. How much more general can I get than this?
Additionally, what experiments show that male's nipples are useless?

Do you feel like i am blaming you for something? Why?
I only stated what was true, that you did not address the question.
You chose to answer the what I consider, the no-brainer, part of the post.

However, it's cool. I did not really expect differently. You would actually have surprised me, if you had provided any supportive information.

It seems to me, that the conclusions arrived at with vestigial organs, is similar to how they arrive at the conclusion for "Junk" DNA.
It seems to be in line with "the only sort of assumption that scientists are allowed to make".

Bye, bye.

Sorry, I missed that last line. It was so nonsensical and showed such a total ignorance of vestigial organs that I ignored it. Why didn't you tell me that you did not understand the concept of vestigial organs?

Please, you can't post such utter ignorance and expect to be treated with any respect at all. One more time I must remind you that you cannot debunk that which you do not understand. You really need to quit trying to ask stupid "gotcha" questions and work on your understanding of the basics.

 

[exchemist]

You do realize that you implied that you may be "that stupid" don't you? Not the best response.

I've now given up on this person. I think it's all a wind-up, to be honest.

 

[nPeace]

Sorry, I missed that last line. It was so nonsensical and showed such a total ignorance of vestigial organs that I ignored it. Why didn't you tell me that you did not understand the concept of vestigial organs?

Please, you can't post such utter ignorance and expect to be treated with any respect at all. One more time I must remind you that you cannot debunk that which you do not understand. You really need to quit trying to ask stupid "gotcha" questions and work on your understanding of the basics.

I don't mind the disrespect, coming form this bunch. I thank all of you who share in it. i know why you behave the way you do. It is for the same reasons they...
...treated Jesus with disrespect.
...stoned Stephen.
Who am I?
.
Adios.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't mind the disrespect, coming form this bunch. I thank all of you who share in it. i know why you behave the way you do. It is for the same reasons they...
...treated Jesus with disrespect.
...stoned Stephen.
Who am I?
.
Adios.

Please, forget the fake holier than thou attitude. You go out of your way to make yourself look bad and then you take it as an attack when people point this out. You are only pretending to be a martyr.

Once again, why not learn? You cannot refute what you do not understand. Your questions right now are on the same order as the sort that believers in the Flat Earth ask.

It would be a good idea to apologize for your past behavior first.

 

[nPeace]

Please, forget the fake holier than thou attitude. You go out of your way to make yourself look bad and then you take it as an attack when people point this out. You are only pretending to be a martyr.

Once again, why not learn? You cannot refute what you do not understand. Your questions right now are on the same order as the sort that believers in the Flat Earth ask.

It would be a good idea to apologize for your past behavior first.

This is exactly the reason for your behavior. You want me to behave like you. I could respond the way you want me to, so that we can get into your favorite hobby - a spat, but, I will restrain myself, and continue with the "holier than thou".
They treated Jesus and Stephen that way for two reasons. You just mentioned one.
Don't feel bad. Every one can't fit that category.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is exactly the reason for your behavior. You want me to behave like you. I could respond the way you want me to, so that we can get into your favorite hobby - a spat, but, I will restrain myself, and continue with the "holier than thou".
They treated Jesus and Stephen that way for two reasons. You just mentioned one.
Don't feel bad. Every one can't fit that category.

Yes, it would be nice if you could reason rationally. It is not that hard to do. Then you could be more polite as well. It is rather rude to try to ask foolish questions in an attempt to disprove that which one does not understand.

Please drop the false martyr claims. You have a false pride which is a rather large sin in your religion. I suggest a humbler approach.

 

[nPeace]

Yes, it would be nice if you could reason rationally. It is not that hard to do. Then you could be more polite as well. It is rather rude to try to ask foolish questions in an attempt to disprove that which one does not understand.

Please drop the false martyr claims. You have a false pride which is a rather large sin in your religion. I suggest a humbler approach.

Look who is talking about reasoning rationally. Someone you can't even get a rational, nor reasonable response from.
How many persons on these forums know how you like to dance away from any post that requires a direct answer, or support for a mere claim? I can count those persons on both hands, and then I need my toes too.
Rational and reasonable are bad words where you are concerned.

It only looks like martyrdom to you and other evilutionists, because you like to poke at religion, but hate anyone who pokes at your holy philosophy. (That's holy, as in full of holes)
A child could show how stupid the storytelling is.

This is a debate forum.
What...you don't like your philosophies attacked and exposed for what it is?
That seems to make sense. That explains the hatred unleashed on any who speak against it - including being vehemently abusive, even toward people in videos and other links.
Why... what are you afraid of... that your preaching campaign might somehow be undermined?
Isn't that being wimpy crybabies? Like children about to get their behind whipped?

The apostle Paul was humble. Jesus was humble. Both stood up to self proclaimed "giants". I'm always humble. It only appears to look otherwise because of your wordview. It's an illusion. It will disappear once you stop resisting the truth, and stop believing just-so-stories.