The first living thing could not have come into being by random chance, therefore, God Almighty created all things. Just 1 proof.

[SavedByTheLord]

You need to ask justifiable questions to make that claim. You have never justified your questions.

You need to answered these required questions, or evolution cannot stand with any academic integrity.

Can you at least explain the woodpecker's tongue, since its wraps around its head on the inside?
How did that evolve?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You need to answered these required questions, or evolution cannot stand with any academic integrity.

Can you at least explain the woodpecker's tongue, since its wraps around its head on the inside?
How did that evolve?

I could. But until you demonstrate that you can debate properly I won't. Are you going to apologize for your past behavior?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

I could. But until you demonstrate that you can debate properly I won't. Are you going to apologize for your past behavior?

Are you the artful Dodger?

Explain the woodpecker's tongue, since its wraps around its head on the inside?
How did that evolve?

There are many more functions in creature that could not have evolved.

 

[The Hammer]

Are you the artful Dodger?

Explain the woodpecker's tongue, since its wraps around its head on the inside?
How did that evolve?

There are many more functions in creature that could not have evolved.

They have all evolved if you just take a course in evolutionary biology.

Here this explains the entire process of woodpecker tongue evolution and anatomy.

The Evolution of the Woodpecker's Tongue

www.talkorigins.org

(You may need to scroll to the top of the link).

 

[Subduction Zone]

Are you the artful Dodger?

Explain the woodpecker's tongue, since its wraps around its head on the inside?
How did that evolve?

There are many more functions in creature that could not have evolved.

No, you have been using what you would call "garage debating" techniques. If you want to get answers you need to apologize for that. People have been making fun of you by using your techniques against you and you get mad but cannot understand that that is exactly what you do

You need to demonstrate that something could not evolve. Just claiming that it can't is not good enough.

 

[Subduction Zone]

They have all evolved if you just take a course in evolutionary biology.

Here this explains the entire process of woodpecker tongue evolution and anatomy.

The Evolution of the Woodpecker's Tongue

www.talkorigins.org

That won't do any good. He will just deny it.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

That won't do any good. He will just deny it.

And the woodpecker’s tongue could not have evolved.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And the woodpecker’s tongue could not have evolved.

Prove it. If you only claim it that is worthless. Or you could change your ways and I would gladly explain to you in length how it could have evolved.

And guess what? Even if I could not explain it, but rest assured that I can, that does not mean that it is "irreducibly complex". That would only mean that it was an unanswered problem where we did not know the answer either way. You do not win by default. If you want to claim that the creation myths are true (which of course would make God a liar) then the burden of proof is upon you.

One of the reason that Behe failed in such an epic fashion is that he made the same rather foolish mistake that you did. He found some problems that were unanswered at that time. He assumed that they were irreducibly complex, he never proved it. So his argument was wrong because he never ever met his burden of proof. And of course one thing that scientists do is to solve problems. Those were recent discoveries in science so of course the answers are not immediate. But the did come. I think all of his examples of irreducibly complex structures have been refuted. You keep referring to the eye and that was explained long before Behe's IC nonsense. You will notice that he never made the mistake of saying that the eye is irreducibly complex because he knew that it wasn't.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Prove it. If you only claim it that is worthless. Or you could change your ways and I would gladly explain to you in length how it could have evolved.

And guess what? Even if I could not explain it, but rest assured that I can, that does not mean that it is "irreducibly complex". That would only mean that it was an unanswered problem where we did not know the answer either way. You do not win by default. If you want to claim that the creation myths are true (which of course would make God a liar) then the burden of proof is upon you.

One of the reason that Behe failed in such an epic fashion is that he made the same rather foolish mistake that you did. He found some problems that were unanswered at that time. He assumed that they were irreducibly complex, he never proved it. So his argument was wrong because he never ever met his burden of proof. And of course one thing that scientists do is to solve problems. Those were recent discoveries in science so of course the answers are not immediate. But the did come. I think all of his examples of irreducibly complex structures have been refuted. You keep referring to the eye and that was explained long before Behe's IC nonsense. You will notice that he never made the mistake of saying that the eye is irreducibly complex because he knew that it wasn't.

Your reply is devoid of rational discourse.
Try again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your reply is devoid of rational discourse.
Try again.

Projection. When you run away you are only admitting that you are wrong.

But I am feeling generous. What part of that post was beyond your understanding?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Projection. When you run away you are only admitting that you are wrong.

But I am feeling generous. What part of that post was beyond your understanding?

So go through it step by step with some irreducibly complex organ or function like the eye and vision.

 

[McBell]

So go through it step by step with some irreducibly complex organ or function like the eye and vision.

Except you were just told that Behe could not even show his irreducibly complex nonsense in a court of law.
He completely failed.
so now that the whole world knows that irreducibly complex is not science, your trying to push it like a drug dealer desperate to make a sale does not make you look anything other than desperate.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So go through it step by step with some irreducibly complex organ or function like the eye and vision.

First you have to show how the eye is "irreducibly complex". Not even Behe, the person that came up with that failed idea was so silly as to propose that the evolution of the eye relied on anything being irreducibly complex. He knew that it was well understood.


You need to ask your questions properly if you expect to get an answer.

If I asked you: "Answer yes or no, have you stopped beating your wife yet?" Do you see what is wrong with that question? It has an unsupported implied fact in it. It assumes that you beat your wife. You are making the same sort of error.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

First you have to show how the eye is "irreducibly complex". Not even Behe, the person that came up with that failed idea was so silly as to propose that the evolution of the eye relied on anything being irreducibly complex. He knew that it was well understood.


You need to ask your questions properly if you expect to get an answer.

If I asked you: "Answer yes or no, have you stopped beating your wife yet?" Do you see what is wrong with that question? It has an unsupported implied fact in it. It assumes that you beat your wife. You are making the same sort of error.

Behe did not consider that the Earth is only about 6000 years old.
So go through it step by step with some irreducibly complex organ or function like the eye and vision.
Now of course no one has and that is because no one can because it is impossible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Behe did not consider that the Earth is only about 6000 years old.

Irrelevant.

So go through it step by step with some irreducibly complex organ or function like the eye and vision.
Now of course no one has and that is because no one can because it is impossible.

No, no one can do that because once again you formed your question badly.

Did you forget this question already:

"Answer yes or not, have you quit beating your wife yet?"

Can you answer that question as demanded, with a yes or no?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Irrelevant.

No, no one can do that because once again you formed your question badly.

Did you forget this question already:

"Answer yes or not, have you quit beating your wife yet?"

Can you answer that question as demanded, with a yes or no?

Bizarre analogy even for an evolutionist
What do you think about the attack on Israel?
Another exact prediction from the Bible as are you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Bizarre analogy even for an evolutionist
What do you think about the attack on Israel?
Another exact prediction from the Bible as are you?

LOL! Just admit it. You do not understand analogies either.

Why do you think that analogy is bad?

And I won't discuss politics with you right now. You need to demonstrate that you can debate properly.

 

[McBell]

Behe did not consider that the Earth is only about 6000 years old.
So go through it step by step with some irreducibly complex organ or function like the eye and vision.
Now of course no one has and that is because no one can because it is impossible.

Behe got his arse handed to him in court over his irreducible complexity.
Just like you have been repeatedly handed your arse to you.
The biggest difference between you and Behe, Behe stopped making a public fool of himself over it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Behe got his arse handed to him in court over his irreducible complexity.
Just like you have been repeatedly handed your arse to you.
The biggest difference between you and Behe, Behe stopped making a public fool of himself over it.

Well he is anonymous. So One could argue that he need not be afraid that his neighbors would find out. Behe was well known, and his utter failure made him a household name in evolution creation debates.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

LOL! Just admit it. You do not understand analogies either.

Why do you think that analogy is bad?

And I won't discuss politics with you right now. You need to demonstrate that you can debate properly.

Verbal games are used by those with a losing position.
What caused the Big Bang?