Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
If you want to believe the nonsense, no amount of explanation will ever convince you otherwise. Take the trinity, problem of suffering, or problem of free will as a good examples. No amount of explanations will ever be sufficient for you to accept that the defenses for these issues are nonsense.
So tell me, just what nonsense I have presented in this thread.
The problem is that you haven't provided any evidence of any kind. The only input you have provided is to put other people down. I don't think that is going to convince anyone of anything.
Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli
"After ≈33,127 generations, one population, designated Ara-3, displayed significantly elevated turbidity that continued to rise for several days (Fig. 1). A number of Cit+ clones were isolated from the population and checked for phenotypic markers characteristic of the ancestral E. coli strain used to start the LTEE: all were Ara−, T5-sensitive, and T6-resistant, as expected (2). DNA sequencing also showed that Cit+ clones have the same mutations in the pykF and nadR genes as do clones from earlier generations of the Ara-3 population, and each of these mutations distinguishes this population from all of the others (30). Therefore, the Cit+ variant arose within the LTEE and is not a contaminant."
I have answered many of your questions clearly and concisely. And yet you continue to evade those answers. I am simply not interested in bothering with the continuous barrage of nonsense you and your co-creationists have proffered in this thread.
Why is it a good point? You're expecting me to write more?
Why do you feel that we have to be the ones always defending our worldview? It seems that when it comes to you all needing to defend your worldview you seem to give it privileged status. We have every right to ask you to defend your worldview.
I don't see the atheist side presenting evidence for evolution when they are asking creationists to defend their worldview.
Defending your worldview?
I am only asking you to show me the evidence for creation theory, this is just standard procedure when you want a scientific theory to be accepted.
I just said I now do not know how species came to be, you say you do. (since evolution is false)
Remember people originally brought out evidence for evolution, you just disproofed all that evidence and evolution is now considered false.
All you have to do now is show that your creation theory is true by bringing out the evidence for it.
If you want to proof you are right it is not enough to simply proof the other guy wrong, you have to proof you ARE right. This is standard procedure.
(Edit: I just noticed its you oncede, if you are confused about this post just read the last three posts between me and the person i quoted.)
In short. The post was not meant for you.
In short. The post was not meant for you.
In longer: The post was meant for astridhere, who seems to think that disproving evolution would automaticly make creation a science, among other things. I am trying to argue that all the evidence I have seen 'for' creation is simply precieved evidence 'against' evolution. For the sake of arguement I've allowed that evolution is false and asked her to make her case for creation as a science.
Hahahahaha.
I don't believe you ever did answer which skull denotes the boundary between human and ape here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/hominids2.jpg
You went off on a bunch of off-topic stuff, but never answered that question.
I haven't seen the discussion with Astridehere, but this line makes me chuckle. "You can't prove me wrong, therefore I'm proven right" - anyone know the name of this logical fallacy?I WIN AND YOU LOOSE .....AND CREATION=SCIENCE AND EVOLUTION=PHILOSOPHY.
Hehe your input is always welcome ofcourse, I just fear I won't be able to keep up if we have two different discussions at once. Though I'm reading through the thread you mentioned and the responses it got, I may bring this up later.Well then, I hope you don't mind me answering it.
Hehe your input is always welcome ofcourse, I just fear I won't be able to keep up if we have two different discussions at once. Though I'm reading through the thread you mentioned and the responses it got, I may bring this up later.
In the meantime lets stick with our discussion on evidence of things not seen ^.~
I haven't seen the discussion with Astridehere, but this line makes me chuckle. "You can't prove me wrong, therefore I'm proven right" - anyone know the name of this logical fallacy?
Hahahahaha.
I don't believe you ever did answer which skull denotes the boundary between human and ape here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/hominids2.jpg
You went off on a bunch of off-topic stuff, but never answered that question.
Remember people originally brought out evidence for evolution, you just disproofed all that evidence and evolution is now considered false.
All you have to do now is show that your creation theory is true by bringing out the evidence for it.
I didn't see a pile of debris. I saw a broken link. But what, pray tell, do you think that had to do with my question?You never answered which F16 model (C or D) was represented by the pile of debris.
Um, what tests would these be, pray tell?By the way, the answer is- irrelevant, tests show that the mechanism of change in a C model cant transform it into a D model or vice versa.
This is a false dichotomy. The correct statement would be:All evidence for Darwinism is evidence against Creationism and evidence against Creationism is what is evidence for Darwinism.
I haven't seen the discussion with Astridehere, but this line makes me chuckle. "You can't prove me wrong, therefore I'm proven right" - anyone know the name of this logical fallacy?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?