Evolution is mathematically impossible

[OldWiseGuy]

Oh, I wouldn’t say that... I’d hardly be back here over and over reading the continual drivel about my knowledge and condescending nature if that was the case.


I didn’t say you were a meanie, just that your social graces could stand improvement, and that you have poor judgment, which you’ve once again proved with this post.


I don’t seem to have any problem with your generally googled info and opinions, when and if I can get you out of the ‘cut & paste’ posts, which only serve the purpose of boring everyone to death and laying the trap of causing someone to have to compose a research paper for an answer. I think if you even came close to understanding science as much as you claim, you’d be able to discuss it with entertaining dialogue. I won’t hold my breath on that one.


More evidence of your poor judgment.


Beaten? That certainly doesn’t sound like someone interested in ‘inquiring’ or exchanging ideas. So much for your humility. Who would've figured?

Some come here to use other's posts as their "chew toys".

 

[Ophiolite]

I don’t seem to have any problem with your [tas8831] generally googled info and opinions, when and if I can get you out of the ‘cut & paste’ posts, which only serve the purpose of boring everyone to death and laying the trap of causing someone to have to compose a research paper for an answer.

It is revealing that you think a discussion that encourages a detailed, well structured argument, supported by multiple sources, is "a trap". Is that because such a response is beyond you, or is there another reason?

I think if you [tas8831]even came close to understanding science as much as you claim, you’d be able to discuss it with entertaining dialogue.

Could it be this? You think the function of these discussions is entertainment? Feel free to educate me on that point. Science, entertainment? Neither of those are especially evident in your posts, so what do you see as their function? What is your intent?

 

[inquiring mind]

It is revealing that you think a discussion that encourages a detailed, well structured argument, supported by multiple sources, is "a trap". Is that because such a response is beyond you, or is there another reason?

Yes, there's another reason, I guess you missed it... maybe if you read my post again.

Could it be this? You think the function of these discussions is entertainment? Feel free to educate me on that point. Science, entertainment? Neither of those are especially evident in your posts, so what do you see as their function? What is your intent?

Again, I guess you over-read... entertaining 'dialogue.'

 

[Ophiolite]

Yes, there's another reason, I guess you missed it... maybe if you read my post again.


Again, I guess you over-read... entertaining 'dialogue.'

I guess you don't write as well as you think you do. (See the second paragraph of my signature for enlightenment.)

 

[Speedwell]

Yes, there's another reason, I guess you missed it... maybe if you read my post again.

That science is an atheist conspiracy to deny the Bible?

 

[inquiring mind]

That science is an atheist conspiracy to deny the Bible?

Ha... or, atheists are a science conspiracy to deny the Bible???

 

[Speedwell]

Ha... or, atheists are a science conspiracy to deny the Bible???

Well, I just wondered. You seem to be constantly on guard for people advocating for science trying to "trap" you. What are you afraid of, really?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

That science is an atheist conspiracy to deny the Bible?

Science is a false God that too many look to for the solutions we badly need. God's word has those answers, and to the extent we are directed towards them the better off we'll all be.

 

[pitabread]

Science is a false God that too many look to for the solutions we badly need. God's word has those answers, and to the extent we are directed towards them the better off we'll all be.

A lot of people here has said this, yet no one seems willing to give up the comforts and standard of living made possible via scientific advancement and knowledge.

 

[inquiring mind]

A lot of people here has said this, yet no one seems willing to give up the comforts and standard of living made possible via scientific advancement and knowledge.

I don't want to give up the comfort my electric utility provides, but that doesn't mean I think they're the answer to every problem I have either. Science has its place, yes.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

A lot of people here has said this, yet no one seems willing to give up the comforts and standard of living made possible via scientific advancement and knowledge.

We could have peace and prosperity.

 

[pitabread]

We could have peace and prosperity.

Probably not until we murder each other over resources first. :/

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Probably not until we murder each other over resources first. :/

Well let's get it over with so we can have some peace around here.

 

[Astrophile]

so we cant conclude design by looking at this structure?:

(image from Alive stone word in the sand - Buy this stock photo and explore similar images at Adobe Stock)

Is this really analogous to the wing of a bird or a bat? What I mean is that people may have seen somebody arranging these stones to form a word, or the person who arranged the stones could come forward to say that he or she did it. However, we haven't seen anybody constructing the wing of an animal, and nobody has claimed responsibility for doing so.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Is this really analogous to the wing of a bird or a bat? What I mean is that people may have seen somebody arranging these stones to form a word, or the person who arranged the stones could come forward to say that he or she did it. However, we haven't seen anybody constructing the wing of an animal, and nobody has claimed responsibility for doing so.

It seems to me that if the arrangement is very unlikely to have occurred purely by chance, and there is no more plausible process conceivable by which it might have occurred, then purposeful agency becomes a good candidate explanation; but unless there are clear signs of artifice, one can't be certain - very unlikely things can happen.

 

[tas8831]

You have to peruse my whole body of work on the subject.

You mean all of the posts in which you claimed that burning wood releases less CO2 than the decaying of wood, until you realized how dopey that was and are now pretending to have known the opposite all along?

Don't be like the blind monks grappling at the elephant.

You mean like when you claim that the gut sends motor impulses directly to the larynx?

 

[tas8831]

An error hardly deserving of the death penalty. I'm sorry that you don't understand the main thrust of my assertion.

I'm sorry that he main thrust of your assertion remained hidden until perhaps the 4th or 5th exchange, after several baffling doubling-downs on your erroneous claim that burning wood sequesters carbon. Had you actually made your supposed point in your first post, I would have agreed. But that dopey nonsense about burning wood sequestering carbon... Couldn't let that go.

 

[tas8831]

I don’t seem to have any problem with your generally googled info and opinions

Maybe more later, but I had to laugh at this desperate projection.

 

[inquiring mind]

Maybe more later, but I had to laugh at this desperate projection.

Ahh, I was afraid you weren’t gonna include ‘desperate’ on the list of designates you’ve assigned me.

 

[tas8831]

delete - duplicate