How much longer?

[justlookinla]

I have done that countless times. I did it in my previous post. Your inability to understand a refutation does not mean that you were not refuted.

Where in your previous post? What did you give which is verified by the scientific method. Simply claiming it doesn't suffice, actually show the process of verification.

What good would that do? You don't understand it. You don't even understand the concept of scientific evidence. You need to learn how to crawl before you can walk.

I understand baseless claims aren't scientific evidence.

No, it is not. It merely mentions the evidence. It does not explain how it is scientific evidence. Once again. You need to learn how to crawl.

You need to offer just one example which can be verified by the scientific method. Empty claims aren't verification by the scientific method.

 

[Loudmouth]

What law(s) of science are broken by macroevolution. To minimize confusion for me, please list the law of science broken by macroevolution and explain how macroevolution breaks that law.
It would be helpful if you also included how microevolution did not break that law, but you don't have to provide that if it is too difficult.

Apparently, it does not break any scientific laws when a human is born with 50 mutations. However, some mysterious scientific law is broken when that human passes on half of those mutations to a child along with a whole new batch of mutations. There is also some mysterious scientific law that is broken when a chimp is born with different mutations than a human child. I have yet to find a creationist who can explain what these scientific laws are, or how they can be so easily broken by living populations.

 

[justlookinla]

Repeating your error only makes you look worse. Let's get back to the lesson on evidence again.

You still have not shown that you understand empirical evidence much less scientific evidence. Is a fossil found in a specific stratum empirical evidence? This is a fairly easy question. Why or why not?

This isn't about common ancestry. Stick with the issue of HOW/process.

 

[justlookinla]

Apparently, it does not break any scientific laws when a human is born with 50 mutations. However, some mysterious scientific law is broken when that human passes on half of those mutations to a child along with a whole new batch of mutations. There is also some mysterious scientific law that is broken when a chimp is born with different mutations than a human child. I have yet to find a creationist who can explain what these scientific laws are, or how they can be so easily broken by living populations.

And humans are humans with the mutations and chimps are chimps with the mutations. And bacteria are bacteria and finches are finches and moths are moths.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Where in your previous post? What did you give which is verified by the scientific method. Simply claiming it doesn't suffice, actually show the process of verification.

Sorry, if you can't read that is not my fault.

I understand baseless claims aren't scientific evidence.

Once again, no false accusations. I do not make baseless claims. That is why I am trying to teach you what scientific evidence is.

You need to offer just one example which can be verified by the scientific method. Empty claims aren't verification by the scientific method.

I will gladly do so once you understand the concept of scientific evidence. That is why I am now in the process of teaching you. When we are done I will be offering you evidence and showing why it is scientific evidence.

 

[justlookinla]

Sorry, if you can't read that is not my fault.

Didn't think you did.

Once again, no false accusations. I do not make baseless claims. That is why I am trying to teach you what scientific evidence is.

Your response at the beginning of the post is indicative of a baseless claim.

I will gladly do so once you understand the concept of scientific evidence. That is why I am now in the process of teaching you. When we are done I will be offering you evidence and showing why it is scientific evidence.

And yet another baseless claim.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This isn't about common ancestry. Stick with the issue of HOW/process.

Sorry, we do not need to go into the "HOW" yet. How is often the last question answered. We do not need to know how life evolved to know that it evolved.

In real life we do not need to know how a gun works to use a gun. Proving that evolution occurred and is the source of the diversity of life was done long ago. Scientists are now working on the HOW.

I have to run, but when I get back I will start the lesson on scientific evidence again.

You have been dodging a question. Is a fossil found in a particular stratum empirical evidence? Why or why not?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Didn't think you did.



Your response at the beginning of the post is indicative of a baseless claim.



And yet another baseless claim.

Once again this is goading. You made a request. I fulfilled that request. What you are doing now is goading and I will not respond to it. If you continue to do so I will not get mad, I will simply report it. The last thread was closed because both of us got out of hand. If you are the only one that is breaking the rules what do you think will happen. I will not fall for your tricks this time. Right now the lesson is on evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And humans are humans with the mutations and chimps are chimps with the mutations. And bacteria are bacteria and finches are finches and moths are moths.

And my last post before I have to leave. You did not answer Loudmouth's question.

 

[Loudmouth]

And my last post before I have to leave. You did not answer Loudmouth's question.

To be fair, I have him on ignore. Justlookinla isn't interested in learning what science is, or how it works, so why try?

 

[justlookinla]

Sorry, we do not need to go into the "HOW" yet. How is often the last question answered. We do not need to know how life evolved to know that it evolved.

In real life we do not need to know how a gun works to use a gun. Proving that evolution occurred and is the source of the diversity of life was done long ago. Scientists are now working on the HOW.

I have to run, but when I get back I will start the lesson on scientific evidence again.

You have been dodging a question. Is a fossil found in a particular stratum empirical evidence? Why or why not?

No, the attempt at changing the issue isn't going to work. The issue is the HOW/process which is proposed by the faith-based, pseudo-science guesses and suppositions of Darwinism.

 

[justlookinla]

To be fair, I have him on ignore. Justlookinla isn't interested in learning what science is, or how it works, so why try?

Ignore doesn't make the issues go away.

 

[justlookinla]

Once again this is goading. You made a request. I fulfilled that request.

And I asked the simple question where and you couldn't point it out.

What you are doing now is goading and I will not respond to it. If you continue to do so I will not get mad, I will simply report it.

Ok. You're the one making disparaging personal remarks against me and Christians.

The last thread was closed because both of us got out of hand. If you are the only one that is breaking the rules what do you think will happen. I will not fall for your tricks this time. Right now the lesson is on evidence.

Right now the issue is your complete lack of evidence based on the scientific method.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ah! Making fun of us for understanding the taxonomic relationships of living things which you do not.

Why wouldn't you understand them?

After all, you guys are the ones that made them up.

It's your game.

Why do you think pig heart valves are used instead of chimpanzee heart valves?

Trial and error?

Do you think it is because pigs are more closely related to humans than chimps?

No.

I think it is because pigs are more closely designed than chimps.

 

[mickiio]

What law(s) of science are broken by macroevolution. To minimize confusion for me, please list the law of science broken by macroevolution and explain how macroevolution breaks that law.
It would be helpful if you also included how microevolution did not break that law, but you don't have to provide that if it is too difficult.

The law of Biogenetics. Laws of Physics

SkyWriting said: ↑
Science says that nature cannot create energy, matter, intelligence, or useful information on it own.

nature cannot create energy, - Symmetry, Broken-Symmetry and the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics
matter, - The Law of Conservation of Matter
intelligence or useful information - information conservation



http://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=24045

Entropy and conservation of information

Do Black Holes Destroy Information?

What is the law of conservation of information?

Natural Selection doesn't break any laws. It is a Law of Nature in itself.

Fossil record, embryology, DNA, comparative anatomy, etc.
There isn't any other way to say this....you're wrong.

No, I'm not. Evolution needs mutation to be a viable theory, which is a chaotic process, so there should be a ton of fossils of the mutations which did not succeed, demanded by statistics because we have many fossils of single animals, but no fossil record of the billions of mutations which did not succeed.

 

[Loudmouth]

I think it is because pigs are more closely designed than chimps.

Would you consider one human to be more closely designed to another human than a pig? If so, how do you explain the fact that a human heart valve has a much higher chance of being rejected by the patient's immune system than a pig heart valve?

 

[crjmurray]

The law of Biogenetics. Laws of Physics

And now explain how macroevolution violates those laws. And how microevolution does not.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

The law of Biogenetics. Laws of Physics

Why do you use the laws of thermodynamics as an argument when you know that has been easily refuted over and over again?

The law of Biogenetics. Laws of Physics




No, I'm not. Evolution needs mutation to be a viable theory, which is a chaotic process, so there should be a ton of fossils of the mutations which did not succeed

Fossilization is a pretty rare event.
We can see the changes in the fossil record pretty clear.
Tiktaalik Roseae says hello: http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/meetTik.html

Human evolution says hi as well:

The law of Biogenetics. because we have many fossils of single animals, but no fossil record of the billions of mutations which did not succeed.

What do you think an extinct species is?

 

[AV1611VET]

Would you consider one human to be more closely designed to another human than a pig?

Yes.

If so, how do you explain the fact that a human heart valve has a much higher chance of being rejected by the patient's immune system than a pig heart valve?

Genetic diversity.

We are so genetically diverse, no two DNA are the same.

We pay a price for that though, in the fact that we just can't transplant organs everywhere.

Imagine you getting my brain!

 

[Loudmouth]

Genetic diversity.

We are so genetically diverse, no two DNA are the same.

Are you saying that human and pig DNA is identical, which is why pig valves are not rejected by the patient's immune system?