Ponderous Curmudgeon
Well-Known Member
- Feb 20, 2021
- 1,477
- 944
- 66
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Divorced
A satirical one similar to one that pretends a silly Christianity to mock it.
Upvote
0
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.
A satirical one similar to one that pretends a silly Christianity to mock it.What mentality created this?
The whole of the Stromatolite fields of north Ontario and Quebec would like a word.
Back up your rhetoric- show me the transitional fossil evidence you claim exists, from single cell life to sexually reproducing multi-trillion celled life.
There is none.
Common descent is a conclusion from the data, not evolution.No, I say that's not evolution. That's adaptation.
You can take the same information and put it into a different model and not conclude that everything started with a single cell and evolved into the variety we have now. In fact, there's always been vast variety from the start. I can observe animals adapting to their environment changes. I cannot observe a bird gradually transitioning to a dinosaur. Or a feline transitioning to a canine.
I learnt about Volvox in high school biology (many years ago) and how it was a transition between a single cell organism and a multicellular single organism.Are you aware of algae thar can exist as single cells
or join with others to form into a cooperating unit?
You of course know that your question is one that would take pages to
answer, while I know that your mind is set, and nothing I say could
ever get through. Kind of limits my enthusiasm for making a
lot of effort.
I asked about algae to see if you know even the simplest
basics of biology related to your question. Properly,
you should be a whiz, as you claim to know more than any
biologist on earth.
Are you aware of algae thar can exist as single cells
or join with others to form into a cooperating unit?
You of course know that your question is one that would take pages to
answer, while I know that your mind is set, and nothing I say could
ever get through. Kind of limits my enthusiasm for making a
lot of effort.
I asked about algae to see if you know even the simplest
basics of biology related to your question. Properly,
you should be a whiz, as you claim to know more than any
biologist on earth.
Don’t make me laugh. A cooperating unit is not an animal that sexually reproduces, it’s still a colony of individual organisms that divide in half to replicate.
You might as well claim a bee colony is an example of a sexually reproducing animal.
That’s a good example of the simplistic tripe that is foisted off on gullible pseudo-intellectuals as being real science, though.
I wouldn't say its accurate to call Volvox transitionalI learnt about Volvox in high school biology (many years ago) and how it was a transition between a single cell organism and a multicellular single organism.
A lot of creationists think that researchers are asCommon descent is a conclusion from the data, not evolution.
Evolution is just that populations change over time.
You dont even understand the very basics of biology.
If it's just change over time, we can all agree it happens and there's no discussion, then. No creationist org is saying that things don't change over time.A lot of creationists think that researchers are as
intellectually dishonest as they are, starting with
a conclusion and force fitting any data to confirm the
faith based predetermined conclusion.
Kinda like finding a tooth, and the next thing you know, you have this:A lot of creationists think that researchers are as
intellectually dishonest as they are, starting with
a conclusion and force fitting any data to confirm the
faith based predetermined conclusion.
If it's just change over time, we can all agree it happens and there's no discussion, then. No creationist org is saying that things don't change over time.
What I thought was funny was your insistence that I "prove it" after we have gone over and over the point that scientific theories are never proven.I don't find it funny. If it's not proven, I don't believe it. Works for the athiest in regards to God, why should it not work for me in regard to "science"? If I can't see it, why would I believe it's true?
It was a conjecture based on a mistaken identification of a fossil, spun into a big story by non-scientists and then discovered and corrected by scientists. Your self-serving misinterpretation of the event weakens your position.Kinda like finding a tooth, and the next thing you know, you have this:
Complete with his own scientific name, long hair, goofy expression, animals in the background, cloudy skies, a river, horses, camels, trees w/o foliage (as if it's winter), green grass (as if it's summer); and all from a single tooth.
Translation: researchers are intellectually dishonest as they are, starting with
a conclusion and force fitting any data to confirm the faith based predetermined conclusion.
A human oneWhat mentality created this?
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?