Let's devise a way to explain proof burden and claims vs non-claims to creationists

[Smidlee]

Funny you should mention the Dover trials. First of all, legal trials are not where scientific matters are decided.

Nevertheless, it's obvious that evolution won the day both legally and in the witness stand.

I wrote before the best evidence against evolution comes from evolutionist. In that trial is reveals just how weak evolutionist position was. They over focus only the few features thylacine had in common with the kangaroo while tried to belittle the large amount of features it had in common with the wolf.
The trial reveal how useless homology was to evolution.

I don't believe something just because my pastor says so then why would I believe a judge because he says so.

 

[Dizredux]

Dizredux

"Boobs" as you so eloquently phrase it are present in all mammals. In primates mostly they do not protrude nor do they need to in order to get the job done. It it thought that they provide a sexual signal for being breeding age in female humans but the jury is still out on that as far as I know.

Smidlee

I know about evolutionist storytelling on boobs. Primates doesn't make love like we do. If you are done in less than 30 seconds you may be an ape.

I'm sorry but I am not understanding what this has to do with what I posted. Could you expand on this a little?


Dizredux

 

[Smidlee]

Dizredux
Smidlee I'm sorry but I am not understanding what this has to do with what I posted. Could you expand on this a little?


Dizredux

Boobs are mammary glands.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I wrote before the best evidence against evolution comes from evolutionist. In that trial is reveals just how weak evolutionist position was. ...
I don't believe something just because my pastor says so then why would I believe a judge because he says so.

You are about the only person I've ever seen that thought that evolution came out the loser in that trial. It's not just what I think or a judge thinks. Everybody thinks evolution triumphed on both the witness stand and on legal merit. So it should concern you that you are off in your own fantasy land.

 

[Smidlee]

You are about the only person I've ever seen that thought that evolution came out the loser in that trial. .

I'm far from being the only one who though evolution was the loser in this trial in spite of what the judge ruled.

 

[Dizredux]

Boobs are mammary glands.

Deep sigh. Oh well.

Dizredux

 

[Dizredux]

I'm far from being the only one who though evolution was the loser in this trial in spite of what the judge ruled.

AIG, ICR, ICR, Carl Baugh, Ken Hovind among the cast of a few.


Dizredux

 

[Smidlee]

AIG, ICR, ICR, Carl Baugh, Ken Hovind among the cast of a few.


Dizredux

And many others who can think for themselves.

 

[Loudmouth]

And many others who can think for themselves.

Then why do they all use the same quote mines, use the same wrong arguments, and use the same false information? Just coincidence?

 

[Loudmouth]

They over focus only the few features thylacine had in common with the kangaroo while tried to belittle the large amount of features it had in common with the wolf.

What are the homologous features shared by the thylacine and placental wolf that are not shared between the thylacine wolf and kangaroo?

Also, don't forget about the different between analogous and homologous features. The bat and bird wing are analogous, but not homologous.

 

[Loudmouth]

False. Why would we expect the creator to give a worm eagle eyes'.

Why would a creator be forced to give a creature a backwards facing retina just because the creator also gave that animal a notochord?

Please explain.

Eyes speak nothing but design and have proven atheist wrong with their belief of evolution that the inverted retina was a bad design.

All claims, and zero evidence.

It's nothing but a myth. What evolutionist do is to be very selective of the features picking only the ones that fix their theory. This was very evident in the Dover trials.
But when looking at all the creatures feature it doesn't support the evolution myth . So you won't ever see a link from one known creature to another known on but only a mythological creature.

The whale myth is the same way. You don't have A evolving to B then to C then finally D but instead A coming from X then late on B evolved from X , and so on. This is because each (A,B,C,D) has features that the rest doesn't which would falsify evolution. It's those differences that makes evolution a failure.

There is no transitional fossil except in evolutionist head.

A lot of claims, but zero evidence to back them.

 

[Linuxgal]

Funny you should mention the Dover trials. First of all, legal trials are not where scientific matters are decided.

However, legal trials are where the establishment clause of the Constitution is defended.