Man and dinosaur coexisting

[Subduction Zone]

You didn't offer evidence, only a link, in response to my request for evidence, based on the scientific method, for the 'how' of Darwinist evolution. Links aren't evidence.

Try again.

A link is evidence if it is germane to the topic at hand. Now you did not understand it, I can see how that might be frustrating. I could help you to understand it if you would like to discuss the article.

And since you don't understand the concept of evidence you are in no position to say what is and what is not evidence. I guess I need to remind you that learning what evidence is has always frightened you.

 

[justlookinla]

A link is evidence if it is germane to the topic at hand.

No it's not. The scientific method requires much more than a link.

Now you did not understand it, I can see how that might be frustrating. I could help you to understand it if you would like to discuss the article.

Simply show, in the link, evidence based on the scientific method for the 'how' of Darwinist evolution. You've made the claim, now support it.

And since you don't understand the concept of evidence you are in no position to say what is and what is not evidence. I guess I need to remind you that learning what evidence is has always frightened you.

I don't need to remind you of your continual failure to offer evidence, based on the scientific method, for the 'how' of Darwinist evolution. Every post of yours should remind you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No it's not. The scientific method requires much more than a link.

No, the scientific method only tells us how that they had to do their work. It says nothing about using links in debates. Congratulations, you just showed that you do not understand the scientific method once again.

Simply show, in the link, evidence based on the scientific method for the 'how' of Darwinist evolution. You've made the claim, now support it.

Explain what you mean by this phrase.

I don't need to remind you of your continual failure to offer evidence, based on the scientific method, for the 'how' of Darwinist evolution. Every post of yours should remind you.

Since I never failed I do not see how you could remind anyone of anything. But try again.

I am here only to help people understand why they loss the debate over one hundred years ago. The simple fact is that all of the evidence found so far supports the theory of evolution.[/QUOTE]

 

[justlookinla]

No, the scientific method only tells us how that they had to do their work. It says nothing about using links in debates. Congratulations, you just showed that you do not understand the scientific method once again.

Scientific method.....

Now, show this process used in in your link for the 'how' of Darwinist evolution.

Explain what you mean by this phrase.

I've explained it several times in my posts.

Since I never failed I do not see how you could remind anyone of anything. But try again.

I am here only to help people understand why they loss the debate over one hundred years ago. The simple fact is that all of the evidence found so far supports the theory of evolution.

Not a single bit of evidence, based on the scientific method, has been given by you or anyone else to support the view that only naturalistic mechanisms produced humanity, as well as all life, from an alleged single life form of long ago.

And an explanation is given to you once again.....this is dozens of times now.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Scientific method.....

Now, show this process used in in your link for the 'how' of Darwinist evolution.





I've explained it several times in my posts.



Not a single bit of evidence, based on the scientific method, has been given by you or anyone else to support the view that only naturalistic mechanisms produced humanity, as well as all life, from an alleged single life form of long ago.

And an explanation is given to you once again.....this is dozens of times now.

Nope, if you had defined your nonsense phrase I would not be asking again. It is so nice to see you pull up your pretty picture that you do not understand again.

First explain your nonsense phrase.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

You didn't offer evidence, only a link, in response to my request for evidence, based on the scientific method, for the 'how' of Darwinist evolution. Links aren't evidence.

Try again.

You want evidence that natural selection exists, so that faster antelopes fare better than slow ones?

You want evidence that mutations exist, so that changes occur in genomes from time to time?

You want evidence that harmful mutations get bred out of a population due to the harm they cause those who got stuck with them?

You wan evidence that beneficial mutations spread in a population due to the benefits they bring to those blessed with them?

 

[ecco]

You were evading simply giving the evidence asked for. As you've done in this post. And will do in the next one.

And the next one.

You have confused with someone else. In previous threads I have posted evidence, which you ignored. In this thread, I have not made any comments about man, dinosaurs, evolution, etc. Therefore there is no need to present evidence regarding man, dinosaurs, evolution, etc.

What I have done is post a summary of the responses you give when people do post evidence.

As is common, you subtly attempt to change my request. I'm asking for evidence, based on the scientific method, for the Darwinist view that only naturalistic mechanisms produced humanity, as well as all life we observe today, from an alleged single life form of long ago. The evasive response will be to offer something about common ancestry and then claim evidence was offered. It wasn't. That wasn't the request.

See above.

Here you go again attempting to subtly change the issue. The issue is about the 'how', the process claimed by Darwinists which produced humanity from an alleged single life form of long ago. All you have is a faith-based view, void of evidence, for the 'how'. You believe it was a Godless, willy-nilly process, but that's nothing but a personal view by you. It's not based on the scientific method.

I haven't changed the issue I raised which is your ongoing refusal to accept any and all scientific evidence.

 

[freezerman2000]

ENOUGH WITH THE BICKERING!

 

[justlookinla]

Okee dokee.

 

[BrriKerr]

ENOUGH WITH THE BICKERING!

Bickering? I would hardly call it bickering, intentional ignorance brought on by an unwillingness to learn perhaps but bickering? no.

 

[freezerman2000]

When it is back and forth "you said,no I didn't" over and over it is.
The page before this was full of flames.