Man and dinosaur coexisting

[Subduction Zone]

Do you wish to offer the evidence, based on the scientific method, for the 'how' of Darwinist evolution? You're not going to do it for it doesn't exist.

The scientific method usually answers "what" not "how". All I want to know is "how" long are you gong to keep this new nonsense up? It seems that you claim to have been doing it for months now.

 

[justlookinla]

I did. I can't help it if your scientific comprehension is not up to the task.

You've offered nothing of content to comprehend. Your failure is indicated by you offering nothing more than a link and claim it's evidence, based on the scientific method.

And no, I have always claimed to have evidence that supports the theory of evolution.

I've continually asked for evidence, based on the scientific method, for the 'how' of Darwinist evolution. You've continually made worthless and baseless claims that you had evidence based on the scientific method. You've constantly failed to produce this evidence. That's because it doesn't exist.

Your "how of Darwinism" is nonsensical on at least two levels. Darwinism is an attempt to smear the theory of evolution by limiting it to a man. Though Darwin set the theory in motion a lot of work has been done since his time. If I called Christianity "boardism" since he was nailed to two boards and so many people seem to worship those boards I would get a quick heave ho for being rude. It is a shame that your misuse of "Darwinism" is not treated in the same way. Second you have not even defined what you mean by "the how of evolution". Again, the scientific method does not use the "how" so much as it uses the "what". One runs an experiment and observes "what" happens. The evidence will only be in the form of "what" we see. So one more time, what is the "how of Darwinism"?

The 'how' of Darwinism is what you have claimed, for months now, to have evidence for. We both know from the beginning you didn't have this evidence but was instead making, as now, worthless and baseless claims.

Your latest tactic at evasion was to change the focus to common ancestry and suddenly not understand the 'how' question of Darwinism. That's because you have nothing, no evidence, nothing in spite of your repeated claim that you did.

Once again, the scientific method gives us "what" and not "how". What happens? What will happen? The "how" may be the last question answered. We do not necessarily need the "how" to know that something happened.

Once again, the question has been, and will continue to be, concerning the 'how' claim of Darwinist evolution. The response from you will continue has been, and will continue to be, complete and total failure to offer evidence, based on the scientific method, for the 'how'. Thing is, you're not alone in your failure...neither has anyone else.

I have not been here for "months and months". I have been busy elsewhere. I got tired of your games. Now I see that you have changed your request to an even odder one. One that you can't define. I guess that makes denial a lot easier.

You've been participating on this forum and making worthless and baseless claims for quite a while now.

All of the evidence out there supports the theory of evolution and only the theory of evolution so I do not know what one would think that there was any other answer or why one would even try to find a different answer.

There is no evidence, based on the scientific method, for the 'how' claim of Darwinist evolution. You haven't given it, nobody else has given it and neither will anyone give it. The evidence doesn't exist.

What failure? I gave you evidence. You are the one that came up with a ridiculous new request. Once again, define your term and I will see if I can comply.

You've not given the evidence you claimed you had for the 'how' of Darwinist evolution. You suddenly don't know what's being asked, your latest attempt at evading your failure.

 

[justlookinla]

The scientific method usually answers "what" not "how". All I want to know is "how" long are you gong to keep this new nonsense up? It seems that you claim to have been doing it for months now.

The 'how' of Darwinist evoluton isn't based on the scientific method for it doesn't pass the scientific method.

 

[Hoghead1]

Look, guys, all this hollering about the "how" makes absolutely no sense and appears to be coming from individuals who have no idea whatsoever how science works. Whether or not, you can or cannot state the "how" has absolutely nothing to do with the scientific value of a theory. Take gravity. As I mentioned in a previous email, Newton had absolutely no idea about how it really worked, about its underlying mechanism. He tried about everything he could think of, including what would be called today spooky actin at a distance. Nothing ever worked. Hence, he encourage us to just do the math and forget about how it works. Medical science is full of well-documented disease processes for which the "how" is unknown so that we don't have a cure yet. Dark matter is taken seriously by modern science, but no one really has any idea how it works or what it really is. And who says we don't know the how of Darwinist evolution? What about natural selection? It strikes me as rather amusing how creation science people jump in, trying invalidate evolution, solely on the grounds that the how" isn't known the "how" isn't known, yet turn around and insist we should put blind faith in a divine creation without ever explaining the "how," the way God actually works. Given the first law of thermodynamics, just how does creatio ex nihilo actually work? How by just speaking, can any God bring about creation? How do words actually work?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You've offered nothing of content to comprehend. Your failure is indicated by you offering nothing more than a link and claim it's evidence, based on the scientific method.

I am sorry if I have been writing above your level. I will try to write more simply.

I've continually asked for evidence, based on the scientific method, for the 'how' of Darwinist evolution. You've continually made worthless and baseless claims that you had evidence based on the scientific method. You've constantly failed to produce this evidence. That's because it doesn't exist.

And once again, the scientific method answers the "what". Your relatively new "the how" makes no sense. It shows that you do not understand the scientific method, even though you posted a pretty picture many times.

The 'how' of Darwinism is what you have claimed, for months now, to have evidence for. We both know from the beginning you didn't have this evidence but was instead making, as now, worthless and baseless claims.

Wrong, find a post where I said that. I have always claimed to have mountains of evidence that supports the theory of evolution. I guess by your strange standards that is the "what"? But that is the way the scientific method works.

Your latest tactic at evasion was to change the focus to common ancestry and suddenly not understand the 'how' question of Darwinism. That's because you have nothing, no evidence, nothing in spite of your repeated claim that you did.

How am I being evasive? If anything you are. I have asked many times for your definition of what the "how of Darwinism" even means.

Once again, the question has been, and will continue to be, concerning the 'how' claim of Darwinist evolution. The response from you will continue has been, and will continue to be, complete and total failure to offer evidence, based on the scientific method, for the 'how'. Thing is, you're not alone in your failure...neither has anyone else.

Nope, try again.

You've been participating on this forum and making worthless and baseless claims for quite a while now.

Nope,never. Try again.

There is no evidence, based on the scientific method, for the 'how' claim of Darwinist evolution. You haven't given it, nobody else has given it and neither will anyone give it. The evidence doesn't exist.

Define the "how of Darwinsim.

You've not given the evidence you claimed you had for the 'how' of Darwinist evolution. You suddenly don't know what's being asked, your latest attempt at evading your failure.

Define the "how of Darwinism".

 

[Subduction Zone]

The 'how' of Darwinist evoluton isn't based on the scientific method for it doesn't pass the scientific method.

Define the "how of Darwinism" This is a new request of yours.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Look, guys, all this hollering about the "how" makes absolutely no sense and appears to be coming from individuals who have no idea whatsoever how science works. Whether or not, you can or cannot state the "how" has absolutely nothing to do with the scientific value of a theory. Take gravity. As I mentioned in a previous email, Newton had absolutely no idea about how it really worked, about its underlying mechanism. He tried about everything he could think of, including what would be called today spooky actin at a distance. Nothing ever worked. Hence, he encourage us to just do the math and forget about how it works. Medical science is full of well-documented disease processes for which the "how" is unknown so that we don't have a cure yet. Dark matter is taken seriously by modern science, but no one really has any idea how it works or what it really is. And who says we don't know the how of Darwinist evolution? What about natural selection? It strikes me as rather amusing how creation science people jump in, trying invalidate evolution, solely on the grounds that the how" isn't known the "how" isn't known, yet turn around and insist we should put blind faith in a divine creation without ever explaining the "how," the way God actually works. Given the first law of thermodynamics, just how does creatio ex nihilo actually work? How by just speaking, can any God bring about creation? How do words actually work?

I know. It seems his "the how of Darwinism" is a new claim. Such a nonsensical term is worthless. I guess someone finally gave him some evidence that even he could not deny so he came up with this new garbage.

 

[justlookinla]

Look, guys, all this hollering about the "how" makes absolutely no sense and appears to be coming from individuals who have no idea whatsoever how science works. Whether or not, you can or cannot state the "how" has absolutely nothing to do with the scientific value of a theory. Take gravity. As I mentioned in a previous email, Newton had absolutely no idea about how it really worked, about its underlying mechanism. He tried about everything he could think of, including what would be called today spooky actin at a distance. Nothing ever worked. Hence, he encourage us to just do the math and forget about how it works. Medical science is full of well-documented disease processes for which the "how" is unknown so that we don't have a cure yet. Dark matter is taken seriously by modern science, but no one really has any idea how it works or what it really is. And who says we don't know the how of Darwinist evolution? What about natural selection? It strikes me as rather amusing how creation science people jump in, trying invalidate evolution, solely on the grounds that the how" isn't known the "how" isn't known, yet turn around and insist we should put blind faith in a divine creation without ever explaining the "how," the way God actually works. Given the first law of thermodynamics, just how does creatio ex nihilo actually work? How by just speaking, can any God bring about creation? How do words actually work?

The Darwinist evolution view makes the claim that only naturalistic mechanisms produced humanity, as well as all life we observe today, from an alleged single life form of long ago.

My request is simple. Give evidence, based on the scientific method for that claim. So far, not a single person has fulfilled the request. In other words, it's nothing more than a faith-based claim.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Darwinist evolution view makes the claim that only naturalistic mechanisms produced humanity, as well as all life we observe today, from an alleged single life form of long ago.

Correction, it correctly claims that is the only idea supported by the scientific evidence.

My request is simple. Give evidence, based on the scientific method for that claim. So far, not a single person has fulfilled the request. In other words, it's nothing more than a faith-based claim.

And I have. You added a new nonsensical demand that you cannot even define. I gave you evidence that supports the theory of evolution. Common descent is a key part of the theory of evolution and it was supported by the article that I linked.

Now if you care to define exactly what you mean by the "how of Darwinism" I may be able to give you evidence for that too. If you use terms that no one else uses then no one will be able to communicate with you.

 

[justlookinla]

I am sorry if I have been writing above your level. I will try to write more simply.

Offering a link isn't 'writing' anything of content. Now we find that you offered a link to something which you didn't know what you were offering a link for.

And once again, the scientific method answers the "what". Your relatively new "the how" makes no sense. It shows that you do not understand the scientific method, even though you posted a pretty picture many times.

The 'how' request isn't new. What's new is your new attempt to now not know what's being asked. Suddenly your claim of evidence, which you never had in the first place, is nowhere to be found.

Wrong, find a post where I said that. I have always claimed to have mountains of evidence that supports the theory of evolution. I guess by your strange standards that is the "what"? But that is the way the scientific method works.

Well...now yet another attempt at evasion. I've always asked for the 'how' of Darwinist evolution. Because you've totally failed to offer the evidence you claimed you had, you now feign ignorance.

How am I being evasive? If anything you are. I have asked many times for your definition of what the "how of Darwinism" even means.

The 'how' of humanity, as well as all life, being produced from an alleged single life form of long ago. You know, the question I've asked for quite a while now. And the total failure by you to offer such evidence, based on the scientific method.

Nope, try again.



Nope,never. Try again.

Always, each and every time....until you have this new-found inability to understand the request for the 'how' claims of Darwinist evolution.

Define the "how of Darwinsim.



Define the "how of Darwinism".

LOL!

 

[klutedavid]

And? What's your point? Any good scientific theory will get revised if more evidence is found. It happens. Is getting new information on a subject a bad thing?

Science is empiricism, the empiricist believes that knowledge is derived from observation.

We have a predictive theory called the Big Bang.

So what has billions of dollars invested into the research of the cosmos revealed?

NEW YORK — All the stars, planets and galaxies that can be seen today make up
just 4 percent of the universe. The other 96 percent is made of stuff astronomers can't
see, detect or even comprehend. These mysterious substances are called dark energy
and dark matter. Astronomers infer their existence based on their gravitational influence
on what little bits of the universe can be seen, but dark matter and energy themselves
continue to elude all detection. "The overwhelming majority of the universe is: who
knows?" explains science writer Richard Panek, who spoke about these oddities of
our universe on Monday (May 9) at the Graduate Center of the City University of
New York (CUNY) here in Manhattan. "It's unknown for now, and possibly forever."
(space.com)

Hmmm, appears that what empiricists think they observe, tells them nothing about
what actually exists. The empirical foundation of science may be it's weakness point.

 

[justlookinla]

Correction, it correctly claims that is the only idea supported by the scientific evidence.

What scientific evidence, based on the scientific method? You haven't offered any but have instead evaded, quibbled and totally failed in your worthless and baseless claims. And will continue to fail.

And I have.

Where?

You added a new nonsensical demand that you cannot even define. I gave you evidence that supports the theory of evolution. Common descent is a key part of the theory of evolution and it was supported by the article that I linked.

This isn't about common descent, this is about how humanity, as well as all life we observed today, was produced from an alleged single life form of long ago.

Now if you care to define exactly what you mean by the "how of Darwinism" I may be able to give you evidence for that too. If you use terms that no one else uses then no one will be able to communicate with you.

Of course you aren't. You haven't in the past, are not now, and will not in the future. You only have complete failure to offer. Time and time and time again.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

 

[Subduction Zone]

Offering a link isn't 'writing' anything of content. Now we find that you offered a link to something which you didn't know what you were offering a link for.

Sure it is. The link could explain better than I can. I would be willing to help. I am sorry if it was above your reading level.

The 'how' request isn't new. What's new is your new attempt to now not know what's being asked. Suddenly your claim of evidence, which you never had in the first place, is nowhere to be found.

It seems to be. And if it is not new why can't you define it?

Well...now yet another attempt at evasion. I've always asked for the 'how' of Darwinist evolution. Because you've totally failed to offer the evidence you claimed you had, you now feign ignorance.
[/qluopte]

Nope, try again.

The 'how' of humanity, as well as all life, being produced from an alleged single life form of long ago. You know, the question I've asked for quite a while now. And the total failure by you to offer such evidence, based on the scientific method.

Not a definition. Try again.

Always, each and every time....until you have this new-found inability to understand the request for the 'how' claims of Darwinist evolution.

Nope, I have always said that I have "tons of evidence that supports the theory of evolution" you have changed and can't even define your change.

So one more time, give me a clear definition of "the how of Darwinism". You can't expect anyone to give you evidence if you can't even define your own term.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What scientific evidence, based on the scientific method? You haven't offered any but have instead evaded, quibbled and totally failed in your worthless and baseless claims. And will continue to fail.

Sure I have. I just offered some and you called it an "obfuscation".

This isn't about common descent, this is about how humanity, as well as all life we observed today, was produced from an alleged single life form of long ago.

They are one and the same. Forget this "how" nonsense. You can't even define it. Your pretty picture gave "what" answers not "how" answers.

Of course you aren't. You haven't in the past, are not now, and will not in the future. You only have complete failure to offer. Time and time and time again.

You can keep claiming that and you will still be wrong. Worse yet you will never understand how your side lost over one hundred years ago.

 

[justlookinla]

Sure it is. The link could explain better than I can. I would be willing to help. I am sorry if it was above your reading level.

Offer a bit of content from the link. You gave it in response to my request for the 'how' of Darwinism but now it seems you posted a link in response to a request you now don't understand.

It seems to be. And if it is not new why can't you define it?

Why did you understand the request and respond with a link.....but later feigned ignorance?

 

[justlookinla]

Sure I have. I just offered some and you called it an "obfuscation".

No, you haven't. And you'll continue with your failure.

They are one and the same. Forget this "how" nonsense. You can't even define it. Your pretty picture gave "what" answers not "how" answers.



You can keep claiming that and you will still be wrong. Worse yet you will never understand how your side lost over one hundred years ago.

And still no evidence, based on the scientific method, for how humanity, as well as all life, was produced by only naturalistic mechanisms from an alleged single life form of long ago.

Continue with your failure.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Offer a bit of content from the link. You gave it in response to my request for the 'how' of Darwinism but now it seems you posted a link in response to a request you now don't understand.

Nope, I gave you evidence. Now it is your turn. Show that you understand the concept of scientific evidence first.

Why did you understand the request and respond with a link.....but later feigned ignorance?

What are you talking about? I gave you evidence for the theory of evolution. This new "how" nonsense is some new garbage of yours. Evidence for is not necessarily of evidence how.

 

[justlookinla]

Nope, I gave you evidence. Now it is your turn. Show that you understand the concept of scientific evidence first.

You've given nothing concerning the 'how' of Darwinist evolution. Post number please.

What are you talking about? I gave you evidence for the theory of evolution. This new "how" nonsense is some new garbage of yours. Evidence for is not necessarily of evidence how.

You've given nothing for the claim of how humanity, as well as all life we observe today, was produced from an alleged single life form of long ago.

Continue in your failure.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You've given nothing concerning the 'how' of Darwinist evolution. Post number please.



You've given nothing for the claim of how humanity, as well as all life we observe today, was produced from an alleged single life form of long ago.

Continue in your failure.

I have not failed. The failure is yours. I gave evidence that supported my claims. You changed your claim and cannot even define it. What do you mean by the "how of Darwinism". It is your terminology, why can't you define it?

 

[justlookinla]

I have not failed. The failure is yours. I gave evidence that supported my claims. You changed your claim and cannot even define it. What do you mean by the "how of Darwinism". It is your terminology, why can't you define it?

Continue with your failure.