Man and dinosaur coexisting

[JacksBratt]

Where did you get that definition? Merriam Webster disagrees with you:

"
Full Definition of religion

1. 1a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion>b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
   
   
2. 2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
   
   
3. 3archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
   
   
4. 4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
   "

But let's see. The theory of evolution says nothing about the purpose of the universe, or the cause of the universe, or even the nature of the universe. It only deals with the evolution of life on the Earth. So your number one fails.

It is not really a "set of beliefs" since it is much more than that, it is knowledge based upon scientific evidence.

And the theory of evolution is definitely not a bod of persons. It looks like even your definition fails in calling evolution a religion.

LOL ya, you can pick and choose until you find one that gives the one you want to use.

IMO religion is based on faith in unprovable forces or events, whatever.... evolution takes faith.

 

[Subduction Zone]

LOL ya, you can pick and choose until you find one that gives the one you want to use.

IMO religion is based on faith in unprovable forces or events, whatever.... evolution takes faith.

Only if you are ignorant. There is no faith needed if you learn the science. And I showed how even with your definition that the theory of evolution is not a religion. I did not search, it was the first dictionary definition that popped up in my browser.

 

[justlookinla]

Only if you are ignorant. There is no faith needed if you learn the science. And I showed how even with your definition that the theory of evolution is not a religion. I did not search, it was the first dictionary definition that popped up in my browser.

Darwinism, one of the views of evolution, is a faith-based worldview. As contrasted with micro-evolution which is based on the scientific method (unlike Darwinist evolution).

 

[Subduction Zone]

Darwinism, one of the views of evolution, is a faith-based worldview. As contrasted with micro-evolution which is based on the scientific method (unlike Darwinist evolution).

Nope, it is evidence based. I have offered to help you to learn what is and what is not evidence but the mere thought of it causes you to insult people and run away. I have seen you deny obvious evidence when others have given it to you so you long ago lost the right to demand evidence. People may offer it up to you in the vain hopes that you will not use the Ostrich Defense, but I have given up on that.

When you want to learn what scientific evidence is drop me a line.

 

[justlookinla]

Nope, it is evidence based. I have offered to help you to learn what is and what is not evidence but the mere thought of it causes you to insult people and run away. I have seen you deny obvious evidence when others have given it to you so you long ago lost the right to demand evidence. People may offer it up to you in the vain hopes that you will not use the Ostrich Defense, but I have given up on that.

When you want to learn what scientific evidence is drop me a line.

When you have evidence, based on the scientific method, simply post it. Until then, continue with your worthless and baseless claims.

 

[Subduction Zone]

When you have evidence, based on the scientific method, simply post it. Until then, continue with your worthless and baseless claims.

I have. But you have no right to demand any evidence until you learn what evidence is in the first place. The problem is that if I posted evidence based upon the scientific method you would not be able to tell if it was evidence or not.

When you want to learn what scientific evidence is drop me a line.

 

[justlookinla]

I have. But you have no right to demand any evidence until you learn what evidence is in the first place. The problem is that if I posted evidence based upon the scientific method you would not be able to tell if it was evidence or not.

When you want to learn what scientific evidence is drop me a line.

Simply post your evidence, based on the scientific method, for everyone to see. Instead, you choose to make worthless and baseless claims.

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

No, genetically we are an extremely small group, at least when you compare us to bacteria. They are a bigger group than all animal life including humans of course.

In fact, we each have more bacteria in and on us than we have "human" cells.

 

[Subduction Zone]

In fact, we each have more bacteria in and on us than we have "human" cells.

Yep, I was shocked when I found that out. I wonder how they separate out the bacteria when they do DNA testing? But of course when you are interested in nuclei I suppose it is not a problem to prevent tapping into the entire wrong cell.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Simply post your evidence, based on the scientific method, for everyone to see. Instead, you choose to make worthless and baseless claims.

How could my claims be worthless or baseless when they are true? You on the other hand cannot claim the same.

But just for fun do you realize how the nested hierarchy of ERV's is evidence that supports the claim that we share a common ancestor with chimpanzees? Here is an article that will try to explain it to you:

http://www.evolutionarymodel.com/ervs.htm

Now the question is how are the findings about ERV's not scientific evidence for the theory of evolution?

 

[justlookinla]

How could my claims be worthless or baseless when they are true? You on the other hand cannot claim the same.

We don't know if they're true or not. You'll not post this evidence you claim you have.

But just for fun do you realize how the nested hierarchy of ERV's is evidence that supports the claim that we share a common ancestor with chimpanzees? Here is an article that will try to explain it to you:

http://www.evolutionarymodel.com/ervs.htm

Now the question is how are the findings about ERV's not scientific evidence for the theory of evolution?

Nice try to change the issue....and a common one, by the way. The evidence asked for is concerning the 'how' of Darwinist evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We don't know if they're true or not. You'll not post this evidence you claim you have.

But I just did.

Nice try to change the issue....and a common one, by the way. The evidence asked for is concerning the 'how' of Darwinist evolution.

How was that an attempt to change the issue? That was a link to an article that had the evidence that you demanded.

And once again, I do not understand what you mean by the "how of Darwin". The "how" is not what scientists usually do. They are more interested in "what" happened. The "how" usually follows from that. It seems that part of your problem may be that you are approaching the scientific method in a backwards manner.

 

[justlookinla]

But I just did.

No, you simply made your usual baseless and worthless claim of evidence. With a baseless and worthless link.....as usual.

How was that an attempt to change the issue? That was a link to an article that had the evidence that you demanded.

The request is concerning evidence, based on the scientific method, for the 'how' of Darwinism. You attempted to change it to common ancestry, a tactic which is common.

[And once again, I do not understand what you mean by the "how of Darwin".

LOL. You've claimed for months and months and months now that you had evidence for the 'how'. This is a perfect example that your claims of evidence have been worthless and baseless.....and continue to be worthless and baseless.

The "how" is not what scientists usually do.

Why is the claim made that only naturalistic mechanisms produced humanity from an alleged single life form of long ago? Why do those 'scientists' make such baseless and worthless claims?

They are more interested in "what" happened. The "how" usually follows from that. It seems that part of your problem may be that you are approaching the scientific method in a backwards manner.

No, I'm simply asking for evidence, based on the scientific method, for the 'how'. You don't have it, others don't have it. Stop making worthless and baseless claim in an effort to defend the Godless worldview of Darwinism.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, you simply made your usual baseless and worthless claim of evidence. With a baseless and worthless link.....as usual.

Wrong, but then we are used to that coming from you. By the way, have you ever been right about anything here?

The request is concerning evidence, based on the scientific method, for the 'how' of Darwinism. You attempted to change it to common ancestry, a tactic which is common.

You are using nonsense terms now. What do you mean by the "how of Darwinism". I gave you evidence for the theory of evolution. If you are using some false definition then it is no wonder that no one can give you any evidence.

And common ancestry is a synonym for evolution. They are one and the same.

LOL. You've claimed for months and months and months now that you had evidence for the 'how'. This is a perfect example that your claims of evidence have been worthless and baseless.....and continue to be worthless and baseless.

No, I have claimed that I have evidence that supports the theory of evolution. This "how of evolution" is some new nonsense of yours.

Why is the claim made that only naturalistic mechanisms produced humanity from an alleged single life form of long ago? Why do those 'scientists' make such baseless and worthless claims?

They don't. Please try again.

No, I'm simply asking for evidence, based on the scientific method, for the 'how'. You don't have it, others don't have it. Stop making worthless and baseless claim in an effort to defend the Godless worldview of Darwinism.

No, you are making up a nonsensical term and refusing to define it. The scientific method gives us evidence for theories. You have brought up this "how" nonsense and have not defined it.

 

[justlookinla]

Wrong, but then we are used to that coming from you. By the way, have you ever been right about anything here?

Offer something of content. Actually post this alleged evidence you claim you have. You aren't comprehending that a link isn't evidence, based on the scientific method.

You are using nonsense terms now. What do you mean by the "how of Darwinism". I gave you evidence for the theory of evolution. If you are using some false definition then it is no wonder that no one can give you any evidence.

For months and months and months now I've asked you for evidence for the 'how' of Darwinist evolution. You claimed to have "mountains of evidence" for the 'how' in the past, now we find that you suddenly don't know what's being asked for...this explains your months and months and months of worthless and baseless claims.

Of course you're attempting to change the focus from the 'how' to common ancestry. You have no evidence, based on the scientific method, for the 'how' of Darwinist evolution. This is just another tactic of evasion, in a long line of evasive responses.

No, I have claimed that I have evidence that supports the theory of evolution. This "how of evolution" is some new nonsense of yours.

The request for the 'how' has been made for months and months and months now. Since you have nothing but worthless claims, you attempt to change the focus to dismiss your complete failure.

The don't. Please try again.

What else, other than only naturalistic mechanisms, produced humanity from an alleged single life form of long ago does Darwinism make?

No, you are making up a nonsensical term and refusing to define it. The scientific method gives us evidence for theories. You have brought up this "how" nonsense and have not defined it.

You're simply trying another tactic to hide your failure. It's not going to work.

 

[BrriKerr]

No, I'm simply asking for evidence, based on the scientific method, for the 'how'. You don't have it, others don't have it. Stop making worthless and baseless claim in an effort to defend the Godless worldview of Darwinism.

People are trying to help you and you are rejecting their help with the most ridiculous excuses, with that attitude you deserve to remain a Christian until the day you die, they are only trying to help you and there is nothing in it for them if you learn or not, you would be the sole beneficiary.
I suppose you have been told to stay away from evolution, the people who told you that knew what they were talking about,
if you want to hang on to your religion do not learn anything about evolution because it will kill it for you, that's how strong your religion is when all it takes to kill it is knowledge.

 

[justlookinla]

People are trying to help you and you are rejecting their help with the most ridiculous excuses, with that attitude you deserve to remain a Christian until the day you die, they are only trying to help you and there is nothing in it for them if you learn or not, you would be the sole beneficiary.
I suppose you have been told to stay away from evolution, the people who told you that knew what they were talking about,
if you want to hang on to your religion do not learn anything about evolution because it will kill it for you, that's how strong your religion is when all it takes to kill it is knowledge.

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.

 

[BrriKerr]

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.

I really don't care what you believe because it's your life you are living not mine, they want to help you not me.
I firmly believe that you should be allowed to believe whatever nonsense you like, you live in their country not mine.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Offer something of content. Actually post this alleged evidence you claim you have. You aren't comprehending that a link isn't evidence, based on the scientific method.

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

For months and months and months now I've asked you for evidence for the 'how' of Darwinist evolution. You claimed to have "mountains of evidence" for the 'how' in the past, now we find that you suddenly don't know what's being asked for...this explains your months and months and months of worthless and baseless claims.

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

Of course you're attempting to change the focus from the 'how' to common ancestry. You have no evidence, based on the scientific method, for the 'how' of Darwinist evolution. This is just another tactic of evasion, in a long line of evasive responses.

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.

The request for the 'how' has been made for months and months and months now. Since you have nothing but worthless claims, you attempt to change the focus to dismiss your complete failure.

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.

What else, other than only naturalistic mechanisms, produced humanity from an alleged single life form of long ago does Darwinism make?

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.

You're simply trying another tactic to hide your failure. It's not going to work.

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.

 

[justlookinla]

I really don't care what you believe because it's your life you are living not mine, they want to help you not me.

They're making worthless and baseless claims. Just as you are.