- Dec 25, 2003
- 42,070
- 16,820
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
Ah, a reply so lacking in content that it floats away if not tied down. Typical Creationist...
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.
Proves absolutely nothing.
I'm sorry, but I'm going to give you some credit and not assume that you're playing semantic games, but when I posted those questions to you, that was the point where you:
- tell us what there is to explain about the human appendix
and
- expand on your comment about DNA complexity.
Any chance you're going to do so, or is this transparent Creationist tactic 539 - ask questions, but never provide a straight answer?
Ah, a reply so lacking in content that it floats away if not tied down. Typical Creationist...
What the heck does "survival distinction" mean? Do you mean survival advantage? Do you not realize that not every trait has a direct effect on survival? Some are the result of sexual selection. It's possible that human chins are the result of sexual selection in addition to being shaped by the fact that we speak.
I love when newbies show up full of pee and vinegar. @Subduction Zone has demonstrated his command of the issue here many times.
Paterfamilia, you do realise that blustering and fancy writing doesn't conceal lack of substance, hmm? Just because you act superior doesn't mean that you are.
BAM!
PROVE IT, OR REMOVE IT CHALLENGE
My son has just started his first year of primary school, which is a good thing and a bad thing. Good in that he will be learning how to read, count all those good things. Bad in the fact that for the next 13 years he will be indoctrinated into the theory of evolution. A choice over which I have no power. So I don't plan to remain silent, I plan to challenge the government to either "prove or remove" evolutionary teaching.
So here is my challenge to all my evolutionist friends, and other interested parties. Scientific jargon makes it impossible for the average man to understand if evolution is true or false. We don't understand RNA, DNA, etc, so we have to remain silent and trust others. But there is one way that the average man CAN fight back, and that is by using the fossil record. We can all understand and SEE fossils. We see fossils of dinosaurs, horses, birds, so from the very beginning of creation until now we have a record of animals that have lived. So really what should we expect to see in the fossil record, we should expect to see changes between species, wild and dramatic changes, partially developed wings on lizards, something turning into a monkey. But the real truth is we don’t see any of those things happening. We only see different sized monkeys being called our ancestors, or different sized horses being said to have evolved. But think of Dogs (alive today) there a big dogs called Great Danes, and small, dogs, even tiny ones. If all put in a row from small to big they would look like what we have been told is evolution.
So my challenge to you is this, before I contact our government, tell me can you PROVE evolution using the fossil record, the only thing we can all understand and see. The only thing a court of normal citizens could determine using reasoning of the average man, without being bamboozled by science talk. My challenge is don’t give me a list of text names of supposed fossils, I want to see pictures, for if evolution is true there must be millions of them out there, and surely scientists want us to see them; we have thousands of species, supposedly all evolved. Can you find them? If you can’t provide me with proof from the only historical record we have, then you have been taught a lie, evolution never occurred.
The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone decides that something did not happen, because they cannot personally understand how it could happen.
The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone decides that something did not happen, because they cannot personally understand how it could happen.
ToE wouldnt believe the appendix was useful, only because they couldnt see a use for it. Same thing occurred with so called "Junk" DNA. That fallacy was a result of their own ToE religious beliefs
That comment makes no sense. Scientists know that the appendix had a use, but through evolution, modern humans no longer need it. That's why it is called a vestigial organ.
I'm going to use atheist speak for a moment...
"Survival distinction" means neither advantage nor disadvantage. I'm sorry to use such big words. But just so you know, there is a thing called a "dictionary" that will help you to follow along.
ToE wouldnt believe the appendix was useful, only because they couldnt see a use for it. Same thing occurred with so called "Junk" DNA. That fallacy was a result of their own ToE religious beliefs
Forgive me, but I am not impressed by your rather pedestrian sesquipedalianism. When one chooses to engage in discourse of a particular nature, (in this case the subject is a scientific one) one should strive to utilize proper verbiage so as to be understood, and not perceived as spouting "sciencey" gibberish.
Capice?
you obviously did not understand my post. the OP doesn't understand RNA, DNA, etc., so wants to dismiss it all...
Now this is hilarious!!! You try to make the point that I argue from ignorance (try me, seriously) and then go on to explain your own personal ignorance, and the basal role of ignorance that your theory depends on and continues to thrive on.
Talk about a convenient cop-out? Yours is built in.
The point is that there are a significant number of people in today's world who act as if they are barbarians from prehistoric times. I presented it as something to think about. Are the two of you saying that the theory of evolution does not claim that modern man is superior to prehistoric man?
I suppose you think acting like a pompous jackass keeps you from having to support your absurd "information" canard?I'm going to use atheist speak for a moment...
"Survival distinction" means neither advantage nor disadvantage. I'm sorry to use such big words. But just so you know, there is a thing called a "dictionary" that will help you to follow along.
And just so you know, alleles accumulate in a population; not individuals. Outcome of evolution is species survival; not individuals. Sexual attraction may make life more fun, but doesn't do anything for individual survival. Didn't you go to college? If you had you would know that. No? Pity...
Anyway, (try to keep up) sexual attraction contributes to survival of the whole species, thus confirming Darwins predictions. Strike two, but you do still have your pretty little chin...
Chins shaped by our speech? Goodness child haven't you ever looked in a mirror and told off your boyfriend? Your chin is along for the ride honey. Words are formed in the mouth, though I suggest you start engaging your mind first, so as to mitigate your "image-of-ignorance". Not much hope for that, but (sigh) I tried.
I hope I have been helpful. I often wonder if any sense ever makes it past the gloomy brow of the average atheist. At least there is some hope it will occur to you just how ridiculously uninformed you really are. If that ever happens... well, I don't want to get my expectations set too high....
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?