Unsimplifiability, proves Darwin was not intent on developing a working theory...

[Danielwright2311]

If you are copying and pasting material from other web sites to pass off as your own posts, that is just plagiarism. If you want to cite material that you want to have a discussion about, then post the source and post why you think it is relevant for discussion.

I never said it was my own.

Where did I say it was my own?

Its very relevant, it proves evolution false and not fact with real science truth.

If you want me to read what you post but will not read what I post how am I going to take anything you write to heart?

I cant.

 

[pitabread]

I never said it was my own.

Where did I say it was my own?

You didn't cite a source. In general, if a person posts material it is assumed they are the author unless they say otherwise.

Its very relevant, it proves evolution false and not fact with real science truth.

What you posted was an argument against abiogenesis (life from non-life). The Theory of Evolution currently does not include abiogenesis in scope. Ergo, what you posted has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution.

If you want me to read what you post but will not read what I post how am I going to take anything you write to heart?

I'm trying to get you to follow basic posting etiquette. That includes citing sources for material that is not your own.

 

[Danielwright2311]

You didn't cite a source. In general, if a person posts material it is assumed they are the author unless they say otherwise.

So then everything you ever wrote about evolution is also not your own material.

What you posted was an argument against abiogenesis (life from non-life). The Theory of Evolution currently does not include abiogenesis in scope. Ergo, what you posted has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution.

Said you with no proof

I'm trying to get you to follow basic posting etiquette. That includes citing sources for material that is not your own.

No, your not winning me to evolution, and because you have some sort of I have to be smarter then you mind, you cant let it go.

I am very educated, And guess what?

In scope it does include all scopes of testing .

Ergo is a part of the process and now you dismiss a part of your own teaching to sound smart.

See how you can dismiss and break down bits of miss-information to prove nothing?

You still have no proved evolution to anyone here.

 

[pitabread]

I am very educated

Okay, I'll bite. What is your educational background?

 

[Danielwright2311]

Okay, I'll bite. What is your educational background?

No sir

You are here to prove to me evelution

On your education, not mine.

See?

I'm not here searching for answers.

I do not need to prove my education to prove to myself about evolution.

In order to prove anything to me, you have to show proof, not even education.

 

[pitabread]

No sir

You claimed you are "very educated". I'm simply asking for your educational background.

If you don't want to support you own claims about your own education level, then that's that.

 

[Danielwright2311]

You claimed you are "very educated". I'm simply asking for your educational background.

If you can't back up claims about your own education level, then that's that.

Then thats what?

Evolution is true then?

This debate is about you proving evolution, not my back ground.

You are to win me to it, thats the point, if you can not, then why are you here?

 

[pitabread]

You are to win me to it, thats the point, if you can not, then why are you here?

I'm here for arguments and upvotes.

(I actually don't really care whether you accept evolution. In the big picture, your opinion on the matter is largely irrelevant.)

 

[Danielwright2311]

I'm here for arguments and upvotes.

Lol, But your arguments hold no value if you can not win me over to evolution.

 

[pitabread]

Lol, But your arguments hold no value if you can not win me over to evolution.

I'm not trying to "win you over" though.

As I just added to my prior post, I don't really care whether you accept evolution. In the big picture, your opinion on the matter is largely irrelevant.

 

[Danielwright2311]

I'm not trying to "win you over" though.

As I just added to my prior post, I don't really care whether you accept evolution. In the big picture, your opinion on the matter is largely irrelevant.

So then , you argue with others just to argue because largely what I think is irrelevant?

irrelevant to what?

 

[Ophiolite]

So there you have it, admitted by you, there is no real proof, you use insults and education to prove evolution.

Is that just what my post was about?

I am to uneducated to understand so it must all be true.

I would not seek to make an argument concerning a subtle theological matter concerning an interpretation of Job, since I have no formal and practically no informal education in the matter. Now, if you pointed this out to me I would not consider it an insult, but an objective statement of fact.

In contrast, you appear to be rejecting the theory without the requisite educational background required to reject it. Making that observation is not an insult, is not intended as an insult, but is an objective statement of fact.

You have, I think, been told before, that science doesn't prove things - it develops convincing models. The theory of evolution is a very convincing model, but that conviction can only come from a careful, lengthy, committed study of the evidence. You are unwilling, it seems, to make that commitment. You are entitled to reject the theory based upon your faith, person incredulity, or opinion. But your rejection on that basis can be safely ignored by anyone who has studied the matter.

Finally, you seem to be confusing education with intelligence. Evolutionary theory is not especially taxing in principle. I have little doubt you could become fully conversant with it if you chose to. Your ignorance in the matter is self imposed and it is real. Please do not accuse me of delivering insults by pointing out this simple, self evident fact.

 

[pitabread]

So then , you argue with others just to argue because largely what I think is irrelevant?

I argue for the sake of arguing. I learned long ago there is no changing of minds* on a forum like this.

(* Admittedly there are some exceptions but those are few and far between.)

irrelevant to what?

Irrelevant to the theory of evolution and its applicability to biology and biology-related fields and industries.

 

[Danielwright2311]

I argue for the sake of arguing. I learned long ago there is no changing of minds* on a forum like this.

(* Admittedly there are some exceptions but those are few and far between.)



Irrelevant to the theory of evolution and its applicability to biology and biology-related fields and industries.

So why waist your time here?

I'm confused on your issue

Your on a Christian forums not seeking God, but your here to argue just for the sake of argument?

That is a waist of time and life.

So nothing you argue has any value.

 

[pitabread]

In contrast, you appear to be rejecting the theory without the requisite educational background required to reject it.

In fairness, anyone with the requisite educational background probably wouldn't reject it in the first place.

 

[pitabread]

Your on a Christian forums not seeking God, but your here to argue just for the sake of argument?

Now you're getting it!

That is a waist of time and life.

It's either this or watching reality TV. At least here I occasionally learn something new.

Btw, the word is spelled "waste". See, you learned something new today too!

 

[Danielwright2311]

Now you're getting it!



Well, it's either this or watching reality TV. At least here I occasionally learn something new.

Btw, the word is spelled "waste". See, you learned something new today too!

Btw, my auto correct is all messed up and I'm sick of correcting and editing every post.

You just also learned some new.

Waste, waist or your wasting my time.

But my waist thanks you.

 

[Kylie]

Ultimately both of Our World views are at the heart of the matter here.

This doesn't actually address anything I said.

And the universe doesn't care about our worldviews.

 

[Kylie]

Those genes do change sometimes, but the strong tendency is to revert back. There is a reason for that, there are repair mechanisms that tend to fix changes in the DNA.

Citation needed. A peer reviewed scientific paper, please.

And you never said what would count as evidence in your opinion.

 

[Kylie]

So no science ?

Ok, so all you did was tell me that because of need to change cells change, but with no evidence of any change.

Thats my point.

You just help me prove my whole point, thanks.

Are you suggesting that there's no mechanism by which change can occur over generations?

REALLY?