where you answered yes or no to my simple question? maybe i misssed it. please show me.No, the problem is that you don't read my posts because I DID answer it.
again you discuss about me rather than my claim.The problem is your refusal to listen when people explain things to you.
If you were to spend 1/10 of the time you spend arguing actually listening and understanding what others explain to you we probably wouldn't have to put up with your incessant ignorant trolling.
so far the ignorance isnt from my side.The problem is your ignorance on the topic you pretend to be an expert in
Your claim is vacuous and you ignore all explanations as to why. That says something about you.again you discuss about me rather than my claim.
Yes, it's a lie.what lie? that a feather cant evolve twice?
Well, it was a pretty stupid statement. There's not much else then "no" that can be said.a very deep answer.
so far the ignorance isnt from my side.
The problem with this question is that you first need to define what the individual numbers in '12345' represent.i actually asked here: if i will show you a case of 12354 instead of 12345 you will admit that evolution is false or not? and she never answered this question.
I answered your question. I'm entitled to discuss you if you are the problem.again you discuss about me rather than my claim.
where you answered yes or no to my simple question? maybe i misssed it. please show me.
If you can show me a case of something that evolution says is impossible, then I will consider it.
I said that any example that you post will LIKELY have an explanation. This is because I've never seen a creationist try to understand why things are the way they are, they just assume that something fits their narrative and insist that their narrative is therefore true.
Rest assured, if you show me a fossil horse that was found in pre-Cambrian rocks, I will completely agree that it is impossible according to evolutionary theory.
If your evidence is valid evidence against evolution, then I promise I will consider it.
If you have been paying attention, you will see that I have answered this question in post 401 where I said, "If your evidence is valid evidence against evolution, then I promise I will consider it."
I also answered it in post 387 where I said, "if you show me a fossil horse that was found in pre-Cambrian rocks, I will completely agree that it is impossible according to evolutionary theory."
I'm sorry, but once again, I will tell you that I HAVE ANSWERED THE QUESTION.
If you have actual evidence against evolution, I WILL TAKE IT. If your evidence shows that evolution is false, I will agree that evolution is false. I have been abundantly clear on this.
I do not understand why you have ignored me when I have said this.
Are you even reading the posts I write?
I have said VERY CLEARLY that if you post actual evidence of the type you describe that I WILL accept it! What part of "I will take your evidence" is confusing? What part of "If your evidence shows that evolution is false, I will agree that evolution is false" is confusing?
No, the problem is that you don't read my posts because I DID answer it.
Sigh.
Very well. Quotes from my posts where I said I would accept your evidence with the actual specific words where I said I would accept your evidence highlighted in red.
I repeated myself as well, since you apparently didn't understand what I was saying:
You once again didn't seem to understand me, so I repeated myself again:
You then outright refused to take this as a proper answer, and I responded:
You once again accused me of not answering.
I believe I have made it abundantly clear that if you can present legitimate evidence that evolution is wrong, I will accept that evidence and change my views to agree with you that evolution is wrong. I honestly do not know how to make it any clearer.
You asked me if I would abandon evolution if you could show me it was wrong, and I have stated multiple times that I would abandon it if you did so.
I answered your question three times and then I told you three times that I had answered your question, one time even quoting myself where I had answered your question. You've even had another poster on here saying that I and other people had said they will accept your evidence if you can provide it.
That's funny, since that happens to be exactly what evolution explains
Are you forgetting that it's a gradual change, there's no single moment when there was no mammals and then BANG there was suddenly a mammal a second later?
No, that is the hypothesis.
There are many fictional stories attempting to explain how it could happen,
but no way to show that it ever happened in the
past or that it happens today above a micro level.
That depends, when we examine the genome, would we find the same genes as we do in birds, or is it a true convergent evolutionary development and their DNA has recreated novel genes to express these new feathers, which fantasy would you like to explore?a mammal with feathers? a "convergent evolution". what is the problem?
give me your calculation please. thanks.Yes, it's a lie.
A very similar structure could evolve more then once, but identical structurally and genetically, impossible.
No, a feather cannot evolve twice. .
fossils of course.The problem with this question is that you first need to define what the individual numbers in '12345' represent.