are you saying that these scientists dont claims that their discovery push back these species? (look at figure 5):
Tetrapod Trackways From the Early Middle Devonian Period of Poland
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.
are you saying that these scientists dont claims that their discovery push back these species? (look at figure 5):Except that you have been told countless times THAT IS NOT THE CASE.
At this point, this is just outright lying from you.
are you saying that these scientists dont claims that their discovery push back these species? (look at figure 5):
Tetrapod Trackways From the Early Middle Devonian Period of Poland
actually you showing your own ignorance. you cant just take several parts and mix them to get a new complex system. say that the chance to evolve a special mutation that can mix 2 parts is about one in a million, then the chance to mix about 10 different parts to form the flagellum is about one in 1000000^10. its extremely unlikely.
so?. as you can see here evolutionists have no problem to push back many species at once:
(image from wiki)
so this is incorrect..
but what i said its what they are saying too.What the scientists are saying and what you are describing are not in any way the same thing.
its a good question for you actually: why should I waste my time trying to explain it to you when you have already shown many times that you are not interested in explanations? i showed clearly that this is indeed what these scientists claiming. if you have a counter evidence you are welcome to show it.Haven't you already been told why you are wrong with this?
Several times?
You obviously have no interest in actually learning about this, since if you were, you would not keep bringing out the same falsehoods once you have been shown why they are wrong. You have no interest in learning, you just want to remain ignorant about what evolution really is. Why should I waste my time trying to explain it to you when you have already shown many times that you are not interested in explanations and you are not interested in learning?
Once again you think it's random.
It is not.
You have no idea what you are talking about, and you are exposing your ignorance for anyone who knows anything about evolution to see.
its a good question for you actually: why should I waste my time trying to explain it to you when you have already shown many times that you are not interested in explanations and you are not interested in learning? i showed clearly that this is indeed what these scientists claiming. if you have a counter evidence you are welcome to show it.
i never said that science is incorrect. i actually said that evolution isnt science. and so far no one here showed otherwise.Write an article for peer-review. If you cant, your views that the science is incorrect doesnt matter.
i never said that science is incorrect. i actually said that evolution isnt science.
are you saying that if we have a peer review article that support intelligent design then intelligent design is true?Then write an article for peer-review supporting your statement.
But you wont, as you cant, as its wrong.
are you saying that if we have a peer review article that support intelligent design then intelligent design is true?
No. The challenge was to write a peer review paper showing that evolution isn't science. You never "support ID" anyway. All you ever do is try to show evolution is wrong.are you saying that if we have a peer review article that support intelligent design then intelligent design is true?
its actually already happened:Peer-review is how science is established. There will never be a peer-reviewed article on ID as ID isnt science, its religion.
its actually already happened:
Peer-reviewed paper defends theory of intelligent design
and here is a full list:
https://www.discovery.org/id/peer-review/
but what i said its what they are saying too.
its actually already happened:
Peer-reviewed paper defends theory of intelligent design
and here is a full list:
https://www.discovery.org/id/peer-review/
this is indeed what they are saying:Let me try Simple English: what you are saying is not what the scientists are saying.
but its a peepr review paper. so now we see that we have peer review papers that support id. and yet you dont believe in id.Discovery institute? Are you serious?
Con-ing in a paper in a small journal is not writing a real paper for peer-review.
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?