Warden_of_the_Storm
Well-Known Member
- Oct 16, 2015
- 15,038
- 7,404
- 31
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Deist
- Marital Status
- Single
Wow. Such a clever mind you have. That will definitely change people's minds.
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.
My thoughts on creation and evolution,
Not suitable for this forum. Not worth the trouble, anyway. I've seen most of the creationists' arguments on this point and found them vacuous. I am satisfied with a view of scripture which has served Christendom well for 2000 years. What do I need with the politically-motivated apologetics of some 19th century Protestant pop-up?
Why would you think there would be any "funny business?" What exactly do you think is going on here? Do you really think I am trying to fool you? That especially makes no sense with what we are talking about now, which you could easily verify for yourself.
Random variation is just what it says. Each generation of a species presents a range of variants. Some are shorter, some are taller, have more or less hair, longer or shorter digits, etc. These variations are distributed randomly, that is, they approach a random (or "bell curve") distribution. Consequently, for each trait, most of the individuals possess the trait at or near the average value but there are more extreme outliers at the tails of the distribution.
You saying 'no it's not' without any attempt to support your claim does not outweigh a huge scientific consensus based upon huge numbers of independent lines of research
To be quite frank, I don't think you're ready for evidence yet.
One of the more frustrating aspects of the Crevo debate is the obstinate clinging to ignorance and misperceptions on the part of Creationists.
Do you honestly expect us to take childish mockery like this seriously?
This is a nonsense. Science is built on observations
You could try reading instead of getting your info from pictures.
Ridiculous ideas exist to be ridiculed. Bad ideas exist to be destroyed.
That doesn't even look like a reply to what you replied to. No idea how that fits there.
No matter, that pales to what the very start of your proof seems to have brought on.
Why?
First, when someone goes on, and on and on....about something, yest cannot prove it, then they tell me I should not expect proof, because it's true but cannot be proven, I get a little itch with just that, and am wary of what to expect from them next.
Secondly, just take a look at what ensued already with your "credence" and you haven't even gotten in the door, and precisely what I meant by funny business. Is your evidence evidence, or funny business? doesn't look good at least at this point, but I haven't read the last couple pages
The very reason I wanted it posted here, so good people that know more about this than I can do just what they are doing. And I'd guess that is why no one ever accepted the challenge, because also as I expected, your evidence would be ripped to pieces. I just didn't expect it to happen so early on.
That's why.
Thought so, just wanted to be clear.
But now what? How can I continue where there appears to be funny business right off?
I won't pretend I know all what those that oppose you here are talking about, but I have seen these basics happen often, and I believe what they are saying, it makes perfect sense.
I also expected the fact you go on assumptions all to often, and NOT facts, and then you have the nerve to call the conclusions drawn from those assumptions, fact. But that's something I concluded right off in the first attempt at this way back when I first started asking for proof, so no surprise.
Anyway, I'll read the next few pages and see if what you have presented thus far holds even a few drops of water, then determine if I can even answer when what you're feeding me may not even be fact. See the dilemma?
I don't even know yet whether you accept the fact that random variation occurs. You won't tell me.
So where is the "assumption" in what Speedwell typed, what is not factual?
so the excuse is that its take millions of years.
its just a belief and not a fact.
Given that we have here many people who want to disprove evolution, and they can't find a single valid objection to a non-strawman theory of evolution
It's a response to your bogus claim that you could prove the literal inerrancy of GenesisThat doesn't even look like a reply to what you replied to. No idea how that fits there.
In other words, you have to guard yourself constantly against the possibility that I am lying to you. You're so paranoid that you can't even answer the three simple questions I asked you. Sad.No matter, that pales to what the very start of your proof seems to have brought on.
Why?
First, when someone goes on, and on and on....about something, yest cannot prove it, then they tell me I should not expect proof, because it's true but cannot be proven, I get a little itch with just that, and am wary of what to expect from them next.
Secondly, just take a look at what ensued already with your "credence" and you haven't even gotten in the door, and precisely what I meant by funny business. Is your evidence evidence, or funny business? doesn't look good at least at this point, but I haven't read the last couple pages
The very reason I wanted it posted here, so good people that know more about this than I can do just what they are doing. And I'd guess that is why no one ever accepted the challenge, because also as I expected, your evidence would be ripped to pieces. I just didn't expect it to happen so early on.
That's why.
Thought so, just wanted to be clear.
But now what? How can I continue where there appears to be funny business right off?
I won't pretend I know all what those that oppose you here are talking about, but I have seen these basics happen often, and I believe what they are saying, it makes perfect sense.
I also expected the fact you go on assumptions all to often, and NOT facts, and then you have the nerve to call the conclusions drawn from those assumptions, fact. But that's something I concluded right off in the first attempt at this way back when I first started asking for proof, so no surprise.
Anyway, I'll read the next few pages and see if what you have presented thus far holds even a few drops of water, then determine if I can even answer when what you're feeding me may not even be fact. See the dilemma?
Then, of course you should be embarrassed that you, as well as others who keep spouting the same claim in order to throw the blame on me for your own inability to prove evolution.
so you have no real answer. thanks.
It's a response to your bogus claim that you could prove the literal inerrancy of Genesis
In other words, you have to guard yourself constantly against the possibility that I am lying to you. You're so paranoid that you can't even answer the three simple questions I asked you. Sad.
Anyway, I'll read the next few pages and see if what you have presented thus far holds even a few drops of water, then determine if I can even answer when what you're feeding me may not even be fact. See the dilemma?
Never mind, you win. We can't prove evolution.
since we cant see it happen (its take millions of years) its not a fact.
No, that bogus argument of yours is nonsense and has been shown to be so dozens of times.2) we have many evidence against it, as you can see in my signature link.
That's not news to me at all...do you really think I'd a bothered asking if I thought you could? If you could have proved it, it would be common knowledge that it has been proven but it is not, because it has not...just a claim, and will never be anything more than that.
Blah.
I and others have explained things to you and presented evidence to you that my freshman can easily grasp yet you come back days or weeks later, asking the same questions, making the same assertions, etc.
You clearly either do not actually want to learn anything, or are incapable of doing so.
This is why I pretty much ignore you. Like I go back to doing now.
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?