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.
Indeed, he is not here for honest debate.
You should be clear by now on what I'm after so with that in mind, instead of the cop out, put the blame on others, state your case, and then you can also make your case where I get dishonest.
Can you do that or are you just talking?
I’m not responsible for your education.
And that goes right back to blaming it all on me, my reality is bogus and yours is just fine....it's automatic and goes without saying here.
Good day to you and good luck to you in your trolling.
-ignore-
Where *I* ripped you to shreds?
Now you know I didn't say that.
Did I distinguish what you presented, evidence or otherwise? Of course I didn't, so stop that.
Now rephrase your comment using nothing but reality, and I'll reply, that is, if it will still work using the actual facts.
IOW "Quite frankly, I think it's you"
You had your chance, and you took off when what you presented was ripped to shreds, and then you tried to blame your exit on something I had done, of course. If you don't believe me, go back and read it again...I saw it, you saw it, everyone saw it.
Do you want to try it again? Be my guest.
Actually, I feel sorry for Christians like Kenny, putting their their faith in Christ unnecessarily at risk by tying it to a dubious interpretation of Genesis. It must be very hard for them.Does it occur to you that it might actually you?
A rhetorical question as Ophiolite was correct, there is enough material in this thread to expose your antics (as there is on all the threads you “participate” in).
Good day to you and good luck to you in your trolling.
-ignore-
I was at least hoping for an original cop out....oh, well.
DogmaHunter, Speedwell, JimmyD, US Incognito and others. Kenny'sID's posting behaviour is classic, provocative trolling. The First Rule of Internet Forums - Don't Feed the Troll. There is sufficient material on hand for the objective lurker to see what's going on. Your work is done. My blood pressure has settled since I put him on Ignore.
again: 95% of your commet is about me rather then about the evidence. so i will give you evidence against your claim. since we can find nested hierarchy among designed objects (image below)the fact that we can find the same hierarchy in nature doesnt prove evolution. very simple.I could explain for the upteenth time how it's not about "similarities", but rather about "matches". And not just matches, but more specifically about the pattern of distribution of such matches into nested hierarchies.... But what good would it do?
It's not like you are going to stop repeating the same nonsense, right?
You have been informed of your mistakes time and time again, and yet here you are once more, with the exact same PRATT.
You ignored the first bazillion times that people informed you of your mistake. Why wouldn't you ignore the next bazillion times?
It's rather obvious that trying to inform you of your mistakes, is an exercise in futility....
There's only so much intellectual dishonesty I can deal with. After a while, I just lose the motivation to engage you again of the exact same nonsense over and over again.
So... yeah....
In the first paragraph of this post, I once again informed you of your mistake when refering to just "mere similarities" and how it's not about that, but about the pattern of distribution of matches/similarities instead.
I give it exactly 0 chances of it sticking this time.
I'm willing to bet thousands of dollars that it will go in one ear and out the other, once again.
since we can find nested hierarchy among designed objects (image below)
Oh OK. Well, we didn't see creation happen either. Guess that didn't happen. And my conception? Didn't see it, so it didn't happen.
we do that all the time when we walk on the street and see a car or a pc. we know that such complex system are the product of design.
i just saying that we cant prove that a banana and a cat share a common descent. this is a belief.First, your language is misleading. You say 'no creature can change into another different creature.' This is ambiguous as 'creature' usually means an individual not a species, or population.
Clearly individuals do not evolve. Species may evolve, but the fundamental unit of evolution is a population. But, that doesn't match what you say either.
The problem with discussing things with you is that you aren't putting forward a clear argument. Therefore I need to paraphrase out your error. However, that's difficult here as you are even more muddled than usual. I have no confidence that I understand what it is that you are trying to say
Do you mean to claim that a species cannot arise from a parent species by speciation? If not, what?
2) evolution isnt scientific since we cant test it.
Have you already completely forgotten that we found the same with living creatures?:Have you already completely forgotten that when this claim was tested it doesn't actually happen?
so you cant detect design if you will see in your first time a flying saucer for instance?This is strictly due to pattern recognition. We're not actually "detecting design" so much as detecting patterns we recognize relative to their environment. However, even that pattern recognition is flawed given our ability to recognize familiar shapes (particularly faces) in things by pure coincidence. See the "face on Mars" as a prime example.
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?