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.
@Kenny'sID, I'll consider taking on your challenge to "prove evolution". But first we need to agree terms of engagement. I've been watching your dance and evasions for quite a while now, and it's fairly clear that you are not being honest or truthful in your engagement with others. So, are you prepared to engage honestly with me, answer straightforward questions in a truthful manner and not prevaricate?
@Kenny'sID, I'll consider taking on your challenge to "prove evolution". But first we need to agree terms of engagement. I've been watching your dance and evasions for quite a while now, and it's fairly clear that you are not being honest or truthful in your engagement with others. So, are you prepared to engage honestly with me, answer straightforward questions in a truthful manner and not prevaricate?
Where's your Precambrian rabbit? How can you assert and complain that evidence for your position would be dismissed when you don't have any evidence to begin with? You don't have anything to complain about.
All you have to do is find something like that, but in which 100+ base pairs in a row are identical. Until you can do that, your claims are entirely empty. I'm not even asking for an entire gene necessarily, just 100+ identical base pairs that couldn't feasibly be inherited by a common ancestor. The more distant the lineages, the better.
Yes, it is possible for life to diversify rapidly. But that's not the same thing as taking the entire 4+ billion year history of life on Earth and squishing it does to appearing at the beginning of Earth's history.
here is something similar:
Fossils push back snake origins by 65 million years
as you can see: we can even push back a creature by about 65 my. its like pushing back human to dinos age. so this is one example of "out of place" fossil. but as you can see: no problem for evolution.
-_- convergent loss has the opposite effect of convergent gain of genes. It would lead people to mistakenly conclude lineages are LESS closely related to each other than they actually are. Furthermore, your argument is dependent upon genes being present, not absent. That is, you argue that the reason identical PRESENT sequences exist is that they could feasibly arise independently. Convergent loss cannot explain genes being PRESENT at all, only absent.but this gene is indeed shared between far species but not in some species between them. so according to this we can never tell where is a case of convergence. we can always claim for convergent loss. see the problem?
its actually the same thing
there where no much species before the cambrian. as far as i aware most species of creatures on earth evolved after the cambrian. means in a 500 my window we get most creatures on earth. so we only need to shrink it into 100-200my. i realy see no problem with that.
A simple "no" would have sufficed.Evade what?
I asked for proof evolution and that hasn't happened, I don't understand how that makes me an evader?
Due to your past attitude, I shouldn't even bother with you, however, I'll spend a bit of time on you and see how it goes, but I should add, your off to bad start on accusing me of evading anything.
So answer my question first and then show your proof of evolution. If you are keeping of with the actually reality here, and not your out there view, you would know my requirements. If this is headed down the road of taking forever to set up an "I win" scenario for me to agree with, before we even get to you proving evolution, don't bother...
Still on this? I thought we were finally settled on it... The change in species is so marginal that what you would call the first human in our family tree would essentially be indistinguishable from its parents. There would never be such a thing as a nearly human looking ape giving birth to and looking after a nearly ape looking human baby - that's exactly what Didn't happen... -_-I did have a hard time clarifying my question, so I kinda gave up on it (may still have to). I know how evolution is generally supposed to work so you don't have to give me a lecture on it, but I just have difficulty seeing, even in gradual increments (because at some point something would have to become more human-like than animal-like), how something would survive beyond that point. I know, the answer is it would happen very slowly. It's just hard for me to see an animal transitioning into a human-like form, even very slowly, and at some point having the more animal-like (however little difference there is) raise a more human-like successfully.
Well, they'd be right - but right for the wrong reasons...You realize a lot of Creationists are going to agree with that statement.
You ought to work on your reading comprehension. Did you even read what was said, or are you deliberately misreading things to be argumentative and confrontational?Proper terminology causes misunderstandings?
And where is that come from anyway? I though we were on scientific method?
Makes no difference at all to me if you care or not..if your proper terminology or scientific method or wherever you are at now is unreasonable, I'm not going to go with it, that simple. IOW if it's unreasonable it's ok, as long as it helps with the misunderstandings? You have GOT to be kidding.
Still on this? I thought we were finally settled on it... The change in species is so marginal that what you would call the first human in our family tree would essentially be indistinguishable from its parents. There would never be such a thing as a nearly human looking ape giving birth to and looking after a nearly ape looking human baby - that's exactly what Didn't happen... -_-
Well, they'd be right - but right for the wrong reasons...
You ought to work on your reading comprehension. Did you even read what was said, or are you deliberately misreading things to be argumentative and confrontational?
Righto, perhaps you can explain why you went on a rant about how silly it would be be that using proper terminology would cause misunderstandings when @pitabred actually said the exact opposite, and explained why?You have turned an assumption into a fact, and a wrong fact at that, but you'll fit right in here as a defender of evolution.
Of course I read it, your crystal ball needs a tune up, or are you deliberately assuming things to be argumentative and confrontational?
You people are hilarious at times, accusing others of things you are doing right there in front of yourselves, and you don't even see it. Maybe that explains why I even bother...the laughs.
Lol at this point? Not weeks ago?Righto, perhaps you can explain why you went on a rant about how silly it would be be that using proper terminology would cause misunderstandings when @pitabred actually said the exact opposite, and explained why?
I have to assume you're just trolling at this point...
Righto, perhaps you can explain why you went on a rant about how silly it would be be that using proper terminology would cause misunderstandings when @pitabred actually said the exact opposite, and explained why?
I have to assume you're just trolling at this point...
Show me.
**Edited to include the "Rant" that @Kenny'sID claims in post#1217 wasn't there.Just to clarify, I don't care why you don't want to use proper terminology given the context of the discussion. My only point is that it leads to unnecessary misunderstanding, something which you have been complaining endlessly about.
Proper terminology causes misunderstandings?
And where is that come from anyway? I though we were on scientific method?
Makes no difference at all to me if you care or not..if your proper terminology or scientific method or wherever you are at now is unreasonable, I'm not going to go with it, that simple. IOW if it's unreasonable it's ok, as long as it helps with the misunderstandings? You have GOT to be kidding.
I asked if you'd engage honestly - you failed to do so.
I asked if you'd answer straightforward questions - you have failed to do so.
I asked you not to prevaricate - you prevaricated.
What are you so afraid of that you cannot engage in an honest, truthful and straightforward manner?
It would be very refreshing if, just once, you engaged in an honest manner. No dodging, no evasion, just a straightforward honest reply.What gave you that idea? You're the one that chooses not to engage and then lie and blame it on me, but no surprise there.
You were unable to give a straightforward answer to the question "Will you give a straightforward answer?" Seriously, it doesn't come much more straightforward than that.What straightforward questions did you ask? As far as I know, the debate was never started.
What you actually said was (paraphrased) "Don't try to get me to engage in an honest manner because I don't do that."How so, I said have at it, yet instead of doing so, you evade due to your lack of proof, by lying once again, and calling me evasive. How embarrassing for you to have to stoop to such levels. Sad.
Perhaps you should reread your response. You'll find it says something more along the lines of "I know what you're going to say so don't bother."I believe I said I was ready when you are. Looks to me like the "actual" honest truth is, you were afraid to start the debate and chose to go on about nothing instead as your preamble to a cop out...gee, I wonder why? lol You do know there are people reading every clear lie you tell here, right?
Let me repeat myself. It would be very refreshing if you would engage in an honest and truthful manner just once. The forum rules ask Christians to represent Christianity in an honest, truthful and positive light. Why are you unable to do that?See how this poster took advantage of my giving him a one chance in spite of his past, and how he chose to blow it as a means to get out of the debate? Yeah, I know, hilarious.
Once again, and I mean no offense, but you people really need to get someone in here that won't embarrass your cause. This really is pitiful.
It would be very refreshing if, just once, you engaged in an honest manner. No dodging, no evasion, just a straightforward honest reply.
You were unable to give a straightforward answer to the question "Will you give a straightforward answer?" Seriously, it doesn't come much more straightforward than that.
What you actually said was (paraphrased) "Don't try to get me to engage in an honest manner because I don't do that."
Perhaps you should reread your response. You'll find it says something more along the lines of "I know what you're going to say so don't bother."
Let me repeat myself. It would be very refreshing if you would engage in an honest and truthful manner just once. The forum rules ask Christians to represent Christianity in an honest, truthful and positive light. Why are you unable to do that just once?
Kenny, please answer "yes" or "no" to this simple question: hand on heart have you engaged honestly and truthfully?You still haven't figured out your done here? Remember? you were going to prove evolution, then you chose not to, so why do you want to waste more of our time with waffling excuses?
Maybe you like doing this to yourself.
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?