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.
I think it’s quite obvious.
It probably gets lonely under that bridge now the all goats have wised up.
Still using the "you don't know science" excuse to cover your inability to prove evolution I see..
You are simply and absolutely lying again, I have a great interest in science, I love it.
Oh, and why am I here? If it isn't completely obvious buy now, it's to get you all to put your money where your mouth is.
If I recall, sometime back someone claimed evolution was a fact, and I'm simply asking for proof of that.
I think it’s quite obvious.
It probably gets lonely under that bridge now the all goats have wised up.
In order to understand the evidence for evolution, one needs to first have a basic (high school) level understanding of how science works, biology and the theory of evolution itself.
It's a little bit like going into a math class, demanding proof of a mathematical theorem, and then saying, "and by the way, I don't understand algebra, and don't really have an interest in that." The latter is required knowledge.
I can only form opinions based on your own posts and behavior on this forum. If I have the impression that you don't have an interest in science, that's because you convey that impression.
I mean, I asked you basic questions such as about your understanding of the scientific method. Not only did you not give a straightforward response, you even went so far as explaining your disinterest in the subject.
How could anyone otherwise assume you "love" science based on responses like that?
No leg to stand on there, you said I didn't have "an interest in science", period. That was a lie and all your talk won't change that.
I'll check back from time to time and see if anyone has proven it, but If I don't, you know where to find me. What we're doing here/now isn't doing anyone any good.
Basically, I'm a troll because Jimmy can't prove evolution, and much easier to evade the subject with childish put downs then it is to either man up and say you cannot prove it, or actually prove it.
And that's a perfect demonstration of your lack of understanding of science.Oh, and why am I here? If it isn't completely obvious buy now, it's to get you all to put your money where your mouth is. If I recall, sometime back someone claimed evolution was a fact, and I'm simply asking for proof of that.
Seriously?? I call Poe.Where is the "rant"? Whee did I even suggest proper terminology was silly? You don't think I can see you dismissed the rest of that post about "context" the very thing you just tried to destroy? You people are now starting to see things that aren't there out of complete desperation...seriously sad.
Think I stick around for a little longer in order to see just how bad this get's, it's almost scary as it is.
Since the others have failed, you think you can prove evolution for us?
Not being able to prove your claims consistently on a message board, does you no favors, and all the claims you will prove it, then copping out is a complete waste of others time.
Arguing what? No one here seems to be able to get off the ground with their proof so nothing to argue about. Seems to me you aren't arguing at all, wanna know why?
Here, lets' try this...would you like to prove evolution, or make more excuses?
Still using the "you don't know science" excuse to cover your inability to prove evolution I see..
You are simply and absolutely lying again, I have a great interest in science, I love it. I just don't use it as an excuse/weapon because I have nothing else to defend myself with..
Though not convinced you make money from not understanding Evolution and the sciences in general (unless you're a fundamentalist pastor??) - you're otherwise invested in a false belief which requires the same level of denial all the same, so this quote is applicable:Oh, and why am I here? If it isn't completely obvious buy now, it's to get you all to put your money where your mouth is. If I recall, sometime back someone claimed evolution was a fact, and I'm simply asking for proof of that.
....was I wrong to have pointed it out by name??I think it’s quite obvious.
It probably gets lonely under that bridge now the all goats have wised up.
Basically, I'm a troll because Jimmy can't prove evolution, and much easier to evade the subject with childish put downs then it is to either man up and say you cannot prove it, or actually prove it.
The oldest known snakes from the Middle Jurassic-Lower Cretaceous provide insights on snake evolution
-_- it's not out of place; significance of the fossil is showing that when the snake lineage diverged from the lizard lineage that it is likely the first distinguishing trait to develop may have been the signature snake skull shape.
Snakes evolved from lizards, and the oldest lizard fossil found thus far is about 220 million years old. The high range for this fossil is 167 million years old, leaving 53 million years for snakes to diverge. Rabbits from the Precambrian would predate amphibians, which is completely out of order. This situation is not even similar, let alone the same.
-_- convergent loss has the opposite effect of convergent gain of genes.
These are not true. Explain in detail or accept that you area just pretending to have explained the evidence.as i said: by this criteria even human with a dino fossil isnt an "out of place fossil". we can just push back humans.
what? if we see a gene that is shared between 2 far species we can always claim for convergent loss rather then convergent evolution.
Example please.as i said: by this criteria even human with a dino fossil isnt an "out of place fossil". we can just push back humans.
Example please.what? if we see a gene that is shared between 2 far species we can always claim for convergent loss rather then convergent evolution.
Your examples aren't examples, they're claims.what detailes?
see above 2 examples.
-_- no, because that would make humans predate all other primates, let alone other apes, which DOESN'T match up with genetic evidence whatsoever. It would be out of order. Snakes diverging from lizards 53 million years after the existence of lizards doesn't change order at all.as i said: by this criteria even human with a dino fossil isnt an "out of place fossil". we can just push back humans.
-_- convergent loss doesn't result in new, identical genes, it results in the removal of genes which were originally shared in both lineages thanks to a common ancestor. Both the chicken and the lizard lineages lost the ALX3 gene THAT THEY BOTH ORIGINALLY HAD AS A RESULT OF SHARED ANCESTRY ALONG WITH THE OTHER ALX GENES. No identical gene was gained this way, the sequences surrounding where the ALX3 gene had been were similar because those too were inherited by shared ancestry.what? if we see a gene that is shared between 2 far species we can always claim for convergent loss rather then convergent evolution.
Details to back up the two lies about evolutionary theory.what detailes?
see above 2 examples.
Now, describe in detail how we could just "push back humans" without violating the evolutionary tree that we are part of with every other living thing on the planet.
Your question mark is well placed.Today's scientists have confused prehistoric people (sons of God) with Humans (descendants of Adam). What is interesting is that Adam nor Eve NEVER took a step on planet Earth. That's God's Truth Scripturally, scientifically and historically. Amen?
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?