lol. as you've ever accepted the possibility that you can be wrong.
oh, that's right--you are the sole arbiter of The Truth in this universe.
How soon i forget.
There you go jumping into insults and semantics. You can't even acknowledge the irrational nonsense of it all, you go right into attacking others. You are close-minded, unwilling to accept that you could possibly be wrong.
He works in mysterious ways!It's amazing how god is able to change font colors.
who can remember the first purple, blue, whatever, word? I was paying attention to the text.
One of the most obvious examples of present day micro-evolution are flu virus' & how they mutate from one year to the next.
One of the most obvious examples of present day micro-evolution are flu virus' & how they mutate from one year to the next.
For the millionth time, religion has nothing to do with it. It is bad science to accept evolutionary theory as truth. The so-called "evidences" for it are observations with many interpretations, not just one. Accepting just one and claiming it is absolutely true is nonsense. It is not proven by the evidences, the theory is an interpretation. Nothing more.
There is no conclusive evidence of the process described by evolutionary theory. You can interpret the evidence in many ways, claim anything you want. If you accept something without any real proof, then you would be the religious nut, not me.
Once again, you point to religion. You always do because you think this is some kind of competition. I have not ever presented an opposing theory. I don't care how the world was created. My issue is that people so blindly accept such theories just like they blindly follow politics. They don't have any real understanding, they simply accept what they are told. If someone opposes it, they are crazy, a religious nut, or don't have any idea what they are saying.
One biologist says evolution is correct, another says it is not. Who do you believe? Why? If you acknowledge the issue rationally you'll see the issue, but so far you haven't done a single thing rationally so I have my doubts that you can do this.
There you go jumping into insults and semantics. You can't even acknowledge the irrational nonsense of it all, you go right into attacking others. You are close-minded, unwilling to accept that you could possibly be wrong.
It completely over-simplifies it. Biological changes are not anywhere near similar to hue changes. This description hides all the complexity and reason why many don't agree with evolution.
You are close-minded, unwilling to accept that you could possibly be wrong.
Oversimplifies it you say?
Tides come in, tides go out, never a miscommunication, can't be explained.
That's not a simplification is it.
There is not now, nor ever will be, any proof of any gradual biological change that can account for the diversity of life on this planet.
I want to eat a banana while walking my crocoduck.
If you cannot demonstrate a logical contradiction in a proposition, then it is possible by definition. In other words, if it is coherent, it can happen, and there is no logical inconsistency with the suggestion that descent with modification can account for the diversity of life.There is not now, nor ever will be, any proof of any gradual biological change that can account for the diversity of life on this planet.
This is Dembski's idea of "Irreducible Complexity" and despite your ignorance, it has been debunked.In order for certain necessary changes to have occurred, millions of smaller changes would need to occur at the same time.
Actually, the history of biology is a mixed bag of gradual changes over relatively long time scales with occasional and relatively more drastic changes within shorter relative time scales.There is nothing gradual about what evolutionary theorists claim to have occurred.
If it is "nonsense from the beginning" I take that to mean you doubt even so-called "microevolution."The entire theory is nonsense from the beginning because of what you just said.
This is a flat-out falsehood. You are either ignorant or dishonest to have made it. There are fossil records and geneologies which necessitate common anscestry to make sense of them.The only reason theorists claim it takes hundreds of thousands, if not millions or billions, of years is because it hides the fact that there is no evidence of it at all.
Quite simply, you are one stupid motherfucker, and you need to sit down, and shut the fuck up.It neatly tucks away any responsibility of proving the theory in the unrecorded history that can never be examined.
If anyone's interested in Human evolution & the debate between the Out-of-Africa and multiregional evelution schools should check out this discussion: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/34366
And if you have any questions, feel free to PM me. Wolpoff was my undergraduate adviser.
I've got a question. How the hell are they sequencing the genomes for all these extinct hominids (and other extinct animals)? How can you get a genome out of neanderthal bones?
And the decision of what is "red" and "blue" is arbitrary anyway, just as is our distinction of "species."That's pretty awesome how you all jump on this band wagon.
All we need is a common definition of what each of the colors (names) are and we can easily decide where the color change (numeric representation of color) happens.
There is also the problem that we can clearly see there are many change between blue and red. These intermediate steps what creationists are looking for in nature.
But we're boooooooorrrred!Y'all responding to a Holy Troller.
There is nothing to be right or wrong about here - we're simply debating fact. The fact is that evolution has been observed. PERIOD. End of statement. Until you admit that, there is no more discussion to be had. That's not being close minded, that's just stating reality.