Evolution

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

so it opens the question of panspermia or other such things.

Science of the gaps

[noddy]

so it opens the question of panspermia or other such things.

Science of the gaps

exactly.

this is only a problem for some flavours of religion, a god that recedes - with science its the ho hum status quo, every answer triggers another question.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

so it opens the question of panspermia or other such things.

Science of the gaps

exactly.

this is only a problem for some flavours of religion, a god that recedes - with science its the ho hum status quo, every answer triggers another question.

I don't know about that.

[Simple Minded]

so it opens the question of panspermia or other such things.

Science of the gaps

exactly.

this is only a problem for some flavours of religion, a god that recedes - with science its the ho hum status quo, every answer triggers another question.

I don't know about that.

noddy's point exactly, no one does.

Although "God dun it!" seems to end the curious inquiry for many, and allows them the peace of mind to get back to the more important aspect of life, like milking the chickens....

[Mr. Perfect]

The real question, that all y'all are dancing around is, and to chicken too type........ if creationism is real, who were God's parents?

How many links do you want

[Mr. Perfect]

noddy's point exactly, no one does.

I've yet to figure out noddy's point. He's sort of all over the map

Although "God dun it!" seems to end the curious inquiry for many, and allows them the peace of mind to get back to the more important aspect of life, like milking the chickens....

I've never understood this argument. If God did something what are we supposed to do about it.

[Mr. Perfect]

so it opens the question of panspermia or other such things.

Science of the gaps

exactly.

this is only a problem for some flavours of religion, a god that recedes - with science its the ho hum status quo, every answer triggers another question.

I think science of the gaps is ultimately a strawman

[noddy]

noddy's point exactly, no one does.

I've yet to figure out noddy's point. He's sort of all over the map
\

not at all - your just confused because your cut and paste arguments about what i believe have nothing to do with anything.

which leaves the rest of it an exercise in absurdity.

i believe nothing - we have geology and fossils, we have dna, we have a documented tree of life, we have some theories "which may" account for that.

its pretty simple, no belief required.

huge swathes of things we dont know about, massive gaps in the story of infinity - which is hardly surprising and doesnt matter, we plug onwards, one turtle at a time.

we can summarise 35 pages as follows.

might have

Lol you do this in almost every other post.

BUT HE DOESNT BELIEVE WHAT I SAID HE BELIEVES

its moving beyond comical to retarded.

[Mr. Perfect]

not at all - your just confused because your cut and paste arguments about what i believe have nothing to do with anything.

which leaves the rest of it an exercise in absurdity.

i believe nothing - we have geology and fossils, we have dna, we have a documented tree of life,

No we don't.

we have some theories "which may" account for that.

its pretty simple, no belief required.

huge swathes of things we dont know about, massive gaps in the story of infinity - which is hardly surprising and doesnt matter, we plug onwards, one turtle at a time.

we can summarise 35 pages as follows.

Correct if I'm wrong.

You believe:

1. Evolution is science
2. But we don't know the mechanism

Do you see the inherent conflict? A lot of your statements have problems because you appear to be trying to bridge the gaps and round out the square pegs.

Also, almost all evolutionists claim it is science, when it is not, which is the real problem. It also appears to be impossible.

BUT HE DOESNT BELIEVE WHAT I SAID HE BELIEVES

its moving beyond comical to retarded.

A hypothesis that after 150+ years subsisting on might haves is a hypothesis we should discard. And, we should definitely not call it science.

[noddy]

not at all - your just confused because your cut and paste arguments about what i believe have nothing to do with anything.

which leaves the rest of it an exercise in absurdity.

i believe nothing - we have geology and fossils, we have dna, we have a documented tree of life,

No we don't.

yes we do.

we have some theories "which may" account for that.

its pretty simple, no belief required.

huge swathes of things we dont know about, massive gaps in the story of infinity - which is hardly surprising and doesnt matter, we plug onwards, one turtle at a time.

we can summarise 35 pages as follows.

Correct if I'm wrong.

You believe:

1. Evolution is science
2. But we don't know the mechanism

Do you see the inherent conflict? A lot of your statements have problems because you appear to be trying to bridge the gaps and round out the square pegs.

Also, almost all evolutionists claim it is science, when it is not, which is the real problem. It also appears to be impossible.

your problem is you think Evolution is about abiogenisis, I studied biology for 3 years and that topic was a half a day in first year - its been discussed more by you here than I have ever been involved with in my entire life, its really not that interesting. we dont know.


we are very interested in biochemistry and the mechanisms behind cells and dna and will continue to throw billions of research at it.

so no, i dont "believe in evolution" .. i do believe in species changing into other species is pretty much garunteed, the mechanisms of successful breeding works to change small things, as you say, we used to call that breeding. do it for hundreds of years and wolves become pugs, do it for millions of years, more is obviously possible.

their are transitionary fossils, hence creationists have dropped that argument.

their are creatures that are areas of grey between species - can sort of breed, but the offspring arent viable , etc.

we have pages of information you ignore with "but i cant make a new species in my kitchen" commentary.

BUT HE DOESNT BELIEVE WHAT I SAID HE BELIEVES

its moving beyond comical to retarded.

A hypothesis that after 150+ years subsisting on might haves is a hypothesis we should discard. And, we should definitely not call it science.

nope. ive been through all this before and you ignore it because their is no cut and paste talking point to refute it.

we dont study evolution much, its a side effect of all the things we do study, its not going anywhere, its an unstoppable requirement for the huge amount of science discovering new things about life on earth.

biochemistry and dna work is the biggest area of new discoveries and medical treatments , food supplies and many more things besides, its unstoppable and will continue to flesh out the chemical nature of our existence

nothing to do with evolution, yet everything to do with evolution, its not even up for discussion.

mining companies throw billions at drilling/excavating and find fossils that change the evidence, unstoppable, nothing to do with evolution.

biologists are always finding and documenting new species, nothing to do with evolution, yet everything to do with it.

i believe you might have tried to stop chemistry when it was just alchemy and loons blowing themselves up in their sheds in an attempt to change lead into gold.

you probably wanted electronic engineering stopped when it was eccentric english millionaires electrocuting their staff and doing hideous things to dead bodies.

evolution isnt going anywhere, it cant, you are shouting at the wind.

[noddy]

so it opens the question of panspermia or other such things.

Science of the gaps

exactly.

this is only a problem for some flavours of religion, a god that recedes - with science its the ho hum status quo, every answer triggers another question.

I don't know about that.

noddy's point exactly, no one does.

Although "God dun it!" seems to end the curious inquiry for many, and allows them the peace of mind to get back to the more important aspect of life, like milking the chickens....

well, in hindsight, i dont think that was my point - just that their is a point where anyone claiming authority does need to invoke a circuit breaker on the endless "why" questions.

mostly i think creationists are horrified by the thought of us being chemistry, the story about us having souls and being special and different to god would be less clear if we are reducable.

im actually uncertain it makes much difference - stack enough complexity and randomness together and the reducibility of even mechanical systems becomes moot.

[Mr. Perfect]

yes we do.

No we do not.

your problem is you think Evolution is about abiogenisis,

No, I don't. Evolution is about fungus turning into Elephants.

I studied biology for 3 years and that topic was a half a day in first year - its been discussed more by you here than I have ever been involved with in my entire life, its really not that interesting. we dont know.

Some people say otherwise and consider it to be science. That is a trend.

we are very interested in biochemistry and the mechanisms behind cells and dna and will continue to throw billions of research at it.

so no, i dont "believe in evolution" .. i do believe in species changing into other species is pretty much garunteed,

It's pretty much impossible. As I have cited numerous times, you can't even define what a species is, which means you can't define speciation.

the mechanisms of successful breeding works to change small things, as you say, we used to call that breeding. do it for hundreds of years and wolves become pugs, do it for millions of years, more is obviously possible.

More is obviously not possible. Everything has a limit. We've been breeding race horses for centuries, the lap times hit DMR a long time ago, countless more examples of this.

their are transitionary fossils, hence creationists have dropped that argument.

Nope.

their are creatures that are areas of grey between species - can sort of breed, but the offspring arent viable , etc.

Citation needed.

we have pages of information you ignore with "but i cant make a new species in my kitchen" commentary.

Nope, more strawman. Evolution must be testable in a lab, like any other hypothesis. So far the failure rate is 100%.

nope. ive been through all this before and you ignore it because their is no cut and paste talking point to refute it.

Nope, I've asked repeatedly to all comers how you determine speciation, and if your method satisfies the scientific method, and have had zero replies, going on 15 years all over the internet.

Evolution is not science.

we dont study evolution much, its a side effect of all the things we do study, its not going anywhere, its an unstoppable requirement for the huge amount of science discovering new things about life on earth.

Absolutely not.

biochemistry and dna work is the biggest area of new discoveries and medical treatments , food supplies and many more things besides, its unstoppable and will continue to flesh out the chemical nature of our existence

Biochemistry and DNA work very well without fungus turning into Elephants. All known science shows that in nature biochemistry and DNA work very hard to have fungus stay fungus and Elephants stay Elephants

nothing to do with evolution, yet everything to do with evolution, its not even up for discussion.

mining companies throw billions at drilling/excavating and find fossils that change the evidence, unstoppable, nothing to do with evolution.

Show me how a mining company found out that fungus turn into Elephants.

biologists are always finding and documenting new species, nothing to do with evolution, yet everything to do with it.

Finding new species does not tell us how the species came to be.

i believe you might have tried to stop chemistry when it was just alchemy and loons blowing themselves up in their sheds in an attempt to change lead into gold.

Creationists invented chemistry. Creationists love chemistry

you probably wanted electronic engineering stopped when it was eccentric english millionaires electrocuting their staff and doing hideous things to dead bodies.

Nope, have no idea why you would say that.

evolution isnt going anywhere, it cant, you are shouting at the wind.

Evolution isn't going anywhere because it can't. Fungus don't turn into Elephants. You wasted a whole blog post and posted zero science to support your claims.

It's very simple all you have to do is provide a single example of speciation and how you determined it, and you didn't do it. I have been looking for it for 15 years and found nothing.

[Mr. Perfect]

mostly i think creationists are horrified by the thought of us being chemistry, the story about us having souls and being special and different to god would be less clear if we are reducable.

Actually your side struggles with that issue.

This is going to hurt.

F6rd4HEdffw

[noddy]

oh well, good luck to you.

your concerns are not the target audiences concerns, so your criticism mileage might vary.

[Simple Minded]

The real question, that all y'all are dancing around is, and to chicken too type........ if creationism is real, who were God's parents?

How many links do you want

As many as you are willing to post!

[Simple Minded]

we can summarise 35 pages as follows.

might have

Lol you do this in almost every other post.

BUT HE DOESNT BELIEVE WHAT I SAID HE BELIEVES

its moving beyond comical to retarded.

Yep!

Add in also: "HE DOESN'T BELIEVE WHAT HE SAID BELIEVES!"

That's why I say Zack is a young Mr. Perfect.


Both are expert mind readers who know when someone else does not believe what they type, or when they are lying about the life experiences you have actually lived thru.

Only Zack and Mr. Perfect know what REAL Dems, Repubs, Scientists, Theologians, Gays, Queers, Americans, Whites, Blacks, etc. think or know. Both are experts when deciphering all those listed are either lying or telling the truth.

Ya gotta admire their consistency of faith.

[Simple Minded]

well, in hindsight, i dont think that was my point - just that their is a point where anyone claiming authority does need to invoke a circuit breaker on the endless "why" questions.

mostly i think creationists are horrified by the thought of us being chemistry, the story about us having souls and being special and different to god would be less clear if we are reducable.

im actually uncertain it makes much difference - stack enough complexity and randomness together and the reducibility of even mechanical systems becomes moot.

Thats how I read it. I might not have capture the thought well.

There is a point where one's knowledge stops or even no information is available. Behind the curtain, there are always turtles, gods, demons, dragons, and magic/magik!"

Beyond that, it is either speculation or blind faith.

"What happened one second before the Big Bang?"
"Blahblahblah....."
"OH YEAH! WELL WHAT HAPPENED ONE SECOND BEFORE THAT?"


"Who were God's parents?"
"How many links do you want?"
"OK, who were God's grandparents?"

Its a fun game, but not a real source of information.

[Simple Minded]

Actually your side struggles with that issue.

This is going to hurt.

F6rd4HEdffw

Wow!

Expert mind reading...... and.... sensitive virtual empathy in one post....

Mr. Perfect, you are outdoing yourself!

[Mr. Perfect]

oh well, good luck to you.

your concerns are not the target audiences concerns, so your criticism mileage might vary.

In other words you don't have any science to support evolution. After 150+ years you don't have a single solitary example of it.

[Mr. Perfect]

Wow!

Expert mind reading...... and.... sensitive virtual empathy in one post....

Mr. Perfect, you are outdoing yourself!

I believe Mr. Lennox has a checkmate.

[Mr. Perfect]

As many as you are willing to post!

I think we can get it down to 2.

Mr. Feser makes the Aristotle/Aquinas argument the best that I can tell. "There must be" one God. As far as I know this argument hasn't changed in 1000 years.

12:30
9R3BXJVjwKI

Mr. Smith went the other way, to the best of his ability.

These ideas are incomprehensible to some, but they are simple. It is the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty the character of God, and to know that we may converse with Him as one man converses with another, and that He was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ Himself did;

In other words, I believe this means infinite Gods.

The issue is the resolution to this issue lies outside of human observation; as far as I know no human being can comprehend eternity, and the answer lies in eternity. God is safely hidden from Dawkins Harris et al there.

I believe this is the source of the comment "turtles all the way down".

Speaking of, this bro let his slip show the other day. I found him claiming he knew something he didn't know. After explaining the gaps in abiotic genesis he went ahead and said it was science anyway. Human bias is so strong.

Someone said "Abiogenesis is not possible" he replied "And yet it happened". This is why I don't trust evolutionists, and they aren't scientists.

nNK3u8uVG7o

[Mr. Perfect]

Yep!

Add in also: "HE DOESN'T BELIEVE WHAT HE SAID BELIEVES!"

That's why I say Zack is a young Mr. Perfect.


Both are expert mind readers who know when someone else does not believe what they type, or when they are lying about the life experiences you have actually lived thru.

Only Zack and Mr. Perfect know what REAL Dems, Repubs, Scientists, Theologians, Gays, Queers, Americans, Whites, Blacks, etc. think or know. Both are experts when deciphering all those listed are either lying or telling the truth.

Ya gotta admire their consistency of faith.

What would be an example of that

[noddy]

oh well, good luck to you.

your concerns are not the target audiences concerns, so your criticism mileage might vary.

In other words you don't have any science to support evolution. After 150+ years you don't have a single solitary example of it.

we moved past the copy n paste of evidence 20 pages ago, you dont read it, its not worthy anyones time to play that game.

[Mr. Perfect]

we moved past the copy n paste of evidence 20 pages ago, you dont read it, its not worthy anyones time to play that game.

No I rebutted them. All you have to do is show one example.

[noddy]

mostly i think creationists are horrified by the thought of us being chemistry, the story about us having souls and being special and different to god would be less clear if we are reducable.

Actually your side struggles with that issue.

This is going to hurt.

build up a strawman character so you can cleverly cut him down

nice.