Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
A candid article where, unlike evolutionists, scientists admit do they not have all the answers instead of just making shtuff up and filling in the blanks... they actually admit they really don't have ANY answers!!!!
CEH
FAIL! The article doesn't have anything to do with biotic evolution.
since it not real science but pseudoscience it not valid any way..A candid article where, unlike evolutionists, scientists admit do they not have all the answers instead of just making shtuff up and filling in the blanks... they actually admit they really don't have ANY answers!!!!
CEH
FAIL! The article doesn't have anything to do with biotic evolution.
The only fail is your lack of understanding of basic grammar. No where in the statement above did I infer the article was about evolution. I said, unlike evolutionists, there are other area's of science where they don't make stuff up when they don't have any REAL evidence.
Ultimatereality I enjoy your posts.
And that site you posted.
This is a much better site.
Evolution of DNA
A candid article where, unlike evolutionists, scientists admit do they not have all the answers instead of just making shtuff up and filling in the blanks... they actually admit they really don't have ANY answers!!!!
CEH
FAIL! The article doesn't have anything to do with biotic evolution.
since it not real science but pseudoscience it not valid any way..FAIL! The article doesn't have anything to do with biotic evolution.
The only fail is your lack of understanding of basic grammar. No where in the statement above did I infer the article was about evolution. I said, unlike evolutionists, there are other area's of science where they don't make stuff up when they don't have any REAL evidence.
even the title is an oxoymoron...
since it not real science but pseudoscience it not valid any way..The only fail is your lack of understanding of basic grammar. No where in the statement above did I infer the article was about evolution. I said, unlike evolutionists, there are other area's of science where they don't make stuff up when they don't have any REAL evidence.
even the title is an oxoymoron...
You made this claim many times,please provide the pseudoscience that ID and creationists advocates use in their research ? You do realise theories are not facts but are opinions with lots of holes don't you ? However there real science being done that don't require the theory of evolution ,astronomy, or astrology.
bump,since it not real science but pseudoscience it not valid any way..
even the title is an oxoymoron...
You made this claim many times,please provide the pseudoscience that ID and creationists advocates use in their research ? You do realise theories are not facts but are opinions with lots of holes don't you ? However there real science being done that don't require the theory of evolution ,astronomy, or astrology.
I think it is beholden upon the creationists and ID proponents to show that whatever they are doing is based in science, not the other way around (not to speak for daws).
As I'm certain has been posted many a time, scientific theories are not merely opinion. You may think evolution does not live up to being a theory, but when you say theories in science are just opinions, you are perpetuating a falsehood.
this question has been answerd everytime you've claimed to ask it.A candid article where, unlike evolutionists, scientists admit do they not have all the answers instead of just making shtuff up and filling in the blanks... they actually admit they really don't have ANY answers!!!!
CEH
FAIL! The article doesn't have anything to do with biotic evolution.
I'm gonna keep making this question until someone can answer it. Point out the trait that can be proven it came about through the current mechanism for evolution then prove the trait never existed in the gene pool.
since it not real science but pseudoscience it not valid any way..
even the title is an oxoymoron...
You made this claim many times,please provide the pseudoscience that ID and creationists advocates use in their research ? You do realise theories are not facts but are opinions with lots of holes don't you ? However there real science being done that don't require the theory of evolution ,astronomy, or astrology.
I think it is beholden upon the creationists and ID proponents to show that whatever they are doing is based in science, not the other way around (not to speak for daws).
As I'm certain has been posted many a time, scientific theories are not merely opinion. You may think evolution does not live up to being a theory, but when you say theories in science are just opinions, you are perpetuating a falsehood.
this question has been answerd everytime you've claimed to ask it.FAIL! The article doesn't have anything to do with biotic evolution.
I'm gonna keep making this question until someone can answer it. Point out the trait that can be proven it came about through the current mechanism for evolution then prove the trait never existed in the gene pool.
the answer to this question :"Point out the trait that can be proven it came about through the current mechanism for evolution then prove the trait never existed in the gene pool"
is right here: [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I91Huv4jbCk]What Darwin Never Knew (NOVA Documentary) - YouTube[/ame]
A candid article where, unlike evolutionists, scientists admit do they not have all the answers instead of just making shtuff up and filling in the blanks... they actually admit they really don't have ANY answers!!!!
CEH
FAIL! The article doesn't have anything to do with biotic evolution.
The only fail is your lack of understanding of basic grammar. No where in the statement above did I infer the article was about evolution. I said, unlike evolutionists, there are other area's of science where they don't make stuff up when they don't have any REAL evidence.
FAIL! The article doesn't have anything to do with biotic evolution.
The only fail is your lack of understanding of basic grammar. No where in the statement above did I infer the article was about evolution. I said, unlike evolutionists, there are other area's of science where they don't make stuff up when they don't have any REAL evidence.
Fail again, there's plenty of real evidence. The topic is creationism. I'd hardly be crowing about making statements without evidence, if that's what you believe.
The only fail is your lack of understanding of basic grammar. No where in the statement above did I infer the article was about evolution. I said, unlike evolutionists, there are other area's of science where they don't make stuff up when they don't have any REAL evidence.
Fail again, there's plenty of real evidence. The topic is creationism. I'd hardly be crowing about making statements without evidence, if that's what you believe.
Can a computer program itself ? Who or what could have programmed the brain ?
Was it an intelligent being that programmed the computer or an undirected unintelligent natural process ?
Fail again, there's plenty of real evidence. The topic is creationism. I'd hardly be crowing about making statements without evidence, if that's what you believe.
Can a computer program itself ? Who or what could have programmed the brain ?
Was it an intelligent being that programmed the computer or an undirected unintelligent natural process ?
That argument is getting pretty tired YWC. Because humans have designed some things, everything must have been designed....it's not a very good argument at all. Or perhaps because humans have designed some complex things, all complex things must have been designed....still not a good argument.
as always deny.this question has been answerd everytime you've claimed to ask it.I'm gonna keep making this question until someone can answer it. Point out the trait that can be proven it came about through the current mechanism for evolution then prove the trait never existed in the gene pool.
the answer to this question :"Point out the trait that can be proven it came about through the current mechanism for evolution then prove the trait never existed in the gene pool"
is right here: [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I91Huv4jbCk]What Darwin Never Knew (NOVA Documentary) - YouTube[/ame]
Don't be silly,the original question was a trait in humans. Oh and for your information you need to name the mutation since that is according to your theory is what causes the trait change then natural selection makes it become the norm in the gene pool. Now give me the
Name of the mutation and prove this trait didn't already exist in the gene pool. what is your answer ?
Can a computer program itself ? Who or what could have programmed the brain ?
Was it an intelligent being that programmed the computer or an undirected unintelligent natural process ?
That argument is getting pretty tired YWC. Because humans have designed some things, everything must have been designed....it's not a very good argument at all. Or perhaps because humans have designed some complex things, all complex things must have been designed....still not a good argument.
Look at the big picture. Language like the genetic code comes from intelligence. There is no evidence of a language or programming that comes from a natural means.The rea argument as a tired because it is a logical argument. there is no logical argument for a language or something that needed programming in a natural means,only through intelligence.I am not gonna throw solid reasoning for illogical reasoning why do you ?
The only fail is your lack of understanding of basic grammar. No where in the statement above did I infer the article was about evolution. I said, unlike evolutionists, there are other area's of science where they don't make stuff up when they don't have any REAL evidence.
Fail again, there's plenty of real evidence. The topic is creationism. I'd hardly be crowing about making statements without evidence, if that's what you believe.
Can a computer program itself ? Who or what could have programmed the brain ?
Was it an intelligent being that programmed the computer or an undirected unintelligent natural process ?
Can a computer program itself ? Who or what could have programmed the brain ?
Was it an intelligent being that programmed the computer or an undirected unintelligent natural process ?
That argument is getting pretty tired YWC. Because humans have designed some things, everything must have been designed....it's not a very good argument at all. Or perhaps because humans have designed some complex things, all complex things must have been designed....still not a good argument.
Look at the big picture. Language like the genetic code comes from intelligence. There is no evidence of a language or programming that comes from a natural means.The rea argument as a tired because it is a logical argument. there is no logical argument for a language or something that needed programming in a natural means,only through intelligence.I am not gonna throw solid reasoning for illogical reasoning why do you ?
his whole argument is based on non natural events..That argument is getting pretty tired YWC. Because humans have designed some things, everything must have been designed....it's not a very good argument at all. Or perhaps because humans have designed some complex things, all complex things must have been designed....still not a good argument.
Look at the big picture. Language like the genetic code comes from intelligence. There is no evidence of a language or programming that comes from a natural means.The rea argument as a tired because it is a logical argument. there is no logical argument for a language or something that needed programming in a natural means,only through intelligence.I am not gonna throw solid reasoning for illogical reasoning why do you ?
Are you saying languages developed unnaturally?
That argument is getting pretty tired YWC. Because humans have designed some things, everything must have been designed....it's not a very good argument at all. Or perhaps because humans have designed some complex things, all complex things must have been designed....still not a good argument.
Look at the big picture. Language like the genetic code comes from intelligence. There is no evidence of a language or programming that comes from a natural means.The rea argument as a tired because it is a logical argument. there is no logical argument for a language or something that needed programming in a natural means,only through intelligence.I am not gonna throw solid reasoning for illogical reasoning why do you ?
You have decided the genetic code comes from intelligence. There is no evidence of an intelligence which would have created it; there is no evidence that shows it simply could not have occurred through a natural process; there is a lack of evidence. The only intelligent creations we have to compare with are our own. Perhaps if we had some other intelligence we could observe this would be a different argument, but as of now, we just do not have a large enough reference point to make that kind of determination.
Everything is not comparable to humanity.
