Creationists

[koshergrl]

Not in dispute. No theory of speciation that proposes a causal relationship between genetic material and phenotype can ignore mutation, or say that mutation has only deleterious effect upon genetic information.

There is literally no reason to believe that changes in genotype cannot result in changes in phenotype.

Why does it have to be only one mutation for the notion to be valid?

and speaking of questions you have no intention of ingenuously answering ....

Consistent with your brand of intellectual dishonesty, you still have not provided a precise, meaningful definition of the term "kind."

Also, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.

There should not be just one but many. But I am being easy by asking for one...

No. You're just being a disingenuous retard.

Also, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.

This is a blatant misrepresentation.

Also, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.

Utter nonsense.

Also, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.

Yes. I also remeber how I pointed out to you that intellectually dishonest retards like yourself have a penchant for misrepresenting assertions expressing broad generalizations as if they were specific and unqualified assertions.

Also, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.

No it doesn't. This is just another example of your intellectual dishonesty.

No, it's not. Evolutionary theory is entirely consistent with the evidence of the Cambrian explosion. That same evidence, however, contradicts both creationism and the global flood fairy tale.

Also, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.

A lie.



Consistent with your brand of intellectual dishonesty, you still have not provided a precise, meaningful definition of the term "kind." Does it mean "phylum" too?

Typical of your intellectual dishonesty, you just made that up from nothing.

Also, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.

Useless as cells I suppose, so, not in contention.

Also, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.

Ah, irreducible complexity. You are the lolz.

Also, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.

Good thing it's not.

Sorry about your intellectually dishonest retarded superstitious luck.

Also, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.

Evolutionist depend on genetic mutations to account for changes in species.

Evolutionists do not deny that mutations are changes to the genetic materials that in turn can be expressed...otherwise they could not depend on the fact of reality that genotype leads to phenotype.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RnygS7opCA"]YWC--"Huh. This contradicts what I say about evolution so, ... this never happened! Praise Jesus!"[/ame]

Consistent with your brand of intellectual dishonesty, you still have not provided a precise, meaningful definition of the term "kind."

Genetic mutations must explain and show how organisms changed from single celled organisms to multicelled organisms.To marine life to amphibious life to mammals and so on.

I will Quote Jonathan Wells PhD in Developmental Biology.

--musings of a superstitious retard snipped--​

I'd rather read your superstitious musings:

Consistent with your brand of intellectual dishonesty, you still have not provided a precise, meaningful definition of the term "kind."

And, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.

Jonathan Wells is a superstitious retard?

 

[Youwerecreated]

The thing your not understanding a mutation that might provide a benefit to being antibiotic resistence is different then the mutation that would create a new feature like arm and brain and so on.

Ah, NOW we're getting somewhere.

Clearly, what you mean by "new feature" is "any feature of a living organism which represents too huge a development to be accounted for by any ONE mutation."

Which is pretty much what I expected: you are presenting a circular argument.

What are you so afraid of that you have to lie in order to try to uphold creationism? You know, lying is a sin, and if you're lying about this you don't actually believe it, and that's not going to protect you from hell.

Yes ,we are getting somewhere if you're gonna use your thousands of years excuse well that contradicts whats found in the cambrian explosion. Animals appearing suddenly not gradualy over time.

Your theory is based on circular reasoning


I'm not being dishonest I am opening your eyes.

 

[Youwerecreated]

thanks already have and you're wrong ! the point you are avoiding is that all of these creatures can produce mix or mutated offspring that by definition is evolution

They are different species but from the same family.

You don't have a clue of what you're talking about.

Their offspring came from selective breeding not mutations.

Look at the pictures you see the genetics from both species in the offspring.

talking about not having a clue! the breeding selective or otherwise caused the mutations
what an ass clown. animal breeders match specific animals together to get the mutations (genetic traits) they prefer.

Mutations are copying error's someone please help this guy out,Before he makes a bigger fool of himself. what happened was the offspring were the result of both parents genes.

You do have gene mutation but that only occurrs when a mistake has taken place good thing God has a back up plan to help in correcting those errors, which also is evidence of design. a natural process would think of creating a mechanism to correct mistakes ?

You need a class in genetics,ever hear of inheritable traits ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Human Genome Shows Proof of Recent Evolution, Survey Finds

Do you understand why they make this claim ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

This is funny stuff, not trying to make fun of people sorry if I came off rude but I get tired of the lesser educated trying to educate me when they don't have a clue whats being taught.

 

[Youwerecreated]

There should not be just one but many. But I am being easy by asking for one...

No. You're just being a disingenuous retard.

Also, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.

This is a blatant misrepresentation.

Also, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.

Utter nonsense.

Also, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.

Yes. I also remeber how I pointed out to you that intellectually dishonest retards like yourself have a penchant for misrepresenting assertions expressing broad generalizations as if they were specific and unqualified assertions.

Also, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.

No it doesn't. This is just another example of your intellectual dishonesty.

No, it's not. Evolutionary theory is entirely consistent with the evidence of the Cambrian explosion. That same evidence, however, contradicts both creationism and the global flood fairy tale.

Also, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.

A lie.



Consistent with your brand of intellectual dishonesty, you still have not provided a precise, meaningful definition of the term "kind." Does it mean "phylum" too?

Typical of your intellectual dishonesty, you just made that up from nothing.

Also, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.

Useless as cells I suppose, so, not in contention.

Also, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.

Ah, irreducible complexity. You are the lolz.

Also, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.

Good thing it's not.

Sorry about your intellectually dishonest retarded superstitious luck.

Also, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.

Evolutionists do not deny that mutations are changes to the genetic materials that in turn can be expressed...otherwise they could not depend on the fact of reality that genotype leads to phenotype.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RnygS7opCA"]YWC--"Huh. This contradicts what I say about evolution so, ... this never happened! Praise Jesus!"[/ame]

Consistent with your brand of intellectual dishonesty, you still have not provided a precise, meaningful definition of the term "kind."

Genetic mutations must explain and show how organisms changed from single celled organisms to multicelled organisms.To marine life to amphibious life to mammals and so on.

I will Quote Jonathan Wells PhD in Developmental Biology.

--musings of a superstitious retard snipped--​

I'd rather read your superstitious musings:

Consistent with your brand of intellectual dishonesty, you still have not provided a precise, meaningful definition of the term "kind."

And, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.

Jonathan Wells is a superstitious retard?

I don't know why I give you the time of day. Let's see how rational you're


Internal Contradiction - Problem of Knowledge

A final piece of evidence I wish to consider is the problem of internal consistency with materialistic evolution. If life is not designed, but the product of random, unintelligent, accidental causes, then what basis is there for saying our brains are a reliable source of information? Here is the catch: if we say our brains are trustworthy for knowledge, then we must admit that they were deisgned in such a way to accurately give us knowledge. On the other hand, if we say our brains are not trustworthy for knowing the world, then we cannot say evolution (or any other science) is true. Peter Kreeft (philosophy professor at Boston College) captures this in this dialog:


Chris: Would you trust a computer programmed by chance? -by a fall of hailstones on its keyboard, for instance?
sali: No.
chris: Or if you were flying in an airplane and the public address system announced that the plane was being flown by a computer that had been programmed by a football player in spiked shoes walking over computer cards, would you trust the airplane to land safely?
sal: No way.
chris: Then why do you trust your brain and nervous system? It's like a very complex computer. If it's been programmed only by chance, by blind nature, and not by God, not by any Designer, why trust it when it does science, and when it tells you about nature? Or about itself? If you can't trust the programmer of the human brain, then you can't trust the brain when it tells you about the brain!5

This final problem is not mere sophistry or a simple logic puzzle. If our brains are reliable, then there must be some other reason to be justified in believing that besides supposing a theory that declares that all life is the result of random, unintelligent processes. If materialistic evolution is true, I see no basis by which we can trust our own reasoning. Neo-Darwinian evolution is a scientific paradigm that effectually saws off the epistemological limb it stands upon. For this reason, evolution is internally inconsistent, and therefore ought to be rejected.


http://www.ukapologetics.net/1neodarwinism.htm

 

[LOki]

Jonathan Wells is a superstitious retard?

Unambiguously, yes.

 

[LOki]

The thing your not understanding a mutation that might provide a benefit to being antibiotic resistence is different then the mutation that would create a new feature like arm and brain and so on.

Ah, NOW we're getting somewhere.

Clearly, what you mean by "new feature" is "any feature of a living organism which represents too huge a development to be accounted for by any ONE mutation."

Which is pretty much what I expected: you are presenting a circular argument.

What are you so afraid of that you have to lie in order to try to uphold creationism? You know, lying is a sin, and if you're lying about this you don't actually believe it, and that's not going to protect you from hell.

Yes ,we are getting somewhere if you're gonna use your thousands of years excuse well that contradicts whats found in the cambrian explosion. Animals appearing suddenly not gradualy over time.

Your theory is based on circular reasoning

Intellectually dishonest misrepresentations.

I'm not being dishonest I am opening your eyes.

Another intellectually dishonest misrepresentation.

Consistent with your brand of intellectual dishonesty, you still have not provided a precise, meaningful definition of the term "kind."

And, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.

 

[Dragon]

Yes ,we are getting somewhere if you're gonna use your thousands of years excuse well that contradicts whats found in the cambrian explosion. Animals appearing suddenly not gradualy over time.

No, it doesn't. The Cambrian explosion occupied millions of years. It was only "sudden" in comparison with periods of slower evolution. It was in no sense instantaneous.

I'm not being dishonest I am opening your eyes.

My eyes are already open, thanks, and you ARE being dishonest. The mystery is why you bother. See, while the arguments you are presenting might actually sway people who are utterly ignorant of biology, you are addressing now people who have some knowledge of the subject. The flaws in it, such as your completely incorrect understanding of what happened in the Cambrian explosion, are quite obvious to us, and you are not going to accomplish anything by these tactics except to expose your own lack of intellectual integrity.

Which you are doing very nicely.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Ah, NOW we're getting somewhere.

Clearly, what you mean by "new feature" is "any feature of a living organism which represents too huge a development to be accounted for by any ONE mutation."

Which is pretty much what I expected: you are presenting a circular argument.

What are you so afraid of that you have to lie in order to try to uphold creationism? You know, lying is a sin, and if you're lying about this you don't actually believe it, and that's not going to protect you from hell.

Yes ,we are getting somewhere if you're gonna use your thousands of years excuse well that contradicts whats found in the cambrian explosion. Animals appearing suddenly not gradualy over time.

Your theory is based on circular reasoning

Intellectually dishonest misrepresentations.

I'm not being dishonest I am opening your eyes.

Another intellectually dishonest misrepresentation.

Consistent with your brand of intellectual dishonesty, you still have not provided a precise, meaningful definition of the term "kind."

And, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.

You really need to work on an argument and your vocabulary.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Yes ,we are getting somewhere if you're gonna use your thousands of years excuse well that contradicts whats found in the cambrian explosion. Animals appearing suddenly not gradualy over time.

No, it doesn't. The Cambrian explosion occupied millions of years. It was only "sudden" in comparison with periods of slower evolution. It was in no sense instantaneous.

I'm not being dishonest I am opening your eyes.

My eyes are already open, thanks, and you ARE being dishonest. The mystery is why you bother. See, while the arguments you are presenting might actually sway people who are utterly ignorant of biology, you are addressing now people who have some knowledge of the subject. The flaws in it, such as your completely incorrect understanding of what happened in the Cambrian explosion, are quite obvious to us, and you are not going to accomplish anything by these tactics except to expose your own lack of intellectual integrity.

Which you are doing very nicely.

5 to 10 miilions years according to your side, now show me these gradual changes that had to take place in that time frame ?

Show me the transitional fossils from the pre cambrian to the cambrian.

My views are different because not what I have been taught like you but by reasoning on the evidence.

 

[Dragon]

5 to 10 miilions years according to your side, now show me these gradual changes that had to take place in that time frame ?

The Cambrian lasted for some 54 million years.

Show me the transitional fossils from the pre cambrian to the cambrian.

"Transitional fossils" is another of those terms, like "new feature" and "kinds," that creationists refuse to precisely define. I could of course show intermediate fossils between life forms in the mid-Proterozoic and the mid-Cambrian, but if I did, you would simply insist that these are not "transitional fossils" and demand something in between them, and so on for whatever is shown. This is, of course, completely dishonest.

But prove me wrong. Give me a precise definition of what exactly you mean by "transitional fossil" and I will endeavor to show you one. (Then again, you could easily find it yourself.)

My views are different because not what I have been taught like you but by reasoning on the evidence.

Your views are not based from reasoning on the evidence, but from fear of hell. You have a gun to your head and are incapable of reasoning or arguing honestly. It could not be more obvious.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Yes ,we are getting somewhere if you're gonna use your thousands of years excuse well that contradicts whats found in the cambrian explosion. Animals appearing suddenly not gradualy over time.

No, it doesn't. The Cambrian explosion occupied millions of years. It was only "sudden" in comparison with periods of slower evolution. It was in no sense instantaneous.

I'm not being dishonest I am opening your eyes.

My eyes are already open, thanks, and you ARE being dishonest. The mystery is why you bother. See, while the arguments you are presenting might actually sway people who are utterly ignorant of biology, you are addressing now people who have some knowledge othe subject. The flaws in it, such as your completely incorrect understanding of what happened in the Cambrian explosion, are quite obvious to us, and you are not going to accomplish anything by these tactics except to expose your own lack of intellectual integrity.

Which you are doing very nicely.

No your eyes are wide shut.

Can you explain why eldredge and gould came up with the theory of punctuated equilibrium.It was over the stasis found in the cambrian. The body structures are still the same today go figure.

So guess again buckaroo.

 

[Youwerecreated]

5 to 10 miilions years according to your side, now show me these gradual changes that had to take place in that time frame ?

The Cambrian lasted for some 54 million years.

Show me the transitional fossils from the pre cambrian to the cambrian.

"Transitional fossils" is another of those terms, like "new feature" and "kinds," that creationists refuse to precisely define. I could of course show intermediate fossils between life forms in the mid-Proterozoic and the mid-Cambrian, but if I did, you would simply insist that these are not "transitional fossils" and demand something in between them, and so on for whatever is shown. This is, of course, completely dishonest.

But prove me wrong. Give me a precise definition of what exactly you mean by "transitional fossil" and I will endeavor to show you one. (Then again, you could easily find it yourself.)

My views are different because not what I have been taught like you but by reasoning on the evidence.

Your views are not based from reasoning on the evidence, but from fear of hell. You have a gun to your head and are incapable of reasoning or arguing honestly. It could not be more obvious.

Wrong again buckaroo, it lasted about 5 million years and it happenedly supposedly between 490 million years ago to 543 million years ago.


The Cambrian Period

 

[koshergrl]

Yes ,we are getting somewhere if you're gonna use your thousands of years excuse well that contradicts whats found in the cambrian explosion. Animals appearing suddenly not gradualy over time.

No, it doesn't. The Cambrian explosion occupied millions of years. It was only "sudden" in comparison with periods of slower evolution. It was in no sense instantaneous.

I'm not being dishonest I am opening your eyes.

My eyes are already open, thanks, and you ARE being dishonest. The mystery is why you bother. See, while the arguments you are presenting might actually sway people who are utterly ignorant of biology, you are addressing now people who have some knowledge of the subject. The flaws in it, such as your completely incorrect understanding of what happened in the Cambrian explosion, are quite obvious to us, and you are not going to accomplish anything by these tactics except to expose your own lack of intellectual integrity.

Which you are doing very nicely.

So the way you point out dishonesty is by lying?

Many, many people who are NOT ignorant of biology (myself, many professionals who exceed your own pathetic education, including top scientists) believe as we do. So if you are going to make an argument, make an argument, besides the LYING *argument* that educated people don't believe.

They do. And in fact, I believe I just saw a study that showed that it was the uneducated who were most likely to lack faith...

 

[Youwerecreated]

Yes ,we are getting somewhere if you're gonna use your thousands of years excuse well that contradicts whats found in the cambrian explosion. Animals appearing suddenly not gradualy over time.

No, it doesn't. The Cambrian explosion occupied millions of years. It was only "sudden" in comparison with periods of slower evolution. It was in no sense instantaneous.

I'm not being dishonest I am opening your eyes.

My eyes are already open, thanks, and you ARE being dishonest. The mystery is why you bother. See, while the arguments you are presenting might actually sway people who are utterly ignorant of biology, you are addressing now people who have some knowledge of the subject. The flaws in it, such as your completely incorrect understanding of what happened in the Cambrian explosion, are quite obvious to us, and you are not going to accomplish anything by these tactics except to expose your own lack of intellectual integrity.

Which you are doing very nicely.

So the way you point out dishonesty is by lying?

Many, many people who are NOT ignorant of biology (myself, many professionals who exceed your own pathetic education, including top scientists) believe as we do. So if you are going to make an argument, make an argument, besides the LYING *argument* that educated people don't believe.

They do. And in fact, I believe I just saw a study that showed that it was the uneducated who were most likely to lack faith...

It amazes me how many of these defenders of the faith don't know their own theory.

 

[LOki]

No. You're just being a disingenuous retard.

Also, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.

This is a blatant misrepresentation.

Also, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.

Utter nonsense.

Also, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.

Yes. I also remeber how I pointed out to you that intellectually dishonest retards like yourself have a penchant for misrepresenting assertions expressing broad generalizations as if they were specific and unqualified assertions.

Also, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.

No it doesn't. This is just another example of your intellectual dishonesty.

No, it's not. Evolutionary theory is entirely consistent with the evidence of the Cambrian explosion. That same evidence, however, contradicts both creationism and the global flood fairy tale.

Also, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.

A lie.



Consistent with your brand of intellectual dishonesty, you still have not provided a precise, meaningful definition of the term "kind." Does it mean "phylum" too?

Typical of your intellectual dishonesty, you just made that up from nothing.

Also, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.

Useless as cells I suppose, so, not in contention.

Also, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.

Ah, irreducible complexity. You are the lolz.

Also, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.

Good thing it's not.

Sorry about your intellectually dishonest retarded superstitious luck.

Also, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.

Evolutionists do not deny that mutations are changes to the genetic materials that in turn can be expressed...otherwise they could not depend on the fact of reality that genotype leads to phenotype.

YWC--"Huh. This contradicts what I say about evolution so, ... this never happened! Praise Jesus!"

Consistent with your brand of intellectual dishonesty, you still have not provided a precise, meaningful definition of the term "kind."

I'd rather read your superstitious musings:

Consistent with your brand of intellectual dishonesty, you still have not provided a precise, meaningful definition of the term "kind."

And, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.

Jonathan Wells is a superstitious retard?

I don't know why I give you the time of day. Let's see how rational you're


Internal Contradiction - Problem of Knowledge

A final piece of evidence I wish to consider is the problem of internal consistency with materialistic evolution. If life is not designed, but the product of random, unintelligent, accidental causes, then what basis is there for saying our brains are a reliable source of information? Here is the catch: if we say our brains are trustworthy for knowledge, then we must admit that they were deisgned in such a way to accurately give us knowledge. On the other hand, if we say our brains are not trustworthy for knowing the world, then we cannot say evolution (or any other science) is true. Peter Kreeft (philosophy professor at Boston College) captures this in this dialog:


Chris: Would you trust a computer programmed by chance? -by a fall of hailstones on its keyboard, for instance?
sali: No.
chris: Or if you were flying in an airplane and the public address system announced that the plane was being flown by a computer that had been programmed by a football player in spiked shoes walking over computer cards, would you trust the airplane to land safely?
sal: No way.
chris: Then why do you trust your brain and nervous system? It's like a very complex computer. If it's been programmed only by chance, by blind nature, and not by God, not by any Designer, why trust it when it does science, and when it tells you about nature? Or about itself? If you can't trust the programmer of the human brain, then you can't trust the brain when it tells you about the brain!5

This final problem is not mere sophistry or a simple logic puzzle. If our brains are reliable, then there must be some other reason to be justified in believing that besides supposing a theory that declares that all life is the result of random, unintelligent processes. If materialistic evolution is true, I see no basis by which we can trust our own reasoning. Neo-Darwinian evolution is a scientific paradigm that effectually saws off the epistemological limb it stands upon. For this reason, evolution is internally inconsistent, and therefore ought to be rejected.


Can Neo-Darwinism Survive?: The Evidence Against Evolution

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0"]If life is not designed, but the product of random, unintelligent, accidental causes, then what basis is there for saying our brains are a reliable source of information?[/ame]

Consistent with your brand of intellectual dishonesty, you still have not provided a precise, meaningful definition of the term "kind."

And, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.

 

[LOki]

Yes ,we are getting somewhere if you're gonna use your thousands of years excuse well that contradicts whats found in the cambrian explosion. Animals appearing suddenly not gradualy over time.

Your theory is based on circular reasoning

Intellectually dishonest misrepresentations.

I'm not being dishonest I am opening your eyes.

Another intellectually dishonest misrepresentation.

Consistent with your brand of intellectual dishonesty, you still have not provided a precise, meaningful definition of the term "kind."

And, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.

You really need to work on an argument and your vocabulary.

Consistent with your brand of intellectual dishonesty, you still have not provided a precise, meaningful definition of the term "kind."

And, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.

 

[LOki]

Yes ,we are getting somewhere if you're gonna use your thousands of years excuse well that contradicts whats found in the cambrian explosion. Animals appearing suddenly not gradualy over time.

No, it doesn't. The Cambrian explosion occupied millions of years. It was only "sudden" in comparison with periods of slower evolution. It was in no sense instantaneous.

I'm not being dishonest I am opening your eyes.

My eyes are already open, thanks, and you ARE being dishonest. The mystery is why you bother. See, while the arguments you are presenting might actually sway people who are utterly ignorant of biology, you are addressing now people who have some knowledge of the subject. The flaws in it, such as your completely incorrect understanding of what happened in the Cambrian explosion, are quite obvious to us, and you are not going to accomplish anything by these tactics except to expose your own lack of intellectual integrity.

Which you are doing very nicely.

5 to 10 miilions years according to your side, now show me these gradual changes that had to take place in that time frame ?

Do math much?

Show me the transitional fossils from the pre cambrian to the cambrian.

Show me the fossils of human beings in cambrian explosion that proves your creation fairy tale.

My views are different because not what I have been taught like you but by reasoning on the evidence.

What reasoning? What evidence? You clearly claimed your beliefs are faith, which necessarily denies faith and requires the application of logical fallacy as it's foundation and means of validation.

Consistent with your brand of intellectual dishonesty, you still have not provided a precise, meaningful definition of the term "kind."

And, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.

 

[LOki]

Yes ,we are getting somewhere if you're gonna use your thousands of years excuse well that contradicts whats found in the cambrian explosion. Animals appearing suddenly not gradualy over time.

No, it doesn't. The Cambrian explosion occupied millions of years. It was only "sudden" in comparison with periods of slower evolution. It was in no sense instantaneous.

I'm not being dishonest I am opening your eyes.

My eyes are already open, thanks, and you ARE being dishonest. The mystery is why you bother. See, while the arguments you are presenting might actually sway people who are utterly ignorant of biology, you are addressing now people who have some knowledge othe subject. The flaws in it, such as your completely incorrect understanding of what happened in the Cambrian explosion, are quite obvious to us, and you are not going to accomplish anything by these tactics except to expose your own lack of intellectual integrity.

Which you are doing very nicely.

No your eyes are wide shut.

Can you explain why eldredge and gould came up with the theory of punctuated equilibrium.It was over the stasis found in the cambrian. The body structures are still the same today go figure.

Blatant misrepresentation.

So guess again buckaroo.

Consistent with your brand of intellectual dishonesty, you still have not provided a precise, meaningful definition of the term "kind."

And, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.