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.
Did I even SUGGEST that?"So called"? If you weren't so retarded, I wouldn't have expected you to actually ask for this. KLIK HERE
or your record of disingenuosity:
There's just so much more. Shall I continue? Just ask.
- Here you imply that to be consisten with my assertions, I should have to refute that life creates life ... as if the notion is even at issue.
- Here you claim evolutionists assert that the chimpanzee is a genetic ancestor to human beings.
- Here you pretend as if "real" science has failed to refute any assertions made in the Bible.
- Here you continue to bang "ancestor status of the chimp" drum despite having your misinformation cleared up for you.
- Here you just refuse to accept that the article you posted to support your claim (that evolutionists assert that the chimpanzee is a genetic ancestor to human beings), actually refutes it ... and then you suggest your opponent didn't bother to read it.
- And your dumb just continued with, "... chimps were in the line of the evolution tree according to your side."
- You claim to be educated, yet you posted this.
- This is gold. An opportunity for you to firmly put me in my place (if your demonstration that my beliefs are faith actually existed) and you bail like a punk. You knew no such demonstration was posted.
- Here you get right back to your retarded "the chimp is our ancestor" thing, but this time you also demonstrate that you just make up these notions about what you say evolutionary scientists assert.
- Here you disingenuosly avoid answering a straightforward question by issing a challenge over a point not in contention, and answering a question that wasn't asked.
- So I ask my question again. And then I remind you that you are remiss on your response to the question
- You, again, answer a question that wasn't asked instead. So, I let you know that you dodge was transparent.
- And then when had the opportunity to answer the question, you opted instead to make some shit up. But
- I just won't let you get away with your disingenuous dodging.
- And then you make up some more shit. And I'm also happy to point out your bullshit to you.
- So you just continue with straight up lying. Can't get much more disingenuos than that. Right?
- Wrong. What's more disingenuous, is admitting plainly that your question were actually answered, and in the same breath claim they weren't. NOW THAT'S DISINGENUOUS!
- But that wasn't disingenuous enough for you, so you doubled down.
- And here you disingenuosly assert a strawman as the premise of your questions for me. Not that I expected to make an impact on your impenetrable dumb,
- I pointed out your error to you any way ... and that you were still disingenuously dodging my questions.
- Then you offer yourself this hopeful delusion. LOLsome.
- And you continue to dodge answering my questions with this didingenuously offered red-herring. So I remind you about how transparent your tactics are.
- Yet you continue to dodge.
- And here you disingenuously claim you've been answering the questions asked of you. What a turd.
Well, Hebrews 11:3 just makes your accusations about conjecture ENTIRELY RETARDED.
Not to mention that when these guys aren't attacking a strawman, they're just lying. Evidence enough that you're not the only intellectually dishonst superstitious retard trying to sell creationism.
Thank you for sharing these.
I'd like to point out that I don't find it terribly coincidental that you should bury the challenge I made to The Irish Ram under one of your copy/paste vomit piles--seeing as how uncomfortable you are with the similar challenge I made to you.
It's also worth noting your implied admission that your beliefs regarding the subject of evolution have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.
So you don't believe your theory teaches we are related to chimps that supposedly we came from the same ancestors as chimps and we diverged from the chimps ?
Human, Chimp Ancestors May Have Mated, DNA Suggests
No.
PROOF that you are a disingenuous, intellectually dishonest superstious retard.
Yes, but you clearly do not.1. Not a false assumption.
2. Not an assumption made by macro-evolutionists
3. Not a false assumption
I've got a better one for you:
Micro-Adaptation + Baraminology + Creationism = Retarded Superstition
or how about this one:
Youwerecreated + Evolution + Words = Retarded Strawman Argument
or this:
Strawman + Special-Pleading + Question-Begging + Appeal-To-Ignorance + Disinformation = Youwerecreated's Only Argumentative Tools
Yeah. You're still retarded.
Loki in basic genetics you learn that mutant genes must take hold in the gene pool of the population for evolution to happen. Do you not understand the basic tenets of evolution ?
Non-sequitur much?For the moment, I'm going to limit my rebuttal to just the first of the nine conditions discussed because the errors of thought thoughout the nine are just as obvious as the error(s) of thought in the first.Byles' assertions regarding natural selection are applicable ONLY to harmful mutations. Natural selection tends to FAVOR rather than "work against fixation of mutations" that have adaptive value, and is neutral regarding mutations that are neither valuable or harmful. Saying that natural selection works against advantageous genetics is patently retarded.
And B. Clark is just OBVIOUSLY wrong in his claim that "that even so-called advantageous mutations are harmful in that, because of increased competition, they can reduce population size." It's one of the dumbest assertions I've read outside of baraminology and your Lamarkian "micro-adaptaion" nonsense.
Look Youwerecreated, if you have even a high-school understanding of genetics, and actually read this article, you would not have c/p'd it as anything that is in any way authoritative on any subject of reality.
Are you actually claiming intelligence on the part of natural selection ?
Where's the hole?Here let me shoot a hole in your erroneous explanation. There are now over 6,000 genetic disorders in humans, how many proven beneficial mutations can you come up with in humans ?
Since I don't have enough faith to be an evolutionist, would those of you who believe in evolution explain how a random bang created an extremely complex DNA language with 3 billion genetic letters that actually store information in the form of a four-character digital code?
Since I don't have enough faith to be an evolutionist, would those of you who believe in evolution explain how a random bang created an extremely complex DNA language with 3 billion genetic letters that actually store information in the form of a four-character digital code?
Sorry, imaginary proof doesn't count.
Only the blind can't see his works.
He said "god is", as though no proof is required. So he is exhibiting blind faith and therefore "can't see his works"?
I do not accept the strawman premise of your challenge.If the atheist says God does not exist, yet demands the believer is somehow defective in believing so, then, hey, the atheist needs to be told publicly he or show cannot prove that God does not exist. Go for it.
There really is no reason to try and prove God exist no matter what is presented people like you made up your mind and unfortunately it might be to late when you meet him.
I also note the intellectual cowardice in your attempts to dodge the challenge I presented to you.
Only the blind can't see his works.
He said "god is", as though no proof is required. So he is exhibiting blind faith and therefore "can't see his works"?
Man see's the works of his hands but yet purposely ignores his works as evidence of him.
Sorry, imaginary proof doesn't count.
Only the blind can't see his works.
He said "god is", as though no proof is required. So he is exhibiting blind faith and therefore "can't see his works"?
I don't need your approval for what is, ima.
It takes greater faith to believe in no deity than to believe in deity. Tru dat!Only the blind can't see his works.
He said "god is", as though no proof is required. So he is exhibiting blind faith and therefore "can't see his works"?
I don't need your approval for what is, ima.
It takes greater faith to believe in no deity than to believe in deity. Tru dat!Only the blind can't see his works.
He said "god is", as though no proof is required. So he is exhibiting blind faith and therefore "can't see his works"?
No, you lying retard.Did I even SUGGEST that?So you don't believe your theory teaches we are related to chimps that supposedly we came from the same ancestors as chimps and we diverged from the chimps ?
Human, Chimp Ancestors May Have Mated, DNA Suggests
No.
PROOF that you are a disingenuous, intellectually dishonest superstious retard.
Yes you did, that was your whole point, my view on the chimp and the human according to your theory.
Nope.Yes, but you clearly do not.Loki in basic genetics you learn that mutant genes must take hold in the gene pool of the population for evolution to happen. Do you not understand the basic tenets of evolution ?
The mutant gene must become the norm within the gene pool for evolution to take place.
I don't need your approval for what is, ima.
It takes greater faith to believe in no deity than to believe in deity. Tru dat!He said "god is", as though no proof is required. So he is exhibiting blind faith and therefore "can't see his works"?
No, it doesn't take more faith to disbelieve in god claims. That is logically absurd. That's like saying it takes more faith to not believe that bigfoot exists. If someone can't provide evidence for bigfoot, then there is no reason to believe it. It is the same with god. You said, to believe in "no deity." How can you have a positive belief about a negative proposition? That is logically absurd, as well. Logic 101. I don't believe in "no deity," because that makes no sense. I may believe that no god exists, which I think is what you meant, but even this does not logically follow from atheism. Atheism is merely the lack of belief in god claims, because those making the claim, have not met their burden of proof, and therefore, belief would be unjustified, and you can not use fear or pascal's wager as justification. That is a morally bankrupt tactic.
So, to restate, I do not possess a belief that a god exists, because there is insufficient evidence to justify belief. Also, It matters where you place the word "not." The two sentences "I believe that a god does NOT exist" and "I do NOT believe that a god exist" are two entirely different statements. One describes the existence of a belief, and the other describes the absence of the existence of a belief.
That's what natural selection means, you retard. It means that advantageous genetics are selected for, while disadvantageous genetics are selected against.Non-sequitur much?Are you actually claiming intelligence on the part of natural selection ?
Where's the hole?Here let me shoot a hole in your erroneous explanation. There are now over 6,000 genetic disorders in humans, how many proven beneficial mutations can you come up with in humans ?
You said natural selection leans towards more beneficial mutations and I called you on it only in your imagination does it do that.
It's not "nonsense" you retard, it's verifiable fact.That is also the nonsense your theory teaches.
I reject your retarded superstitiously anthropomorphic premise.While we are on it why would a nonintelligent process think to put mechanisms in the cell to prevent mutations ?
What strawman? I made no strawman argument. If i did, you should be able to point it out.I could care less, Loki, if you accept it, because your acceptance or belief/nonbelief is not relevant to the conversation.
Your strawman argument is noted, dismissed, and let's move on.
I do not accept the strawman premise of your challenge.If the atheist says God does not exist, yet demands the believer is somehow defective in believing so, then, hey, the atheist needs to be told publicly he or show cannot prove that God does not exist. Go for it.
I also note the intellectual cowardice in your attempts to dodge the challenge I presented to you.
He said "god is", as though no proof is required. So he is exhibiting blind faith and therefore "can't see his works"?
Man see's the works of his hands but yet purposely ignores his works as evidence of him.
So let's say: there's a man lying dead on the sidewalk, you're saying he's evidence of a specific action of a person named god, when actually you don't know whether this man died of natural causes, old age, committed suicide, got gang banged to death, got hit by a car, lightning, died there, was dumped there, was tazed... or maybe even got killed by a guy named god. because without any ACTUAL proof or evidence of what happened, you can't know, can you?
I don't need your approval for what is, ima.
It takes greater faith to believe in no deity than to believe in deity. Tru dat!He said "god is", as though no proof is required. So he is exhibiting blind faith and therefore "can't see his works"?
I never said that I'm an atheist, I'm an agnostic: I don't think that a god has ever been actually proven, but I leave the door open in case someone comes up with some actual solid proof.
Can't be any fairer than that.
You, on the other hand, believe because you want to believe in happy ending fairy tales. No probs.
No, you lying retard.Did I even SUGGEST that?
No.
PROOF that you are a disingenuous, intellectually dishonest superstious retard.
Yes you did, that was your whole point, my view on the chimp and the human according to your theory.
You fatuously demanded that evolutionary scientists claim that humans are descended from chimps--you said evolutionary scientists regard chimps as ancestors of humans--your own retarded and intellectually dishonest posting indicted you then, just as it does now.
