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.
FORENSICS is very much a science. I didn't say shit about criminal justice did I? Criminal Justice is a larger field, which forensics fits into. And what is your requirement for proving the claim? How much evidence do scientists need to provide for you to accept the theory of evolution?
Actually, forensics is pretty much the opposite of science right now, though it is improving.
Please, challenge me on that so I can shove your ignorance down your throat.
FORENSICS is very much a science. I didn't say shit about criminal justice did I? Criminal Justice is a larger field, which forensics fits into. And what is your requirement for proving the claim? How much evidence do scientists need to provide for you to accept the theory of evolution?
Actually, forensics is pretty much the opposite of science right now, though it is improving.
Please, challenge me on that so I can shove your ignorance down your throat.
Heaven forbid anyone should challenge your genius. One question, though, why "pretty much" the opposite of science? Why the qualifier? Is that so you can suck people in with "I didn't say that"? If you were really as knowledgeable as you say, you wouldn't need to rely on silly little tricks.
Which is again your child-like response to anyone pointing out your inability to support your claims relative to a 6,000 year old planet.It is not necessary for scientists to prove that design is not required for the complexity we see in nature.no, my objections to your argument is furthered by my fear you don't have one.......and as stated many times, the scientific method does not apply to statements of faith.....abandon your silly insistence that its science and you too will not be required to provide evidence to support your claims......I see. Your objection to science is furthered by your fear of knowledge.???....neither do I....atheists aren't a relevant scientific body.....I don't know of any relevant science body that is looking to disprove your gawds or any other gawds.second.....trillions and trillions of single celled organisms reproduce every day.......yet in the last thousand years, not a single new multicelled creature has evolved.....
How do you know no new multi-celled creature has formed? That kind of knowledge wouldn't just require science, it would require divine knowledge. Sorry, but if you want to prove your point, you're going to have to stick to facts. Science would say that it's entirely possible new forms HAVE evolved, but that we may not recognize them as such for a long time.
because by now someone would be waving flags saying they have proven God doesn't exist.....
agreed....you just need to prove that humans evolved from a single celled organism......It is not necessary for scientists to prove that design is not required for the complexity we see in nature.
And still, you sidestep any requirement to support your claims to magic and supernaturalism.
That makes no sense. It's typical for religious extremists to fault science for not having every answer.It is not necessary for scientists to prove that design is not required for the complexity we see in nature.no, my objections to your argument is furthered by my fear you don't have one.......and as stated many times, the scientific method does not apply to statements of faith.....abandon your silly insistence that its science and you too will not be required to provide evidence to support your claims......I see. Your objection to science is furthered by your fear of knowledge.???....neither do I....atheists aren't a relevant scientific body.....I don't know of any relevant science body that is looking to disprove your gawds or any other gawds.second.....trillions and trillions of single celled organisms reproduce every day.......yet in the last thousand years, not a single new multicelled creature has evolved.....
How do you know no new multi-celled creature has formed? That kind of knowledge wouldn't just require science, it would require divine knowledge. Sorry, but if you want to prove your point, you're going to have to stick to facts. Science would say that it's entirely possible new forms HAVE evolved, but that we may not recognize them as such for a long time.
because by now someone would be waving flags saying they have proven God doesn't exist.....
agreed....you just need to prove that humans evolved from a single celled organism......It is not necessary for scientists to prove that design is not required for the complexity we see in nature.
And still, you sidestep any requirement to support your claims to magic and supernaturalism.
I've seen this tactic before. Extremists will lump paleontology under the heading of forensics and then reject that field of "Evilutionist" study as, well, you guessed it, "pretty much the opposite of science right now"FORENSICS is very much a science. I didn't say shit about criminal justice did I? Criminal Justice is a larger field, which forensics fits into. And what is your requirement for proving the claim? How much evidence do scientists need to provide for you to accept the theory of evolution?
Actually, forensics is pretty much the opposite of science right now, though it is improving.
Please, challenge me on that so I can shove your ignorance down your throat.
which obviously proves my point.....if they wave flags when they don't have evidence why don't you think they would do it if they actually did?.....second.....trillions and trillions of single celled organisms reproduce every day.......yet in the last thousand years, not a single new multicelled creature has evolved.....
How do you know no new multi-celled creature has formed? That kind of knowledge wouldn't just require science, it would require divine knowledge. Sorry, but if you want to prove your point, you're going to have to stick to facts. Science would say that it's entirely possible new forms HAVE evolved, but that we may not recognize them as such for a long time.
because by now someone would be waving flags saying they have proven God doesn't exist.....
That a dumber response than usual. People already wave flags saying they've proven God isn't real. There are threads on this very board about it. You just prove my point with your continual posting of flip answers that don't really answer anything.
criminal justice has a different standard than science, which is why I made my comment......the standard in criminal justice is beyond a reasonable doubt, which is no where near the standard of the scientific method.....for the claim that human beings evolved from a single celled organism to merit being called a theory, the standard is that it must be falsifiable.....for one thing, criminal justice is not science.....for another, even if it were, you haven't provided enough evidence to convict humans for evolving from a single celled organism.....my time scale was set to reflect that period of time in which there WERE scientists to observe the event.....as I recall, in all the years previous, it was never observed either......your evidence its ever happened is a bit less than the dust at the end of that fingernail......second.....trillions and trillions of single celled organisms reproduce every day.......yet in the last thousand years, not a single new multicelled creature has evolved.....
Your timescale is too small, monkey. I think I found your problem. Your idea of what "a long time" is and what it actually is with regards to the cosmos are vastly different. The entirety of the history of life on this planet when compared to the history of the universe is like a fingernail compared to the whole arm and that thousand years you just mentioned would barely qualify as the dust at the end of that fingernail.
There is plenty of evidence for it. Science does not have to be there to witness something in order to prove that it happened. This fact is easy enough for people to grasp when it comes to forensic scientists proving when, how, and by whom a crime such as murder was committed. So why is it so hard to accept that proving evolution to be a fact works the same way?
FORENSICS is very much a science. I didn't say shit about criminal justice did I? Criminal Justice is a larger field, which forensics fits into. And what is your requirement for proving the claim? How much evidence do scientists need to provide for you to accept the theory of evolution?
do you just cut and paste your previous posts to save time?......I'm pretty sure I have corrected you on this at least a half dozen times......I am not faulting science for not having an answer.....I am faulting you for lying and saying it does.....That makes no sense. It's typical for religious extremists to fault science for not having every answer.It is not necessary for scientists to prove that design is not required for the complexity we see in nature.no, my objections to your argument is furthered by my fear you don't have one.......and as stated many times, the scientific method does not apply to statements of faith.....abandon your silly insistence that its science and you too will not be required to provide evidence to support your claims......I see. Your objection to science is furthered by your fear of knowledge.???....neither do I....atheists aren't a relevant scientific body.....I don't know of any relevant science body that is looking to disprove your gawds or any other gawds.second.....trillions and trillions of single celled organisms reproduce every day.......yet in the last thousand years, not a single new multicelled creature has evolved.....
How do you know no new multi-celled creature has formed? That kind of knowledge wouldn't just require science, it would require divine knowledge. Sorry, but if you want to prove your point, you're going to have to stick to facts. Science would say that it's entirely possible new forms HAVE evolved, but that we may not recognize them as such for a long time.
because by now someone would be waving flags saying they have proven God doesn't exist.....
agreed....you just need to prove that humans evolved from a single celled organism......It is not necessary for scientists to prove that design is not required for the complexity we see in nature.
And still, you sidestep any requirement to support your claims to magic and supernaturalism.
Yet again, the extremist would require everyone simply accept as the answer to existence that their partisan gawds are the primal cause. They would condemn humanity to never probing answers to the deeper questions. And in fact during the dark ages this thought held sway -- ruthlessly enforced by the Christian church.
It's just a shame that Christian fundies sidestep any accounting for their claims to "magic" as the cause of existence when "magic" has never been a viable answer to anything.
Heaven forbid anyone should challenge your genius. One question, though, why "pretty much" the opposite of science? Why the qualifier? Is that so you can suck people in with "I didn't say that"? If you were really as knowledgeable as you say, you wouldn't need to rely on silly little tricks.
Exactly. I don't have to rely on phrases like "pretty much" because I am confident in the fact that forensics is definitely a science.
I've seen this tactic before. Extremists will lump paleontology under the heading of forensics and then reject that field of "Evilutionist" study as, well, you guessed it, "pretty much the opposite of science right now"
The problem is that you're unable to deal with challenges to your specious opinions.do you just cut and paste your previous posts to save time?......I'm pretty sure I have corrected you on this at least a half dozen times......I am not faulting science for not having an answer.....I am faulting you for lying and saying it does.....That makes no sense. It's typical for religious extremists to fault science for not having every answer.It is not necessary for scientists to prove that design is not required for the complexity we see in nature.no, my objections to your argument is furthered by my fear you don't have one.......and as stated many times, the scientific method does not apply to statements of faith.....abandon your silly insistence that its science and you too will not be required to provide evidence to support your claims......I see. Your objection to science is furthered by your fear of knowledge.???....neither do I....atheists aren't a relevant scientific body.....I don't know of any relevant science body that is looking to disprove your gawds or any other gawds.second.....trillions and trillions of single celled organisms reproduce every day.......yet in the last thousand years, not a single new multicelled creature has evolved.....
How do you know no new multi-celled creature has formed? That kind of knowledge wouldn't just require science, it would require divine knowledge. Sorry, but if you want to prove your point, you're going to have to stick to facts. Science would say that it's entirely possible new forms HAVE evolved, but that we may not recognize them as such for a long time.
because by now someone would be waving flags saying they have proven God doesn't exist.....
agreed....you just need to prove that humans evolved from a single celled organism......It is not necessary for scientists to prove that design is not required for the complexity we see in nature.
And still, you sidestep any requirement to support your claims to magic and supernaturalism.
Yet again, the extremist would require everyone simply accept as the answer to existence that their partisan gawds are the primal cause. They would condemn humanity to never probing answers to the deeper questions. And in fact during the dark ages this thought held sway -- ruthlessly enforced by the Christian church.
It's just a shame that Christian fundies sidestep any accounting for their claims to "magic" as the cause of existence when "magic" has never been a viable answer to anything.
Just to help clear up some of your confusion, those "evilutionists" use methods that parallel forensics.I've seen this tactic before. Extremists will lump paleontology under the heading of forensics and then reject that field of "Evilutionist" study as, well, you guessed it, "pretty much the opposite of science right now"
Just so you don't get confused here, paleontology is science, forensics is iffy shit.
In other words, go argue with the voices in your head, not the intelligent people outside of it.
do you have any evidence a single celled organism has ever evolved into a multicelled organism?.....you don't even try to defend your claims
There's a great deal of evidence being studied.do you have any evidence a single celled organism has ever evolved into a multicelled organism?.....you don't even try to defend your claims
does any of it support what you believe?.....There's a great deal of evidence being studied.do you have any evidence a single celled organism has ever evolved into a multicelled organism?.....you don't even try to defend your claims
It supports the theory.does any of it support what you believe?.....There's a great deal of evidence being studied.do you have any evidence a single celled organism has ever evolved into a multicelled organism?.....you don't even try to defend your claims
Just to help clear up some of your confusion, those "evilutionists" use methods that parallel forensics.
You angry, fundie cranks are a hoot.
No, you're not the voices in anyone's head. You're just a failed used car salesman.Just to help clear up some of your confusion, those "evilutionists" use methods that parallel forensics.
You angry, fundie cranks are a hoot.
Just to clear something up for the idiots that refuse to think, I am not the fucking voices in your head. i know more about evolution than you, as I have already demonstrated conclusively. I never claimed to believe in Young Earth Creationism, Intelligent Design, or any other position you want to argue against. If you are going to fucking relpy to my post then reply to my posts. if you want to argue with people who are your intellectual equal, stick to the idiots that think that they know everything.
'No, you're not the voices in anyone's head. You're just a failed used car salesman.
Maybe, but at least I actually address your post when I reply, not the idiotic rantings that only exist inside you head.
