Youwerecreated
VIP Member
- Nov 29, 2010
- 13,273
- 165
You throw a challenge, get a solid response, and retort with "no but seriously you're still wrong" instead of actually addressing the challenge that you yourself created. So what was the point of creating the challenge in the first place? This is what makes you ignorant: pure bankruptcy of logic. It's not that you disagree, it's that you lack the capacity to even evaluate WHY you disagree.Just admit you're wrong and the genetic code is a language.
Why do you think comparing beneficial mutations to the number of deleterious mutations proves your point? Once again you show your complete lack of knowledge regarding the topic of evolution. Mutations are not created to be beneficial. They are just created, and the bad ones get weeded out. You have never understood this concept.Name one docunment mutation that added a beneficial function while not doing away with a anotherv function ? Tell me all these documented beneficial mutations and we will compare numbers to the harmful mutations.
But to answer your question anyway, I'm happy to "Name one docunment mutation that added a beneficial function while not doing away with a anotherv function": bacteria gaining antibiotic resistance. I'm sure you will argue this doesn't count despite perfectly meeting your criteria and presenting a mutation that provided a benefit without removing another function, but that's your usual response: pretend anything supporting evolution doesn't exist or doesn't count for unsubstantiated reasons.
And this is precisely what I meant by moving the goalposts. You ask for one thing, and then demand another. In this case, you asked for any code that isn't made by an intelligent mind, I give you several, and then you claim I haven't given you a "form of communication." By definition, communication means "the imparting of thoughts." So yes, you are correct in saying I have not shown you a form of [imparting thoughts] that did not require thinking. Note how by definition thought involves thinking. Thus once again you have set up circular reasoning, as it seems to be the ONLY method such blind ignorance creates underhanded coercion of reasoning.
Again, the reason you are ignorant is not because you disagree. The reason you are ignorant is because you are incapable of engaging in a logical honest conversation. Science draws conclusion from evidence. You support pre-conceived conclusions from the poor rhetoric of people you copied and pasted.
As I mentioned numerous times now, you aren't ignorant simply because you disagree. You are ignorance because you constantly get the concept of evolution wrong, and this quote is just another shining example. With regard to evolution, the origin of the universe, this planet, and even the origin of DNA and life are completely irrelevant. Regardless of whether DNA burst into existence by magical leprechauns, was deposited on earth by aliens, was created by god, or was the result of a time traveling experiment from the year 3025 by a sentient piece of swiss cheese, the concept of evolution does not change. I'm sure this confuses you, simply because you still don't understand evolution.Hey genius, can you tell me where all DNA information origionated from ?
Can you provide any emperical evidence of life happening naturally from a non-intelligent process ?
So again I ask: do you purposely remain willfully ignorant to these topics? Or are you simply not smart enough to understand them?
I'm guessing it's a little of both. Regardless, this is another example of moving the goalposts. You can't have an open conversation on a single topic using such things as reason or evidence, so you jump between topics every time your points are soundly refuted.
So let's look at the progression I had predicted you would take so far:
Smarter said:* You claimed evolution is made up. < this happened
* I provided supporting evidence. < this happened
* You ignored supporting evidence. < this happened
* You made the claim that evolution was completely debunked because you personally don't understand certain traits found in organisms. < this happened
* I pointed out that your lack of education and understanding on the topic in no way proves the topic wrong or proves your backwoods ideas correct. < this happened
* You claimed, several times, that I couldn't reliably describe how the universe began because I wasn't there. < this happened
* I reiterated several times that the origins of the universe have nothing to do with evolution. This was a very difficult concept for you to grasp. < this happened
* You once again made the claim evolution is made up. < this happened
* I provided more supporting evidence. < this happened
* You retreated to the ignorant and unsupported claim of arbitrarily splitting the topic into "macro" and "micro" which are terms that have no real definition aside from "all evidence for evolution can't count as macroevolution" so you could once again claim the evidence doesn't count. Circular reasoning works wonders that way.
* I provided evidence to macroevolution.
* You ran away.
By the usual progression, this is where you start getting into contrived points regarding micro and macro evolution. Then, I'll prove you wrong again, and you'll run away. Home stretch now!
In the beginning nothing existed - There was not anything happening to absolutely nothing. One random day - nothing exploded and became everything.
Then nothing became everything for no logical reason.
Nothing rearranged itself into self replicating,intrcately complex life forms that believed in God.
The abiogenic beginning of all life,you say happened only once - unwitnessed and never happened again - Billions of years ago,how convenient.
How unscientific,How embarrassing.
Mr Evolutionist can you give an example of a single genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the useful and beneficial information in the genome ?
You cannot none exists. How embarrassing.
Mr evolutionist can you document just one,there should be billions if evolutionist is true.
100% verifiable Transitionary fossil that proves definittively that one species actually changed into another completely different species ?
Of course you cannot. None exists. How embarrassing. How frustrating that must be. This means fossils for the common ancestors and the ones in between them.
Scientifically it would normally be unfair to demand 100% proof from anyone but except that you evolutionists demand that we believe evolution as fact.
I f you demand that,then we demand PROOF !
Mr evolutionist- since you are quick to point out that evolution theory only involves the suppositions of the evolutionary processes of living things.
How does evolution deal with the appearance of the Atom and its quantum particles ?
After all,Atoms are non-living yet they are the substance of everything that is living and non-living.
Of course you would answer that,evolution does not attempt to explain the appearance of Atoms and quantum particles.
Oh but it does.
Evolution says that everything came from nothing,billions of years ago. This certainly includes Atoms.
Even if it doesn't deal with evolution or even the big bang then try to explain it by whatever theory that have to do with this.
How convenient that you would pick and choose what you wish to explain and then dismiss a creationist as unintelligent for believing that all that we see,had an intelligent Designer.
Humor me for a moment.
Suppose you were walking on the beach and dug down several feet into the sand and found a perfectly working watch,would you then suppose that watch used to be a rock and then evolved into this intricate mechanism ?