Evolution Is In Trouble - Detailed - Why So Many Scientist Are Saying So

I love how there's a thread about evolution being in trouble, but no thread pointing out the irrationality of "Man came into existence, and was able to speak fluent English, when the sky wizard zapped Adam and Eve into existence".
 
Into the Night said:
Yes you did. DON'T TRY TO DENY YOUR OWN POSTS!

Fine.

The existence of a thing is not only evidence that thing exists, it is a proof, called the Proof of Identity. ?A->A.

The Earth exists. It is evidence of the existence of God.
Rainbows exist. It is not only evidence of the existence of God, it is also evidence of the existence of leprechauns.

You cannot prove God does not exist. You can't even prove that leprechauns do not exist. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).

You cannot prove either one. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).
Click to expand...
dude, when you find yourself doubling down on leprechauns, you might want to check yourself.

:truestory:
 
Tobytone said:
LOL are you frustrated today? I've responded with more detail than I've seen in the 'ideas' from all the libtards combined. I'm fine with that.

Plus, It's a busy day for me, watching the greatest moment in political history take place before our eyes. Even libtards can understand that. right? Regardless, let me give you the response you love so much.

YOUR CONCERNS ARE NOTED
Click to expand...
that response is infuriating.

:truestory:

I love it.
 
ZenMode said:
I love how there's a thread about evolution being in trouble, but no thread pointing out the irrationality of "Man came into existence, and was able to speak fluent English, when the sky wizard zapped Adam and Eve into existence".
Click to expand...
Threads about the Theory of Evolution (which is also a religion) tend to also wander into the Theory of Creation for some reason, even though these two theories are not mutually exclusive.

English as a language didn't appear until around 450 AD.

The language used by Adam is unknown.
 
Tobytone said:
Partly because I've been away from my computer for the last 5 days and had the time so....This is a long and detailed paper I wrote to get all my arguments out in the opened at one time, rather than the slow drip of shorter replies. I'm posting the first paragraph to set the tone and the rest will be attached as a PDF. I will not be responding to anyone referencing Youfollowing paragraph without reading the whole paper. I most likely address whatever point or question you may have about the first paragraph.


We're often told, and many assume, that science has essentially figured out the physical world. This mantra has been repeated so frequently from multiple sources that it has naturally become a widespread belief. With the presupposition that scientists are smarter and better positioned to make educated conclusions, many trust or have faith that scientists are correct. This thinking has given rise to a world increasingly dismissive of any views that involve God. Why? Is it intentional? It seems many scientists ignore or dismiss strong evidence that, at a minimum, suggests mutation theory is becoming less likely by any standards. Ironically, it’s the advancements in technology that are now revealing undeniable evidence pointing toward design.
Click to expand...
Your argument relies on pure ignorance.

Let's examine your third paragraph and find the errors.

First you don't seem to even understand how a smart watch is built and functions since you bring up gears, levers, motors and shafts. Smart watches have none of those things.
Then you don't seem to understand that atoms form molecules within certain rules and they form them without being tossed around in a cup.
Then you seem to think that you tossing items in a cup would equal the number of times that atoms have formed DNA molecules in the last billion years. The DNA in you personally has probably formed new cells more times than you could shake a cup in a lifetime or even in 1,000 lifetimes.

You make same rather large errors with this sentence -

It would be far easier than the process of creating and
assembling the myriad of components within every cell, along with 3,000,000,000 pairs of
genome that must be in a precise order

There is no precise order of a genome. When it comes to the genome it often introduces errors when duplicating itself. Your genome is not the same precise order as my genome and all the cells in your body don't have the same precise order. You start with the erroneous assumption that the result was intentional and then argue that because it was intentional it must be designed. That is a false argument. The result is the random result that occurred, reproduced and survived. While the odds of that result may be small the odds of a result are close to 100%.

The rest of your screed is completely ridiculous as you prove you know as much about science as you do about how a smart watch works.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Your argument relies on pure ignorance.

Let's examine your third paragraph and find the errors.

First you don't seem to even understand how a smart watch is built and functions since you bring up gears, levers, motors and shafts. Smart watches have none of those things.
Then you don't seem to understand that atoms form molecules within certain rules and they form them without being tossed around in a cup.
Then you seem to think that you tossing items in a cup would equal the number of times that atoms have formed DNA molecules in the last billion years. The DNA in you personally has probably formed new cells more times than you could shake a cup in a lifetime or even in 1,000 lifetimes.

You make same rather large errors with this sentence -

It would be far easier than the process of creating and
assembling the myriad of components within every cell, along with 3,000,000,000 pairs of
genome that must be in a precise order

There is no precise order of a genome. When it comes to the genome it often introduces errors when duplicating itself. Your genome is not the same precise order as my genome and all the cells in your body don't have the same precise order. You start with the erroneous assumption that the result was intentional and then argue that because it was intentional it must be designed. That is a false argument. The result is the random result that occurred, reproduced and survived. While the odds of that result may be small the odds of a result are close to 100%.

The rest of your screed is completely ridiculous as you prove you know as much about science as you do about how a smart watch works.
Click to expand...
Oh, for the love of all that is intellectual, I was on the precipice of engaging in a cerebral exchange, but your opening gambit so clearly demonstrated your quintessential drone-like existence. As I have made abundantly clear to a plethora of libtard automatons, my perspectives are articulated with a meticulousness that far exceeds the banal, thus I see no merit in expending energy on imbeciles who fancy themselves enlightened merely because they've had the dubious honor of being indoctrinated by some woke charlatan who has metaphorically defiled their minds. LOL, if you indeed tread the hallowed halls of academia, as I've previously stated to the clones of your monotonous echo, you have utterly decimated your guardians' financial sacrifice. Cease this charade; I was ready for a robust debate, but not with such an unmitigated automaton. Furthermore, I am presently witnessing the most formidable President in history, signing executive orders that will undoubtedly provoke you simpletons into acts of vandalism against property you've no claim to. I revel in every second of this spectacle.
Besides, One should never cast pearls at swine.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Your argument relies on pure ignorance.

Let's examine your third paragraph and find the errors.

First you don't seem to even understand how a smart watch is built and functions since you bring up gears, levers, motors and shafts. Smart watches have none of those things.
Then you don't seem to understand that atoms form molecules within certain rules and they form them without being tossed around in a cup.
Then you seem to think that you tossing items in a cup would equal the number of times that atoms have formed DNA molecules in the last billion years. The DNA in you personally has probably formed new cells more times than you could shake a cup in a lifetime or even in 1,000 lifetimes.

You make same rather large errors with this sentence -

It would be far easier than the process of creating and
assembling the myriad of components within every cell, along with 3,000,000,000 pairs of
genome that must be in a precise order

There is no precise order of a genome. When it comes to the genome it often introduces errors when duplicating itself. Your genome is not the same precise order as my genome and all the cells in your body don't have the same precise order. You start with the erroneous assumption that the result was intentional and then argue that because it was intentional it must be designed. That is a false argument. The result is the random result that occurred, reproduced and survived. While the odds of that result may be small the odds of a result are close to 100%.

The rest of your screed is completely ridiculous as you prove you know as much about science as you do about how a smart watch works.
Click to expand...
there is a precise order to an individuals genome.


there sure as fuck is.
 
Tobytone said:
Oh, for the love of all that is intellectual, I was on the precipice of engaging in a cerebral exchange, but your opening gambit so clearly demonstrated your quintessential drone-like existence. As I have made abundantly clear to a plethora of libtard automatons, my perspectives are articulated with a meticulousness that far exceeds the banal, thus I see no merit in expending energy on imbeciles who fancy themselves enlightened merely because they've had the dubious honor of being indoctrinated by some woke charlatan who has metaphorically defiled their minds. LOL, if you indeed tread the hallowed halls of academia, as I've previously stated to the clones of your monotonous echo, you have utterly decimated your guardians' financial sacrifice. Cease this charade; I was ready for a robust debate, but not with such an unmitigated automaton. Furthermore, I am presently witnessing the most formidable President in history, signing executive orders that will undoubtedly provoke you simpletons into acts of vandalism against property you've no claim to. I revel in every second of this spectacle.
Besides, One should never cast pearls at swine.
Click to expand...
ROFLMAO...
So rather than defend your argument you go off on a childish tantrum. Clearly you aren't ready for a robust debate since you can't even defend your third paragraph. You were so meticulous that you argue about wheels and motors in the paragraph about smart watches.

By the way. It's pearls before swine. Maybe if you had actually opened a book you would know that.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
ROFLMAO...
So rather than defend your argument you go off on a childish tantrum. Clearly you aren't ready for a robust debate since you can't even defend your third paragraph. You were so meticulous that you argue about wheels and motors in the paragraph about smart watches.

By the way. It's pearls before swine. Maybe if you had actually opened a book you would know that.
Click to expand...
YOUR CONCERNS ARE NOTED
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
As was your ignorance.
Click to expand...
ROFL I can respond to this while I'm watching this incredible moment in history. Trump's signing EOs and they're AWESOME. For anyone that reads any following statements by this moronic libtard drone, understand I've been down the same road that this simpleton is attempting to drag me down. That's why you'll be seeing my new favorite response to impossible drones: Your concerns are noted.

I read the first line of his comment and quickly realized he might just be Keith Olbermann. There are many similarities. He started out telling me that my example of throwing all the parts and pieces of a smart watch into a cup and shaking it, then tossing it on a table repeatedly until the random action somehow resulted in an assembled working watch, would be easier than random mutations somehow arranging all the parts of what we now know of as an incredibly complex single cell in the correct order necessary. There are details about that complexity in my original OP.

Anyways, this moron starts out saying, "obviously I have no idea how a smart watch is assembled." LOL, what a tool. Seriously, he got me, I haven't looked it up like I'm sure he did, unless he's one of the poor souls putting them together. I could have just as easily used the clippers he used to shave his head in November to make the point that flew right over the libtard drone's head. It's always a good laugh to see these supposedly 'educated' imbeciles trying to make a coherent argument, (as if college makes anyone intelligent, if he had a decent middle school education he would know that) but for drones like poor Dicky, it can be a bore. ROFL

Wow, Trump just did so many things we desperately needed. Think of all the operations taking place rounding up a bunch of thugs right now. J6 hostages are going home very soon. The wall will continue, Energy prices will be dropping soon because he declared a national emergency. lol I'll stop now, libtards are hurting enough for the moment.

SO POOR DICKY NOW THAT ANYONE WHO CARES CAN SEE WHY I'M USING THIS REPLY WITH YOU AND OTHER COPIES OF YOU HERE'S YOUR ANSWER GOING FORWARD
YOUR CONCERN ARE NOTED
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top