Why Is Testing Important In Software...
Technology1 min ago
Creation / Evolution.
400 Answers
What can you say that you know one thing about evolution?
Answers
Quite aside from anything else, you are still setting far too much store by the people who are speaking, and far too little by what they are actually saying. Evaluate the evidence for yourself, if you can -- what one PhD says, or a Professor, or even a Nobel Laureate or two, means nothing. They may be right or they may be wrong, but who they are is irrelevant to that....
15:20 Thu 06th Feb 2020
Theland. I have not insulted you. What I posted is a verifiable and accurate description of your behaviour. If anything it is charitable compared to the reality.
You claim that there are scientists who would disparage my clear and detailed explanations yet you provide not a single word to address what I have said or to specify what "assumptions" I have made. You don't quote anyone, just post links to nonsensical videos that don't even address the points that have been made.
I posted simple mathematics that demonstrate just one non-harmful genetic change in each tens of thousands of matings since our last common ancestor would result in the well established, accurately measured, total genetic difference between humans and chimps. This clearly and unambiguously demonstrates that the difference between micro evolution (which you accept) and macroevolution is nothing more than a matter of degree.
You have not provided a single word of rebuttal against any part of that explanation yet you arrogantly disparage it and falsely claim that it is religious belief.
Again I ask that you specify exactly what invalid assumptions you believe I gave made. You won't because you dare not engage in discussion.
You claim that there are scientists who would disparage my clear and detailed explanations yet you provide not a single word to address what I have said or to specify what "assumptions" I have made. You don't quote anyone, just post links to nonsensical videos that don't even address the points that have been made.
I posted simple mathematics that demonstrate just one non-harmful genetic change in each tens of thousands of matings since our last common ancestor would result in the well established, accurately measured, total genetic difference between humans and chimps. This clearly and unambiguously demonstrates that the difference between micro evolution (which you accept) and macroevolution is nothing more than a matter of degree.
You have not provided a single word of rebuttal against any part of that explanation yet you arrogantly disparage it and falsely claim that it is religious belief.
Again I ask that you specify exactly what invalid assumptions you believe I gave made. You won't because you dare not engage in discussion.
Theland. https:/
Nearly eight minutes in before offering anything but platitudes.
He claims the skull could not have been dated at four million years. Wrong. In fact the skull was dated by the strata in which it was found.
Sorry can't go on. This is the most boring video I have ever watched.
Nearly eight minutes in before offering anything but platitudes.
He claims the skull could not have been dated at four million years. Wrong. In fact the skull was dated by the strata in which it was found.
Sorry can't go on. This is the most boring video I have ever watched.
Theland, you remind me of someone who insists he hears things that go bump in the night and refuses to accept a rational explanation. He does that because he doesn’t want a rational explanation. He prefers to believe that what he hears really is an inexplicable bump in the night. Your prophecies have been explained - rationally.
The main issue I have with your creation theory is that you claim to know who or what is responsible. If creation is an option it could well have been the work of some extra-terrestrial, super-brained, computer geek working from another universe. The truth is, you have no idea.
The main issue I have with your creation theory is that you claim to know who or what is responsible. If creation is an option it could well have been the work of some extra-terrestrial, super-brained, computer geek working from another universe. The truth is, you have no idea.
I post t he videos for two reasons.
First, to prove that there are talented and respected scientists who reject neo Dawkins Darwinism.
Second, so you can just quickly flick through them to see the names of the scientists and get a flavour of the rebuttals.
Beso - I am not a scientist, but I will go back to your posts and attempt to address them.
Thank you.
First, to prove that there are talented and respected scientists who reject neo Dawkins Darwinism.
Second, so you can just quickly flick through them to see the names of the scientists and get a flavour of the rebuttals.
Beso - I am not a scientist, but I will go back to your posts and attempt to address them.
Thank you.
It doesn't honestly help, theland. I don't follow Darwin, Dawkins or anyone else. All atheists don't "believe" the same. Any of them being wrong in one area, is never going to persuade me that the only other answer must be a god.
I suspect scientists are closer to the answer, as they want everything properly proven without just hoping for the best.
But I doubt anyone knows the real answers, and there is no need to, in order to at least rule out the irrational and unlikely.
There is no point suggesting that if others don't know the answer, you must be right, as if there can only ever be two alternatives. You have strong beliefs, which you claim to "know" like many do... but can't make sense enough of them to persuade anyone else. I'm not a scientist either... just common sense would do for me x
I suspect scientists are closer to the answer, as they want everything properly proven without just hoping for the best.
But I doubt anyone knows the real answers, and there is no need to, in order to at least rule out the irrational and unlikely.
There is no point suggesting that if others don't know the answer, you must be right, as if there can only ever be two alternatives. You have strong beliefs, which you claim to "know" like many do... but can't make sense enough of them to persuade anyone else. I'm not a scientist either... just common sense would do for me x
Beso - 01/012/2020 @22:27 - With respect, you look at the shared genes and make an assumption that one more little step would prove common ancestry.
Regarding the link, the science paper say the evidence they found regarding a link between acorn worms and a common ancestor, SUGGEST a precursor to certain human features. A suggestion. No proof.
Your mathematics regarding generations of mutations is impressive, but again, even Dawkins could not give one single example of an increase of genetic information that led to a mutational advantage.
This is again assumption without hard evidence.
I shall try to address the next point.
Regarding the link, the science paper say the evidence they found regarding a link between acorn worms and a common ancestor, SUGGEST a precursor to certain human features. A suggestion. No proof.
Your mathematics regarding generations of mutations is impressive, but again, even Dawkins could not give one single example of an increase of genetic information that led to a mutational advantage.
This is again assumption without hard evidence.
I shall try to address the next point.
Latest Posts
Crosswords20 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles48 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles50 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles151 mins ago
Diane Abbott, Time To Forgive And...
News228 mins ago
