@divegeester saidYou don't agree with me that there is no scientific explanation for duons. So I ask you then for the scientific explanation. And then you use a lot of fancy words to say you don't have that scientific explanation.
The onus is not on me to explain anything; you are the one making ludicrous assertions so the onus is on you to prove your argument. What you provided in your OP does not achieve that.
And I don't make "ludicrous assertions", my assertions are very simple, very logical, and all based on facts.
Those facts are:
Duons can not come into being by chance.
In dino bones, supposedly laying underground for up to 200 million years, soft tissue is found.
All dino carcasses test positive for C14, which is impossible when they are older than 100.000 years. They all test between 20,000 and 40,000 years. That time range is totally within the normal range for C14 testing.
The fossil record shows the opposite of evolution, namely non or only very small changes in fossils during their whole stay in the fossil record. It shows sudden appearance of new species without any link to supposed predecessors.
If despite this you still believe in evolution, then I have some real estate on the moon to sell you.
https://tinyurl.com/Facts-C14
235d
@carnivorum saidIt is the examples of design that are called illusions that they don’t want to be true, and the assertions about evidence they want to call facts. What is acceptable is treated differently from what is not!
You don't agree with me that there is no scientific explanation for duons. So I ask you then for the scientific explanation. And then you use a lot of fancy words to say you don't have that scientific explanation.
And I don't make "ludicrous assertions", my assertions are very simple, very logical, and all based on facts.
Those facts are:
Duons can not ...[text shortened]... n evolution, then I have some real estate on the moon to sell you.
https://tinyurl.com/Facts-C14
234d
@carnivorum saidYou're like a tabloid reporter jumping straight to the desired, exaggerated at best, fabricated at worst, conclusions.
The problem is not only that we don't have an explanation, the problem is that it rips the evolution theory to pieces.
Just like the soft tissue in de dinosaurs does.
Just like the C14 in all the dinosaurs does.
Just like the fossil record does.
"Oh, we don't have an explantion for the duons."
"Oh, we don't have an explanation for the soft tissue in the ...[text shortened]... totally debunked.
With all the evidence against it only an idiot keeps on believing in evolution.
This is why no one takes you seriously.
234d
1 edit
@carnivorum saidI’m not a scientist! But I’ve seen stuff on pubmed and other places “explaining it” but I don’t understand it at all.
You don't agree with me that there is no scientific explanation for duons. So I ask you then for the scientific explanation. And then you use a lot of fancy words to say you don't have that scientific explanation.
And I don't make "ludicrous assertions", my assertions are very simple, very logical, and all based on facts.
Those facts are:
Duons can not ...[text shortened]... n evolution, then I have some real estate on the moon to sell you.
https://tinyurl.com/Facts-C14
OK, let’s assume that there is NO scientific explanation for duons.
So what? The next logical step is NOT “God did it”.
234d
@kellyjay saidI’m a Christian, I believe in creation and that “God did it”.
It is the examples of design that are called illusions that they don’t want to be true, and the assertions about evidence they want to call facts. What is acceptable is treated differently from what is not!
But I DO NOT embarrass myself by claiming that the next bright shinny thing which may/may not have a scientific explanation proves that “God did it”
Do you see the difference between your grasping and my logic?
234d
@divegeester saidThe next logical step is: Evolution which works with blind chance cannot make this.
I’m not a scientist! But I’ve seen stuff on pubmed and other places “explaining it” but I don’t understand it at all.
OK, let’s assume that there is NO scientific explanation for duons.
So what? The next logical step is NOT “God did it”.
The next logical step is: Evolution is out of the window.
The next logical step is: It is obviously intelligent design.
The next logical step is: There must have been an Intelligent Designer.
234d
@carnivorum saidHow so?
The next logical step is: Evolution which works with blind chance cannot make this.
The next logical step is: Evolution is out of the window.
The next logical step is: It is obviously intelligent design.
The next logical step is: There must have been an Intelligent Designer.
- Joined
- 14 Jan 19
- Moves
- 4280
234d
@carnivorum saidAny discussion with divegeester is useless: Before, during, and after his "how so?" He never grew up, and is that tireless spoiled child that keeps asking over and over, "why is that?"
If you cannot understand that, then further discussion is useless.
Dive can't tell the difference of the head from the tail in any discussion, and therefore this full-twit wants to call both sides of the coin on each flip.
234d
@carnivorum saidYou are claiming that IF there is no scientific explanation for duons then their must be an “intelligent designer”.
If you cannot understand that, then further discussion is useless.
I’m asking you “how so”?
234d
@pettytalk saidAre you a Christian PettyTalk?
Any discussion with divegeester is useless: Before, during, and after his "how so?" He never grew up, and is that tireless spoiled child that keeps asking over and over, "why is that?"
Dive can't tell the difference of the head from the tail in any discussion, and therefore this full-twit wants to call both sides of the coin on each flip.
234d
@carnivorum saidIt has been suggested by many in the field that the laws of thermodynamics has played a part in the evolution of dual-use codons.
According to my humble opinion, that article says totally nothing.
Not a word about how the dual coding came into existence, nothing.
What do you want to say with that article?
Your presumptions are a complete and total expression of ignorance, driven by what you want to believe. That is not science, by any means.
234d
@carnivorum saidThese are the presumptions I was talking about.
The next logical step is: Evolution which works with blind chance cannot make this.
The next logical step is: Evolution is out of the window.
The next logical step is: It is obviously intelligent design.
The next logical step is: There must have been an Intelligent Designer.
As a Christian, I happen to believe in an intelligent designer. But you'll never be able to prove it, except to yourself, if you heavily presume 'facts' into existence.
I believe the guiding hand in creation, biologically speaking, is evolution, wielded by the Creator. Evolution without God is possible, certainly, which is necessary for humans to have free will in believing God, or not God. No one will ever be able to prove God had a hand in it. This is what faith is for.