@pbsandwich saidYour attempt to debate this already came and went earlier this year. It didn't go well. I have made a few points that you have ignored. That's your prerogative.
Yes, it is true. But it’s pretty clear you’re not interested in debating substance so I’ll leave you to your own musings.
It's now 5.50 am where you are.
24 Aug 22
@fmf saidI haven’t ignored any points.
Your attempt to debate this already came and went earlier this year. It didn't go well. I have made a few points that you have ignored. That's your prerogative.
It's now 5.50 am where you are.
You, on the other hand, have avoided citing evidence - any evidence - for the theory of evolution.
Where are all the transitional fossils? How do you explain the Cambrian explosion? There are plenty more questions that expose the theory of evolution as the biggest “scientific” fraud of the 20th- and 21st centuries, but why list them when they’ll just be ignored?
24 Aug 22
@pbsandwich saidYou haven't fielded any of them. But that's OK. You have been in this 'mode' before here.
I haven’t ignored any points.
@fmf saidIt can stand on the evidence if you don't look too closely at the details. Getting into
The theory of evolution stands up well based on the available evidence. It's the countless Christians who believe it is the way that their God figure arranged for life to develop on Earth who "bring God into it".
the weeds, the weaknesses are glaring. It is either a mindless process, in which case
you cannot account for all of the functional complexity in the arrangement of life's
systems, the information in life that directs the processes, that life has low entropy
and high energy, which biological machines must channel; otherwise, there would be
high entropy, and it would fall apart. The list goes on and on.
Then there is the beginning of life, abiogenesis, overcoming the odds of having it
all come together by having all of the necessary ingredients for life in one place
simultaneously in the right environment connecting as required, so all DNA folds
properly.
If it only matters what our opinions are and not the reality of how evolution is
supposed to account for life, if reality doesn't matter, only our opinions it is a
different discussion. If you don't think about it, ponder all of the details, it is a
proper excuse one can accept for life in a godless universe; keep it where it is
acceptable and unquestionable, and you can go on thinking nothing special had
happened to cause life.
24 Aug 22
@pbsandwich saidI don't need to. I believe that, if there is a creator entity, then evolutionary biology is how the Earth's geology and flora and fauna have been configured by that entity
You, on the other hand, have avoided citing evidence - any evidence - for the theory of evolution.
24 Aug 22
@pbsandwich saidTake it to the Science Forum, spanky.
Where are all the transitional fossils? How do you explain the Cambrian explosion?
24 Aug 22
@pbsandwich saidRun it past people who are interested in discussing the supposed "fraud" with you. It did not go well for you when you had extended exchanges with avalanchethecat about it earlier this year.
There are plenty more questions that expose the theory of evolution as the biggest “scientific” fraud of the 20th- and 21st centuries, but why list them when they’ll just be ignored?
24 Aug 22
@kellyjay saidIt can stand on the evidence if you don't look too closely at the details. Getting into
the weeds, the weaknesses are glaring. It is either a mindless process, in which case
you cannot account for all of the functional complexity in the arrangement of life's
systems, the information in life that directs the processes, that life has low entropy
and high energy, which biological machines must channel; otherwise, there would be
high entropy, and it would fall apart. The list goes on and on.
Then there is the beginning of life, abiogenesis, overcoming the odds of having it
all come together by having all of the necessary ingredients for life in one place
simultaneously in the right environment connecting as required, so all DNA folds
properly.
If it only matters what our opinions are and not the reality of how evolution is
supposed to account for life, if reality doesn't matter, only our opinions it is a
different discussion. If you don't think about it, ponder all of the details, it is a
proper excuse one can accept for life in a godless universe; keep it where it is
acceptable and unquestionable, and you can go on thinking nothing special had
happened to cause life.
My response to these "arguments" is the same as when you last time you regurgitated them.
24 Aug 22
@kellyjay saidIt is telling that you never seek to expose your notions about evolution to the scrutiny of people who are as interested in the science of it as you claim to be.
It is a good evolution question; you cannot have an explosion of life in a single period
if the processes you are talking about are supposedly slow, they come over time.
24 Aug 22
@kellyjay said...if reality doesn't matter...
If it only matters what our opinions are and not the reality of how evolution is
supposed to account for life, if reality doesn't matter, only our opinions it is a
different discussion.
Acknowledging that humans do not know if or how the universe originated does not mean "reality doesn't matter".
24 Aug 22
@fmf saidYour last response carried the same meaningfulness to it, too; you say it is an
It can stand on the evidence if you don't look too closely at the details. Getting into
the weeds, the weaknesses are glaring. It is either a mindless process, in which case
you cannot account for all of the functional complexity in the arrangement of life's
systems, the information in life that directs the processes, that life has low entropy
and high energy, which biolog ...[text shortened]... fe.
My response to these "arguments" is the same as when you last time you regurgitated them.
opinion, duh. The facts cannot have any meaning if you ignore them, proclaiming
some when it is convenient and denying others for the same reason.
24 Aug 22
@kellyjay saidWhat am I "denying", KellyJay? What am I "ignoring"?
Your last response carried the same meaningfulness to it, too; you say it is an
opinion, duh. The facts cannot have any meaning if you ignore them, proclaiming
some when it is convenient and denying others for the same reason.