Posted on 12/07/2016 8:15:11 AM PST by fishtank
Like to mock?
I included a link. And it would be “my actual science is bigger than your supposed friend’s made up crap that be bears no resemblance to science”.
If you don’t believe this observed documented logic based on available data and much of it provable with creatures alive on the planet today you don’t have any critical thinking skills to get upgraded.
Thanks
Yes, but including a link doesn’t mean you have the wherewithal to critically assess the value of what that link claims.
I want you to provide evidence your “hint” is something more than you hiding behind an “appeal to authority.”
I DID provide evidence. The fact that you’re too damn lazy to click on it isn’t my problem.
Funny that. I’m too damn lazy to click a link, but not too lazy to reply to your post.
Even so, clicking on the link can do nothing to demonstrate YOU understand what it says, let alone possess the background to critically evaluate it.
Why should I bother to provide you with more evidence when all you do on this thread is not read anybody’s evidence while demanding they present more evidence? It really doesn’t matter whether or not I understand it, what matter at this point is that YOU CAN’T understand it because you can’t even be bothered to read it. Prove to me you actually READ IT and we can discuss it, until then you’re just a fool sticking his fingers in his ears so he can’t hear yelling that no one is talking.
What are some of the things that would stop a line from evolving?
Because my understanding at this point isn’t relevant.
You are following the tried and true path of virtually all avocations evolutionists; you seek to demonstrate your intellect by referring to the work of others, but when asked to provide your own “work,” provide a litany of excuses for why the other’s work should be sufficient.
For people like you, science is the “magic wand” you wave to substantiate beliefs you can’t substantiate on your own, let alone understand the ramifications thereof.
You’re lack of understanding very much is relevant. Because if you don’t understand it you can’t actually discuss it. Instead all you do is pile on fallacies and pretend that means you have a point.
I never attempted to demonstrate my intellect, that’s a sad pathetic game only played by people who will lose it. I pointed out that his “evolution of the eye” list bears no resemblance to how we ACTUALLY think eyes evolved.
Funny how you demand I provide my own work while refusing to provide any yourself. Meanwhile you say I present science as a “magic wand” while you’re the one practicing magical thinking.
I understand the ramifications just fine, here let me explain them:
you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about
you’re afraid to actually debate the issue
you ignore all evidence presented to you
you demand more evidence even though we both know you will continue to ignore it
you attack the person because you can’t be bothered to examine their evidence OR have any of your own
and the saddest part of all - you actually think that shows you’re right and smart when in actuality is shows you’re willfully ignorant
Unless your next post demonstrates you’ve actually bothered to read the evidence don’t make it. You’re just wasting everybody’s time, we already know you don’t understand it, we don’t need you to remind us over and over and over.
That’s fine.
I feel confident your lack of providing a working understanding of that which you advocate for has been adequately demonstrated on this thread.
Your digression into inane insults is just icing on the cake.
I feel confident that I could present you with a 30 page dissertation written by me on the subject and you’d still insist I didn’t provide any proof I understand the subject. As for inane insults: that’s all you’ve been doing on the thread, I responded in kind. Don’t like it READ THE FREAKING LINK.
Oh, one point I MUST provide...
The reason I haven’t provided you any evidence of my own is you have not demonstrated any ability to understand whether that evidence is dispositive or not.
Failing that, engaging you would be fruitless as any debate would devolve into yet another episode of gainsaying.
No, the reason you don’t provide any evidence of your own is that you are childish and petulant and think sticking your fingers in your ear and yelling LALALALALALALAICAN’THEARYOU is a legitimate argument. Which is why I treat you with condescension and derision. I’m more than willing to DISCUSS the issue with an ADULT. The way that works is that you refute the evidence I already presented.
Funny that you say any debate would devolve into gainsaying when so far on this thread the ONLY thing you’ve done is gainsay. You have not attempted to debate anyone, you only gainsay. You did get half of it right though, attempt to debate are fruitless, but that’s because you won’t debate.
I’ll give you the last word. I’m sure it will be self aggrandizing, and foolish, and you will once again insist the problem is everybody else’s refusal to play the game your way.
There are always more questions than answers for evolution and science in generat. Such an attention getting headline is nonsense. And irritating. Only creationists have all the answers at the beginning? Then why spawn asinine articles like this. Just gobbledygook word games. Transitional is a defined use.
There are always more questions than answers for evolution and science in generat. Such an attention getting headline is nonsense. And irritating. Only creationists have all the answers at the beginning? Then why spawn asinine articles like this. Just gobbledygook word games. Transitional is a defined use.
Please read “ Wonderful Life the Burgess Shale “ and write us a book report and then tell us all about reality rather than opinion. It’ll be hard because it has lots of big words and some Latin terms but I think you can manage.
Enlightenment is really pretty easy, all you have to do is read with an open mind
Most answers would be conjecture, though one could speculate.
The horseshoe crabs for instance have remained pretty much the same for 450 million years. They didn't disappear even after many great dyings. Why? Good question. Perhaps it is a sturdy creature that passes on its genes as is and does not need to evolve very much to maintain itself.
Perhaps the platypus has evolved.....just not out of being a duck billed egg layer. Perhaps he is the most improved worm catching monotreme that ever existed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.