Most atheists dont know about science (Page 1240)

BelgianStrider
BelgianStrider: "Blackshoes: Like I said strider, We've gone over this a hundred times! It's impossible to convince the fool of anything that he cannot or refuse to accept.

The truth n' science is easily verified within any of the videos and information that I 've presented. (Edited by Blackshoes)
38 minutes ago • Report"




it can only be resumed to this:

17 days ago Report
0
BelgianStrider
BelgianStrider: AAAAAAAAND what does not tickle your ears got deleted huh
hypocrite !!!!

THOUGH: Never mind we have copies here: Topic: Science
(Edited by BelgianStrider)
17 days ago Report
0
BelgianStrider
BelgianStrider: Oh btw: creationists should be DEFINITIVELY more affraid from and BE AGAINST TO QM than evolution ...

WHY??? Well, this time, I Iet that to the curiosity of the attentive reader that will "bing" or "google" deeper in the latest "concept" and findings of QM ...
It is factually COMPLETELY MINDDAZLING COUNTERINTUITIVE ...
And the base of all those "impropable discoveries" is this simple mathematical equation E=Mc² (Spoiler)
(Edited by BelgianStrider)
17 days ago Report
0
harpalycus47
harpalycus47:
harpalycus47: “The following is a short quick, irrefutable, scientific explanation, on how nonsensical faith in Macroevolution n' abiogenesis is”, declares Blackshoes.
Irrefutable eh?
Well, let’s see.

𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘢 𝘭𝘰𝘵. 𝘚𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘦𝘷𝘰𝘭𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘦𝘷𝘰𝘭𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘦.
Firstly, science does not PROVE things to be true, it produces evidence that provides the best possible explanation of our observations, but always accepts that any scientific conclusion is always open to modification or even refutation in the light of new evidence and/or interpretation.

𝘚𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘦𝘷𝘰𝘭𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘷𝘦 𝘪𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘷𝘦 𝘴𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘯’𝘵 𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦.
If they are ignorant of the science and don’t believe it, that does not make them irrational. If the evidence is good, and they know and understand that evidence and there is rationally only one explanation that fits the known facts, then, yes, they would be irrational. If they reject rational argument without a rational refutation, then they would be irrational. If they deny evidence simply because it does not fit their worldview that that is irrational. (Note that being irrational does not mean that one is therefore wrong, nor that there may not be rational reasons for being irrational – but in either case one is still irrational. And being irrational does not make one a ‘bad’ person).

However the majority of Christians accept both a belief in God and an acceptance of evolution as the method of creation – Catholics, Orthodox, mainstream Protestant such as the Episcopal, Lutheran and Methodist churches.
Religious Groups: Opinions of Evolution, Pew Forum (conducted in 2007, released in 2008).

In fact, a majority of all the major Christian groupings in America - Catholic, White evangelical Protestant, Black Protestant and White mainline Protestant have between 62% and 87% acceptance rate.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2019/02/06/how-highly-religious-americans-view-evolution-depends-on-how-theyre-asked-about-it/

America has the highest number of ‘creationists’ (24%) compared to Argentina (18%), Australia (14%), Canada (12%), Germany (7%), Spain (6%), UK (12%).
Science and Religion: Exploring the Spectrum: A MultiCountry Study on Public Perceptions of Evolution, Religion and Science. The University of Birmingham. December 2023. Kate Gosschalk, Laura Piggott and Honor Gray (YouGov) James Riley and Fern Elsdon-Baker (The University of Birmingham). YouGov.

And, of course, scientists overwhelmingly agree that humans evolved over time. 98% say they believe humans evolved over time.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution

There is a clear correlation between creationism and religious belief, especially biblical inerrancy.

𝘙𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺? 𝘓𝘦𝘵’𝘴 𝘱𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘤𝘭𝘢𝘪𝘮 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵. 𝘍𝘪𝘳𝘴𝘵 𝘰𝘧𝘧 𝘦𝘷𝘰𝘭𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵. 𝘕𝘰 𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘱𝘶𝘵𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘷𝘦 𝘪𝘵.
So, if God created each according to their kind, why is there any change at all?

𝘞𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘰𝘣𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘦 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘦𝘷𝘰𝘭𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘭𝘪𝘧𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘯𝘰𝘯-𝘭𝘪𝘧𝘦, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘭𝘪𝘧𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘰𝘮𝘭𝘺 𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘯𝘦𝘸 𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘵𝘪𝘤 𝘪𝘯𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦 𝘪𝘵 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘦𝘥 𝘩𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘴, 𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘥𝘪𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘲𝘶𝘪𝘵𝘦 𝘩𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘭𝘺 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴𝘯’𝘵 𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘥 𝘶𝘱 𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵 𝘴𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦.
An assertion without any argument or evidence.

𝘐𝘯 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘴 𝘦𝘷𝘰𝘭𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘮𝘰𝘭𝘦𝘤𝘶𝘭𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘪𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘴𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘣𝘦 𝘷𝘪𝘦𝘸𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘴 𝘴𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘵.
A conclusion drawn from an assertion without any argument or evidence.

𝘘𝘶𝘪𝘵𝘦 𝘩𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘭𝘺 𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵 𝘰𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦,
The repetition of a conclusion drawn from an assertion without any argument or evidence.
It is not in great opposition to science.
Cite what is in opposition to science – with reasons.

𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘰𝘣𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘴𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘴𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘸𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘧𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘥.
In a trivial sense all science is observational as somewhere along the ‘data trail’ it must come to the notice of the scientist and that can only be done via their senses.

In a practical sense there is no specific observational science, the Babylonian astronomer gazing at the stars with the mark I eyeball, Tycho Brahe using a sextant, Galileo a telescope, Hubble a spectroscope, Giaconni an X-ray detector. Where do we stop using our senses?

The idea that science must be repeatable is equally nonsensical. We would like to be able to repeat experimental findings on demand, but Tycho’s supernovae, the Cambrian explosion, Edington’s eclipse study, Johanson’s discovery of Lucy and, the Big Bang itself cannot be replicated. They are, none the less, science.

A hypothesis will need to be tested in some way, but such testing may be retrospective or by mathematical modelling.

Evolution is observable, able to be tested and repeatable, although it is a ‘historical’ science and only certain aspects can be repeated.

There is no precise definition of science. It is a Wittgensteinian family resemblance. There are no precise rules and requirements that are shared by all areas of science. Ultimately, it is a rational search for explanations of the world and methods, ‘rules’ and techniques vary from subject area to subject area.

𝘚𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦 𝘭𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘳𝘨𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘮𝘴 𝘭𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘵𝘪𝘤 𝘪𝘯𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯 𝘪𝘵.

It most certainly does not.
Another assertion without any argument or evidence, and one which is demonstrably false.

Let us first remove Dembski’s 'independently specified information'. This is essentially begging the question. Who or what is 'specifying' this information? And what constitutes sufficient information to be meaningful. The obvious answer of the theist is God. The evolutionists' answer is nothing specifies it as such, though the conditions will determine the information.

As for the information per se, one must differentiate between raw information and ‘useful’ information. We always think of the latter as real information, but a beach of sand holds an incredible amount of information. Think of the shape, chemical constitution and relative positioning of each grain of sand. But it’s not useful. If someone had displaced the sand to create the word ‘help’ in large letters that would be useful to someone searching for shipwreck survivors. To us. To the ordinary denizens of the beach, such as sand flies, it would be of no moment whatsoever.

In which case, the addition of information is completely undeniable. Every mutation produces new information. Every endogenous retrovirus introduces new information. Every example of polyploidy multiplies the information.

Both coding DNA and ‘junk’ DNA carry the same amount of information. Only that which has relevance to us is ‘classed’ as information. For example, a long stretch of identical codons might only become of interest because of the inevitable mutations. So scientists looking at the pattern and number of such mutations can deduce the ‘interesting’ relationships between different genomes.

The information is not put there, it is there. That which is useful to us is identified as such by us. There is no inherent property of usefulness. This ‘useful’ information is created by the blind action of natural selection. It does not preclude an intelligence manipulating it, but it does not point to one.

The appearance of ‘useful’ information is that classic dance between mutation and natural selection. That which can fulfil a purpose or create some improvement in existing biochemistry is ‘useful’ and survives as part of the genome.

𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘴𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘴𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘭𝘪𝘧𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴𝘯’𝘵 𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘦 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘯𝘰𝘯-𝘭𝘪𝘧𝘦.
An assertion without any argument or evidence.

𝘍𝘰𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘸 𝘢𝘭𝘰𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥. 𝘍𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘰𝘳 𝘰𝘯𝘦: 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘯𝘰 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘰𝘣𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘣𝘺 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘯𝘦𝘸 𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘵𝘪𝘤 𝘪𝘯𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘣𝘦 𝘢𝘥𝘥𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘯 𝘰𝘳𝘨𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘮𝘴 𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘵𝘪𝘤 𝘤𝘰𝘥𝘦. 𝘕𝘰𝘯𝘦.

Another assertion without any argument or evidence, and one which is demonstrably false.
No known process? Point mutation, chromosomal mutations, insertions, deletions, translocations, inversions, horizontal transfer, polyploidy, all sifted and modulated by natural selection?

𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘵𝘵𝘺 𝘮𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘶𝘵𝘦𝘴 𝘦𝘷𝘰𝘭𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘢𝘸𝘢𝘺, 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦’𝘴 𝘯𝘰 𝘸𝘢𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘨𝘰 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘢 𝘧𝘪𝘴𝘩 𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘮𝘱𝘩𝘪𝘣𝘪𝘢𝘯 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘢𝘥𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘯𝘦𝘸 𝘪𝘯𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵?
A conclusion drawn from a demonstrably false assertion without any argument or evidence.

𝘐𝘧 𝘭𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘳𝘨𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘮𝘴 𝘤𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘦 𝘯𝘦𝘸 𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘵𝘪𝘤 𝘪𝘯𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘺𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘥𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘧 𝘩𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘰𝘳 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮 𝘰𝘳 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘹𝘪𝘵𝘺?
A meaningless rhetorical question based on a conclusion drawn from a demonstrably false assertion without any argument or evidence.

𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘺𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘦𝘷𝘰𝘭𝘷𝘦 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘮𝘰𝘦𝘣𝘢 𝘵𝘰 𝘢 𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘢𝘥𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘯𝘦𝘸 𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘵𝘪𝘤 𝘪𝘯𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯? 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘴𝘸𝘦𝘳 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘴𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘵 𝘤𝘢𝘯’𝘵, 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘪𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦.
A totally meaningless answer to a silly rhetorical question based on a conclusion drawn from a demonstrably false assertion without any argument or evidence.

𝘕𝘰𝘸 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘨𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘣𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘦 𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴 𝘣𝘢𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘰𝘯 𝘨𝘶𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘴𝘶𝘤𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘧𝘶𝘭 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢 𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘦𝘷𝘰𝘭𝘷𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘢𝘱𝘦 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦𝘴, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘥𝘳𝘢𝘸𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺’𝘳𝘦 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘴.
This is misleading and totally irrelevant to the question in hand. Such illustrations have been used, for illustrative purposes to popular books and museum galleries. They are NOT science. They are based on science. As the science develops so do the illustrations. But they are not based on guesses (though something like hair colour may be – though even that can be underpinned by DNA evidence). The brow ridges, stocky build, short ribcage, lack of a chin and large noses of a Neanderthal are not guesses.

But even if they were simply wild speculation, how can that possibly be used as evidence that evolution is wrong? The idea is farcical. Otherwise, I suppose we have to take all those paintings of a blue-eyed ‘Aryan’ Jesus as absolute proof that he never existed????

𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘰𝘣𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘩𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘩𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘱𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘱𝘦𝘴.
Apart from the obviously contentious scientific consensus that humans are apes, what is this supposed to imply? We know humans and chimpanzees are different species. That is part of evolutionary theory.

𝘕𝘰𝘸, 𝘪𝘧 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘣𝘶𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘥 𝘦𝘷𝘰𝘭𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘥𝘦𝘦𝘱 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘦-𝘊𝘢𝘮𝘣𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘯 𝘴𝘰𝘪𝘭,
Fact one did no such thing as it wasn’t a fact and we have not been given the slightest suggestion of an argument or a single piece of evidence to suggest otherwise.

𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘯𝘦𝘹𝘵 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘵, 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘵𝘸𝘰, 𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘭𝘴 𝘶𝘴 𝘴𝘰 𝘮𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘴𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘵𝘦𝘢𝘮 𝘰𝘧 𝘱𝘢𝘭𝘢𝘦𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘴𝘶𝘣𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘦𝘢𝘯 𝘨𝘪𝘻𝘮𝘰 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘥𝘪𝘨 𝘶𝘱 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴.
Rhetoric with absolutely no substance.

𝘊𝘩𝘦𝘤𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘰𝘶𝘵. 𝘕𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳, 𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯 𝘯𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳, 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘪𝘵 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘰𝘣𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘭𝘪𝘧𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘯𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘭𝘪𝘧𝘦.
Check it out indeed.
1. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
For it to have any meaning at all it would need to be shown that there should be such evidence available. There is no such evidence.

2. Indeed there are good reasons not to expect abiogenesis at the present times.
The arguments have been given repeatedly and ignored repeatedly and the demand to be shown abiogenesis mindlessly parroted out over and over again. A good example of irrationality.

A. We do not know the conditions in which life formed. Even contemporary ‘ possibilities’ such as the alkaline hydrothermal vents, the geology and particularly the chemical substrate will almost certainly differ, to at least some extent, from the prebiotic environment.
B. The presence of highly reactive oxygen would now be inimical to such an event, immediately oxidising any prebiotic material.
C. How do you know that precursors to life are not being created at this moment? They have simply not been found. Nor, to the best of my knowledge have they even been looked for because of the obvious difficulties. However, there is some suggestive evidence. For example, some drilled cores found veins of minerals typical of Lost City hydrothermal system including fossilised microbes and the preservation of organic molecules including amino acids, proteins and lipids, identified by Raman spectroscopy. Although a mere 120 million years old it demonstrates that ecosytems were capable of surviving and evolving in such an environment.
Fluid mixing and the deep biosphere of a fossil Lost City-type hydrothermal system at the Iberia Margin. Frieder Klein, Susan E. Humphris, Weifu Guo and William D. Orsi. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA, August 31, 2015 112 (39) 12036-12041 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1504674112
D. Any protobiotic material would be immediately ‘gobbled up’ by present highly evolved life.
E. The idea of not seeing something that would probably have taken many, many millions of years to evolve into life and may well have been extremely unlikely in the first place being regarded as evidence of anything is positively farcical.

𝘚𝘰 𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘸𝘰 𝘮𝘢𝘫𝘰𝘳 𝘴𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤 𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵 𝘦𝘷𝘰𝘭𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯.
Neither of them is evidence and neither have even been given a shred of argument or scrap of evidence to clothe their naked forms.

𝘐 𝘳𝘦𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘤𝘭𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘭𝘪𝘧𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘯𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘰𝘣𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘯𝘰𝘯-𝘭𝘪𝘧𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘯𝘰 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘰𝘣𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘣𝘺 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘯𝘦𝘸 𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘵𝘪𝘤 𝘪𝘯𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘣𝘦 𝘢𝘥𝘥𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘵𝘪𝘤 𝘤𝘰𝘥𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘢𝘯 𝘰𝘳𝘨𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘮.
Reiterating assertions without any argument or evidence and in the face of masses of evidence and almost complete scientific consensus.

𝘚𝘰, 𝘮𝘰𝘭𝘦𝘤𝘶𝘭𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘦𝘷𝘰𝘭𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴𝘯’𝘵 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘴𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤 𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘦.
Well, scientists believe it does and this blog has not offered ANYTHING to the contrary.

𝘠𝘦𝘵 𝘸𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘭𝘪𝘧𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘢𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥 𝘶𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘷𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘴. 𝘈𝘭𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩 𝘦𝘷𝘰𝘭𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘤𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘉𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘯. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘉𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘱𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘧𝘶𝘭, 𝘢𝘭𝘭-𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘎𝘰𝘥 𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘷𝘦𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘩 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘯𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘭𝘪𝘧𝘦 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘴, 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘩 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘴𝘦𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘵𝘪𝘤 𝘪𝘯𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯. 𝘚𝘰, 𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘉𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘴 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦𝘴 𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘥, 𝘦𝘷𝘰𝘭𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵.
Not at all, the Bible makes no sense of taxonomy and nested hierarchies, of comparative anatomy and embryology. Of vestigial organs and intermediate forms, of microevolution, of geology and palaeontology, of genetic relationships and endogenous retroviruses.

𝘌𝘯𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥.
In fact, nothing at all has been said. Irrefutable??? This is the evidence to destroy evolution? It should be funny, but it isn’t. If the writer wanted to show how irrational some people can be about the reasons for rejecting evolution, he’s done a damned fine job.
16 days ago Report
0
harpalycus47
harpalycus47: And here is Blackshoes' inane response and collapse into deletion, blogfog and flight.

Blackshoes: RE: But those who know the science know abiogenesis and Evolution ARE very possible!
How are they possible when everything we know of science say otherwise ?

THE FOLLOWING WAS ADDED BY BLACKSHOES SUBSEQUENT TO THE POST BEING ANSWERED.
NOT THAT IT MATTERS AS SAYING THAT THERE WERE NO FACTS IN A PARTICULAR VACUOUS BLOG IS NOT SAYING THAT I HAVE DENIED A RANDOM LIST OF FACTS COLLECTED BY BLACKSHOES.
IT MERELY EMPHASISES THAT HE HASN’T A CLUE.

You 've never observed, never repeated, never verify your faith, and everything that even evolutionary researcher's say shows abiogenesis impossible. Whether they agree or disagree, your worship of your Academic overlord is unsupported .
Harpy your Endless amounts of rhetoric do not qualify as science.
So you don't consider some things in science as fact ?
HMM you had better think again!
1 Earth is 18 galactic years old. One galactic year is the amount of time it takes for the Milky Way to rotate around the black hole at its center—which is equivalent to about 230 earth-years.[1]
2 Space is only about 62 miles away from the surface of the earth; if you drove the average freeway speed straight up, you would arrive in less than an hour.[1]
3 Neptune is the only planet that can't be seen by the naked eye.[1]
4 The Milky Way galaxy is 621 quadrillion miles wide.[1]
5 The distance between the moon and Earth is always growing; the moon moves about 3.8 centimeters further away every year.[1]
In 1969, astronauts measured the changing distance from the moon to the sun by attaching mirrors to the moon's surface.[1]
6 Black holes are invisible since their gravity is strong enough to prevent light from escaping.[1]
The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science.- Albert Einstein
7 The solar system is orbiting around the Milky Way, just as the earth rotates around the sun, and the moon rotates around the earth.[1]
8 The volume of the sun is so vast that a million earth-sized spheres could fit inside it.[1]
9 There are 321 million cubic miles of water in all the combined oceans in the world.[7]
10 Ocean water is about 3.5 percent salt.[7]
11 Phytoplankton, which live in the ocean, use photosynthesis to produce half of the earth's oxygen.[7]
12 Less than 20% of the ocean has been well researched, mapped, or explored.[7]
Ocean Facts Science
13 We know more about the moon than we do about most of the ocean!
14 Light can travel no deeper than 3,300 feet (1,000 meters) in the ocean, which led scientists to believe that no life existed past this point.[7]
15 Creatures that live in light-devoid spaces in the ocean rely on chemosynthesis to survive; they use chemicals spewed by thermal jets as energy rather than sunlight.[7]
16 In 2018, the world's oceans reached their hottest temperatures ever.[7]
*17 abiogenesis is naturalistically IMPOSSIBLE
* 18 Macroevolution has been refuted by their every own evolutionary research

The list is too long to post

*I added 17 n ' 18 Like you they'll never admit to the truth

harpalycus47: As you have failed utterly to give one word of argument, one scientific citation, one piece of evidence in your answer, It is as vacuous as the blog.
Which evolutionary researchers show that abiogenesis is impossible and what is their evidence?
What do we know of science that says that abiogenesis and evolution are not possible?
As always no answers, merely assertions.

harpalycus47: It is not rhetoric. It is science.
For example I have stared scientific reasons why abiogenesis would not be expected to be observable today.
Now you REFUTE those reasons. That is, with evidence and argument.

Blackshoes: No ! It's your opinions and assumptions! NOT science ! The facts say otherwise !
Why would your fairytale abiogenesis not be observable today ?
Waits for typical excuses

harpalycus47: What facts?
You assert and nothing more.

Blackshoes: Look Harpy. You're so brainwashed and bias, it's pointless to argue with you . You know not what you do !

harpalycus47: In what way would the presence of oxygen not be inimical to abiogenetically derived life.

Blackshoes: Really ? So OOL researcher's cannot do what they want within laboratory ?
Waits for your typical explanation of the excuses
No matter what you accept and imagine Abiogenesis is naturalistically Impossible .
Thems the facts Jack!
That's why it cannot happen, and has never happened !

harpalycus47: Explain what you mean. What cannot researchers do what they want?

harpalycus47: And I'm waiting for any answer at all from you.

Blackshoes: OMG You know what I meant ! Todays researchers can mirror almost anything within a laboratory. However, they cannot repeat the conditions of the impossible!
That's why is isn't happening, because it never happened abiogenesis is naturalistically IMPOSSIBLE

harpalycus47: How can they 'mirror' deep time?
How can they reproduce conditions that remain unknown?
How can they reproduce a chance sequence of unknown events?
They can experiment and investigate.
They cannot produce abiogenesis to order.

harpalycus47: And I don't know what you mean.
You cannot reproduce the unknown like that. You can gradually learn what is necessary, but not with a click of the fingers.

harpalycus47: You haven't the faintest grasp of the discipline.

harpalycus47: What conditions are impossible and how do you know they are?

Blackshoes: How can they 'mirror' deep time. You don't have to; that's what the laboratory is for !
How can they reproduce conditions that remain unknown? It's unknown because they cannot invent something that cannot happen, and has never happened !
How can they reproduce a chance sequence of unknown events? it's unknowable because again it cannot happen! It's impossible
They can experiment and investigate. Of course you can, some still investigate perpetual motion
They cannot produce abiogenesis to order. It's impossible the science is clear as day !
*Religious fanatism cannot change the fact that Abiogenesis is naturalistically Impossible
* or should I say antireligious fanatism ? Either way it's fanatical !

harpalycus47: “How can they 'mirror' deep time. You don't have to that what the laboratory is for !”
What are you jabbering about? You have no idea how long it takes for replicating molecules to form by chance, for hypercycles to be created, for precursors to be created, for complex biochemical pathways to be formed - and you think that just having a lab can do all that by flicking a switch????
"How can they reproduce conditions that remain unknown? it's unknown because they cannot invent something that cannot happen, and has never happened !"
No. it's unknown. That's it. It might be the case. It might not. I don't know. You don't know You just pretend to.
"How can they reproduce a chance sequence of unknown events? it's unknowable because again it cannot happen! It's impossible.”
They can experiment and investigate. Of course you can, some still investigate perpetual motion"
There is a reason perpetual motion is impossible - what reason do you have for saying that abiogenesis is impossible?
"They cannot produce abiogenesis to order. It's impossible the science is clear as day !"
What science is as clear as day. Specify, don't assert.
You are just bleating rubbish.
Pretending to know what you don't.

harpalycus47: “*Religious fanatism cannot change the fact that Abiogenesis is naturalistically Impossible
* or should I say antireligious fanatism ? Either way it's fanatical !”
So why does Tour say it isn't impossible, even though he's a religious fanatic.

harpalycus47: You continue to bleat nonsense. Not a fact, an argument or piece of evidence.

Blackshoes: It doesn't matter what yours, mine, or Tours personal opinion is ! The facts n' science is obvious.
Only those that know no better, are blind to reality, or just stubborn! Abiogenesis is impossible because everything we know of OOL says so !
RE: You continue to bleat nonsense. Not a fact, an argument or piece of evidence.
DITTO However the difference is that I have mountains of real scientific support to bleat ! You bleat rhetoric an bias and assumptions (Edited by Blackshoes)

harpalycus47: Avoid any response to Tour. Of course you do. Somebody who actually knows some chemistry, that you yourself called a genius, says quite clearly and repeatedly that he cannot say that abiogenesis is impossible.
If you have mountains of evidence then produce a grain.
You claim you have evidence. All you do is post nonsense blogs and fail to respond to criticisms of them
Produce your evidence.
You said the above blog was irrefutable.
There was nothing to refute.
It was totally devoid of any evidence or argument.
Assertions. Assertion. Assertion.

harpalycus47: So, what facts of science make abiogenesis impossible?
Straightforward question.
You have mountains of evidence.
Give one piece.

Blackshoes: He said "AS a scientist" he cannot say that someday they may find a natural way to abiogenesis. He also stated that that abiogenesis cannot happen therefore it pointless to research it !
Opinion means nothing to the wise! However to you they're everything, because that's all you have to support your fairytale
Real science involves observation,repeatability , research and verification!

harpalycus47: We are talking science. He has never said that abiogenesis can never happen.
I have science. You have no science.
You haven't given a single scientific fact or argument.
You have merely misquoted a scientist.
DELETED by BLACKSHOES

harpalycus47: So where does OOL not have these?

Blackshoes: Only a blind man, fool or a liar would make such make the false accusation, that I have not supported everything that I've posted with real science !

harpalycus47: "He said "AS a scientist" he cannot say that someday they may find a natural way to abiogenesis."
EXACTLY
So much for your abiogenesis is impossible.

harpalycus47: Aah so now the snivelling little coward has started deleting. No answers, no arguments, no evidence,
"I have science. You have no science.
You haven't given a single scientific fact or argument.
You have merely misquoted a scientist." is what I said
and you are immediately hiding it.
Usual responses.
You have lied over and over again.
You cannot cite where Tour allegedly said that.
No matter how many times you are asked.
You are a liar.
DELETED by Blackshoes.

Harpalycus47
And know the deletion and the blogfog.
What a terrified little liar you are.
DELETED by Blackshoes.

Blackshoes: Trolls are never to be tolerated ! Auto deletion !
16 days ago Report
0
In Vino  Veritas
In Vino Veritas: Better put it here, Mr Shoes will just delete it.

Says he refuses to argue with who he considers a fool, deletes their post then proceeds to do exactly that. Just so as to appear that he's right and his name calling is justified.
We see who the fool is Mr Shoes 🤣🤣🤣🤣
16 days ago Report
0
kittybobo34
kittybobo34: Wouldn't surprise me if BS was also a flat earther.
16 days ago Report
0
BelgianStrider
BelgianStrider: bs as long as you continue to behave as an hypocrite which you are !!!
I will not stop to claim j tour is an exposed LYING FRAUD senior fellow of the d.i.
(Edited by BelgianStrider)
15 days ago Report
0
Rick Prime
Rick Prime: Bs this bs that who cares what bs posts? He doesn’t post on this forum anymore. Not since he was suspended and had his hand smacked.
15 days ago Report
0
harpalycus47
harpalycus47: DELETOPHILIA NEWS FLASH.

Blackshoes speaks:
“Doesn't matter what anyone thinks or believes, about science or me; according to everything that science knows of genetic, DNA, nature, biology, and almost every scientific discipline, abiogenesis is naturalistically Impossible.
Only the dishonest, programmed, blind, fanatical, arrogant, and lack reason, logic, and scientific knowledge would say otherwise.”
The science of evolution is anything but science. (Page 289)

Very well, Blackshoes, then give me one referenced quote by a named scientist that says abiogenesis IS IMPOSSIBLE.
Excluding religious fundamentalists with an agenda of course, though I would bet that even they don’t make such an absolute claim. Tour certainly doesn’t.
Or give me one piece of evidence or one argument that shows that abiogenesis IS IMPOSSIBLE.
Seeing, according to you, that EVERYTHING that science knows shows this to be the case, this should be ridiculously easy.

If you cannot find any such quote, then does that mean that the entire scientific community is dishonest, programmed, blind, fanatical, arrogant, and lacking reason, logic, and scientific knowledge?
And that you know better.

I have already posted this in the Most atheists don’t know about science forum (Page 1240) and I predict that you will make no attempt to answer but will delete it immediately, showing not only that you have no answers and your words are empty bombast, but that you know you don’t have answers and desperately avoid giving them.


(Edited by harpalycus47)
14 days ago Report
0
BelgianStrider
BelgianStrider: casey luskin, a staff of the center for science and culture (csc), formerly known as the center for the renewal of science and culture (crsc), part of the discovery institute (d.i.) -> an exposed blatant anti-scientific liar!
johnatan wells, a senior fellow of the d.i. -> an exposed blatant anti-scientific liar!

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Science_and_Culture
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Wells_(intelligent_design_advocate)

With those TWO FACTS only, the flogbog is pure crap !!!
14 days ago Report
0
BelgianStrider
BelgianStrider: The fossil record even provide UNDENIABLE EVIDENCE for a common ancestor of the cats, bears and dogs !!!

"Cats, dogs, and bears share a common ancestor! 🐱🐶🐻 Fossils of Dormaalocyon latouri, a 55 million-year-old species, were discovered in Belgium. This ancient creature is believed to be closely linked to the origin of carnivoraformes – the group that includes cats, dogs, bears, and weasels1. These carnivorous mammals likely originated in Europe during the Paleocene and Eocene epochs. Interestingly, Dormaalocyon was a tree-dweller, scurrying from tree to tree in warm, humid woodlands. Its discovery sheds light on the evolutionary development of today’s warm-blooded carnivores. So, next time you see a cat or a dog, remember they’re distant relatives! 🌳🦁🦊

!Image 1: Cats and dogs had a common ancestor, and here it is
https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/scitech/science/343965/cats-and-dogs-had-a-common-ancestor-and-here-it-is/story/

Learn more

1 gmanetwork.com
2 theguardian.com
3 hummingbirdsplus.org

14 days ago Report
0
BelgianStrider
BelgianStrider: Blackshoes: Trouble I have begged Harpy to stop his false accusations and slander! Multiple times and if he continued. I would simply auto delete him every time I saw his post . As I now also intend to remove all of his post if he continues to post here without welcome.

I have no tolerate for internet trolls and of course you'll defend those that persist where they're not welcome. Due to some sort of perverted desire for free speech. all the while having others suffer that which you would not ! (Edited by Blackshoes)
4 minutes ago
BelgianStrider
BelgianStrider: The problem is: bs don't like the truth at all !!!

Especially when we have evidence that tour, luskin and wells are pathetical pathological liars
a few seconds ago • Edit • Delete • Report
14 days ago Report
0
BelgianStrider
BelgianStrider: (Post deleted by Blackshoes 2 minutes ago)

Blackshoes
Blackshoes: Like I said Strider when you tell the truth , I'll listen ! Slandering me is your failed and ugly opinion an simply false accusations (Edited by Blackshoes)
a few seconds ago


BelgianStrider
BelgianStrider: it's not an opinion: IT'S AN UNDENIABLE OBSERVABLE FACT!!!
a few seconds ago
14 days ago Report
0
BelgianStrider
BelgianStrider: (Post deleted by Blackshoes 2 minutes ago)
Blackshoes
Blackshoes: Like I said Strider when you tell the truth , I'll listen ! Slandering me is your failed and ugly opinion an simply false accusations (Edited by Blackshoes)
a few seconds ago
BelgianStrider
BelgianStrider: it's not an opinion: IT'S AN UNDENIABLE OBSERVABLE FACT!!!
a few seconds ago
14 days ago Report
0
BelgianStrider
BelgianStrider: BelgianStrider: it's not an opinion: IT'S AN UNDENIABLE OBSERVABLE FACT!!!
a few seconds ago
Blackshoes
Blackshoes: In your opinion
a few seconds ago
BelgianStrider
BelgianStrider: it's factual: what you don't like gets deleted
a few seconds ago
14 days ago Report
0
BelgianStrider
BelgianStrider: Blackshoes: Yes he has endlessly slandered by accused me of Lying! I have never willing lied here.
(Edited by Blackshoes)
a few seconds ago
BelgianStrider
BelgianStrider: except that bs is a "deleting" hypocrite
a few seconds ago
14 days ago Report
0
harpalycus47
harpalycus47: It is no good.
Blackshoes is someone of limited intellect, egregious ignorance and profound bias.

His scientific understanding is abysmal (he demands to be shown dogs with wings as evidence for macroevolution, life to be synthesised in a laboratory as evidence for abiogenesis, asserts that rocks cannot bend (by which he means fold), and claims that simple geometric increase calculations are ”ridiculous and unrealistic”). This is despite being repeatedly told, with appropriate evidence, that his parody of evolutionary theory is wrong. Like everything else, it is ignored.

His logic is non-existent (he considers that macroevolution and abiogenesis to be impossible without understanding that this cannot be the case unless he can give a fundamental reason - such as the first Law of Thermodynamics making perpetual motion machines impossible.)

He posts ridiculous long collections of blogs with which one cannot engage. These are usually produced as a kind of distraction technique when he is under pressure.

The blogs and videos are almost without exception products of creationist organisations and have no scientific status.

When they are thoroughly criticised, he ignores the critique totally and proceeds to repost the blogs and videos without change or defence. (see in particular a blog of quotes in which every single quote could be shown to have been taken out of context, misattributed or misleadingly edited – and is still posted)

His statements are reiterative cut and paste assertions lacking any argument or evidence. (Chemical evolution is not possible! Abiogenesis is naturalistically Impossible! Them’s the facts, Jack)

His assertions verge on the farcical (“Doesn't matter what anyone thinks or believes, about science or me; according to everything that science knows of genetic, DNA, nature, biology, and almost every scientific discipline, abiogenesis is naturalistically Impossible.)

He repeatedly fails to answer questions (he once refused to say whether a whale was a fish or a mammal!!!) I kept a list of questions he failed to answer for one period. He has been asked for the answers on numerous occasions and refuses to provide them.

He falsely claims to have already answered all questions and refuses to respond ("Again, I have answered every one of your question multiple times and when I did repeat the answer and where n' you still deny the truth! So do your own research and reread my answers! I'm not dropping back every time you lie and falsely accuse me of not answering you. I don't need your endless BS n' claim that you know that which you clearly DON'T KNOW!”).

He accuses anyone who disagrees with him of his own faults (“So you say then prove the facts and science wrong show something other than your faith and beliefs! I have endlessly! You're just not allowed to accept the truth science and reality”)

He deletes posts for no reason (For example, when he complained about science being restricted by methodological naturalism a subsequent posting began with “Modern science follows methodological naturalism. Notice it is methodological not philosophical. It does not assume naturalism as the only possible causal relationship. It says that only by working within the parameters of naturalism can science work. You can philosophise about naturalism and supernaturalism as much as you like but it will not be the methodology of science.” and continued and finished in the same vein. It was deleted.

Not only does he delete posts but then posts his own unchallengeable point of view. He also goes back to posts that have been answered and retrospectively edits them.

He is the archetypal example of the Dunning-Kruger effect (regarding the impossibility of abiogenesis – “Only the dishonest, programmed, blind, fanatical, arrogant, and lack reason, logic, and scientific knowledge would say otherwise.” – that would be almost the entire scientific community!”)

He is a liar. He has claimed that James Tour has asserted that abiogenesis is impossible, flatly contrary to a number of instances, from videos and Tour’s own website where clearly states that he cannot say this. When repeatedly challenged he has invariably responded with his standard response that he has already done so.
1. Specifically he maintains he has answered “every one of your question multiple times”.
2. He insists that he has given a precise reference (“Again, do your own research and drop back find my answer for yourself. I gave you the video an time where he stated that!”)
3. He has been asked for a reason as to why he will not give the answer but has failed to do so.
4. He complains bitterly of not being believed and accuses me of denying the truth and being a liar ("Again your denial of the evidence I have given over and over and again and again and you continually deny the truth that it has been given ! It's pointless to argue with the fool !".
5. It has been suggested by myself and others that he simply gives the information, takes note of the page number and refers any further questions to that. He has failed to even respond to such a suggestion.
6. It has been observed that it would be odd for me, if I had indeed been given that information, to insist on being given it again as such would prove me wrong. And it would be even odder for him not to give the information under such circumstances.
7. I have word searched the forum and been unable to find anything that would constitute an answer.
8. He has never suggested that he might be in error or given any other credible excuse.

I believe that this constitutes grounds for believing, beyond any reasonable doubt, that he is lying.

I shall simply criticise his assertions and risible blogs from a different forum.
14 days ago Report
1
BelgianStrider
14 days ago Report
0
BelgianStrider
BelgianStrider: In your opinion bs, "WHALES: FISH OR MAMMALS?"

DON'T COME UP WITH THE BLATANT LIE YOU ANSWERED THAT!!!

I FOLLOWED ALL YOUR INPUTS SINCE THEN AND YOU JUST IGNORED THE QUESTION HYPOCRITE !!!!

YOU NEVER GAVE AN ANSWER !!!!!
14 days ago Report
0
BelgianStrider
BelgianStrider: Strangely that input based on facts has been deleted
14 days ago Report
0
harpalycus47
harpalycus47: How unusual, Belgian
14 days ago Report
0
BelgianStrider
BelgianStrider: yeah exceptionaly unusual from a guy pretending to promote the TRUTH
(Edited by BelgianStrider)
14 days ago Report
0
BelgianStrider
BelgianStrider: What just gives us a little more evidence that he f**cking doesn't care about the TRUTH !!!!
14 days ago Report
0
BelgianStrider
BelgianStrider: because their crea-tin lying gourous indoctrinated them never answer any question

z had also that same hypocritical behaviour !!!
14 days ago Report
0