Atheists and Agnostics risk infinite loss for no gain.

So dishonest. I've already addressed the above in detail FIVE TIMES only to be completely ignored or dismissed without response.
Then one at a time.

How do you explain the Cambrian explosion? Within a short time, all the basic body types appear fully developed. The trilobite just appears and yet it has one of the most complex eyes.
 
So dishonest. I've already addressed the above in detail FIVE TIMES only to be completely ignored or dismissed without response.
Liars for Christ just don't realise how much damage they do to their brand. Mind you, there are Christians reading this that are saying nothing. They aren't covering themselves in glory either.
 
Why are there living fossils?
Evolution adapts organisms to their environment. If the environment does not change for a long time, then the organisms do not change for a long time. Also be careful of names. Fossil coelacanths lived in shallow water and were up to 18 inches long. Living coelacanths are different species, live in deep water and are about six feet long. They are in the same clade, but they are not as old as their fossil relatives.

How do you explain the Cambrian explosion?
Teeth and shells. Both evolved about the same time, likely due to a predator-prey arms race. Teeth and shells fossilise very well because they are hard. Before that, everything was soft bodied and did not fossilise well. Thus we have a lot more Cambrian fossils due to much easier fossilisation.

For example, conodonts. They had soft bodies with hard tooth-arrays. The tooth-arrays were discovered in 1856, and many have been found since. Fossils of the soft body were only found in the 1980s, and are much rarer. It turned out that they were very early chordates, or possibly vertebrates - they had a notochord.
 
Evolution adapts organisms to their environment. If the environment does not change for a long time, then the organisms do not change for a long time. Also be careful of names. Fossil coelacanths lived in shallow water and were up to 18 inches long. Living coelacanths are different species, live in deep water and are about six feet long. They are in the same clade, but they are not as old as their fossil relatives.


Teeth and shells. Both evolved about the same time, likely due to a predator-prey arms race. Teeth and shells fossilise very well because they are hard. Before that, everything was soft bodied and did not fossilise well. Thus we have a lot more Cambrian fossils due to much easier fossilisation.

For example, conodonts. They had soft bodies with hard tooth-arrays. The tooth-arrays were discovered in 1856, and many have been found since. Fossils of the soft body were only found in the 1980s, and are much rarer. It turned out that they were very early chordates, or possibly vertebrates - they had a notochord.
Impossible by evolution and random mutations, especially with sexual reproduction. The official response is by those unfortunately deceived by the no God assumption, in this area of knowledge. See you have not yet answered just this simple question.
 
Liars for Christ just don't realise how much damage they do to their brand. Mind you, there are Christians reading this that are saying nothing. They aren't covering themselves in glory either.
Stop with all the false accusations. Is that what evolutionists do? Would Buddha approve?
 
Why did you say this, if it wasn't true?
False accusations again
You said you answered this 5x already. You did not. That is dishonest. Only the first part was posted just this morning.

How do you explain the Cambrian explosion? Within a short time, all the basic body types appear fully developed. The trilobite just appears and yet it has one of the most complex eyes.
 
I was referring to your post #439. My most recent detailed set of answers is here.
How do you explain the Cambrian explosion? Within a short time, all the basic body types appear fully developed. The trilobite just appears and yet it has one of the most complex eyes.

Please do not evade. Give an answer
 
How do you explain the Cambrian explosion? Within a short time, all the basic body types appear fully developed. The trilobite just appears and yet it has one of the most complex eyes.

Please do not evade. Give an answer
You are changing the topic again while ignoring my questions. That is dishonest. Your question here was also just answered above by Rossum. You told him he had not answered, which was also dishonest.
 
You are changing the topic again while ignoring my questions. That is dishonest. Your question here was also just answered above by Rossum. You told him he had not answered, which was also dishonest.
The first 2 sentences of your reply is what you are doing.

How do you explain the Cambrian explosion? Within a short time, all the basic body types appear fully developed. The trilobite just appears and yet it has one of the most complex eyes.
 
The first 2 sentences of your reply is what you are doing.

How do you explain the Cambrian explosion? Within a short time, all the basic body types appear fully developed. The trilobite just appears and yet it has one of the most complex eyes.
Already answered here.

Why aren't you answering what I asked?
 
He aced logic, or so he says. I took a logic course in 1977, which I didn't ace, since I dropped out of university. I can do a truth table for material implication. This is basic stuff . Let's give a statement for him to work with:

If STLB is capable of producing a truth table for material implication, then I am a monkey's uncle.
Hey, I took discrete algebra at a community college about 1980 after I dropped out, Don't remember material implication, but 5 minutes on Wikipedia and it probably was in that class. So assuming your premise statement true;
If he is capable and you are not a monkeys uncle, then the premise is false.
If he is not capable and you are a monkeys uncle, then true, you are still a monkeys uncle
If he is not capable and you are not a monkeys uncle then you are still not a monkeys uncle.
Which amounts to if he is not capable, then we can say nothing about whether you are a monkeys uncle.
or if he cannot produce a truth table for material implication, he can't use it as a proof.

LOL maybe he can read this truth table.
 
Back
Top