Counterfeit science/mythology.

MikeT, have you tried drinking milk while listening to hilarious comedy? It cannot be done‼️‼️
That’s why evolutionary dogma should come with a warning label. ⚠️ WARNING‼️do not attempt to drink milk while listening to evolution comedy‼️‼️😇🙏🤣🫠
If you only realised that the only reason that you can drink milk at all is that your ancestors evolved adult lactose tolerance. Your mocking reveals your deep ignorance of your own biology. You mock yourself and your own heritage.
 
Except that we don't have it. We have a translation of a fourth hand account of someone writing down what they heard decades before of someone else describing events that happened centuries before that. There's not a single eyewitness account of anything in the entire Bible. It's all hand me down myth.
You’re confusing evolution with creation.

The truth be told, no one has ever seen evolution taking place. No one has evidence in the form of scientific fact that shows evolution having taken place.

On the other hand, the universe abounds with evidence of fact proving the existence of God and the reliability of His written Word
 
If you only realised that the only reason that you can drink milk at all is that your ancestors evolved adult lactose tolerance. Your mocking reveals your deep ignorance of your own biology. You mock yourself and your own heritage.
Come now MikeT, where’s your sense of humor⁉️⁉️
 
You’re confusing evolution with creation.

The truth be told, no one has ever seen evolution taking place. No one has evidence in the form of scientific fact that shows evolution having taken place.

On the other hand, the universe abounds with evidence of fact proving the existence of God and the reliability of His written Word
Nope, it doesn't. You have nothing but faith, while evolution has science and evidence. More than you could study if you did nothing else for the rest of your life. So much evidence that no scientist could ever claim to have seen it all. And your faith has made you blind. Your loss.
 
If you only realised that the only reason that you can drink milk at all is that your ancestors evolved adult lactose tolerance. Your mocking reveals your deep ignorance of your own biology. You mock yourself and your own heritage.
Look, I realize you guys take your mythology very seriously.
But at some point you’ll need to take a break and a closer look around you and reconsider the differences between the facts of science and the false interpretations of the facts of science that you have chosen to embrace
 
Thank you, I will go explore those different types of evolution and learn about them.

Now, why does the distinction between those types of evolution matter such that you asked me in post #27 which one I was talking about?
You’re entirely welcome. You come across as an evolutionist I could respect
 
Look, I realize you guys take your mythology very seriously.
But at some point you’ll need to take a break and a closer look around you and reconsider the differences between the facts of science and the false interpretations of the facts of science that you have chosen to embrace
Like that fact of science that the evolution of lactose tolerance in adults is so recent in humans that it has not spread throughout the population. That's exactly the sort of fact that we take on that you fail to acknowledge because it challenges your pitiful myths.
 
I didn’t mean to imply otherwise.


But what are you looking at such that one can tell abrupt from not abrupt?
I see your having trouble with this.
Just curious how much you understand what you believe in, that’s all.
I understand that the universe has to have a first cause, and according to evolution there is no first cause, only spontaneous explosion of a microscopic particle of dust.
 
I see your having trouble with this.

I understand that the universe has to have a first cause, and according to evolution there is no first cause, only spontaneous explosion of a microscopic particle of dust.
Why can't you answer my question about how one is able to distinguish between a fossil appears abruptly in the fossil record and one that doesn't.

Here, let's try it this way - Please fill in this blank: One can distinguish between a fossil that appears abruptly in the fossil record and one that doesn't by doing _________________________ and/or observing ___________________________ and/or _________________.
 
Why can't you answer my question about how one is able to distinguish between a fossil appears abruptly in the fossil record and one that doesn't.

Here, let's try it this way - Please fill in this blank: One can distinguish between a fossil that appears abruptly in the fossil record and one that doesn't by doing _________________________ and/or observing ___________________________ and/or _________________.
If I remember correctly, I've been asking for TRANSITIONAL FORMS for a while now and you haven't presented any. You already know what the word abruptly means, you're trying to lead me down a rabbit trail. So how bout you first answer my first question first, WHERE ARE THE TRANSITIONAL FORMS?
 
If I remember correctly, I've been asking for TRANSITIONAL FORMS for a while now and you haven't presented any.
You didn't ask me about transitional forms, you just asked me about evidence for evolution, and I replied by directly answering your question.

You already know what the word abruptly means,
I don't know what *you* think the word abruptly means in terms of fossils and evolutionary theory. That's why I'm asking you. Can you please answer my question?

you're trying to lead me down a rabbit trail. So how bout you first answer my first question first, WHERE ARE THE TRANSITIONAL FORMS?
I asked you my question first, so if you answer mine, I'll then answer yours. Fair is fair, you know.
 
Ok. When I say abruptly appear, I mean they suddenly and unexpectedly appear in the fossil record.
Does that answer your question ❓
 
Ok. When I say abruptly appear, I mean they suddenly and unexpectedly appear in the fossil record.
Does that answer your question ❓
It actually doesn't, because it just substitutes synonyms - suddenly, unexpectedly - for abruptly. It still doesn't tell me what suddenly, unexpectedly, or abruptly looks like. That is, what do you have to observe to then conclude that it is abrupt, sudden, unexpected, etc.

ETA: Your answer should allow someone to *distinguish* between abrupt and not abrupt, sudden and not sudden, etc.
 
It actually doesn't, because it just substitutes synonyms - suddenly, unexpectedly - for abruptly. It still doesn't tell me what suddenly, unexpectedly, or abruptly looks like. That is, what do you have to observe to then conclude that it is abrupt, sudden, unexpected, etc.

ETA: Your answer should allow someone to *distinguish* between abrupt and not abrupt, sudden and not sudden, etc.
Gus, let me help.
A fossil is said to appear abruptly if appears fully functional, shows no sign of evolution and is preceded by no evolutionary antecedent.
Which, incidentally, is the case with all known fossils.
 
Like that fact of science that the evolution of lactose tolerance in adults is so recent in humans that it has not spread throughout the population. That's exactly the sort of fact that we take on that you fail to acknowledge because it challenges your pitiful myths.
I’m not challenged in the lest.
You’ve been successfully challenged with finding at least a shred of evolutionary evidence to prove you really are a monkeys uncle. I’m just saying you don’t really need to keep trying to prove that. 🤣😄😇
 
Like that fact of science that the evolution of lactose tolerance in adults is so recent in humans that it has not spread throughout the population. That's exactly the sort of fact that we take on that you fail to acknowledge because it challenges your pitiful myths.
Once again you’re mistaken.
Science and evolution have nothing in common. Science deals with empirical facts. Evolution deals with fables and mythology that some people believe are real.
 
Back
Top