So you dont know how to use a dictionary?Prove that's the definition?! Now you're asking for proof of definitions?
So you dont know how to use a dictionary?Prove that's the definition?! Now you're asking for proof of definitions?
YAWN.We do not KNOW how the organelle assembly line evolved. But despite it happening 4 billion years ago, scientists have a good idea of how it could have happened. And that is enough to destroy your claim that it cannot have evolved.
Prove that you can use a dictionary, ferengi.So you dont know how to use a dictionary?
I think that my ability to use a dictionary is about the same as your ability to use a dictionary.So you dont know how to use a dictionary?
Unsupported as the rest of your claims.I think that my ability to use a dictionary is about the same as your ability to use a dictionary.
Prove your claim ros -Prove that you can use a dictionary, ferengi.
Use your dictionary to look up "random mutation". Then use your dictionary to look up "natural selection". If you still have a problem, then read a good biology textbook.
Prove your claim ros -Use your dictionary to look up "random mutation". Then use your dictionary to look up "natural selection". If you still have a problem, then read a good biology textbook.
So, you have no interest in looking up words in the dictionary as I suggested.
Prove your claim ros -So, you have no interest in looking up words in the dictionary as I suggested.
I already gave an expansion/clarification of what I meant by "substantive" in a post you even quoted but you ignored it as an expansion/clarification of what I meant. Now you're on about whether I can support what I say "substantive" means,Unsupported as the rest of your claims.
as if the issue of whether "addressing the question" means "substantive" even matters. Rossum's reply addressed your question, and all you can do is to subvert the actual issue and ignore whether what he said makes his case or not.Prove thats the definition - atheoevos making stuff up again.
I think this neatly sums up the ID approach. It is all shouting, bluster and posing at first, but then their ridiculous claims are thoroughly trashed, they get bored and wander off.YAWN.
It is available in all the biology textbooks at every school in the world. The research underlying it is published on PubMed. There is no excuse unless you are living in a cave.Present this allege evidence.
Talk about projecting .I think this neatly sums up the ID approach. It is all shouting, bluster and posing at first, but then their ridiculous claims are thoroughly trashed, they get bored and wander off.
I dont care about your made up non-sense.I already gave an expansion/clarification of what I meant by "substantive"
Unsupported assertion.Rossum's reply addressed your question,
If thats true what can't you present any evidence?It is available in all the biology textbooks at every school in the world.
How did evo create DNA? How did evo create the information stored in the DNA to create the protein? How did evo create the digital code that is used to encode the information stored in DNA?The sequence is encoded in DNA
I dont care about your made up non-sense.
If you're willing to agree to discuss the topic of whether Rossum's post was on point to your question in an intellectually honest way, and agree to some general principles as to what an intellectually honest discussion looks like, I'd be happy to engage with you on that.Unsupported assertion.
When have you ever been?in an intellectually honest way
Until you affirmatively say that you want to have an intellectually honest conversation, including what that might look like, I won't be responding to you.When have you ever been?
Can you prove ros ever proved her claim true?