Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Since you refuse to address your ignorance of the concept of scientific evidence you lost the right to demand any. Also you really should not use the facepalm smiley since that generally applies to your posts.So, you don't know the facts yourself, but rely on a link to make your arguments?
..all the while dismissing my REAL, ORIGINAL arguments?
And you accuse me of pretending?
Assuming that others are ignorant and dishonest only because one is ignorant and dishonest is usually an error.I have seen this before.. it is common knowledge in the field of cosmology.
But the dogmatic declarations are impossible to miss, for any skeptic, or someone not looking for confirmation of belief.
For example:
the universe underwent a dramatic early period of expansion, growing by more than a trillion trillion-fold in less than a trillionth of a trillionth of a second. Tiny fluctuations were generated during this expansion that eventually grew to form galaxies.
Right. They 'measured!' this dramatic early period, where everything exploded in 'in less than a trillionth of a trillionth of a second!' They only assert their theories as 'settled science!', to fool the gullible.
It evidently works.
I cannot see how any scientific minded, reasonable thinking person could buy all these bluffs and dogmatic assertions, with only allusions of 'absolute scientific proof!', of some mysterious data that only the high priests can interpret for us.
'Don't read the texts for yourselves! It will just confuse you. Take our word for it, and trust that we have Special Insight into these obscure mysteries, and will deliver the Truth, with no hidden agenda!'
..history repeating itself..
Minor changes? (Minor changes?) What minor changes?
Again -- no matter what they come up with, so far I have not seen any fossil (including the type mentioned with a fossil) of "micro evolution." The fossils, it seems to me, are complete in form.
What evidence? The fossils that are complete in form and shape and then you say they are micro-evolved?
No growth between forms. Any fossils I've seen or heard about are complete in form just like the unicell that supposedly popped up out of the water and became "alive" from non-living matter, so it is said. Although that was conjecture, however, these conjectured organisms (the unicell and likely in the minds of the evolutionists) were complete, needing nothing but, of course, the elements around them to survive. Since these organisms were complete and completely formed as they emerged, there is no evidence of micro-evolution. The items I saw in the fossilized pictures on wikipedia were complete. Meaning -- no vestige of emerging parts moving from one thing to another.
I sure don't know what the equation you put in your post means, perhaps you'd like to kindly explain that instead of telling me how ill-informed I am?
I read it. ..as i have read and reviewed many links given in lieu of reasoned arguments from most of the True Believers here.
In the future I'll rephrase, yes, I have seen one possibility or conjecture of Dr. Szostak as to how life supposedly emerged from chemicals.
Even that tree has changed over time, so it would be kind of nice to have a somewhat simple and definitive explanation from those who believe in, espouse, promote, proclaim, declare evolution as true, rather than the proclamation that non-believers of evolution are ignorant, dumb, and so forth.
You would know..
Please try not to use the idiotic "complete in form" line. What else would you expect for any life that ever existed. And for graptolite minor changes they could be like some mentioned here:
Again, please do not use that meaningless garbage phrase. It only demonstrates a lack of understanding of how evolution works.
What 'explaining!'? What 'evidence!'?
You would know..
..that is one of your favorite and common tactics.. accusations of 'lies!' & 'Ignorance!'
When Bluff, Belittling, Bullying, and Belief is hurled at me constantly, with little to no substance (other than an occasional link to argue by proxy!), ignorance of the topic is a rational conclusion.
It's ok.. most people ARE ignorant of the science behind common ancestry. They trust in 'experts!' and their Indoctrination...and, when pressed to explain their beliefs, or the actual science behind them, they stoop to Belittling and Bluff.. with the occasion Bleating.
..as is continually on display, here.
The hard core propagandists.. the Dedicated True Believers, with jihadist zeal for their faith, add Bullying, vicious reviling, distortions, poisoning the well, and every imagined fallacy out there. Anything but facts and science.
What do the 4 B practitioners have in common?
Bobbleheads, each and every one.
Their critical thinking skills are dead, and they leap into the abyss of Blind Faith. 'Science!' is just a propaganda meme.. a meaningless word with no substance.
What 'explaining!'? What 'evidence!'?
More Bluff, from the religion of the 4 B's?
All you pseudo science pretenders have done is post links, because you don't know the facts, and just trust in your High Priests to tell you what to believe.
Where have you made ANY points of reason, or facts, or arguments to support your belief in common descent? You have posted perhaps HUNDREDS of reviling, demeaning smears toward your ideological enemies, but nothing to evidence your belief in common ancestry.
I sure don't know what the equation you put in your post means, perhaps you'd like to kindly explain that instead of telling me how ill-informed I am?