Creationist - What about Evolution you disagree with?

[Alceste]

Do you guys notice a trend? Whenever you ask creationist SPECIFIC questions, they cannot answer. For example:

Question 1: How do you think God created everything?
Answer: Evolution is false because blah blah blah

Question 2: What do you think the Theory of Evolution says:
Answer: You can't define species so Kind is not a problem.

Question 3: What problem do you have with definition, using the correct definition of Evolution?
Answer: Many persons who are well-trained do have skeptism about evolution.

WTF????

Why can't creationist answer simple, straight-forward questions?????:help:

(actually, i think i get an idea for another thread)

Because their religion compels them to behave as if they have the correct answer to every conceivable question (otherwise it could not be the one true church). It makes for some interesting antics when you ask questions on subjects where their ignorance looms large.

 

[Autodidact]

I would expect the evidence you find to substaniate your claims rather than change them.

If you truly expect people that have belived in God traditionally for decades, and their parents before them, it is going to take alot more robustness than your reearchers can provide at present.

Here's your main problem. You seem to suffer under the delusion that a scientific theory asserts that God does not exist or did not create the world. You are wrong.

Darwins theory has been disproven

Really? So all of Biology is just wrong? btw, who disproved it, and when? Could you cite the publication that describes that disproof?

. He purported Gradualism. Rather the fossil record shows stasis for millions of years at a time. Immunity to disease and somatic adaptive changes such as those do not lead to macroevolution. If they did you would have found gradualism in the fossil record. Your researchers did not find this. The case should be closed. It isn't.

Actually, no Darwin actually saw, even at that seminal stage, that evolution would not be a steady, gradual process. In any case, whether slow and steady, or intermittent jumps, it still explain the development of new species.

Even if I did not hope in a God, I still would find it difficult to accept the current evidence.

That's odd. In that case, you would be the only person on earth who doesn't accept ToE for non-religious reasons. O.K., what's your theory then?

There is something wrong with what your researchers are doing and the resulting interpretations of their biased modells which still do not provide clarity.

So you say. Not that you know anything about it.

You should not expect anyone to change their views based on what you can currently present as evidence. To suggest that an individual should change long held beliefs based on what you can currently provide is akin to requesting same stop using their reasoning ability and just swallow whatever is put to them.

What about the evidence do you find insufficient? All that you have ever posted has been an irrelevant list of disagreements about application. You have never posted a single piece of evidence or study that actually refutes or rejects ToE.

Those that knock religious beliefs are called religious biggots, and I see many here. It is outdated, it is not what the western world wants and this is reflected in law. I am afraid many here are outdated in their stance and attitudes.

Why do you keep bringing up religion? I thought this thread was about science.

You should have some respect for those that can produce evidence that illustrates reasons for their skepticism.

I would, if there were any.

It illustrates at least that they have considered the evidence and have come to an informed decision. Rather evos pummell such people because you are prepared to go with the flavour of the month and others are not.

Don't you mean the flavor of the last 150 years?

I have provided a link that illustrates researchers unsure as to where Ardi belongs.

Yup.

These researchers estimate human/chimp divergence from 3-5mya. I have seen other research that date the split to 8myo. Yet these researchers are happy with their results and conclude Ardi is misplaced as a human ancestor, but is rather a side branch leading else where.

Yup. You do realize that has nothing to do with whether ToE is correct, right?

This is yet another example on top of the many I have provided that illustrates why I think your researchers are grabbing at straws. The evidence you can provide is surely nothing more than theoretical. I am not giving up a basic long held faith to replace it with another faith, that can support itself no better than any other faith.

Nothing that you have ever posted has ever touched the evidence for ToE. All you ever mention is disagreement about particular instances.



http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100527/full/news.2010.267.html

 

[painted wolf]

I dont know about a fair trade, Im still in the learning phase.
So the question is for the "theory" of creation as compared to "theory" of evolution.

The question was, if creationism is scientific, what about it is testable? What is scientific about creation science?

Your examples are for the microevolution instead of the macroevolution.

There is no practical distinction. But I can provide examples of speciation (macroevolution).

I guess my point is, what is the theory of creationism. We know ToE. But what is the collective theory on "creationism"?

Very good question! That is what have been trying to find out from those who claim creationism is scientific. N luck as of yet though.

How do you guys argue on something that every religion defines slightly different?

I don't really... I just try to make people aware of the science end of things. If people post things that are factually incorrect I try to show where it's wrong.

There needs to be a standard.

Unfortunately the last thing you will get from creationism is a single standard... there are too many interpreations of the same story.

My version (7^10 power ver. 3.5.2011) has the "theory" as a directed life population (all life) on a planet in a solar system in a galaxy in a universe that was also directed.
The mechanism of the life population was through directed DNA/RNA involvement.
The peak of that life population is Homo Sapiens and the end reason is for communication with the Creator.
Testability of all the really cool parts is impossible, but then again the first presupposition of ToE is that a single cell that was able to reproduce was already there is not testable.
So I agree with your examples, it does prove that DNA is involved, its a powerful machine and we are still learning how it all works.
I honestly don't know what you or any of the other educated thinkers are looking for in testability of the metaphysics involved in both theories.
If for example we state that creationist will agree with evolutionist that DNA was involved in the population of our planet, what other tests are there.
Macroevolution may eventually have a rock solid DNA induced branch of life in the lab (I hope is a fuzzy dog like porpoise that fetches junk when I surf), we will all drop our jaws in amazment, until then, still not very testable.
As noted earlier, abiogensis will not even be mentioned (sorry, the fuzzy porpoise got me pumped), so I best not explore Gods words on how and why he started all this mess.
So no testable parts on my metaphysical beliefs, but you sir, have none either (where did that cell come from?, how much time actually does it take for macroevolution?).

I'm a mam.
As a theist I see evolution as the "how" to creation as far as life is concerned.

Macroevolution is simply evolution at the broader population level...including the appearance of new species. Many creationists seem to think it's some wacky dogs into cats thing.
But new species have been observed to evolve, from the London Underground Mosquito to the Evening Primrose (O.gigas) to the Apple Maggot Fly.

Hope this helps

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

Your link goes back to citing your own ignorance. Well done!

Darwin:I cannot believe that in a state of nature new species arise from changes in structure in old species so great & sudden as to deserve to be called monstrosities. Had this been so, we should have had monstrosities closely resembling other species of the same genus or family; as it is comparisons are instituted with distant members of the same great order or even class, appearing as if picked out almost by chance. Nor can I believe that structures could arise from any sudden & great change of structure (excepting possibly in the rarest instances) so beautifully adapted as we know them to be, to the extraordinarily complex conditions of existence against which every species has to struggle. Every part of the machinery seems to have been slowly & cautiously modelled to guard against the innumerable contingencies to which it has to be exposed [p. 319, Charles Darwin's Natural Selection, ed. R. C. Stauffer, 1975]

http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2009/10/what-darwin-said-part-6-gradualism-b.php

The sudden appearance of most species in the geologic record and the lack of evidence of substantial gradual change in most species—from their initial appearance until their extinction—has long been noted, including by Charles Darwin who appealed to the imperfection of the record as the favored explanation.[42][43] When presenting his ideas against the prevailing influences of catastrophism and progressive creationism, which envisaged species being supernaturally created at intervals, Darwin needed to forcefully stress the gradual nature of evolution in accordance with the gradualism promoted by his friend Charles Lyell. He privately expressed concern, noting in the margin of his 1844 Essay, "Better begin with this: If species really, after catastrophes, created in showers world over, my theory false."[44]


"In the fifth edition of On the Origin of Species Darwin wrote that "the periods during which species have undergone modification, though long as measured in years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which they retain the same form"

And yet, even with long periods of stasis, Darwins evolution was meant to be gradual so as to not "create monsters"

This reflective rhetoric appears nothing more than an attemp to keep Darwin alive.

Punctuated eqilibrium, should you accept it, refers to stasis and then rapid/accelerated evolution.

Darwin promoted gradualualism, regardless of periods of stasis, and gradualism is NOT found in the fossil record.
​

So you endorse punctuated equilibrium?

 

[Autodidact]

Yes I know there is debate, and many researchers can look at same evidence and disagree. I have said as much many many times. However evo scientists propose another scientific evolutionary hypothesis.

A creationist can likewise disagree in the hypothesis made of the evidence, however they do not have another evolutionary hypothesis to propose and they are belittled for not accepting the status quo.

Creationists have good reason for their skepticism or disbelieve in the current theories and assumptions made of evidence re TOE, and it is an informed decision for most.

Sure, like our friend on this thread who thinks Big Bang is evolution. Highly informed.

 

[Autodidact]

Hi, a little late in this forum. But what do you mean by testable hypothesis? Can you give an example of a testable hypothesis on evolution (is that what this discussion is about?).

Sure: Every form of life on earth, including those yet to be discovered, will use DNA as its reproductive mechanism. That's 12,000,000 correct predictions so far, and counting.

 

[Autodidact]

I dont know about a fair trade, Im still in the learning phase.
So the question is for the "theory" of creation as compared to "theory" of evolution.
Your examples are for the microevolution instead of the macroevolution.
I guess my point is, what is the theory of creationism. We know ToE. But what is the collective theory on "creationism"?

There isn't one.

How do you guys argue on something that every religion defines slightly different?
There needs to be a standard.

You have to ask each creationist to provide their hypothesis. Then you have to hound them for 30 pages or so of ranting about irrelevant drivel and force them to actually do it. At that point they usually flee the thread. Try it sometime.

My version (7^10 power ver. 3.5.2011) has the "theory" as a directed life population (all life) on a planet in a solar system in a galaxy in a universe that was also directed.
The mechanism of the life population was through directed DNA/RNA involvement.
The peak of that life population is Homo Sapiens and the end reason is for communication with the Creator.

Could you state this in simple, observable terms?

Testability of all the really cool parts is impossible, but then again the first presupposition of ToE is that a single cell that was able to reproduce was already there is not testable.

This is not a presupposition of ToE. You are mistaken. The only assumptions ToE is based on are those necessary for the scientific method to work.

So I agree with your examples, it does prove that DNA is involved, its a powerful machine and we are still learning how it all works.
I honestly don't know what you or any of the other educated thinkers are looking for in testability of the metaphysics involved in both theories.
If for example we state that creationist will agree with evolutionist that DNA was involved in the population of our planet, what other tests are there.
Macroevolution may eventually have a rock solid DNA induced branch of life in the lab (I hope is a fuzzy dog like porpoise that fetches junk when I surf), we will all drop our jaws in amazment, until then, still not very testable.
As noted earlier, abiogensis will not even be mentioned (sorry, the fuzzy porpoise got me pumped), so I best not explore Gods words on how and why he started all this mess.
So no testable parts on my metaphysical beliefs, but you sir, have none either (where did that cell come from?, how much time actually does it take for macroevolution?).

You are mistaken. ToE is testable, and has been tested and passed.

 

[Onlooker]

The question was, if creationism is scientific, what about it is testable? What is scientific about creation science?

There is no practical distinction. But I can provide examples of speciation (macroevolution).

Very good question! That is what have been trying to find out from those who claim creationism is scientific. N luck as of yet though.

I don't really... I just try to make people aware of the science end of things. If people post things that are factually incorrect I try to show where it's wrong.

Unfortunately the last thing you will get from creationism is a single standard... there are too many interpreations of the same story.
I'm a mam.
As a theist I see evolution as the "how" to creation as far as life is concerned.

Macroevolution is simply evolution at the broader population level...including the appearance of new species. Many creationists seem to think it's some wacky dogs into cats thing.
But new species have been observed to evolve, from the London Underground Mosquito to the Evening Primrose (O.gigas) to the Apple Maggot Fly.

Hope this helps

wa:do

Yes it did help, sorry about the sir/maam slip up (I watched hangover recently, the lone wolf club got me mixed up, obviously we need a new cultural enriching version with the female wolf pack [their smarter I think]).

The macroevolution you describe is within species (its all about definitions). I think with the Modern Synthesis ideas that micro and macro are about the same, the only difference is time and scale. The definitions of species and genus are a little loose but mostly have agreed upon rules. My point to this, is that when you intermix the DNA from like species, you may get a novel,similar organism (new species, maybe new genus).
I am talking about the rare, like you said wacky, change. That is proof. Mixing the DNA in what I used to call "lateral evolution" (mule,donkey,horse thing) is not that novel and doesnt prove what Im looking for.

 

[Onlooker]

There isn't one.

Could you state this in simple, observable terms?

Yes, God created... then the DNA uber machine works over billions of years, then you show up and have a decision on whats up after this 100 year ride on the 3rd rock from the sun.

This is not a presupposition of ToE. You are mistaken. The only assumptions ToE is based on are those necessary for the scientific method to work.

Its called axiomatic, but I dont like to give you a hall pass for an axiomatic statement on an independent (yet very dependent) hypothesis called Abiogenesis. Without a reproductive organism, this theory couldnt be, so axiomatic or not, it has to be a presupposition.

You are mistaken. ToE is testable, and has been tested and passed.

No, reread my statement. Its the axiomatic part and the wacky macroevolution that has become metaphysical for the world. Im not talking about the rearranging of DNA for organism, thats what DNA is suppose to do, its the novel (what the heck is that) new branches that is not testable.

 

[Autodidact]

Yes, God created... then the DNA uber machine works over billions of years, then you show up and have a decision on whats up after this 100 year ride on the 3rd rock from the sun.

I'm sorry, this reads as gibberish to me. I have no idea what you're trying to say.

Its called axiomatic, but I dont like to give you a hall pass for an axiomatic statement on an independent (yet very dependent) hypothesis called Abiogenesis. Without a reproductive organism, this theory couldnt be, so axiomatic or not, it has to be a presupposition.

Organisms do reproduce. This is not an assumption, it's an observation. That's what science is based on--observations. You are correct, though, that ToE assumes reproduction. No reproduction, no evolution. Of course, since reproduction is part of the definition of a living organism, the assumption is well-founded.

No, reread my statement. Its the axiomatic part and the wacky macroevolution that has become metaphysical for the world. Im not talking about the rearranging of DNA for organism, thats what DNA is suppose to do, its the novel (what the heck is that) new branches that is not testable.

I find your quirky writing style difficult to understand. New branches of what? What do you mean by "macro-evolution" or "metaphysical?" It's just science, dude.

 

[Onlooker]

I'm sorry, this reads as gibberish to me. I have no idea what you're trying to say.

So sorry.
What Im trying to state is that God created the universe/galaxy/solar system/planet and the mechanism to put life on earth. That mechanism is the DNA structure with directed influence.

Organisms do reproduce. This is not an assumption, it's an observation. That's what science is based on--observations. You are correct, though, that ToE assumes reproduction. No reproduction, no evolution. Of course, since reproduction is part of the definition of a living organism, the assumption is well-founded.

The major presupposition of ToE is that a single cell (that is able to reproduce) came first. This is a metaphysical argument since its not testable. This presupposition that is axiomatic to all ToE discussions is a metaphysical component of ToE. Take it or leave it, cant have life with evolution without a starting point. So creationist and evolutionist believe in part, non provable items (otherwise known as metaphysical).

I find your quirky writing style difficult to understand. New branches of what? What do you mean by "macro-evolution" or "metaphysical?" It's just science, dude.

When creationist and evolutionist talk, the common ground is sometimes sparse. When both agree with the DNA/RNA mechanism of producing life, we both agree on the "science".
When we both agree on the physical science of the DNA/RNA, we both still have parts of our "theory" that are metaphysical. Metaphysical not being falsifiable. Often the evolutionist doesnt want to identify or talk about their metaphysical believes. More often than naught it is abiogensis, cosmogenesis and parts of evolution that is never provable (I shouldnt say never).
That being said, I tried to sum up the metaphysical aspects from prior conversations. One was the macroevolution concept. Microevolution is changes below the species level while macroevolution can be considered changes on a grand scale and functional changes that occur on a higher taxa.
Two example I brought up for the evolutionist metaphysical belief system is the axiomatic "given" of a cell for all life to start. The other was the "big" macroevolution, higher taxa, higher or completely new functioning organism. This is also a metaphysical (non falsifiable/testable) belief. Also the time scales involved with evolution are not falsifiable, therefore somewhat metaphysical.

 

[Alceste]

FYI, onlooker, abiogenesis (the non-supernatural origin of life) is testable. It's a proper field of science with thousands of researchers investigating it at this very moment. Would it interest you to hear about their work? It's off topic, since this thread is about evolution, but if you're interested perhaps we could start a thread.

 

[Krok]

I know I wasn't involved in this thread, but here we have a typical creationist employing the method of changing the meaning of words and not having an idea of what evidence we have for evolution.

So sorry.

What Im trying to state is that God created the universe/galaxy/solar system/planet and the mechanism to put life on earth. That mechanism is the DNA structure with directed influence.

How do we test this?

The major presupposition of ToE is that a single cell (that is able to reproduce) came first.

No, it’s not a presupposition. We have fossils. Fossils of prokaryotes in rocks 3.8 billion years old. In Greenland, Australia and South Africa. Oldest and first evidence for life as we know it. Fossils of unicellular organisms.

This is a metaphysical argument since its not testable.

It is testable. Find fossils of multicellular organisms rocks older than 3.8 billion years. Find the fossil of a human in rocks older than 3.8 billion years.

This presupposition that is axiomatic to all ToE discussions is a metaphysical component of ToE.

You call fossils metaphysical? Changing the definition of the word?

Take it or leave it, cant have life with evolution without a starting point. So creationist and evolutionist believe in part, non provable items (otherwise known as metaphysical).

Evolution probably started before those fossils found. Currently scientists are investigating carbonaceous material found in rocks of 4 billion years old. The carbon isotope ratios indicate organic origin. The carbonaceous material certainly don’t seem to be unicellular organisms. It seems as if they weren’t even cellular at all.

When creationist and evolutionist talk, the common ground is sometimes sparse.

Maybe it’s because creationists don’t have an idea what science is.

When both agree with the DNA/RNA mechanism of producing life, we both agree on the "science".

Creationists don’t do science at all. They read their favourite old books and assert them to be the ultimate truth.

When we both agree on the physical science of the DNA/RNA, we both still have parts of our "theory" that are metaphysical. Metaphysical not being falsifiable.

Fossils are not metaphysical at all.

Often the evolutionist doesnt want to identify or talk about their metaphysical believes. More often than naught it is abiogensis, cosmogenesis and parts of evolution that is never provable (I shouldnt say never).

Science doesn’t deal with “proof”. It deals with evidence. “Proof” is for mathematics and alcohol.

That being said, I tried to sum up the metaphysical aspects from prior conversations. One was the macroevolution concept. Microevolution is changes below the species level while macroevolution can be considered changes on a grand scale and functional changes that occur on a higher taxa.

Changing the meanings of words again? Macro-evolution refers to changes at or above species level.

Two example I brought up for the evolutionist metaphysical belief system is the axiomatic "given" of a cell for all life to start.

We were “given” prokaryotes in the oldest rocks. It’s not “axiomatic”, it’s physical.

The other was the "big" macroevolution, higher taxa, higher or completely new functioning organism.

We’ve got those fossils too. Fantastic transitional fossils. Nothing metaphysical about that.

This is also a metaphysical (non falsifiable/testable) belief.

Fossils are physical.

Also the time scales involved with evolution are not falsifiable, therefore somewhat metaphysical.

Of course the times scales are falsifiable. We read our ages of the rocks from “meters”. You can always try to show to us why our scales for measuring time are wrong. Nothing metaphysical about them.

 

[camanintx]

Macroevolution may eventually have a rock solid DNA induced branch of life in the lab (I hope is a fuzzy dog like porpoise that fetches junk when I surf), we will all drop our jaws in amazment, until then, still not very testable.

If by testable you mean in a lab, then yes, macroevolution cannot be tested in the lab because the time scales involved are just too great. However, there are other ways it can be tested.

If tetrapods evolved from lobe finned fish through evolution, then intermediate forms would have existed in the late Devonian period. When paleontologists searched river sediments in northern Canada, which was an equitorial region 375 million years ago, they found Tiktaalik roseae.

 

[Gunfingers]

Depending on how you define "macro" evolution, which is a word creationists made up and is therefore difficult to define, the Lenski E. Coli experiment demonstrated macroevolution in the lab.

 

[Onlooker]

FYI, onlooker, abiogenesis (the non-supernatural origin of life) is testable. It's a proper field of science with thousands of researchers investigating it at this very moment. Would it interest you to hear about their work? It's off topic, since this thread is about evolution, but if you're interested perhaps we could start a thread.

Thanks, its an interesting field no doubt. I suspect the further we get into the DNA "universe", we will unlock some new information. I would like to see abstracts of new investigations if you have any.

 

[Onlooker]

I know I wasn't involved in this thread, but here we have a typical creationist employing the method of changing the meaning of words and not having an idea of what evidence we have for evolution.

No.

How do we test this?

you cant. this is a metaphysical, non falsifiable argument (God created... ). The DNA part is evolution with design. You are testing it.

No, it’s not a presupposition. We have fossils. Fossils of prokaryotes in rocks 3.8 billion years old. In Greenland, Australia and South Africa. Oldest and first evidence for life as we know it. Fossils of unicellular organisms.

yes it is a presupposition, its a cornerstone of all evolution science. The first cell is what I am talking about. The first fossil. You cant evolve from nothing. so the abiogenesis part of the equation, the single cell with reproducible traits, came from somewhere (currently: creation, panspermia, crystalline (non organic) framework lattice for newly created organic molecules to form are a few of the arguments for the single cell popping up from nowhere).

It is testable. Find fossils of multicellular organisms rocks older than 3.8 billion years. Find the fossil of a human in rocks older than 3.8 billion years.

You call fossils metaphysical? Changing the definition of the word?

The FIRST one IS metaphysical. Your describing all the followers. Where is the fossil for the first one? I am trying to show you that your belief system (currently what science can bring) is hinging on a metaphysical component.

Evolution probably started before those fossils found. Currently scientists are investigating carbonaceous material found in rocks of 4 billion years old. The carbon isotope ratios indicate organic origin. The carbonaceous material certainly don’t seem to be unicellular organisms. It seems as if they weren’t even cellular at all.

my bet is a thermophilic (extremophilic) prokaryotic organism.

Maybe it’s because creationists don’t have an idea what science is.

possibly. the first step in recovery is admitting you may have a problem.

Creationists don’t do science at all. They read their favourite old books and assert them to be the ultimate truth.

not true, its always bad when you say never/always, better to leave it at sometimes/majority/minority of the time.

Fossils are not metaphysical at all.

agreed.

Science doesn’t deal with “proof”. It deals with evidence. “Proof” is for mathematics and alcohol.

Words are important. It was late, my meaning was fallibility, testability, falsifiability. So to rephrase it: So creationist and evolutionist believe, in part, non testable assertions. Time and conditions just arent known exactly.

Changing the meanings of words again? Macro-evolution refers to changes at or above species level.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: the Scientific Case for Common Descent

We were “given” prokaryotes in the oldest rocks. It’s not “axiomatic”, it’s physical.

fossils are everywhere, where was the first one? that is axiomatic in the evolutionist world. No hall pass for you today, it came from somewhere/somehow.

We’ve got those fossils too. Fantastic transitional fossils. Nothing metaphysical about that.

Fossils are physical.

Of course the times scales are falsifiable. We read our ages of the rocks from “meters”. You can always try to show to us why our scales for measuring time are wrong. Nothing metaphysical about them.

Not arguing about fossils. Not sure about all the metrics, but the age of the universe/solar system/planet/moon are agreeable. Fossils are great.

 

[Onlooker]

If by testable you mean in a lab, then yes, macroevolution cannot be tested in the lab because the time scales involved are just too great. However, there are other ways it can be tested.

If tetrapods evolved from lobe finned fish through evolution, then intermediate forms would have existed in the late Devonian period. When paleontologists searched river sediments in northern Canada, which was an equitorial region 375 million years ago, they found Tiktaalik roseae.

True, this link attempts to explain the observational part of macroevolution.
My whole cryptic point is to force the average evolutionist to accept the fact they have "unknowns" in their closet. Little "untestable" secrets that are not openly discussed. Its problematic with the "scientific process" to show only favorable arguments. The process benefits when all sides are discussed.
So if creationist believe in A,B,C.
Evolutionist believe in a,B,C.
We can agree that if B and C are the same (lets say B is evolution and C is the DNA/RNA science), they only differ in A and a.
The A for creationist is ID from a creator.
The a for evolutionist is axiomatic and not discussed, but its there. Where did the first cell come from.

 

[Jose Fly]

NewHope,

I noticed you didn't respond to my last post to you, wherein I asked you several questions. Now, I've got a lot of experience with internet creationists and probably one of the most common traits among many is how they ignore rebuttals and attempts to get them to focus in on specific points and issues.

Is that you? Because if you're just going to ignore inconvenient questions and rebuttals, then I would like to know now so I don't waste any further time. If not, then we can pick up where we left off and you can answer the questions I asked.

 

[outhouse]

NewHope,

I noticed you didn't respond to my last post to you, wherein I asked you several questions. Now, I've got a lot of experience with internet creationists and probably one of the most common traits among many is how they ignore rebuttals and attempts to get them to focus in on specific points and issues.

Is that you? Because if you're just going to ignore inconvenient questions and rebuttals, then I would like to know now so I don't waste any further time. If not, then we can pick up where we left off and you can answer the questions I asked.

its why i wont debate her anymore