The biogeographic evidence for evolution

[dad]

I did not misquote any scripture. You may not have understood it, since understanding the Bible is something that literalists fail at all of the time. I gave you a more than reasonable condition and you will not meet it. You only have yourself to blame for the lack of a link. There is no point in supplying a link to a person that refuses to debate properly.

You may post a link to where you provided a case and evidence for your religious beliefs you thought were science. As for your opinion on the bible, maybe sell it to someone else, I'm not buying.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You may post a link to where you provided a case and evidence for your religious beliefs you thought were science. As for your opinion on the bible, maybe sell it to someone else, I'm not buying.

I could post a link, but since you cannot debate properly there really is no point. You know that science is not a religion and yet your repeat that lie. Why do you do so? Do you think that Christian apologists get extra credit for lying for Jesus? That really makes no sense at all. You are in effect claiming that your God is a weak and ineffective God when you cannot debate honestly.

Ask politely and properly and a link shall be provided. I really should demand an apology for all of the falsehoods, but you debating properly for once would be good enough.

 

[dad]

I could post a link, but ....

Surprise surprise.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Surprise surprise.

Why are you surprised at your own inability to debate properly? That makes no sense at all. But when running away is your main debate strategy I can see why it is so hard for you to switch.

 

[dad]

Why are you surprised at your own inability to debate properly? That makes no sense at all. But when running away is your main debate strategy I can see why it is so hard for you to switch.

Of course, that makes sense. We all run away from the links you claim exist that you can't post. Ha

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course, that makes sense. We all run away from the links you claim exist that you can't post. Ha

They exist, but you have to demonstrate at least one scintilla of honesty. Being polite is a very small price to pay.

Tell me, do you go to a store and just take what you want without paying?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Link or no link...your rep rides on it, why would I care either way?

Truth be told... @Subduction Zone could start behaving like a 5-year old and still YOU wouldn't be able to make even a dent in his rep.

Because in all honesty, you really are a laughing stock. Nobody actually takes you seriously, you realise that, right?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Truth be told... @Subduction Zone could start behaving like a 5-year old and still YOU wouldn't be able to make even a dent in his rep.

Because in all honesty, you really are a laughing stock. Nobody actually takes you seriously, you realise that, right?

dad wants something for free that he was already given. I will not do so again. Especially since he will simply deny it because he cannot understand it. Of course if he is by some miracle polite and asks politely he will get what he wants.

 

[dad]

Truth be told... @Subduction Zone could start behaving like a 5-year old and still YOU wouldn't be able to make even a dent in his rep.

Because in all honesty, you really are a laughing stock. Nobody actually takes you seriously, you realise that, right?

You have your religious mind made up. I get it. How about a little humor now, show us some biogeographic evidence for TOE!? Ha

 

[Subduction Zone]

You have your religious mind made up. I get it. How about a little humor now, show us some biogeographic evidence for TOE!? Ha

dad, I don't think that too many people will give evidence to someone that does not understand the concept. You will either deny or lie about the evidence presented to you. There is an easy cure. Learn what is and what is not evidence. The average person should be able to understand it in about ten minutes or so. Your time may vary.

 

[dad]

dad, I don't think that too many people will give evidence to someone that does not understand the concept. You will either deny or lie about the evidence presented to you. There is an easy cure. Learn what is and what is not evidence. The average person should be able to understand it in about ten minutes or so. Your time may vary.

Nothing you could offer that I am not likely already familiar with. Nothing you have ever offered was followed up on, or hardly relevant and heavily heavily belief based. Pretend all you like.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nothing you could offer that I am not likely already familiar with. Nothing you have ever offered was followed up on, or hardly relevant and heavily heavily belief based. Pretend all you like.

Familiar,with does not mean understand. Your chief strategy is to keep yourself ignorant of the basics so that you have plausible deniability when you make claims that would be lies for an educated person.

Unfortunately you know this. That is why you run away from help. That still does not excuse your making false claims about others.

Tell me, in your religion if a person keeps knowingly breaking the Commandments and refuses to atone for them how does your version of God treat that person when they die?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You have your religious mind made up.

How about a little humor now, show us some biogeographic evidence for TOE!? Ha

There are no kangaroo's or koala's outside of australia, except in zoo's.

 

[tas8831]

Surprise surprise.

Could he link to a video that he did not watch instead?

 

[tas8831]

Nothing you could offer that I am not likely already familiar with.

Being familiar with something does not mean you can understand it, or have addressed it.

In fact, your only means of addressing anything reality-based is to deny then hide behind your shield of 'different states past' for which you offer up only burden shifting and magical thinking.

Lots of creationists claim to be "familiar" with scientific issues - they then seem to just ignore, dismiss, tsk tsk, or try to co-opt it for their own needs.

Usually just ignore it.

 

[dad]

There are no kangaroo's or koala's outside of australia, except in zoo's.

Great, and why would there be now?

 

[dad]

Being familiar with something does not men you can understand it, or have addressed it.

In fact, your only means of addressing anything reality-based is to deny then hide behind your shield of 'different states past' for which you offer up only burden shifting and magical thinking.

Lots of creationists claim to be "familiar" with scientific issues - they then seem to just ignore, dismiss, tsk tsk, or try to co-opt it for their own needs.

Usually just ignore it.

The thing is, how can anyone address something you cannot post or debate or address? Have you any evidence for evolution that does not involve using a past nature you cannot prove? Anything at all?

 

[dad]

Could he link to a video that he did not watch instead?

To be fair, I provided many links and pages of rational and history. The video that claimed to be about Babel also supports it because it shows that attempts were made to make others. But it is not Babel that SZ claims to have given evidence for but some aspects of science that are fundamental in models of the past.

No one is going to prove or disprove Babel either way. Those defending the scientific method should be able to discuss details, and show where they supposedly provided evidence.

 

[tas8831]

The thing is, how can anyone address something you cannot post or debate or address?

How did you post a video you hadn't watched as evidence?

Have you any evidence for evolution that does not involve using a past nature you cannot prove? Anything at all?

Do you have any evidence that the past was totally different from today? Anything at all?

 

[tas8831]

To be fair, I provided many links and pages of rational and history.

Sure...

The video that claimed to be about Babel also supports it because it shows that attempts were made to make others. But it is not Babel that SZ claims to have given evidence for but some aspects of science that are fundamental in models of the past.

No one is going to prove or disprove Babel either way. Those defending the scientific method should be able to discuss details, and show where they supposedly provided evidence.

How can one disprove a silly tall tale for which there is no actual corroborating evidence in the first place?

See?

I believe in little winged fairies.

Prove they do not exist.