rhektor:


Lincoln might be however, this is not a good way to respond to the post refute or accept it. Don't try to derail the thread

I


The thread is already derailed. Even if i assume that is concocted facts are true, that still doesn't establish the creationist theory.

donnffd:
Here we go again...

I tell you. These guys keep bringing up old questions that have been ans several times. I would honestly not waste my time here.

UyiIredia:
I'm wondering why atheists and other evolutionists aren't responding to my post. Perhaps they can't rebut it.

I could not help but laugh hard when I read this comment. So u honestly think we can't ans or maybe u are just resurrecting old dead qus Oga when I read the part about mutation, I knew u did not know what u are talking about and how DNA works. Don't expect atheist to take thia thread serious

akintom:
I


The thread is already derailed. Even if i assume that is concocted facts are true, that still doesn't establish the creationist theory.

Can you ask yourself how do you sound?

Kay17:


Your first observation on your OP is a result of observations right? Personal observations or systematic observations carried out by professionals?

Both, for instance the speciation example is a systematic observation carried out by biologists.

Seun:
You're not satisfied with the overwhelming evidence for evolution, yet you expect us to take your claims seriously without any evidence at all?

The so-called overwhelming evidence for evolution is based on poor reasoning. For example, I've explained that similarities across different species is used as evidence of shared ancestry. This an unjustified inference that cuts across the evidence from comparative anatomy, genomics and embryology which notes such similarities.

urahara:




Blood of god .


O my gosh


What poo


I stopped reading at no 1 when i saw speciation

You should have read everything instead of stopping at a point. What's your problem with point 1 ?

ValentineMary:
I could not help but laugh hard when I read this comment. So u honestly think we can't ans or maybe u are just resurrecting old dead qus Oga when I read the part about mutation, I knew u did not know what u are talking about and how DNA works. Don't expect atheist to take thia thread serious

State your problem with the part about mutation and let's see if you have a good case.

ValentineMary:
I tell you. These guys keep bringing up old questions that have been ans several times. I would honestly not waste my time here.

I think at least a few of my arguments haven't been answered.

UyiIredia:


Both, for instance the speciation example is a systematic observation carried out by biologists.

I'm not going to fault your own theory on the origin of life forms because the evidence must have convinced you to come up with your theory as the best explanation.

Now you say speciation is the limit within which organisms evolve because their governing codes allow them to do so. Don't you think the time frame within which these changes occur ought to be given to us

UyiIredia:


The so-called overwhelming evidence for evolution is based on poor reasoning. For example, I've explained that similarities across different species is used as evidence of shared ancestry. This an unjustified inference that cuts across the evidence from comparative anatomy, genomics and embryology which notes such similarities.

The similarity between species or common with all life is a legitimate justification.

Kay17:


The similarity between species or common with all life is a legitimate justification.

You only assume it. My point is that nothing justifies the assumption of common descent from similarities between different species.

Kay17:


I'm not going to fault your own theory on the origin of life forms because the evidence must have convinced you to come up with your theory as the best explanation.

Now you say speciation is the limit within which organisms evolve because their governing codes allow them to do so. Don't you think the time frame within which these changes occur ought to be given to us

I think it best you deal with the points in the OP. I'm not replying this again.

UyiIredia:


You only assume it. My point is that nothing justifies the assumption of common descent from similarities between different species.

As a conclusion it does. Probably you have an expectation that each step of the accused theory may have a fossil tied to it

UyiIredia:
I think at least a few of my arguments haven't been answered.

which numbers?
Let me take care of them

Kay17:


As a conclusion it does. Probably you have an expectation that each step of the accused theory may have a fossil tied to it

What justifies this conclusion ?

raphieMontella:
which numbers? Let me take care of them

Okay. 2, 5, 7 & 10. Best of luck.

There has never been evolution at anytime.

DNA similarities rather justify creation story.

All organisms originated from one source - God.

Creation is continual nevertheless:

Isaiah 48
7 THEY ARE CREATED NOW, AND NOT FROM THE BEGINNING; EVEN BEFORE THE DAY WHEN THOU HEARDEST THEM NOT; lest thou shouldest say, Behold, I knew them.

UyiIredia:


What justifies this conclusion ?

It is confirmed with use of DNA testing for familial links amongst humans. If the proposition, that the similarity between two organisms namely humans is proof of a familial link, is acceptable from observations then it can be applied generally.

Kay17:


It is confirmed with use of DNA testing for familial links amongst humans. If the proposition, that the similarity between two organisms namely humans is proof of a familial link, is acceptable from observations then it can be applied generally.

But DNA testing in human concerns similarities within a species not across different species so that's not a good justification.

raphieMontella, you are needed here. Just deal with the numbers I stated above.

rhektor:



You are lost of argument against it, right? Do yourself a favour accept the creationist account even you know without investigation that whatever is left to itself without care will decay

No reasonable learned exposes scientist accepts the useless genesis creation account. It goes against astronomy, geology, biology and every reputable verifiable scientific discipline.

Even if the ops points won't be refuted it doesn't mean that one must automatically jump to the baseless biblical creation account which is just one of the hundreds of cultural cosmological myths.

Just because I stand beside a Ferrari and I tell you that you don't own it cos you can't provide the key to it doesn't necessarily mean I own it unless I can produce the key, unlock the car and take off with it and even with further investigation, my details will have to tally in the vehicle particulars.

Sorry my friend, your biblical creation account is a primitive iron age creation myth that feeds of the god of the gaps fallacy.

UyiIredia:


The so-called overwhelming evidence for evolution is based on poor reasoning. For example, I've explained that similarities across different species is used as evidence of shared ancestry. This an unjustified inference that cuts across the evidence from comparative anatomy, genomics and embryology which notes such similarities.

Poor reasoning right.
Evolutionary biologists and all reputable medical and natural scientists accept it . With their understanding they have produced vaccines that have combated the worst and deadliest microorganisms and parasites. They produce vaccines and modify vaccines based on their knowledge of microevolution. Am sorry sir but people much more learned and reputable in the natural sciences accept it wholeheartedly.

The only reason you resist is because of blind faith and dogma and even according to your bible - the things of the spirit are foolishness unto the carnal mind". The only caveat here is that the Christian foolishness that Christians hope will turn and be proven to be wisdom is nothing more than outright foolishness for foolishness sake nothing more

UyiIredi:
raphieMontella, you are needed here. Just deal with the numbers I stated above.

i did explain living fossils to you..before you opened this thread..but you pro'ly waved it off...
I will answer the rest...thanks for reminding.

LiberaDeus:


No reasonable learned exposes scientist accepts the useless genesis creation account. It goes against astronomy, geology, biology and every reputable verifiable scientific discipline.

Even if the ops points won't be refuted it doesn't mean that one must automatically jump to the baseless biblical creation account which is just one of the hundreds of cultural cosmological myths.

Just because I stand beside a Ferrari and I tell you that you don't own it cos you can't provide the key to it doesn't necessarily mean I own it unless I can produce the key, unlock the car and take off with it and even with further investigation, my details will have to tally in the vehicle particulars.

Sorry my friend, your biblical creation account is a primitive iron age creation myth that feeds of the god of the gaps fallacy.

Providing a key and starting the car does not prove you are the owner, haven't you heard about car thieves stealing cars without actually breaking in? Hmmmmmmmmm you are surely loosing it Bro.
Learned and exposed scientists that accepted all the gibberish in geography text books? Have you seen the planet Mars before? But you believe there is a Mars right? You must be very funny my friend.
Between the theists and the atheists you don't need to be a logical thinker to know that the atheists are silly in their accusation of the theists, most of not all atheists believe whatever is sold to them by one stupid scientist in the name of experiment however they will accuse the theists of stupidity to believe in religion.

rhektor:



Providing a key and starting the car does not prove you are the owner, haven't you heard about car thieves stealing cars without actually breaking in? Hmmmmmmmmm you are surely loosing it Bro.
Learned and exposed scientists that accepted all the gibberish in geography text books? Have you seen the planet Mars before? But you believe there is a Mars right? You must be very funny my friend.
Between the theists and the atheists you don't need to be a logical thinker to know that the atheists are silly in their accusation of the theists, most of not all atheists believe whatever is sold to them by one stupid scientist in the name of experiment however they will accuse the theists of stupidity to believe in religion.

Oh yea providing it doesn't prove you are the owner but I also talked about the details on the vehicle particulars matching yours or you refused to see that. If someone provides such proof that he owns the car is it not better than a charlatan that makes spurious claims but can't even open it or even find the door handle. Christianity is like that charlatan, xtianity claims to be the religion of the creator of the universe but it can't even get its prediction right about the sun moving round the earth or the stars being in the firmament. The god of xtianity clearly had nothing to do with the universe. He was created in the mind of iron age peasants and he is rejuvenated in the mind of credulous 21st century believers.

What gibberish in geography textbooks. The same scientists predict earthquakes and they happen, they also predict hurricanes and it comes to pass. I prefer to listen to such people than religious charlatans that predict football matches and plane crashes but can't predict that a building in their complex is gonna collapse.

Guy you wan kill me with laugh. Thank your god that you said experiment. We believe based on experiment. The experiment is the equivalent of testing your claims for everyone to see not expecting people to take it by blind faith. The same experiments ensure that the next time mosquitoes bite you, your family don't start preparing funeral rites, the same experiments ensure that you don't have to walk for 3 days to get to kano but in 14 hours you can go across the Atlantic and land safely. The same experiment enables you to talk to all your loved ones even if they are in China. Hmm these experiments seem very useful.

You religious person that doesn't believe on blind faith. How do you know Mary was a virgin, or balaams donkey spoke, what of your Jesus spurious claims that he will be back before his disciples generation passes away, I guess he failed on that one too just like a failed experiment.

My brother the core and central virtue of religion is blind faith while that of science is critical reasoning and skepticism so tell me between the atheist and the theist who depends or follows his leader like a sheep. Which set of people drank poison in order to go to heaven, which set of people blow themselves up for 72 virgins, I guess it's atheists right, who gives 10% of his salary with the hope of getting triple in return even though that never actualized, I guess its the atheists.

LiberaDeus:


Oh yea providing it doesn't prove you are the owner but I also talked about the details on the vehicle particulars matching yours or you refused to see that. If someone provides such proof that he owns the car is it not better than a charlatan that makes spurious claims but can't even open it or even find the door handle. Christianity is like that charlatan, xtianity claims to be the religion of the creator of the universe but it can't even get its prediction right about the sun moving round the earth or the stars being in the firmament. The god of xtianity clearly had nothing to do with the universe. He was created in the mind of iron age peasants and he is rejuvenated in the mind of credulous 21st century believers.

What gibberish in geography textbooks. The same scientists predict earthquakes and they happen, they also predict hurricanes and it comes to pass. I prefer to listen to such people than religious charlatans that predict football matches and plane crashes but can't predict that a building in their complex is gonna collapse.

Guy you wan kill me with laugh. Thank your god that you said experiment. We believe based on experiment. The experiment is the equivalent of testing your claims for everyone to see not expecting people to take it by blind faith. The same experiments ensure that the next time mosquitoes bite you, your family don't start preparing funeral rites, the same experiments ensure that you don't have to walk for 3 days to get to kano but in 14 hours you can go across the Atlantic and land safely. The same experiment enables you to talk to all your loved ones even if they are in China. Hmm these experiments seem very useful.

You religious person that doesn't believe on blind faith. How do you know Mary was a virgin, or balaams donkey spoke, what of your Jesus spurious claims that he will be back before his disciples generation passes away, I guess he failed on that one too just like a failed experiment.

My brother the core and central virtue of religion is blind faith while that of science is critical reasoning and skepticism so tell me between the atheist and the theist who depends or follows his leader like a sheep. Which set of people drank poison in order to go to heaven, which set of people blow themselves up for 72 virgins, I guess it's atheists right, who gives 10% of his salary with the hope of getting triple in return even though that never actualized, I guess its the atheists.

Stop being sarcastic, blind faith? Have you seen Mars before? But you believe it? And you accused of of blind faith. My God has been verified by me and millions in the past and he is real have you purge yourself of all you think you know about nature? You just accept hook line and sinker all they fed you with. If there are any group of people having a blind faith it should be you atheists. what have atheistsm done to the world? If you can answer that question, then we can review atheistsm together. Remain bless brother

UyiIredi:


But DNA testing in human concerns similarities within a species not across different species so that's not a good justification.

Why not across species?

Kay17:

Why not across species?

We don't observe universal common descent.

UyiIredi:


We don't observe universal common descent.

but we already agreed that similarity within species betrays a familial relationship. I'm extending that logic beyond intraspecies because you haven't shown a reason why the principle falls short for inter species. The observance of common descent begins with this familial similarity

Kay17:


but we already agreed that similarity within species betrays a familial relationship. I'm extending that logic beyond intraspecies because you haven't shown a reason why the principle falls short for inter species. The observance of common descent begins with this familial similarity

What's the basis for extending that logic beyond intraspecies ? That's an over-extrapolation from the fact of intraspecies familial similarity.