₦airaland Forum

LordReed:
Now you want to blame me for misinterpreting your statements.

Wait! I don't understand o!
How would you blame your error of misinterpreting my comments on me?

This mental and word gymnastics is strong o

LordReed:
That is your problem if you can't understand when someone repeatedly asks you for clarification. Anytime I ask you a question you deflect to something else and I have to piece together what you mean. Now you want to blame me for misinterpreting your statements. You hinted? So you could not answer the question straight up?

If your are so paranoid to think the only reason someone would ask you a question is to ridicule you then that is on you.

I have made it clear that I would say the same thing if I thought someone was making out intelligence to be a mechanism of evolution. Get over yourself and stop being paranoid.

There's no paranoia here. You are accusing me again of what you actually do; deflect.

Firstly, show me what part of my posts implied complexity as a mechanism for evolution?

Secondly, how does your question of down syndrome relates to mechanism?

Lastly
If someone claims that Christians are ignorant of science. And another ask the person why large percentage of Nobel laureates in science are Christians?
What is the question meant to do?


You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free. John 8:32

Workch:
measles vaccine is just another vaccine and vaccines have been developed before Darwin, it means Evolution started when Darwin discovered it?

It’s just like saying people were flying before Isaac Newton discovered Gravity

You are so full

slowpoke doesn’t know that to formulate a vaccine perfectly, you have to monitor the evolutionary trend the pathogen, how do you think they manufacture the annual influenza virus? By guessing the next variant? You be Mumu, I swear .

What did you even study in school?

LWKMD

I'm glad someone (and maybe a couple more) else noticed what I noticed with you.

Enjoy yourself and have a nice day

jamesid29:
Well done sir/ma. We might disagree slightly on a few points (which is normal,we all disgree on one or two things), I truly applaud you for defending your position adequately with grace against arguments that are mostly ad hominem and evasions without concrete substance behind them.. Kinda makes one question workch's pedigree as an advanced degree holder with the types of arguments he's making.

Anyways, for what it's worth, well done sir/ma and Happy new month.

Thank you Sir (I used sir, with the assumption that James is a masculine name. I hope I'm not wrong o I'm a guy also)

I appreciate your kind comments
God bless you and Happy New Month

LordReed:
I said it because I thought you were implying that complexity was a mechanism of evolution. I have now asked you at least 2 times for what you mean by genetic complexity, you are yet to clarify. I would say the same thing if I thought someone was implying that intelligence was a mechanism of evolution.

You are not being honest and you know it. You cunningly play around words so as to never admit to being wrong.

You claimed that evolution does not DISCUSS complexity, but diversity. Even accused me of pulling stuff like that from theological garbage.
Now you were presented with evidence that evolution actually discuss complexity (and of course, diversity) and all you can do is to blame me for you being wrong? That's really pathetic.

I'm not going to waste my time in explaining what's easily accessible. And I have hinted on what I meant (in context to speciation) when I replied Budaa.
But of course, your initial question was not to ask what I meant (since I already explained in the post). It was to ridicule my argument, unfortunately, it turned around to you. Which was why I smiled before responding with a similar approach.

hucknall:
I only read the front-page and I'm surprised that evolution didn't convince Op as a biochemist but niffy theory like the Big Bang .

And what does relativity and the other one there has do with God.

Also one guy there like his economic sense of reasoning and started claiming that religion made Africa broke. Wonders shall never end

It made me wonder how genuine his story is.

Great observation there

Image123:
How on earth can someone with a living relationship with Jesus Christ have his faith quaking because you don't believe there's God? When will you realize that the man with an experience is not at the mercy of the man with a mere argument?

Word!!!

LordReed:
Erred how? I asked you a question or didn't you see the question mark?

The issue is that you vehemently excluded complexity from evolution as seen from this screenshot.
Do you still hold on to that position?
If yes, do you imply that those sites are wrong?
If no, would you be willing to admit to being wrong?

Workch:
people who argue complexity don't even argue that evolution didn't happen and they obviously do not think that speciation has evidence and evolution doesn't.

The argument they present is whether it's unidirectional or random. Evidence suggests that it's not unidirectional and that's why natural selection takes the weaker traits at any given point in time.

A simple experiment to test this is to study the mutations in the spike proteins in the measles rebeola virus. Any single mutation in these proteins doesn't lead to any complexity, the virus loses its ability to enter host cells and it dies off. These example are very numerous in nature and that is why we have several genetic disorders. This is also the basis for the production of measles vaccine. You see why evolution is very important in biology?

I don't expect you to understand anything I typed there but the basics is that evolution doesn't have any aim of increasing complexity. That's jargons. A mutation that is favourable today might be harmful tommorow, it's all depends on the certain environmental factors that ensures natural selection. So if you are talking about increasing complexity, maybe you learnt that from the Bible because that's obviously doesn't exist in science class.

You don't know these because you learn science from the Bible, which is a very wrong place to learn about things that are real and existing.

people who argue complexity don't even argue that evolution didn't happen
Absurd claim! You should say that evolutionists don't argue that evolution didn't happen. Or do you think that all scientists subscribe to evolution? Even with the risk involve in publicizing your scientific criticism of evolution (the Darwin "bulldogs" won't even allow such publication), thousands of scientists don't subscribe to it.

Secondly, you had ignorantly joined the bandwagon in erroneously claiming that evolution has nothing to do with complexity. Why are you now implying that? Which should we take? That complexity have been trashed some centuries ago or people still discuss it (and is very relevant in evolutionary biology)?

they obviously do not think that speciation has evidence and evolution doesn't.
Again, you've limited yourself like the car battery analogy. Speciation does not equate to evolution. It's a well known mechanism and I have discussed that using some classic examples earlier. But you seem to be locked in your world of speciation belongs to evolution only, which is wrong. Just as a battery does not belong to a car only.

The argument they present is whether it's unidirectional or random
When I say you just begged the question now, all hell would be loosed. You are yet to show that your first paragraph is valid and true, yet, you assume it and now proceed to make a case for them.

Evidence suggests that it's not unidirectional and that's why natural selection takes the weaker traits at any given point in time
Do you mean that because evolution is not unidirectional, that's why natural selection take the weaker traits? (What's non sequitur again sef? )
Again, you just prove my point by declaring the general believe about evolution. The fact that it's allegedly not unidirectional indicates that there is increased complexity and even reduced complexity. The former is what we have been asking for it's evidence, the latter is what I have provided evidence for (which is definitely what most evolution dissenters talk about). In fact, the latter is what you set out to prove yourself, as will be seen.

A simple experiment to test this is to study the mutations in the spike proteins in the measles rebeola virus. Any single mutation in these proteins doesn't lead to any complexity, the virus loses its ability to enter host cells and it dies off
That has been what I had talked about. Just that in this case, the virus is not complex enough such that loss of genetic information (in the spike protein) is fatal for it. Unlike in higher organisms where loss of information in one part may be near neutral to such organism but accumulation of mutation in the genome will eventually lead to genetic entropy and eventually, extinction.

These example are very numerous in nature and that is why we have several genetic disorders
This is what creation scientists have predicted all along, and if not for modern medicine, humans should have reached a genetic bottleneck. Mutation has been the mechanism provided by Darwin and disciples as mechanism for gradual modification in gaining
and developing new functions. But empirical studies have shown that opposite is usually the case. It's what we know, O "learned" one. You're the one who should study WIDE

This is also the basis for the production of measles vaccine. You see why evolution is very important in biology?
Funny. Measles vaccine is just another type of vaccine and vaccines have been developed before Darwin. One important one was even developed by Lois Pasteur (I mentioned his name specifically ).
So how is vaccine production related to evolution? But believers would mostly enjoy some self delusion to maybe make themselves happy. Just like the usual mantra of anyone who does not subscribe to evolution (as evidence against it is just overwhelming) is ignorant and stupid.
Anything to make believers happy

I don't expect you to understand anything I typed
Like I said earlier, anything to make believers happy .
The way you've been postings since makes me doubt your stories. As I believe that one with such degree in Biochemistry should not be acting (both in knowledge and behavior) the way you've largely been.

the basics is that evolution doesn't have any aim of increasing complexity. That's jargons.
No one have said that as far as I have discussed. I only asked you to provide evidence of how speciation would lead to increased complexity, since you were equating speciation to evolution. And you can't argue increasing complexity again as I have provided screenshot of how evolution experts have tried to provide mechanism for it.
You have only end up in attacking straw man. (Logic 101 )

So if you are talking about increasing complexity, maybe you learnt that from the Bible because that's obviously doesn't exist in science class.
Your question begging epithet is noted. (Logic 101 ).
I have attached a screenshot of few sites who promotes evolution and which talked about increased complexity. I want to believe that our "learned" one knows more than them . And since they talked about it, they must have learned it from the Bible. And what they present does not exist in our "learned" one's science class. LWKD

You don't know these because you learn science from the Bible, which is a very wrong place to learn about things that are real and existing.
Another absurd claim. We showed already that top organizations agree with what I have been saying. But seems you're the one who knows better, O "learned" one
Clearly, those organizations must be talking about things that doesn't exist since they agree with me. LWKMD

LordReed:
Well you still haven't answered the question of what you mean by genetic complexity.

So you wouldn't admit that you erred and I didn't say it. It's just to shift grounds and see how you can stay afloat?

Workch:
the issue of complexity has been trashed since the 18th century and you are still stuck there.

Increasing Complexity means evolution is directional/has a purpose and no evidence suggest that’s the case. Evolution doesn’t have a purpose, it’s directed by natural selection and it’s aim is not to make more complex organisms. The aim is to select organisms that are more adapted to a particular environmental condition.

Are you telling me that I should discard the opinion of sites of those who are invested in proving evolution for you who actually learn from them?
Did you not see the pictures clearly? Were they my writings?
Come on "learned" one, you seem to know evolution more than your "teachers"

Workch:
just stick to reading the Bible, you can never make it in philosophy and logic. I have never said Abiogenesis occurred, it's no one's probelm if you are too daft to differentiate evolution from Abiogenesis and then you keep mentioning it whenever we talk about evolution.
That’s not how begging the question work. Dude, stop embarrassing yourself upandan.

When you beg the questions, you make points and then you make your point sounds like a conclusion already. You are too stupid to learn but I will give you several examples.

There’s no begging the question fallacy in the comment, if you had asked how accumulated mutations caused evolution and then I reply with “it’s a scientific fact that mutations lead to evolution” that would have been begging the question.

I can’t beg the question when I didn’t make any point or whatsoever.

I have never said Abiogenesis occurred, it's no one's probelm if you are too daft to differentiate evolution from Abiogenesis and then you keep mentioning it whenever we talk about evolution.

Did I mention it that you said abiogenesis occured? LWKD
Can't you see that I gave it as an example to illustrate how the fallacy is used? Comprehension problem?
When did I equate abiogenesis to evolution? Of course, I can't stoop low to use adhominem to emphasize points. The rule is to raise argument, not personal attacks

So using abiogenesis as just ORDINARY EXAMPLE, can hurt someone's feeling? This is too funny
Yet you used God and bible as example to illustrate circular reasoning. LWKM



If you are not able to see that you referring me to your stated point as an answer to questioning the rationale behind such point is not an argument that prove your claim true, then i don't know what to say to you.

And after putting it in perspective for you to understand, you went emotional, just for using abiogenesis as an example. Pathetic

LordReed:
Is that you don't understand that complexity is not a mechanism of evolution or what is your exact hang up?

When did I say that complexity is a mechanism of evolution?

Workch:
I don’t think you do yourself.

You want to teach me about fallacies? Lol You don’t even understand whatever you say. Begging the question fallacy is when the body of your argument already assumes that your conclusion is correct instead of supporting it.

An example of begging the question fallacy is “god exist because the Bible said he exist ”. How is this an equivalence to whatever I typed here.

Maybe you think when you use those terms, it makes you sound intelligent

You are dumb at everything, even recognizing fallacies

To the screenshot below, you answered with "I ask questions and there answers there already" (paraphrased).
The question begging here (what you wrote there is a simplified explanation and better seen as circular argument) is that I questioned your claim by asking if we are evolving, with continuous accumulation of mutation. Your answer implied yes in such a way of "you have said it already" without supporting it.

A better example of question begging is:
What evidence is there for abiogenesis?
Ans: if it didn't occur, we won't be here

LordReed:
Na wa for this guy sef. E bi like say english dey hard you for night. I already explained that the Down Syndrome reference was to give you opportunity to clarify what genetic complexity means which you still haven't done by the way.



My goodness! Do you even know what the Theory of Evolution states? For the love of Mercury it discusses diversity not complexity. WTH are you getting complexity from?



You see you now. You've introduced another thing then when we get into it you'll say it was me who changed the subject. What has punctuated equilibrium got to do with what we are discussing for Andromeda's sake? More grist from your theological grabbag I guess.

For the "evolution has nothing to do with complexity" statement of faith

Workch:
you always answer your questions and still don’t get the answers.

Do you know what the call question begging fallacy, O "learned" one?

This plenty talks won't happen if our "intelligent" one have knowledge of or can apply logic

Workch:
dumb, there’s nothing like increase complexity in evolution. That statement was created by dummies like you

We said that countless times still the thick skull can’t absorb it.


Speciation and creation in one statement?
How does that work?

Smiles
Let's assume you are right, show us how speciation explain the levels in the fossil record (the term is from simpler to higher life form)


Like I said, don't limit yourself in believing that batteries are components of cars only. I hope the "learned" one understand the message sha.

LordReed:
I wanted you to clarify what you meant by genetic complexity and used a case where extra genetic information is present in an organism that we are familiar with but for you that is changing the context. What a joke.

Complexity doesn't enter the evolution equation, its you shoehorning in an obvious foreign concept and when asked to clarify you get all defensive. Do you know what you are talking about or are you just pulling stuff out of your theological grabbag?

used a case where extra genetic information is present in an organism that we are familiar with but for you that is changing the context. What a joke.
You see what I have been talking about? Did I accuse you of using down syndrome question as changing context? I laugh.
I maintained that your case was the original attempt and you asking another question afterwards, after seeing that your case was invalid was your attempt to still stay afloat.
You ended up bolding a question I have discussed several times while leaving your failed case. Yet you were emphasizing on the bolded. That was what I called ripping out of context.
You can do better next time

Complexity doesn't enter the evolution equation, its you shoehorning in an obvious foreign concept and when asked to clarify you get all defensive
You can tell that to Darwinists who used the fossil record to explain how organisms increase in complexity.
Secondly, I wasn't forcing it into evolution. It's something that's obvious, whether to an evolutionist or Creationist.
I wasn't being defensive in it's proper term. I only showed how you were changing grounds since your attempted mockery question failed in it's task.

Do you know what you are talking about or are you just pulling stuff out of your theological grabbag?
I smile
Like I said, tell that to the interpretation of fosiil records. And of course, there shouldn't be need for punctuated equilibrium

Image123:
Lol, not exactly though. He's not here to convince himself, he's here to convince you. His duty here is to sow doubts in your mind and make you think God is not that wise after all, just like Eden.

I guess so. It could be easy for gullible ones or those who are looking for reasons to actually rebel (just as Eve did). It turns out that he keeps shifting grounds

budaatum:
A hybrid is a change. And you'd need to change quite a lot for the type of fuel a car uses to change, or you might be filling a Tesla with petrol.

Tesla is not the only prototype that was ever made, and I was talking about electric vehicle like Tesla. Rather, hybrids that uses both combustion engine and electric source. Though, in reality, there's a redesign of the whole system, but I used that as an example in it's crude form such that the new electric power source does not change the characteristics of the combustion engine; such as using fuel.
It was clearly explained, with objections in mind

Workch:
ok now I think I should help you so you don’t keep embarrassing yourself and you don’t go out saying this nonsense.

These are the major components of evolution:
1. Mutations
2. Changing environment conditions
3. Recombinations.
4. Adaptions.
5. Speciation.


Now to put them together in a statement; Mutations and recombinations within a population of organism, leads to variations in gene pool. The changing environmental conditions selects the gene that is adaptable at any point in time. Accumulated mutations and recombinations over time in a constantly changing environment leads to speciation. That’s simply evolution.


The moment any population living organism starts portraying any of this components, it has already started evolving.

I don’t know if you can comprehend this but I will try harder to explain.

Speciation is like a part of a car, evolution is the car. Speciation cannot work independent of the whole car.

You see why I have been making fun of you all these while? It’s impossible to believe in speciation without believing in evolution because speciation is the final process of all evolving specie that has adapted to changing environmental conditions over time.

It’s either you don’t understand speciation, evolution or both.

Finally, someone tries to answer the challenge (just that he didn't really do that).
I repeat, equating evolution to speciation is false equivocation. So you should be the one to not embarrass himself by using such fallacy.

You just showed that speciation ONE of the few COMPONENTS used to explain evolution, just as glue one of the types of adhesive. We've been telling the "learned" one for some days now.

Now, to address your points.
You didn't really answer the question of how speciation would lead to increased complexity (from a simpler life, e.g. a bacterium to a higher one such as fish; as Darwinists interpret the fossil records).
You only explained diversity, which I talked about that this is the major talking point of Creationists.

The moment any population living organism starts portraying any of this components, it has already started evolving.
This is where you begin to expose ignorance again.
You mentioned 4 things and said if population portrays ANY of the components, it has start evolving. Now, humans have accumulated mutations and population geneticists say that we keep accumulating them, does that translate to us evolving, O "learned" one?

I don’t know if you can comprehend this but I will try harder to explain.
Speciation is like a part of a car, evolution is the car. Speciation cannot work independent of the whole car
He then acts funny again
O "learned" one, there are parts of a car that can work independent of the whole car. The battery is part of it. It can work in another device which is not a car (to explain that speciation is not exclusive to evolution worldview)

You see why I have been making fun of you all these while? It’s impossible to believe in speciation without believing in evolution because speciation is the final process of all evolving specie that has adapted to changing environmental conditions over time.
Your self delusion is amazing. Was I the one who was equating a component to the whole system?
And just like your analogy, it's possible to know the use of batteries and not limit oneself that it's a component of cars ONLY. It can be used to as components of inverter system (not the inverter circuit o).
So, I know speciation and in fact, creation scientists predict rapid diversification at some past, which has been verified empirically.

It’s either you don’t understand speciation, evolution or both
So far, you have been the "learned" one who equated component of a system to the system

LordReed:
Where in what you screenshot did you mention divine nature? You wrote being and attributes, we now come to where his being and attributes have changed then you now introduce divine nature because the Jesus humanity clearly shows that this so called unchanging god actually changed according to your previous definition.

How have I shifted ground? It was you brought up the Jesus humanity not me. I asked you for places where the god's unchanging nature was mentioned and you listed verses. I treat what you wrote and then you start accusing me of shifting ground, that's so hilarious. May be next time don't write what you know will introduce holes to what you are saying.




You analogy does not correspond because according to you the one of the attributes of the god is agelessness and immortality, if Jesus aged and died then this was more than just adding a new part to an existing system. It will be more akin to removing the body of a brand new Mercedes sedan and replacing it with beat up old Volkswagen Beetle and then claiming no change occurred to the Mercedes when quite plainly you are no more looking at a Mercedes.

Adding humanity enabled him to negate at least 2 of his previous attributes but somehow to you it is not change and I am the one with the cognitive dissonance. LMAO!



I am quite willing to be proved wrong, you have not done so. I asked you what you meant by unchanging you pointed to ageless and immortal then also pointed to a place where he aged and died, you proved yourself wrong not me.

The bad thing with you is that you intentionally omit things so as to change context, and then you'll latch on the out of context part.
I wrote that I used ATTRIBUTES and NATURE interchangeably. And since I knew what you'd do, I wrote that before you protest, a site "free thesaurus" also combined the words together. You clearly omitted that part so you can make your case.

I didn't just accuse you, I showed how you've done that most times. First of all, the background was to show how changing one's mind on something (decision making) is not same as changing one's attributes. You deflected it from that, since the person has no answer in the first place and tried to resolve change of mind which leads to change of behaviour. I responded that that is not what Bible meant by God not changing. That it's about his being and attributes (divine nature)

Now, your analogy just show your desperation in convincing yourself that I must be wrong. Jesus would likely be called hybrid of God and man (since he added humanity to himself) just as I gave a hybrid car analogy the other time.
One of the characteristic of a combustion engine car is that it uses fuel. This does not change even if an electric source is added to it. The engine wasn't COMPLETELY replaced by electric source. So was Jesus. He added humanity to himself (I don't know why I am repeating what I've said just because someone is bent on convincing himself of being right).
If attributes of the power source is that battery will run down and finally end it's cycle, it doesn't change that of the engine. So is the fact that Jesus died IN FLESH but was ALIVE IN SPIRIT (all these have been explained, but you have blinded yourself with prejudice)

Ageless and immortality are not the only attributes of God. My response to your "client" showed that. But of course, you will ignore them so you can sit on what seem to help your case.

Workch:
So speciation can happen outside the confines of evolution?

You are stupider than I thought

I just explained how you address objections, not knowing I'll be proved right again with this your latest response

I think I'll end this here. It's obvious you can't provide the evidence you believe in, hence you deflect here and there.
Time is precious

Workch:
That’s the statement that showcased your gross ignorance. How can you not dispute speciation and still be asking how evolution led to all species?

Think about it, you tried to sound informed but that was where you messed up. Take all the time in the world to think about it

I think I only asked you to show us how speciation would lead to increased complexity, yet you are referring to my post which clearly argued opposite of what I asked you to do.

Just provide the evidence, then I'll easily believe evolution and all this your back and forth will cease.

I'm not trying to sound informed (it's your fantasy, I believe). I am expressing what I know is consistent with the reality and even providing empirical evidence for them.
Till date, you have done nothing than wonder how I don't buy into your fallacy of equivocation. And mostly use adhominem when you don't have rebuttal.

Workch:
Did you think about that statement properly before typing it?

I believe in speciation but not in evolution.

Like I advised earlier, read on equivocation. Evolution may incorporate speciation as part of it's mechanism, but it doesn't equate speciation to evolution.

All glues are adhesive but you can't just equate adhesive to a glue. Learn the difference O "learned" one

Workch:
Who takes the predictions of someone who believes in speciation but not in evolution seriously!

Seems our "learned" one is really ignorant of logical fallacies.

Attack the message, and not the messenger.

Another fallacy is that of equivocation. The "learned" one can learn about them

Workch:
i won’t even have to show a grade 6 student tha passé comprehension where I answered your question.

But you don’t get it, you are worst of all I have seen.

Prediction correct again

LordReed:
Are you so forgetful? It's right on the same bleeding page!

I repeat that you didn't initially ask that. (No point asking because I already talked about it. In fact, your initial response/question was to one of those posts where I was clarifying it)
You making ONLY the new question in bold is being intellectually dishonest as you have changed the context of such question like that.

You attempted to show how my argument that losing information implies less complexity does not hold ground by giving a wrong example of how apparent gaining of "information" in real life cause problem.
Now that I showed that there's no information gained with your example and hence have not succeeded in your plans, you are now trying to shift ground by asking me to explain what I have explained.
Go through my posts again and see it for yourself

Workch:
it has been answered but you dont understand science.you don’t get it

Let me make it interesting. Please show me where you answered it. You could make it easy for me "who doesn't understand science" by making a screenshot of where you said it and even just circle it. It'll help a lot

My prediction: you won't do it

Just to make it easy for anyone reading to see the brilliance of our "learned" one

LordReed:
Before I wrote what I wrote I did check but apparently you didn't, you never mentioned divine nature until the Jesus humanity came up. And also you apparently don't know the meaning of cognitive dissonance, I suggest you look it up to be well informed.



LMAO! OMFD! It's so obvious you are completely blinded by your cognitive dissonance. How does adding not equal change especially when you are adding something completely different from the original? Golly! This thing has eclipsed your reasoning really well.



My objective has always been clear, to show that the gaps in your reasoning are so huge you can drive a trailer through it and not feel a thing.

I have attached the screenshot of what I was talking about. Though I used attributes and nature interchangeably, I definitely mean same thing. And before you protest, you can google "synonyms of divine nature". One of the site (specifically, the one of free thesaurus, specifically the third) have a headline reading "synonyms of divine nature and attributes".
So do your homework and check again. By the way,I'm not ignorant of cognitive dissonance. I applied it back to you because you are the one who seem to have been convincing yourself of not being wrong by shifting grounds whenever you are being refuted. To explain further (before you latch on straws) the fact that you ignore any thing that refutes your ideas and then shift a bit to start a debate which is though similar, but is in reality, different from your refuted idea. So as to not feel the effect of being wrong


It's obvious you are bent on proving yourself right, and has refused to open to anything contrary.
I thought of a good analogy to explain where adding something to another does not change the behavior of the latter but I couldn't find any good one. But the one I'll use is that of cars. If an engineer add electric power source to an existing fuel driven car such that the car can toggle between any of the power source, does the new addition change the fact characteristics of the fuel engine? Especially of the addition can be removed at any time?
Try to remove your prejudice so you can see what I have explained clearly. Adding humanity to himself does not change his divine attributes.



Very funny. Your objectives just exposed and confirm what I've been saying. It doesn't matter if you are wrong, you just must show (by any means) that I can't be right and you're the one who is right. Very funny

Workch:
Go to a science community and tell them to that you believe in speciation but not in evolution if you won’t be checked for mental issues.

Band wagon?

Just answer our questions O "learned" one. Provide the evidence, so you won't be running here and there and applying logical fallacies to stay afloat

LordReed:
I asked the question, what does genetic complexity mean?

Smiles
You again have tried to cleverly change ground.

You didn't really ask this question you claim to ask. Rather, you use down syndrome as a rebuttal (though in question form). But it didn't work as it wasn't a good rebuttal (I used an analogy to question and show the invalidity of your question).
Now, you are shifting ground by asking a question I have already talked about in long sermons, while avoiding conceding to the fact that your rebuttal has been refuted.