Evolution is a False Religion not Proven Science.

[NYcarbineer]

I have to go with Sealybobo on this one. I just don't think the line was that distinct.

Well what defines a species determines that an individual is either a homo sapien or not.

 

[sealybobo]

I have to go with Sealybobo on this one. I just don't think the line was that distinct.

Well what defines a species determines that an individual is either a homo sapien or not.

Maybe 100 aliens came down and fucked 1000 apes and made 1000 "humans".

Sure one of them had to be born first but still he might not have been all alone when it came time for him to mate and reproduce.

 

[Hollie]

nsf.gov - National Science Foundation (NSF) News - Biologists Replicate Key Evolutionary Step in Life on Earth - US National Science Foundation (NSF)

that's the fifth time someone has quoted that......nothing has changed since the last time it was discussed.....still nothing more than a cluster of single celled organisms that reproduce and die, one cell at a time.....

Just like the birthers, every time someone produces the evidence you demand, you either simply deny it exists or move the goalposts.

I haven't moved any goal posts.....I'm still asking for the same thing I have been since January.....proof that a single celled organism ever evolved into a multicelled organism.......and there's a good reason to deny it exists......the reason is, it doesn't exist......if it did, one of you fools would have produced it since January.....instead I just get the same failed arguments, over and over and over.....

You are establishing a false premise to argue from, which is that unless scientists can reproduce some event in a laboratory, it cannot be considered a valid theory.

We can't recreate the 5 billion year history of the Earth in a lab. That does not in any way reduce science's estimate of the age of the Earth to simply a guess equal in merit to the Bible's 6000 year age of Earth estimate.

1) close.....you have to have some form of evidence that exhibits the claim passes at least an initial test of being falsifiable....
2) like Hollie, you should reserve your arguments about 6000 year old earths to discussion with people that believe in 6000 year old earths.....the claim is meaningless in an argument with me....

So how long has it been since the earth was poofed into existence?

I haven't the slightest idea how long ago God created the heavens and the earth.....nor, to be honest, do I care....

You haven't the slightest clue that your gawds "created" anything, let alone *poofing* all of existence 6,000 years ago.

 

[Hollie]

I understand where you're coming from..., partially. While religious beliefs do come from faith, if you want to tell us our "scientific" assumptions are wrong, you're going to have to do it in a scientific manner.

I am.....I am pointing out that your beliefs have not met the requirements of the scientific method.....

That's ludicrous. You've been belittling the methods used, twisting how they were used or claiming they weren't used at all. The only thing you haven't done is to actually point out how evolutionists' beliefs are wrong. That would require YOU using the scientific method properly, which has not been in evidence the entire thread.

seriously?......my argument from the very beginning has been that the evolutionists are wrong for not remaining true to the scientific method.....thus I have been demonstrating why the methods used were not the methods of science and pointing out where they haven't been used at all......that IS me using the scientific method properly.....

Then you clearly need to read up on scientific methods. And anyways, how can someone who thinks an invisible being poofed everything into existence argue about scientific methods as relating to where we come from?

I am quite familiar with it....in fact, I can quote from memory the section that your argument fails.....testing.....

Ya the part that fails is the part about everything being proofed into existence. So please don't argue about scientific methods, if anyone has a bogus anti-scientific claim, it's you, douchebag.

then can you demonstrate that the claim humans evolved from single celled organisms is falsifiable?......if I gave you the next six million years to come up with an experiment proving a single celled organism could even evolve into a multicelled organism and you didn't, would you acknowledge the claim is false?.....

This is typical for fundies. As science has stripped away the fears and superstitions of religious belief, the really angry believers tend to lash out at the science for presenting explanations that the angry fundies prefer not to acknowledge.

It's ok that science doesn't have every answer, as long as it continues to proceed with discovery. There is no need for faith in the naturalistic explanation of life. Every discovery in the history of science has had a naturalistic explanation, even those that were formerly thought to have a supernatural cause.

There's no reason why the evolution of life should be any different.

 

[PostmodernProph]

nsf.gov - National Science Foundation (NSF) News - Biologists Replicate Key Evolutionary Step in Life on Earth - US National Science Foundation (NSF)

that's the fifth time someone has quoted that......nothing has changed since the last time it was discussed.....still nothing more than a cluster of single celled organisms that reproduce and die, one cell at a time.....

Just like the birthers, every time someone produces the evidence you demand, you either simply deny it exists or move the goalposts.

I haven't moved any goal posts.....I'm still asking for the same thing I have been since January.....proof that a single celled organism ever evolved into a multicelled organism.......and there's a good reason to deny it exists......the reason is, it doesn't exist......if it did, one of you fools would have produced it since January.....instead I just get the same failed arguments, over and over and over.....

You are establishing a false premise to argue from, which is that unless scientists can reproduce some event in a laboratory, it cannot be considered a valid theory.

We can't recreate the 5 billion year history of the Earth in a lab. That does not in any way reduce science's estimate of the age of the Earth to simply a guess equal in merit to the Bible's 6000 year age of Earth estimate.

1) close.....you have to have some form of evidence that exhibits the claim passes at least an initial test of being falsifiable....
2) like Hollie, you should reserve your arguments about 6000 year old earths to discussion with people that believe in 6000 year old earths.....the claim is meaningless in an argument with me....

So how long has it been since the earth was poofed into existence?

I haven't the slightest idea how long ago God created the heavens and the earth.....nor, to be honest, do I care....

Just curious, is the universe expanding like scientists say? If yes, it would matter because how close did god put everything together before expansion? Very close? not so close?

I recall reading an article that reported scientific evidence to that effect.....would it matter?.....not in the least.....

 

[PostmodernProph]

I understand where you're coming from..., partially. While religious beliefs do come from faith, if you want to tell us our "scientific" assumptions are wrong, you're going to have to do it in a scientific manner.

I am.....I am pointing out that your beliefs have not met the requirements of the scientific method.....

That's ludicrous. You've been belittling the methods used, twisting how they were used or claiming they weren't used at all. The only thing you haven't done is to actually point out how evolutionists' beliefs are wrong. That would require YOU using the scientific method properly, which has not been in evidence the entire thread.

seriously?......my argument from the very beginning has been that the evolutionists are wrong for not remaining true to the scientific method.....thus I have been demonstrating why the methods used were not the methods of science and pointing out where they haven't been used at all......that IS me using the scientific method properly.....

Then you clearly need to read up on scientific methods. And anyways, how can someone who thinks an invisible being poofed everything into existence argue about scientific methods as relating to where we come from?

I am quite familiar with it....in fact, I can quote from memory the section that your argument fails.....testing.....

Ya the part that fails is the part about everything being proofed into existence. So please don't argue about scientific methods, if anyone has a bogus anti-scientific claim, it's you, douchebag.

then can you demonstrate that the claim humans evolved from single celled organisms is falsifiable?......if I gave you the next six million years to come up with an experiment proving a single celled organism could even evolve into a multicelled organism and you didn't, would you acknowledge the claim is false?.....

You think that everything was poofed into existence fully formed. Proving something to you scientifically is therefore not possible, as your whole existence is based on fantasy.

shall I take it from your diversion that the answer to the question is no?.....

 

[PostmodernProph]

nsf.gov - National Science Foundation (NSF) News - Biologists Replicate Key Evolutionary Step in Life on Earth - US National Science Foundation (NSF)

that's the fifth time someone has quoted that......nothing has changed since the last time it was discussed.....still nothing more than a cluster of single celled organisms that reproduce and die, one cell at a time.....

Just like the birthers, every time someone produces the evidence you demand, you either simply deny it exists or move the goalposts.

I haven't moved any goal posts.....I'm still asking for the same thing I have been since January.....proof that a single celled organism ever evolved into a multicelled organism.......and there's a good reason to deny it exists......the reason is, it doesn't exist......if it did, one of you fools would have produced it since January.....instead I just get the same failed arguments, over and over and over.....

You are establishing a false premise to argue from, which is that unless scientists can reproduce some event in a laboratory, it cannot be considered a valid theory.

We can't recreate the 5 billion year history of the Earth in a lab. That does not in any way reduce science's estimate of the age of the Earth to simply a guess equal in merit to the Bible's 6000 year age of Earth estimate.

1) close.....you have to have some form of evidence that exhibits the claim passes at least an initial test of being falsifiable....
2) like Hollie, you should reserve your arguments about 6000 year old earths to discussion with people that believe in 6000 year old earths.....the claim is meaningless in an argument with me....

1) Evolution is easily falsifable were a Creator to make himself known and were then to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that he could create complex living creatures, fully formed, by design.

In other words, evolution is falsifiable by the so-called Intelligent Design theory.

and your diversion means the same?....

 

[PostmodernProph]

[
I'm not.....I'm just trying to get you to realize you have no evidence whatsoever.....nothing that has ever been argued here is something which could only be true if human beings evolved from a single celled organism......

You rejected the evidence. You asked for evidence all the while knowing that you were prepared to reject any and all evidence arbitrarily,

as if you had somehow been magically crowned the Arbiter of Evidence.

lol

...which btw is a very well worn argumentative tactic, and fallacious to boot.

true, I have rejected everything you've raised so far, and for good reason.....but you guys seem so certain you have evidence I assumed you were holding something in reserve...;.

 

[PostmodernProph]

Was there a first human?

How could there not have been?

Because just like there was never just one fish and that fish turned into all the fish we see today, there was not one human. Many pre humans crawled out of the sea and started breathing air. Then we were small mammals while the dinosaurs ruled. Then we were apes. Then we were humaniods.

Doesn't it tell you anything that Chinese people developed their own unique language that has no ties to English? It wasn't like one person invented speech and then all the different nationalities put their spin on it. Asian people invented their own unique language. Just like they invented their own religions. Just like native American indians invented their own language and concepts of god.

It wasn't one person who came up with god or with language. That's because different tribes all around the planet evolved separately. We all started in Africa but eventually the one super continent broke up. The tribes that came out of the ocean in the west went one day, got lighter skin, etc. The Eskemos were probably north Africa and they trifted north, etc.

This happened over millions of years probably.

Was the one original dog? Or two? One female and one male? I guess if you take the Noah story literally you would say yes.

“Now, if the book of Genesis is an allegory, then sin is an allegory, the Fall is an allegory and the need for a Savior is an allegory – but if we are all descendants of an allegory, where does that leave us? It destroys the foundation of all Christian doctrine—it destroys the foundation of the gospel.” - Ken Ham

At some point our closest non-human ancestor started producing offspring that could be called
human. At some point there weren't any humans, at another there were.

I suppose that's true. There had to be a first just like there will be a first baby born in 2015 and every year after that. Good point. I wonder what they thought when at 14 when he was smarter than even their tribal elders that on average only lived to be about 32 years old.

They probably thought he was a god and they built pyramids in his honor. He know doubt became their king.

Didn't we even breed with neandertals? Aren't read heads all related to neandertals?

is that something you've read?...../grins.....

 

[PostmodernProph]

I understand where you're coming from..., partially. While religious beliefs do come from faith, if you want to tell us our "scientific" assumptions are wrong, you're going to have to do it in a scientific manner.

I am.....I am pointing out that your beliefs have not met the requirements of the scientific method.....

That's ludicrous. You've been belittling the methods used, twisting how they were used or claiming they weren't used at all. The only thing you haven't done is to actually point out how evolutionists' beliefs are wrong. That would require YOU using the scientific method properly, which has not been in evidence the entire thread.

seriously?......my argument from the very beginning has been that the evolutionists are wrong for not remaining true to the scientific method.....thus I have been demonstrating why the methods used were not the methods of science and pointing out where they haven't been used at all......that IS me using the scientific method properly.....

Then you clearly need to read up on scientific methods. And anyways, how can someone who thinks an invisible being poofed everything into existence argue about scientific methods as relating to where we come from?

I am quite familiar with it....in fact, I can quote from memory the section that your argument fails.....testing.....

Ya the part that fails is the part about everything being proofed into existence. So please don't argue about scientific methods, if anyone has a bogus anti-scientific claim, it's you, douchebag.

then can you demonstrate that the claim humans evolved from single celled organisms is falsifiable?......if I gave you the next six million years to come up with an experiment proving a single celled organism could even evolve into a multicelled organism and you didn't, would you acknowledge the claim is false?.....

This is typical for fundies.

so its typical for fundies to ask you to provide evidence supporting your claims?.....

 

[Hollie]

nsf.gov - National Science Foundation (NSF) News - Biologists Replicate Key Evolutionary Step in Life on Earth - US National Science Foundation (NSF)

that's the fifth time someone has quoted that......nothing has changed since the last time it was discussed.....still nothing more than a cluster of single celled organisms that reproduce and die, one cell at a time.....

Just like the birthers, every time someone produces the evidence you demand, you either simply deny it exists or move the goalposts.

I haven't moved any goal posts.....I'm still asking for the same thing I have been since January.....proof that a single celled organism ever evolved into a multicelled organism.......and there's a good reason to deny it exists......the reason is, it doesn't exist......if it did, one of you fools would have produced it since January.....instead I just get the same failed arguments, over and over and over.....

You are establishing a false premise to argue from, which is that unless scientists can reproduce some event in a laboratory, it cannot be considered a valid theory.

We can't recreate the 5 billion year history of the Earth in a lab. That does not in any way reduce science's estimate of the age of the Earth to simply a guess equal in merit to the Bible's 6000 year age of Earth estimate.

1) close.....you have to have some form of evidence that exhibits the claim passes at least an initial test of being falsifiable....
2) like Hollie, you should reserve your arguments about 6000 year old earths to discussion with people that believe in 6000 year old earths.....the claim is meaningless in an argument with me....

1) Evolution is easily falsifable were a Creator to make himself known and were then to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that he could create complex living creatures, fully formed, by design.

In other words, evolution is falsifiable by the so-called Intelligent Design theory.

and your diversion means the same?....

The diversion is yours. Biological evolution is denied by fundies because it directly contradicts creation tales and fables. Your denials are driven by your lack of knowledge regarding science.

 

[Hollie]

I understand where you're coming from..., partially. While religious beliefs do come from faith, if you want to tell us our "scientific" assumptions are wrong, you're going to have to do it in a scientific manner.

I am.....I am pointing out that your beliefs have not met the requirements of the scientific method.....

That's ludicrous. You've been belittling the methods used, twisting how they were used or claiming they weren't used at all. The only thing you haven't done is to actually point out how evolutionists' beliefs are wrong. That would require YOU using the scientific method properly, which has not been in evidence the entire thread.

seriously?......my argument from the very beginning has been that the evolutionists are wrong for not remaining true to the scientific method.....thus I have been demonstrating why the methods used were not the methods of science and pointing out where they haven't been used at all......that IS me using the scientific method properly.....

Then you clearly need to read up on scientific methods. And anyways, how can someone who thinks an invisible being poofed everything into existence argue about scientific methods as relating to where we come from?

I am quite familiar with it....in fact, I can quote from memory the section that your argument fails.....testing.....

Ya the part that fails is the part about everything being proofed into existence. So please don't argue about scientific methods, if anyone has a bogus anti-scientific claim, it's you, douchebag.

then can you demonstrate that the claim humans evolved from single celled organisms is falsifiable?......if I gave you the next six million years to come up with an experiment proving a single celled organism could even evolve into a multicelled organism and you didn't, would you acknowledge the claim is false?.....

This is typical for fundies.

so its typical for fundies to ask you to provide evidence supporting your claims?.....

You have the evidence for biological evolution.

What you refuse to do is support your claims to magic and supernaturalism.

 

[PostmodernProph]

nsf.gov - National Science Foundation (NSF) News - Biologists Replicate Key Evolutionary Step in Life on Earth - US National Science Foundation (NSF)

that's the fifth time someone has quoted that......nothing has changed since the last time it was discussed.....still nothing more than a cluster of single celled organisms that reproduce and die, one cell at a time.....

Just like the birthers, every time someone produces the evidence you demand, you either simply deny it exists or move the goalposts.

I haven't moved any goal posts.....I'm still asking for the same thing I have been since January.....proof that a single celled organism ever evolved into a multicelled organism.......and there's a good reason to deny it exists......the reason is, it doesn't exist......if it did, one of you fools would have produced it since January.....instead I just get the same failed arguments, over and over and over.....

You are establishing a false premise to argue from, which is that unless scientists can reproduce some event in a laboratory, it cannot be considered a valid theory.

We can't recreate the 5 billion year history of the Earth in a lab. That does not in any way reduce science's estimate of the age of the Earth to simply a guess equal in merit to the Bible's 6000 year age of Earth estimate.

1) close.....you have to have some form of evidence that exhibits the claim passes at least an initial test of being falsifiable....
2) like Hollie, you should reserve your arguments about 6000 year old earths to discussion with people that believe in 6000 year old earths.....the claim is meaningless in an argument with me....

1) Evolution is easily falsifable were a Creator to make himself known and were then to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that he could create complex living creatures, fully formed, by design.

In other words, evolution is falsifiable by the so-called Intelligent Design theory.

and your diversion means the same?....

The diversion is yours. Biological evolution is denied by fundies because it directly contradicts creation tales and fables. Your denials are driven by your lack of knowledge regarding science.

the evolution of a single celled organism into a multicelled organism and eventually into a human being is denied by me because there is no scientific evidence it ever happened.....that conclusion comes to me because I have more knowledge of science than you do......

 

[PostmodernProph]

I understand where you're coming from..., partially. While religious beliefs do come from faith, if you want to tell us our "scientific" assumptions are wrong, you're going to have to do it in a scientific manner.

I am.....I am pointing out that your beliefs have not met the requirements of the scientific method.....

That's ludicrous. You've been belittling the methods used, twisting how they were used or claiming they weren't used at all. The only thing you haven't done is to actually point out how evolutionists' beliefs are wrong. That would require YOU using the scientific method properly, which has not been in evidence the entire thread.

seriously?......my argument from the very beginning has been that the evolutionists are wrong for not remaining true to the scientific method.....thus I have been demonstrating why the methods used were not the methods of science and pointing out where they haven't been used at all......that IS me using the scientific method properly.....

Then you clearly need to read up on scientific methods. And anyways, how can someone who thinks an invisible being poofed everything into existence argue about scientific methods as relating to where we come from?

I am quite familiar with it....in fact, I can quote from memory the section that your argument fails.....testing.....

Ya the part that fails is the part about everything being proofed into existence. So please don't argue about scientific methods, if anyone has a bogus anti-scientific claim, it's you, douchebag.

then can you demonstrate that the claim humans evolved from single celled organisms is falsifiable?......if I gave you the next six million years to come up with an experiment proving a single celled organism could even evolve into a multicelled organism and you didn't, would you acknowledge the claim is false?.....

This is typical for fundies.

so its typical for fundies to ask you to provide evidence supporting your claims?.....

You have the evidence for biological evolution.

I am not aware of any evidence that a single celled organism evolved into a human being.....neither do you, or you would have shared it by now.....

 

[NYcarbineer]

nsf.gov - National Science Foundation (NSF) News - Biologists Replicate Key Evolutionary Step in Life on Earth - US National Science Foundation (NSF)

that's the fifth time someone has quoted that......nothing has changed since the last time it was discussed.....still nothing more than a cluster of single celled organisms that reproduce and die, one cell at a time.....

Just like the birthers, every time someone produces the evidence you demand, you either simply deny it exists or move the goalposts.

I haven't moved any goal posts.....I'm still asking for the same thing I have been since January.....proof that a single celled organism ever evolved into a multicelled organism.......and there's a good reason to deny it exists......the reason is, it doesn't exist......if it did, one of you fools would have produced it since January.....instead I just get the same failed arguments, over and over and over.....

You are establishing a false premise to argue from, which is that unless scientists can reproduce some event in a laboratory, it cannot be considered a valid theory.

We can't recreate the 5 billion year history of the Earth in a lab. That does not in any way reduce science's estimate of the age of the Earth to simply a guess equal in merit to the Bible's 6000 year age of Earth estimate.

1) close.....you have to have some form of evidence that exhibits the claim passes at least an initial test of being falsifiable....
2) like Hollie, you should reserve your arguments about 6000 year old earths to discussion with people that believe in 6000 year old earths.....the claim is meaningless in an argument with me....

1) Evolution is easily falsifable were a Creator to make himself known and were then to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that he could create complex living creatures, fully formed, by design.

In other words, evolution is falsifiable by the so-called Intelligent Design theory.

and your diversion means the same?....

Is that supposed to mean something?

Do you deny that proof of intelligent design could falsify the theory of evolution?

 

[Hollie]

nsf.gov - National Science Foundation (NSF) News - Biologists Replicate Key Evolutionary Step in Life on Earth - US National Science Foundation (NSF)

that's the fifth time someone has quoted that......nothing has changed since the last time it was discussed.....still nothing more than a cluster of single celled organisms that reproduce and die, one cell at a time.....

Just like the birthers, every time someone produces the evidence you demand, you either simply deny it exists or move the goalposts.

I haven't moved any goal posts.....I'm still asking for the same thing I have been since January.....proof that a single celled organism ever evolved into a multicelled organism.......and there's a good reason to deny it exists......the reason is, it doesn't exist......if it did, one of you fools would have produced it since January.....instead I just get the same failed arguments, over and over and over.....

You are establishing a false premise to argue from, which is that unless scientists can reproduce some event in a laboratory, it cannot be considered a valid theory.

We can't recreate the 5 billion year history of the Earth in a lab. That does not in any way reduce science's estimate of the age of the Earth to simply a guess equal in merit to the Bible's 6000 year age of Earth estimate.

1) close.....you have to have some form of evidence that exhibits the claim passes at least an initial test of being falsifiable....
2) like Hollie, you should reserve your arguments about 6000 year old earths to discussion with people that believe in 6000 year old earths.....the claim is meaningless in an argument with me....

1) Evolution is easily falsifable were a Creator to make himself known and were then to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that he could create complex living creatures, fully formed, by design.

In other words, evolution is falsifiable by the so-called Intelligent Design theory.

and your diversion means the same?....

The diversion is yours. Biological evolution is denied by fundies because it directly contradicts creation tales and fables. Your denials are driven by your lack of knowledge regarding science.

the evolution of a single celled organism into a multicelled organism and eventually into a human being is denied by me because there is no scientific evidence it ever happened.....that conclusion comes to me because I have more knowledge of science than you do......

You give yourself credit for nothing. If you had ever had an introduction to biology, you would never had made such a statement.

As usual, you slither away when you're tasked with supporting your claims to magic and supernaturalism.

Thrill us with the evidence you have for Noah's Ark and biblical tales. Identify for us how all of existence began 6,000 years ago.

 

[NYcarbineer]

nsf.gov - National Science Foundation (NSF) News - Biologists Replicate Key Evolutionary Step in Life on Earth - US National Science Foundation (NSF)

that's the fifth time someone has quoted that......nothing has changed since the last time it was discussed.....still nothing more than a cluster of single celled organisms that reproduce and die, one cell at a time.....

Just like the birthers, every time someone produces the evidence you demand, you either simply deny it exists or move the goalposts.

I haven't moved any goal posts.....I'm still asking for the same thing I have been since January.....proof that a single celled organism ever evolved into a multicelled organism.......and there's a good reason to deny it exists......the reason is, it doesn't exist......if it did, one of you fools would have produced it since January.....instead I just get the same failed arguments, over and over and over.....

You are establishing a false premise to argue from, which is that unless scientists can reproduce some event in a laboratory, it cannot be considered a valid theory.

We can't recreate the 5 billion year history of the Earth in a lab. That does not in any way reduce science's estimate of the age of the Earth to simply a guess equal in merit to the Bible's 6000 year age of Earth estimate.

1) close.....you have to have some form of evidence that exhibits the claim passes at least an initial test of being falsifiable....
2) like Hollie, you should reserve your arguments about 6000 year old earths to discussion with people that believe in 6000 year old earths.....the claim is meaningless in an argument with me....

1) Evolution is easily falsifable were a Creator to make himself known and were then to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that he could create complex living creatures, fully formed, by design.

In other words, evolution is falsifiable by the so-called Intelligent Design theory.

and your diversion means the same?....

The diversion is yours. Biological evolution is denied by fundies because it directly contradicts creation tales and fables. Your denials are driven by your lack of knowledge regarding science.

the evolution of a single celled organism into a multicelled organism and eventually into a human being is denied by me because there is no scientific evidence it ever happened.....that conclusion comes to me because I have more knowledge of science than you do......

So that means that the scientists who disagree with you have less knowledge of science than you do?

lol

By your reasoning we have no evidence that dinosaurs ever roamed the earth, because all we have are skeletons or fossils, and they are not really evidence, since they aren't actually alive.

lol

 

[NYcarbineer]

[
the evolution of a single celled organism into a multicelled organism and eventually into a human being is denied by me because there is no scientific evidence it ever happened.....that conclusion comes to me because I have more knowledge of science than you do......

You give yourself credit for nothing. If you had ever had an introduction to biology, you would never had made such a statement.

As usual, you slither away when you're tasked with supporting your claims to magic and supernaturalism.

Thrill us with the evidence you have for Noah's Ark and biblical tales. Identify for us how all of existence began 6,000 years ago.

PostMod is proof that messageboard trolling has definitely evolved, that is one certainty, lol.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[
1) close.....you have to have some form of evidence that exhibits the claim passes at least an initial test of being falsifiable........

Okay, so now that I've proven that evolution is falsifiable, what's the next test?

 

[PostmodernProph]

nsf.gov - National Science Foundation (NSF) News - Biologists Replicate Key Evolutionary Step in Life on Earth - US National Science Foundation (NSF)

that's the fifth time someone has quoted that......nothing has changed since the last time it was discussed.....still nothing more than a cluster of single celled organisms that reproduce and die, one cell at a time.....

Just like the birthers, every time someone produces the evidence you demand, you either simply deny it exists or move the goalposts.

I haven't moved any goal posts.....I'm still asking for the same thing I have been since January.....proof that a single celled organism ever evolved into a multicelled organism.......and there's a good reason to deny it exists......the reason is, it doesn't exist......if it did, one of you fools would have produced it since January.....instead I just get the same failed arguments, over and over and over.....

You are establishing a false premise to argue from, which is that unless scientists can reproduce some event in a laboratory, it cannot be considered a valid theory.

We can't recreate the 5 billion year history of the Earth in a lab. That does not in any way reduce science's estimate of the age of the Earth to simply a guess equal in merit to the Bible's 6000 year age of Earth estimate.

1) close.....you have to have some form of evidence that exhibits the claim passes at least an initial test of being falsifiable....
2) like Hollie, you should reserve your arguments about 6000 year old earths to discussion with people that believe in 6000 year old earths.....the claim is meaningless in an argument with me....

1) Evolution is easily falsifable were a Creator to make himself known and were then to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that he could create complex living creatures, fully formed, by design.

In other words, evolution is falsifiable by the so-called Intelligent Design theory.

and your diversion means the same?....

Is that supposed to mean something?

Do you deny that proof of intelligent design could falsify the theory of evolution?

I deny you've made any attempt to answer the question seriously.......