Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Jes' looking at the evidence, that's all. Evolution doesn't compute in my hair covered computer.How shameless. So you "have the ability" to think about a topic you seem to know less than nothing about, but the scientific community does not.
How do you say this stuff with a straight face?
Because we're actually able to think.
Jes' looking at the evidence, that's all. Evolution doesn't compute in my hair covered computer.
I examine those answers, and they are full of holes. Built-in adaptation makes perfect sense, but not evolution.You don't think ... you prance around like a Kansas City faggot chanting "I can't hear you I can't hear you" ...
You've been giving the simple answer you asked for ... would you like to comment further or are we agreed evolution makes perfect sense? ...
I doubt very much he looked at much of the evidence. You basically admitted that you've just looked at beavers and made up your mind. You have basically admitted that you have not considered the evidence.Jes' looking at the evidence, that's all.
Yet you can't name one single hole or describe why it is a hole.I examine those answers, and they are full of holes. Built-in adaptation makes perfect sense, but not evolution.
I used beavers as one example.I doubt very much he looked at much of the evidence. You basically admitted that you've just looked at beavers and made up your mind. You have basically admitted that you have not considered the evidence.
I examine those answers, and they are full of holes. Built-in adaptation makes perfect sense, but not evolution.
I used beavers as one example.
You guys ignore or attempt to debunk my questions. You're slippery that way. You cite 'changes' but don't explain the mechanism for those changes. It's all very confusing.Yet you can't name one single hole or describe why it is a hole.
You guys ignore or attempt to debunk my questions. You're slippery that way. You cite 'changes' but don't explain the mechanism for those changes. It's all very confusing.
I think you mean given don't you?And you were giving a scientific citation ... do you wish to discuss that citation? ...
And it was an example of you intentionally not looking at the evidence and instead just looking at beavers and trying to "intuit" how the world works. No getting around it, sorry.I used beavers as one example.
Methane evolves into ethane ... why doesn't that "compute"? ...
What a silly falsehood. Your direct questions have been answered many times, as anyone can see for themselves.You guys ignore or attempt to debunk my questions.
My intuition reveals that the world doesn't work very well, and science is largely to blame. You can't give razorblades to a child then wash your hands of the results.And it was an example of you intentionally not looking at the evidence and instead just looking at beavers and trying to "intuit" how the world works. No getting around it, sorry.
Sure. I said that evolution depends on changes at the atomic level. You guys denied that. What am I to think after that?What a silly falsehood. Your direct questions have been answered many times, as anyone can see for themselves.
And asking a question does not poke a hole in an argument or make any case. It merely signals that you don't know things and have to ask questions.
But if you would like to state one hole in the above explanation and argue it, now is the time.
That's not anyone's problem but yours. Nobody has to account for that.My intuition reveals that the world doesn't work very well, and science is largely to blame.
I think you mean given don't you?
That citation/abstract was pure supposition.
No, if you mean it depends on chemical reactions, then I clearly agreed and agree now.I said that evolution depends on changes at the atomic level. You guys denied that.
