A little more about evolution by the experts.

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You have failed to demonstrate anything, smart guy.

Right, because I don't do troll exercises.

Tell me what some of the evidence might look like, and I will do my best.

And, go.

 

[Colin norris]

I've already did. This is why you have become SAF and POS.


This makes you WACKO lmao. Show me where they confirmed it -- https://evolution.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Evo101_06_Macroevolution_UE.pdf

Youre done godbotherer. You have nothing.
Show me one word where science has unconditionally supported religion. Not some godbothering piece of shit written by an idiot like you.

 

[james bond]

Tell me what some of the evidence might look like, and I will do my best.

"For British naturalists in particular, steeped as they were in natural theology, this was appalling. They believed that nature was a reflection of God’s benevolent design."

It's in the intelligent design. Today, we find DNA, how the heart organ pumps blood, nourishment and protection from illnesses throughout our body, and more.

The above can be tested and with the "more":

"

Is Intelligent Design a Scientific Theory?​

Yes. The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed."

What Is Intelligent Design?

Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design…

intelligentdesign.org

Yet, you still can't produce anything lol. Goo bye!

 

[DukeU]

Right, because I don't do troll exercises.

Tell me what some of the evidence might look like, and I will do my best.

And, go.

LOL

You said you have ALL of the evidence, let's see it.

Let's see the missing links between no life and life, you know, the made up part.

 

[Hollie]

"For British naturalists in particular, steeped as they were in natural theology, this was appalling. They believed that nature was a reflection of God’s benevolent design."

It's in the intelligent design. Today, we find DNA, how the heart organ pumps blood, nourishment and protection from illnesses throughout our body, and more.

The above can be tested and with the "more":

"

Is Intelligent Design a Scientific Theory?​

Yes. The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed."

What Is Intelligent Design?

Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design…

intelligentdesign.org

Yet, you still can't produce anything lol. Goo bye!

ID'iot creationerism is not science.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You said you have ALL of the evidence, let's see it.

No I didn't. Another strawman. Pretty lame.

I said all the evidence backs what I am saying. I would just go compile it and lay it at your feet for you to spit on? The evidence that has convinced all the smartest and most educated people on the planet? Ha, no, troll.

Now, tell me what some of that evidence might look like, and I will do my best. Normal people have no problem answering that question.

But, again, you won't. You can't, because you are faith-bound not to answer the question. You won't even try. Seriously, even make try to make yourself try.

You can't do it. And you won't do it.

You will just try to get attention and waste other people's time shitting on whatever they bring to you.

 

[james bond]

I said all the evidence backs what I am saying.

Haha. It means you are LYING.

Good thing I didn't see it in the morning or else...

 

[james bond]

Youre done godbotherer. You have nothing.
Show me one word where science has unconditionally supported religion. Not some godbothering piece of shit written by an idiot like you.

I didn't think you knew how evolution explained it as you did not explain. I even gave you the link, but it was too complex for you. Now, you're back to your constant beotching about creationists because they are right and you are wrong.

When an evolutionist can't explain what he believes in using science, then you know they are the simpletons who are SAF and POS.

 

[buttercup]

Way to sidestep the point. Again, not being able to understand something makes your absolutist claims about gods meaningless. Making absolutist claims about the 'reality' of supernatural entities is meaningless. I have never once required you to prove anything. If you have a supportable argument for gods, you should present that argument. See, it's really simple, I'm not requiring proof. I'm simply requiring you to present an argument that doesn't presume I must accept your ''... because I say so'' admonishments.

Wow. I don’t want to be rude but I can see now that you are the type of atheist who is so obsessed that you're literally incapable of having a normal conversation. (I know the type, from experience. A one-track mind.)

If you look back at the string of our conversation, the topic was not about the existence of God.

Let’s recap what we WERE talking about. In post #58, I quoted a bunch of your posts where you used the word gods plural. Then I said that you’ve been told a trillion times that there is only one god. And then I said that when you do that it shows that you’re trolling.

So I was talking about your use of the word gods plural in a trolling way. In other words, your immature trolling.

Then you brought up the trinity. You didn’t make your point clear but since you brought it up, I replied in post #71 and I made a true statement in regard to the trinity, that just because we can’t fully understand something doesn’t make it untrue.

From there, evidently you jumped to the topic of the existence of God, which now you're arrogantly implying that I haven't proven my case, when that wasn't even the topic of our conversation.

Your problem is that you're gullible, impressionable and never bothered to critically examine the propaganda you were told was true.

I'm actually laughing here. Yet again you are SO wrong. I didn't grow up in a Christian home. I didn't become a Christian until relatively late in life, so for most of my life I was a nonbeliever, and extremely unreligious. God or religion wasn't even on my radar for many years. One of the reasons I was so unreligious (and actually hated religion) is because I've always been a skeptic and an independent thinker. So your accusation that I'm gullible and impressionable, while condescending and meant to be an insult, is actually laughable to me...and a statement like that just make you look ignorant, in my eyes and in the eyes of other believers.

When I finally did become a believer, it wasn't because anyone "told me" it was true. I came to Christ on my own, for a number of reasons, none of which were because anyone "told me" or that I didn't "critically examine the propaganda." The exact opposite is the case. I DID critically examine numerous things that I had previously never taken the time to look into. In addition to that, I had my own life-changing revelatory experience, which I won't bother explaining to you, because I can see that nothing is getting through that obsessed mind of yours that is more closed than Fort Knox.

You falsely and dishonestly write with 100% certainty and 0% facts about gods in the hope of making some connection to an argument. Early people invented icons, representations of animals, objects found in nature, etc. to explain phenomenon they didn't understand. Most of humanity has moved away from that.

LOL. I'm still laughing here. Again, we weren't even talking about the existence of God (at least I wasn't) and you - like other obsessed atheists of your stripe - manage to inject your obsession into every single conversation, regardless of what the other person is talking about.

We could be talking about underwater basket weaving, and you're the type of atheist who would somehow manage to change the topic into the existence of God, then get mad at the person you're talking to for not proving God to you, when they weren't even talking about that in the first place. And with such anger! And bitterness! And venom!

Colin Norris is another one like that... you're just like him in that way. It doesn't matter what the topic is, he obsessively injects God into whatever it is, with so much anger and bitterness, always demanding others prove God to him.

Both you and him really are obsessed. That's why you spend so much time in the religion section...which is interesting to me, and telling. Reminds me of the saying, "Methinks the lady doth protest too much."

 

[Colin norris]

I didn't think you knew how evolution explained it as you did not explain. I even gave you the link, but it was too complex for you.

the link you gave didn't prove there was a god. It was written by some jsus junkie like you.

Now, you're back to your constant beotching about creationists because they are right and you are wrong.

When an evolutionist can't explain what he believes in using science, then you know they are the simpletons who are SAF and POS.

Just peruse any study of human or animal anatomy and you'll realize the utter impossibility of evolution.

No. I with you to prove it and while your there, prove your God exists. I know you can't so we'll see who is lying now.

 

[Colin norris]

I didn't think you knew how evolution explained it as you did not explain. I even gave you the link, but it was too complex for you. Now, you're back to your constant beotching about creationists because they are right and you are wrong.

When an evolutionist can't explain what he believes in using science, then you know they are the simpletons who are SAF and POS.

Evolution is not connected to science and never was. Attempting to link the two is immature at best.

I asked you these questions before.
From what did God create the universe?
Exactly when was it done and don't quote the bible and ancient scriptures because carbon dating proves that wrong.
Where did all the water go after the seas increased by over 8 kilometres above current sea levels?
Why did your merciful god drown everyone and everything but the chosen few if he was so merciful?
Can you explain how he made nuclear fusion in stars?
There's some home work son. Try your luck this time and I'll blow you away again.




Here's the article again just to refresh your demented brain. Notice how it talks a natural selection.

Evolution: Ancient Britons rapidly adapted to cope with lack of sunlight | New Scientist

www-newscientist-com.cdn.ampproject.org

Notice the mention of evolution? No creationist. Just the plain hard facts.


Gid bless all the dickhead godbotherers in USA.

 

[gtopa1]

Thought you believers might like to argue that god was responsible.

Evolution: Ancient Britons rapidly adapted to cope with lack of sunlight | New Scientist

www-newscientist-com.cdn.ampproject.org

What genetic codes were selected? How did these codes eventuate at the biochemical level?



Greg

 

[Colin norris]

What genetic codes were selected? How did these codes eventuate at the biochemical level?



Greg

I'm not sure what you mean but I can say that DNA arrived very soon after the first split cells. It had to or it couldn't reproduce the same again.
But there's no pointing to some god shit. It simply didn't happen like that.
If you wanted to research it and I know you won't, it is easily explained.
You will still go to heaven even if you don't believe it.

 

[Colin norris]

Youre done godbotherer. You have nothing.
Show me one word where science has unconditionally supported religion. Not some godbothering piece of shit written by an idiot like you.

Gtopa.
Disagreeing is pathetic. If you know I'm wrong, prove it. I know you can't so its best you discontinue the ignorant remarks.

 

[gtopa1]

I'm not sure what you mean but I can say that DNA arrived very soon after the first split cells. It had to or it couldn't reproduce the same again.
But there's no pointing to some god shit. It simply didn't happen like that.
If you wanted to research it and I know you won't, it is easily explained.
You will still go to heaven even if you don't believe it.

So you are saying that you don't KNOW!!! Very good. Thanks for playing at Science. You have no idea of the mechanisms which underpin that of which you speak. That you BELIEVE in Science says you m,isunderstand the very nature of Science.

Greg

 

[Colin norris]

So you are saying that you don't KNOW!!! Very good. Thanks for playing at Science. You have no idea of the mechanisms which underpin that of which you speak. That you BELIEVE in Science says you m,isunderstand the very nature of Science.

Greg

That would be the same as you believing there's a god but don't understand anything else. The more faith you have that there has to be a god, the greater the chance there isn't. Faith does not equate to fact.




Science has nothing to do with DNA. They only discovered it not invented it.
So if I'm wrong you obviously have the correct answer and I challenge you to put it here now.
See how good you are now big mouth.

 

[surada]

Rainfall runs downhill. The flood came uphill. So there's that.

Lol uphill you say? Are you a loon?

 

[gtopa1]

Gtopa.
Disagreeing is pathetic. If you know I'm wrong, prove it. I know you can't so its best you discontinue the ignorant remarks.

WRONG as usual. You really are a lying prat!!!!

So you don't know. Good. As expected. you're a bloody parrot without ANY idea of Evolution. You think you really are a Monkey's Uncle??? lmao

Greg

 

[gtopa1]

That would be the same as you believing there's a god but don't understand anything else. The more faith you have that there has to be a god, the greater the chance there isn't. Faith does not equate to fact.




Science has nothing to do with DNA. They only discovered it not invented it.
So if I'm wrong you obviously have the correct answer and I challenge you to put it here now.
See how good you are now big mouth.

You are clueless. Case closed, dummy!!! lmao

Next you'll think you know something about Quantum Mechanics!!!!

Greg

 

[surada]

Yes, it rained for forty days and nights only, but the flood lasted a year.

Spring snow melt from the Zagros mountains combined with heavy spring rains caused the flood. Water doesn't run uphill.