Not Darwin's Law, it's God's Law.

[PostmodernProph]

Cuz I own you and you have nothing, you pipsqueek.

lol....the concept of Taz actually winning a debate with someone.....that's why I come here....a little bit of humor to brighten my day....

I own you over Noah. You still haven't explained properly how Noah got marsupials from Oz and back again. Polar bears. Arctic foxes...

you don't really think you own me over that silly thing, do you?.......don't you realize how irrelevant the question is?.......Noah didn't get any creatures back from anywhere or return them....didn't need to........oh but wait......I've pointed that out to you half a dozen times already.....how is it that your inability to comprehend something that basic transforms in your mind to "ownership?........

whats most amusing is that you think you are mocking literalists with your argument, when in truth your argument is not even comprehensible unless you share a literalist interpretation with them......thus in mocking them, you mock yourself......priceless.......

 

[the_human_being]

Cuz I own you and you have nothing, you pipsqueek.

lol....the concept of Taz actually winning a debate with someone.....that's why I come here....a little bit of humor to brighten my day....

I own you over Noah. You still haven't explained properly how Noah got marsupials from Oz and back again. Polar bears. Arctic foxes...

You own no one over Noah. You went on there with kangaroos on your brain and asked your question. You received many responses including one from me. Your mind was already made up so you dismissed each and every response you received and attacked those kind enough to respond to you. You made a total ass out of yourself and the people stopped engaging you. The problem is that you are simply too ignorant to realize that they all quickly saw that you were a total asshole.

No, I dismissed no plausible theory about how the marsupial got around. Just the Kooky ones. I'm still waiting for a plausible concept, if you have an update over that.

You dismissed each and every theory and the people quit humoring your stupidity.

 

[PostmodernProph]

You want to see Tiktaalik rosae for your half-fish, half- land animal. Characteristics of both and right in the middle of the fossil record, right where the paleontologists predicted it would be.

one of God's more interesting creations......

Nah. That would be the blueprint for the cancer cell.....

literally, the blueprint for a cancerous cell would be DNA, so I am forced to agree with you........

That suggests really incompetent design skills on the part of your gawds. Did none of your three gawds check the others' work?

not at all....unlimited flexibility is not a flaw.....most cancerous cells are the result of the abuse we put our bodies through with things like nicotine and other carcinogens.....is it also a flaw that God did not design our skulls to be impervious to games of Russian roulette?......

 

[the_human_being]

Cuz I own you and you have nothing, you pipsqueek.

lol....the concept of Taz actually winning a debate with someone.....that's why I come here....a little bit of humor to brighten my day....

I own you over Noah. You still haven't explained properly how Noah got marsupials from Oz and back again. Polar bears. Arctic foxes...

you don't really think you own me over that silly thing, do you?.......don't you realize how irrelevant the question is?.......Noah didn't get any creatures back from anywhere or return them....didn't need to........oh but wait......I've pointed that out to you half a dozen times already.....how is it that your inability to comprehend something that basic transforms in your mind to "ownership?........

whats most amusing is that you think you are mocking literalists with your argument, when in truth your argument is not even comprehensible unless you share a literalist interpretation with them......thus in mocking them, you mock yourself......priceless.......

He has determined that he won the argument because no one gave him the answer to which he had already determined to be the correct one. Once everyone saw through him and dismissed him as a fool, he went off on other threads with the same stupid question. He's a total lunatic.

 

[the_human_being]

The Real Answer: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v465/n7295/full/nature09014.html#/

The above is an article written by Prof. Doug Theobald published in the journal Nature, regarding the case for common descent. For the benefit of the angry fundies, I'll point out that this is what real scientists do: they publish in peer reviewed literature.

That's something that religious cranks don't do, for obvious reasons.

And then we have the fact that it's all based on a metaphysical presupposition, an apriority that presupposes a common ancestry and presumptuously accommodates/interprets the evidence in terms of a common ancestry . . . when all along the evidence is perfectly compatible with a biological history that is instead a series of discrete, creative events and extinctions over time within a microevolutionary model of adaptive diversity:

Debunking the 8220 29 evidences for macroevolution 8221 part 1 Releasing the Truth

Debunking the 8220 29 evidences for macroevolution 8221 part 2 Releasing the Truth

Raw, I checked out your link, the guy is insane. He's obsessed with trying to disprove something (that he can't), so that his invisible friend will be the only other option. That's not how it works, you have it ass-backwards.

He's insane??? LOL!!!

 

[BreezeWood]

.
- and if Adamic man appeared just 50K years ago ...

World s Oldest Stone Tools - Archaeology Magazine Archive

More than 2,600 sharp-edged flakes, flake fragments, and cores (cobbles from which flakes have been removed), found in the fine-grained sediments of a dry riverbed in the Afar region of Ethiopia, have been dated to between 2.52 and 2.60 million years ago, pushing back by more than 150,000 years the known date at which humans were making stone tools.

who was responsible for the above tools, 2.5 million years ago irregardless their genetics ?

.

Pay attention: the Bible tells us that mankind is at least 40,000 to 50,000 years old relative to the genealogy pertinent to the biblical narrative only. It does not necessarily tell us how old mankind is, no more than the Bible tells us how old the universe or the Earth is.

.

mdr: Pay attention: the Bible tells us that mankind is at least 40,000 to 50,000 years old relative to the genealogy pertinent to the biblical narrative only. It does not necessarily tell us how old mankind is, no more than the Bible tells us how old the universe or the Earth is.

.

relativistically speaking you have not demonstrated a verifiable example of Adamic Mankind distinct among the vast physical examples prevalent world wide through scientific research available to all concerned that would date back any further than your earlier stated point of time ~ 50,000 years - the prevalence of modern mankind.

and worse for your indefensible position the variety of present day mankind represented by hundreds of different races, for even on the same continents ... unless you are specifically speaking about a select chosen few of a single race that are the only descendants applicable to the Adamic lineage whereas all others and all other beings in regards to your religious beliefs have neither Spirits nor an avenue to the eternal Everlasting, you still have not provided appropriate physical evidence for their existence. than maybe yourself ...

only by the scriptures you have chosen to abide irregardless their veracity in total as the sole source for your convictions can you come to any other erroneous conclusion is the proof against physical evidence for the futility of the biblical religions.

.

Your sick, pathological hatred for Christianity and your decision to follow after the religion of ontological naturalism are your problem, not mine.

.

your disregard for the history of christianity and the consequences of its practice to the present time is a culpability for everyone to be concerned while in the pursuit of the Commandment of the Almighty for the preservation of humanity against extinction your religion is guaranteed to bring to fruition.

.

 

[Hollie]

You want to see Tiktaalik rosae for your half-fish, half- land animal. Characteristics of both and right in the middle of the fossil record, right where the paleontologists predicted it would be.

one of God's more interesting creations......

Nah. That would be the blueprint for the cancer cell.....

literally, the blueprint for a cancerous cell would be DNA, so I am forced to agree with you........

That suggests really incompetent design skills on the part of your gawds. Did none of your three gawds check the others' work?

not at all....unlimited flexibility is not a flaw.....most cancerous cells are the result of the abuse we put our bodies through with things like nicotine and other carcinogens.....is it also a flaw that God did not design our skulls to be impervious to games of Russian roulette?......

Obvious indications that you also failed the curriculum at the Pat Robertson madrassah.

 

[Boss]

Evolution isn't supposed to make predictions. It is the best explanation of how things got to be the way they are.

You do not think that evolution is an acceptable explanation of how God created living things?

I don't think so because "evolution" doesn't deal with origin of life. Darwin's theory of evolution explains a process by which already existing things change and adapt over time. We do not have a solid scientific explanation for origin of life. The prevailing theory is "abiogenesis" but it is fraught with contradictory representations and speculation. There are over 150 competing theories which fall into the category of abiogenesis. Now, is abiogenesis (or something like it) an acceptable explanation for how God created life? Perhaps.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The Real Answer: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v465/n7295/full/nature09014.html#/

The above is an article written by Prof. Doug Theobald published in the journal Nature, regarding the case for common descent. For the benefit of the angry fundies, I'll point out that this is what real scientists do: they publish in peer reviewed literature.

That's something that religious cranks don't do, for obvious reasons.

And then we have the fact that it's all based on a metaphysical presupposition, an apriority that presupposes a common ancestry and presumptuously accommodates/interprets the evidence in terms of a common ancestry . . . when all along the evidence is perfectly compatible with a biological history that is instead a series of discrete, creative events and extinctions over time within a microevolutionary model of adaptive diversity:

Debunking the 8220 29 evidences for macroevolution 8221 part 1 Releasing the Truth

Debunking the 8220 29 evidences for macroevolution 8221 part 2 Releasing the Truth

Raw, I checked out your link, the guy is insane. He's obsessed with trying to disprove something (that he can't), so that his invisible friend will be the only other option. That's not how it works, you have it ass-backwards.

That is not how what works? You don't even know what you read, magical nature man.

Once again. . . .

And then we have the fact that it's all based on a metaphysical presupposition, an apriority that presupposes a common ancestry and presumptuously accommodates/interprets the evidence in terms of a common ancestry . . . when all along the evidence is perfectly compatible with a biological history that is instead a series of discrete, creative events and extinctions over time within a microevolutionary model of adaptive diversity:

Debunking the 8220 29 evidences for macroevolution 8221 part 1 Releasing the Truth

Debunking the 8220 29 evidences for macroevolution 8221 part 2 Releasing the Truth

 

[Hollie]

The Real Answer: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v465/n7295/full/nature09014.html#/

The above is an article written by Prof. Doug Theobald published in the journal Nature, regarding the case for common descent. For the benefit of the angry fundies, I'll point out that this is what real scientists do: they publish in peer reviewed literature.

That's something that religious cranks don't do, for obvious reasons.

And then we have the fact that it's all based on a metaphysical presupposition, an apriority that presupposes a common ancestry and presumptuously accommodates/interprets the evidence in terms of a common ancestry . . . when all along the evidence is perfectly compatible with a biological history that is instead a series of discrete, creative events and extinctions over time within a microevolutionary model of adaptive diversity:

Debunking the 8220 29 evidences for macroevolution 8221 part 1 Releasing the Truth

Debunking the 8220 29 evidences for macroevolution 8221 part 2 Releasing the Truth

Raw, I checked out your link, the guy is insane. He's obsessed with trying to disprove something (that he can't), so that his invisible friend will be the only other option. That's not how it works, you have it ass-backwards.

That is not how what works? You don't even know what you read, magical nature man.

Once again. . . .

And then we have the fact that it's all based on a metaphysical presupposition, an apriority that presupposes a common ancestry and presumptuously accommodates/interprets the evidence in terms of a common ancestry . . . when all along the evidence is perfectly compatible with a biological history that is instead a series of discrete, creative events and extinctions over time within a microevolutionary model of adaptive diversity:

Debunking the 8220 29 evidences for macroevolution 8221 part 1 Releasing the Truth

Debunking the 8220 29 evidences for macroevolution 8221 part 2 Releasing the Truth

Ah, yes. "Releasing the truth". Someone's personal blog. Not very convincing.

As usual for the hyper-religious types, there's always an absence of peer review for the fundie position.


29 Evidences for Macroevolution Part 1


29 Evidences for Macroevolution Part 2

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The Real Answer: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v465/n7295/full/nature09014.html#/

The above is an article written by Prof. Doug Theobald published in the journal Nature, regarding the case for common descent. For the benefit of the angry fundies, I'll point out that this is what real scientists do: they publish in peer reviewed literature.

That's something that religious cranks don't do, for obvious reasons.

And then we have the fact that it's all based on a metaphysical presupposition, an apriority that presupposes a common ancestry and presumptuously accommodates/interprets the evidence in terms of a common ancestry . . . when all along the evidence is perfectly compatible with a biological history that is instead a series of discrete, creative events and extinctions over time within a microevolutionary model of adaptive diversity:

Debunking the 8220 29 evidences for macroevolution 8221 part 1 Releasing the Truth

Debunking the 8220 29 evidences for macroevolution 8221 part 2 Releasing the Truth

Raw, I checked out your link, the guy is insane. He's obsessed with trying to disprove something (that he can't), so that his invisible friend will be the only other option. That's not how it works, you have it ass-backwards.

That is not how what works? You don't even know what you read, magical nature man.

Once again. . . .

And then we have the fact that it's all based on a metaphysical presupposition, an apriority that presupposes a common ancestry and presumptuously accommodates/interprets the evidence in terms of a common ancestry . . . when all along the evidence is perfectly compatible with a biological history that is instead a series of discrete, creative events and extinctions over time within a microevolutionary model of adaptive diversity:

Debunking the 8220 29 evidences for macroevolution 8221 part 1 Releasing the Truth

Debunking the 8220 29 evidences for macroevolution 8221 part 2 Releasing the Truth

Ah, yes. "Releasing the truth". Someone's personal blog. Not very convincing.

As usual for the hyper-religious types, there's always an absence of peer review for the fundie position.


29 Evidences for Macroevolution Part 1


29 Evidences for Macroevolution Part 2

Precisely. And, of course, these are debunked here, shown for what they, the "predictions" of a presupposed metaphysics of ontological naturalism, the very same predictions made without any presupposition whatsoever by a creational model thousands of years prior to Darwin:

Debunking the 8220 29 evidences for macroevolution 8221 part 1 Releasing the Truth

Debunking the 8220 29 evidences for macroevolution 8221 part 2 Releasing the Truth

 

[Hollie]

The Real Answer: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v465/n7295/full/nature09014.html#/

The above is an article written by Prof. Doug Theobald published in the journal Nature, regarding the case for common descent. For the benefit of the angry fundies, I'll point out that this is what real scientists do: they publish in peer reviewed literature.

That's something that religious cranks don't do, for obvious reasons.

And then we have the fact that it's all based on a metaphysical presupposition, an apriority that presupposes a common ancestry and presumptuously accommodates/interprets the evidence in terms of a common ancestry . . . when all along the evidence is perfectly compatible with a biological history that is instead a series of discrete, creative events and extinctions over time within a microevolutionary model of adaptive diversity:

Debunking the 8220 29 evidences for macroevolution 8221 part 1 Releasing the Truth

Debunking the 8220 29 evidences for macroevolution 8221 part 2 Releasing the Truth

Raw, I checked out your link, the guy is insane. He's obsessed with trying to disprove something (that he can't), so that his invisible friend will be the only other option. That's not how it works, you have it ass-backwards.

That is not how what works? You don't even know what you read, magical nature man.

Once again. . . .

And then we have the fact that it's all based on a metaphysical presupposition, an apriority that presupposes a common ancestry and presumptuously accommodates/interprets the evidence in terms of a common ancestry . . . when all along the evidence is perfectly compatible with a biological history that is instead a series of discrete, creative events and extinctions over time within a microevolutionary model of adaptive diversity:

Debunking the 8220 29 evidences for macroevolution 8221 part 1 Releasing the Truth

Debunking the 8220 29 evidences for macroevolution 8221 part 2 Releasing the Truth

Ah, yes. "Releasing the truth". Someone's personal blog. Not very convincing.

As usual for the hyper-religious types, there's always an absence of peer review for the fundie position.


29 Evidences for Macroevolution Part 1


29 Evidences for Macroevolution Part 2

Precisely. And, of course, these are debunked here, shown for what they, the "predictions" of a presupposed metaphysics of ontological naturalism, the very same predictions made without any presupposition whatsoever by a creational model thousands of years prior to Darwin:

Debunking the 8220 29 evidences for macroevolution 8221 part 1 Releasing the Truth

Debunking the 8220 29 evidences for macroevolution 8221 part 2 Releasing the Truth

Umm. Sorry, but someone's personal blog is not a refutation.

As expected, you were unable to provide the reference to a peer reviewed article where your blogger has submitted his nonsense.

29 Evidences for Macroevolution Part 1


29 Evidences for Macroevolution Part 2

 

[Hollie]

The refutation to the silly creationist "true origins" nonsense was further debunked here:


A response to Ashby Camp s Critique

 

[Taz]

Wear and tear on fossils is well understood. The features he describes above are not due to wear and tear. If you believe they are, then I challenge you to prove your claim to us that those features are due to wear and tear.

Give me something that isn't billions or millions of years old. If your evolution myth is true and ongoing, you should be able to show me something a recent as 100 years. Specimens should be plentiful and found all over the earth that are fairly fresh.

Humans are evolving to live longer and get taller than they were 100 years ago.

dude....what do you have in a hundred years.....two, three generations?....that alone should be enough to clue you in that it isn't evolution that is involved.....its penicillin, child labor laws and improved diet.........

That's a species evolving... It's a lot of tiny steps that over a long period of time add up. Now you know.

so you believe we are turning into something other than the species homo sapien?.....

Homo Sapien 2.0

 

[Taz]

The Real Answer: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v465/n7295/full/nature09014.html#/

The above is an article written by Prof. Doug Theobald published in the journal Nature, regarding the case for common descent. For the benefit of the angry fundies, I'll point out that this is what real scientists do: they publish in peer reviewed literature.

That's something that religious cranks don't do, for obvious reasons.

And then we have the fact that it's all based on a metaphysical presupposition, an apriority that presupposes a common ancestry and presumptuously accommodates/interprets the evidence in terms of a common ancestry . . . when all along the evidence is perfectly compatible with a biological history that is instead a series of discrete, creative events and extinctions over time within a microevolutionary model of adaptive diversity:

Debunking the 8220 29 evidences for macroevolution 8221 part 1 Releasing the Truth

Debunking the 8220 29 evidences for macroevolution 8221 part 2 Releasing the Truth

Raw, I checked out your link, the guy is insane. He's obsessed with trying to disprove something (that he can't), so that his invisible friend will be the only other option. That's not how it works, you have it ass-backwards.

That is not how what works? You don't even know what you read, magical nature man.

Once again. . . .

And then we have the fact that it's all based on a metaphysical presupposition, an apriority that presupposes a common ancestry and presumptuously accommodates/interprets the evidence in terms of a common ancestry . . . when all along the evidence is perfectly compatible with a biological history that is instead a series of discrete, creative events and extinctions over time within a microevolutionary model of adaptive diversity:

Debunking the 8220 29 evidences for macroevolution 8221 part 1 Releasing the Truth

Debunking the 8220 29 evidences for macroevolution 8221 part 2 Releasing the Truth

Does fatso have any actual proof of what he says or does he just blow long-winded fartsmoke all the time?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Cuz I own you and you have nothing, you pipsqueek.

lol....the concept of Taz actually winning a debate with someone.....that's why I come here....a little bit of humor to brighten my day....

I own you over Noah. You still haven't explained properly how Noah got marsupials from Oz and back again. Polar bears. Arctic foxes...

You own no one over Noah. You went on there with kangaroos on your brain and asked your question. You received many responses including one from me. Your mind was already made up so you dismissed each and every response you received and attacked those kind enough to respond to you. You made a total ass out of yourself and the people stopped engaging you. The problem is that you are simply too ignorant to realize that they all quickly saw that you were a total asshole.

No, I dismissed no plausible theory about how the marsupial got around. Just the Kooky ones. I'm still waiting for a plausible concept, if you have an update over that.

Taz!

You don't really have the faintest idea about what your very own religion is based on. You're utterly unaware. Until you demonstrate that you comprehend the distinction between the underlying metaphysics of Darwinism and that of methodological naturalism, and the potentialities thereof, until you demonstrate that you comprehend the fact that the evidence arguably supports evolution or creationism, your opinion is not worthy of any respect whatsoever. The construct of an evolutionary common ancestry, which is the crux of the distinction between Darwinism and creationism, is predicated on a metaphysical apriority that tautologically presupposes the metaphysical apriority. This apriority is not scientifically verifiable or falsifiable. If this apriority is wrong, the Darwinist's interpretation of the genetic, biomolecular and paleontological evidence is wrong. If this apriority is wrong, the entire edifice of Darwinism is wrong, an illusion based on nothing more than the assumption that all of cosmological and biological history is an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect:

Debunking the 8220 29 evidences for macroevolution 8221 part 1 Releasing the Truth

Debunking the 8220 29 evidences for macroevolution 8221 part 2 Releasing the Truth​

Ultimately, this is the essence of the dispute. Many theists do not grasp this, and I have yet to encounter an atheist who grasps this.

In the meantime, at the front end of the debate, in the following, we have what any human being can flatly deny, but cannot successfully refute, as any attempt to refute the following necessarily involves an inherently contradictory and self-negating argument, which, therefore, positively proves the opposite must be true logically:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10174792/
The Laws of Human Thought are Bioneurologically Hardwired!

The Seven Things™ stand!
They are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle): http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248535/.

Traditional Transcendental Argument for God's Existence (TAG): http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248541/.


The Rock Solid Transcendental Argument for God's Existence: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248552/.


The Seven Bindingly Incontrovertible Whether or Knots™: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248681/. ​

By the way, Darwin was aware of the pertinent metaphysical distinction and the potentialities thereof. He was also aware of the fundamental, objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin related in the links in the above. Hence, he could not imagine how evolution could have proceeded without nature being "preprogramed" to achieve a universal coherency of rationality without God, but I don't think Darwin ever fully appreciated the problem of anthropological deification in the face of his absolute affirmation of a construct that by it's very nature would necessarily confine its constituents' experience of reality to the processes of a random and cognition-altering speciation:

By what process of "angelization" could men have become cognizant of their random origins and spectators of all time and existence, as though from some superior and independent vantage-point? Do the Neo-Darwinians, like so many other system-builders, desert the system of which they are the authors, claiming special cognitive principles that cannot be justified within the system? —Richard Spilsbury, Providence Lost: A Critique of Darwinism, Oxford University Press (1974, pg. 116)​

Oh, well, The Human Being, PredFan, Steven and PostmodernProph will grasp the nature of the problem for which evolutionary theory is hard pressed to account. Hollie and BreezeWood will not, and it's doubtful that you will. orogenicman should be able to grasp the problem, but he has yet to evince the intellectual or moral aptitude to do so.

 

[Boss]

Hey, in the spirit of the OP, if you REALLY want to delve into something that suggests God at work, look no further than the science of quantum physics and the subatomic universe. In quantum mechanics there is this phenomenon called "entangled particles" or "quantum entanglement." Einstein calls this "spooky action at a distance." Any subatomic particle can be connected to another identical particle billions of light years apart. Measuring and observing the parameters of one particle will dictate the properties of the other particle instantly. This means information is traveling billions of light years instantaneously, faster than the speed of light. Nothing has explained this in science and nothing logically can, it's beyond our comprehension, yet we know that it is happening.

The uncertainty principle of Werner Heisenberg is another mysterious phenomenon. As we've tried to pinpoint and measure certain fundamental elements of nature, we've learned that nature will not allow us to do so because nature doesn't know. This means we can never be certain of anything absolutely. Electrons and subatomic particles can be in two places at the same time or not exist at all and we can never accurately predict where they will be.

The infamous "double-slit experiment" is over 100 years old and remains perplexing to modern science. We can shoot photons through a barrier with two holes or slits, the particles will form a pattern on the backdrop behind the barrier in relation to the two holes... when we're observing them! If we don't watch them, the photons act as waves and form an interference pattern on the backdrop. The act of observing the photons seems to determine how they behave, but it gets even more bizarre. If we try to measure without observing, the photons seem to go back in time and change.

In basic physics, if we throw a baseball against a brick wall, it bounces off the wall because it doesn't have enough energy to penetrate the wall. BUT... in the quantum subatomic universe, a particle can pass through a barrier even without the apparent energy to do so. It's as if the particle "borrows" energy from the future to appear on the other side. Spooky action indeed!

Finally, there is this thing called "dark matter" which interestingly makes up the vast majority of our universe. We can't see it or explain it, we just know it is there because it seemingly has gravitational properties. This dark matter is what is believed to hold our physical universe together, but again... we don't know. Is it a particle we've yet to discover? Is it something in another dimension we can't comprehend?

 

[Hollie]

Cuz I own you and you have nothing, you pipsqueek.

lol....the concept of Taz actually winning a debate with someone.....that's why I come here....a little bit of humor to brighten my day....

I own you over Noah. You still haven't explained properly how Noah got marsupials from Oz and back again. Polar bears. Arctic foxes...

You own no one over Noah. You went on there with kangaroos on your brain and asked your question. You received many responses including one from me. Your mind was already made up so you dismissed each and every response you received and attacked those kind enough to respond to you. You made a total ass out of yourself and the people stopped engaging you. The problem is that you are simply too ignorant to realize that they all quickly saw that you were a total asshole.

No, I dismissed no plausible theory about how the marsupial got around. Just the Kooky ones. I'm still waiting for a plausible concept, if you have an update over that.

Taz!

You don't really have the faintest idea about what your very own religion is based on. You're utterly unaware. Until you demonstrate that you comprehend the distinction between the underlying metaphysics of Darwinism and that of methodological naturalism, and the potentialities thereof, until you demonstrate that you comprehend the fact that the evidence arguably supports evolution or creationism, your opinion is not worthy of any respect whatsoever. The construct of an evolutionary common ancestry, which is the crux of the distinction between Darwinism and creationism, is predicated on a metaphysical apriority that tautologically presupposes the metaphysical apriority. This apriority is not scientifically verifiable or falsifiable. If this apriority is wrong, the Darwinist's interpretation of the genetic, biomolecular and paleontological evidence is wrong. If this apriority is wrong, the entire edifice of Darwinism is wrong, an illusion based on nothing more than the assumption that all of cosmological and biological history is an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect:

Debunking the 8220 29 evidences for macroevolution 8221 part 1 Releasing the Truth

Debunking the 8220 29 evidences for macroevolution 8221 part 2 Releasing the Truth​

Ultimately, this is the essence of the dispute. Many theists do not grasp this, and I have yet to encounter an atheist who grasps this.

In the meantime, at the front end of the debate, in the following, we have what any human being can flatly deny, but cannot successfully refute, as any attempt to refute the following necessarily involves an inherently contradictory and self-negating argument, which, therefore, positively proves the opposite must be true logically:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10174792/
The Laws of Human Thought are Bioneurologically Hardwired!

The Seven Things™ stand!
They are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle): http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248535/.

Traditional Transcendental Argument for God's Existence (TAG): http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248541/.


The Rock Solid Transcendental Argument for God's Existence: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248552/.


The Seven Bindingly Incontrovertible Whether or Knots™: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248681/. ​

By the way, Darwin was aware of the pertinent metaphysical distinction and the potentialities thereof. He was also aware of the fundamental, objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin related in the links in the above. Hence, he could not imagine how evolution could have proceeded without nature being "preprogramed" to achieve a universal coherency of rationality without God, but I don't think Darwin ever fully appreciated the problem of anthropological deification in the face of his absolute affirmation of a construct that by it's very nature would necessarily confine its constituents' experience of reality to the processes of a random and cognition-altering speciation:

By what process of "angelization" could men have become cognizant of their random origins and spectators of all time and existence, as though from some superior and independent vantage-point? Do the Neo-Darwinians, like so many other system-builders, desert the system of which they are the authors, claiming special cognitive principles that cannot be justified within the system? —Richard Spilsbury, Providence Lost: A Critique of Darwinism, Oxford University Press (1974, pg. 116)​

Oh, well, The Human Being, PredFan, Steven and PostmodernProph will grasp the nature of the problem for which evolutionary theory is hard pressed to account. Hollie and BreezeWood will not, and it's doubtful that you will. orogenicman should be able to grasp the problem, but he has yet to evince the intellectual or moral aptitude to do so.

Umm. Sorry, but someone's personal blog is not a refutation.

As expected, you were unable to provide the reference to a peer reviewed article where your blogger has submitted his nonsense.

29 Evidences for Macroevolution Part 1

29 Evidences for Macroevolution Part 2

A response to Ashby Camp s Critique

 

[orogenicman]

Case in point. . .

<rant snip>

I'm an amateur biologist, with a solid formal background, though mostly self-taught thereafter, but that article is solid.

Which means nothing. I'm not an amateur geologist. I am a real, degreed, certified professional geologist with 24 years of field and lab experience. Now that we are done dick-waving, care to explain in detail how the Earth came to be, how old you believe it to be, and on what scientific evidence you base your conclusions?

According to current theory, the Earth formed just like the Sun and the other planets in our solar system, with the Sun, of course, being the largest lump of matter retained after the gravitational collapse of our system's hydrogen cloud/nebula: space dust clustered into grains, then lumps of matter, then boulders, then planetesimals and eventually planets. The Sun, being the largest and densest lump of matter, heated up, generating its own energy in nuclear fires.

Not quite. The sun is a star composed primarily of hydrogen and helium. It was formed from a bok globule composed primarily of gas and dust. When a nearby supernova shockwave crashed into the globule, it collapsed, likely forming an Herbig-Haro object, which eventually became the sun. The planets were not formed in this manner. The planets formed via accretion from the orbiting debris left over from the sun's formation, with Jupiter and Saturn receiving the bulk of the remaining hydrogen and helium from the solar nebula. The dust and other debris left over formed the remaining planets, including the Earth.

The various constituents of the our primordial "dust plain" as distinguished from the primordial dust plains of other systems is thought to be about 4.6 to 5 billion years old. The universe is thought to be nearly 14 billion years old.

Give or take a few million, yes.

The Earth as such is approximately 4.5 billion years old. Its age is calculated on the bases of the currently oldest known terrestrial rock (the Australian Zircon) via radiometric dating coupled with the age of the solar system. The Australian Zircon is not quite as old as the Earth itself, of course, as older parts of the Earth's surface are recycled in the Earth's core as a result of plate tectonics, but it gives us the bottom range of the Earth's age against which we have the radiometrically determined age of meteorite fragments such as those of the asteroid that created the Barringer Crater. Ultimately, then, we know that the Earth is the same age as these fragments.

The crust of the Earth is not recycled back into the core. It is recycled back into the mantle. Big difference.

 

[orogenicman]

And when you have that adaptation over thousands of generations among diverse populations? All "macroevolution" is really is just "microevoution" over the long term.

It doesn't even necessarily need to be over the long term. We've seen the effects on breeding populations in ring species. Ring species - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Yes, it has to be over the very very long term. Such a long term in fact that the earth itself is not old enough for it to have happened.

4.57 billion years is plenty long enough.

I'm waiting. I showed you mathematically that it was impossible. A statement means nothing. Show me mathematically how it is possible. I'm willing to listen.

All you've shown is that you will agree with anyone as long as they disagree with the rest of the planet's scientists. That doesn't make you smart, or even a maverick. It makes you brainwashed. Congratulations.

What it really shows is your total lack of credibility.

I don't have to defend my credibility. I'm not the one opposing 150 years of scientific discovery.