The Failure Of Evolution Theory . . . in a nutshell, information

[Ringtone]

Are you training for the summer Olympics?

Because, damn, all you do is run away. DURR.

Post #523? Damn, you can't count either.

LOL!

So did you ever post your proof that mutations have actually been observed to add new information to the genome or did you crap your pants again? Don't forget the link. I know you're big on those . . . except when you're not. Also, after you failed to bluff your way out of an embarrassingly stupid contention, did you forget to own up to it like a man or did you already admit to your rank ignorance regarding the significant, speciational potentialities relative to the categorical order of genomic information and gene (trait) information?

P.S. Don’t forget to see your enormous blunder in post #522 again.

Thanks.

 

[toobfreak]

Are you training for the summer Olympics? Because, damn, all you do is run away.

did you ever post your proof that mutations have actually been observed to add new information to the genome or did you crap your pants again?

Anyone home?

 

[Ringtone]

I don't see creationism and evolution as being mutually exclusive. The Bible shouldn't be taken as a science textbook,

Fair enough. Objectively speaking, it depends on one's metaphysical apriority and the Bible certainly isn't a science textbook, but on the other hand, the more we learn about genetics, the clearer it becomes that genomes do not produce the kind of transmutational variants that evolution requires.

 

[Ringtone]

I bet you do because you're obviously a big tool.

But enough about you, Chuckles.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Are you training for the summer Olympics?

Because, damn, all you do is run away. DURR.

Post #523? Damn, you can't count either.

LOL!

So did you ever post your proof that mutations have actually been observed to add new information to the genome or did you crap your pants again? Don't forget the link. I know you're big on those . . . except when you're not. Also, after you failed to bluff your way out of an embarrassingly stupid contention, did you forget to own up to it like a man or did you already admit to your rank ignorance regarding the significant, speciational potentialities relative to the categorical order of genomic information and gene (trait) information?

P.S. Don’t forget to see your enormous blunder in post #522 again.

Thanks.

Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome.

What? Still no proof? LOL!

 

[Ringtone]

Ringtone makes outrageously unsupportable assertions then when pinned down, runs off like a little girl calling everyone names!

So, Chuckles, did the realities surrounding you're laughably naive, indeed, outrageously stupid claim that it would be possible to observe an instance of abiogenesis—the formation of a microscopic lifeform up from the most basic, organic precursors by purely natural means in raw nature—dawn on you yet, or are you still spouting bluster as you wallow in a puddle of pee-stained panties?

 

[Ringtone]

Are you training for the summer Olympics?

Because, damn, all you do is run away. DURR.

Post #523? Damn, you can't count either.

LOL!

So did you ever post your proof that mutations have actually been observed to add new information to the genome, or did you crap your pants again? Don't forget the link. I know you're big on those . . . except when you're not. Also, after you failed to bluff your way out of an embarrassingly stupid contention, did you forget to own up to it like a man or did you already admit to your rank ignorance regarding the significant, speciational potentialities relative to the categorical order of genomic information and gene (trait) information?

P.S. Don’t forget to see your enormous blunder in post #522 again.

Thanks.

Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome.

What? Still no proof? LOL!

So did you ever post your proof that mutations have actually been observed to add new information to the genome or did you crap your pants again? Don't forget the link. I know you're big on those . . . except when you're not. Also, after you failed to bluff your way out of an embarrassingly stupid contention, did you forget to own up to it like a man, or did you already admit to your rank ignorance regarding the significant, speciational potentialities relative to the categorical order of genomic information and gene (trait) information?

P.S. Don’t forget to see your enormous blunder in post #522 again.

Thanks.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Are you training for the summer Olympics?

Because, damn, all you do is run away. DURR.

Post #523? Damn, you can't count either.

LOL!

So did you ever post your proof that mutations have actually been observed to add new information to the genome, or did you crap your pants again? Don't forget the link. I know you're big on those . . . except when you're not. Also, after you failed to bluff your way out of an embarrassingly stupid contention, did you forget to own up to it like a man or did you already admit to your rank ignorance regarding the significant, speciational potentialities relative to the categorical order of genomic information and gene (trait) information?

P.S. Don’t forget to see your enormous blunder in post #522 again.

Thanks.

Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome.

What? Still no proof? LOL!

So did you ever post your proof that mutations have actually been observed to add new information to the genome or did you crap your pants again? Don't forget the link. I know you're big on those . . . except when you're not. Also, after you failed to bluff your way out of an embarrassingly stupid contention, did you forget to own up to it like a man, or did you already admit to your rank ignorance regarding the significant, speciational potentialities relative to the categorical order of genomic information and gene (trait) information?

P.S. Don’t forget to see your enormous blunder in post #522 again.

Thanks.

So no proof?

That's disappointing.

 

[Ringtone]

Are you training for the summer Olympics?

Because, damn, all you do is run away. DURR.

Post #523? Damn, you can't count either.

LOL!

So did you ever post your proof that mutations have actually been observed to add new information to the genome, or did you crap your pants again? Don't forget the link. I know you're big on those . . . except when you're not. Also, after you failed to bluff your way out of an embarrassingly stupid contention, did you forget to own up to it like a man or did you already admit to your rank ignorance regarding the significant, speciational potentialities relative to the categorical order of genomic information and gene (trait) information?

P.S. Don’t forget to see your enormous blunder in post #522 again.

Thanks.

Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome.

What? Still no proof? LOL!

So did you ever post your proof that mutations have actually been observed to add new information to the genome or did you crap your pants again? Don't forget the link. I know you're big on those . . . except when you're not. Also, after you failed to bluff your way out of an embarrassingly stupid contention, did you forget to own up to it like a man, or did you already admit to your rank ignorance regarding the significant, speciational potentialities relative to the categorical order of genomic information and gene (trait) information?

P.S. Don’t forget to see your enormous blunder in post #522 again.

Thanks.

So no proof?

That's disappointing.

So still no clue, i.e. , obfuscating?

That's so pathetic.

 

[toobfreak]

I don't see creationism and evolution as being mutually exclusive.

Objectively speaking, it depends on one's metaphysical apriority and the Bible certainly isn't a science textbook, but on the other hand, the more we learn about genetics, the clearer it becomes that genomes do not produce the kind of transmutational variants that evolution requires.

Blow it out yer ass.

 

[toobfreak]

But enough about you, Chuckles.

Blow it out of yer ass.

 

[toobfreak]

So, Chuckles, did the realities surrounding you're laughably naive, indeed, outrageously stupid claim that it would be possible to observe an instance of abiogenesis—the formation of a microscopic lifeform up from the most basic, organic precursors by purely natural means in raw nature—dawn on you yet, or are you still spouting bluster as you wallow in a puddle of pee-stained panties?

 

[toobfreak]

So, Chuckles, did the realities surrounding you're laughably naive, indeed, outrageously stupid claim that it would be possible to observe an instance of abiogenesis—the formation of a microscopic lifeform up from the most basic, organic precursors by purely natural means in raw nature—dawn on you yet, or are you still spouting bluster as you wallow in a puddle of pee-stained panties?

 

[there4eyeM]

It can be expressed that patterns exist in the universe into which "matter"(that may only be discrete concentrations of energy) can (must?) form, hence 'in formation'.
Looked at this way, what we observe as the history of life on our planet manifests certain processes that escape our capacities to integrate intellectually while obviously functioning more or less successfully. Our reasoning can lead us to praise this as perfect or pick it apart as mere hit-or-miss. Admittedly, some kind of order is implicit and it is just a lack of intellectually satisfying verbiage that fails to give us a feeling of unity. Sociology being entangled doesn't seem to help, as those committed to deity insist that is the underlying explanation and those who insist this cannot be are equally adamant. This all comes down to the highly unsatisfactory reality that "we just don't know yet". We need to continue to search in this fascinating and essential question in order to see what amazing truth can be found.

 

[Hollie]

I don't see creationism and evolution as being mutually exclusive. The Bible shouldn't be taken as a science textbook,

Fair enough. Objectively speaking, it depends on one's metaphysical apriority and the Bible certainly isn't a science textbook, but on the other hand, the more we learn about genetics, the clearer it becomes that genomes do not produce the kind of transmutational variants that evolution requires.

Speaking of supernatural apriorities, the more that science explores genetics it becomes clear that genomes produce the transmutational variants that evolution requires.

You need to be reminded that it is not your YEC’er ministries doing research. You YEC’ers have no voice in the ‘’we” when it comes to genetic research.

Your uneducated perspectives of biology and the life sciences are derived from charlatans and buffoons from fundamentalist Christian ministries.

leave science to legitimate researchers and spend your time discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin with your contemporaries at Harun Yahya.

Thanks.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You don't think Darwin was wrong about anything?

Non. sequitur nonsense

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It’s now what, four separate threads opened by the religious zealot as he screeches against science matters he doesn’t understand?

Which is the most glaring part of the YECer intellectual fraud. None of these frauds seems to know even the most basic things about evolution. The moment they open their mouths, it suddenly becomes incumbent on everyone else to correct their lies and errors regarding evolution.

 

[Ringtone]

View attachment 466067

Blow it out yer ass.

Blow it out yer ass?! Sweet argument . . . not.

So, Chuckles, did you acknowledge the mathematical imperative of God’s existence yet, or are you still unwittingly asserting the absurdity of an actually infinite regress of causal events, which, of course, can’t be traversed to the present?

Write at least one sentence thanking me for your new found appreciation of things. Be sure to double space if necessary.

Thanks.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So, Chuckles, did you acknowledge the mathematical imperative of God’s existence yet

A perfect illustration of how the YEC frauds operate. They have spent their entire lives steeped in a paradigm where truths are decided by the authoritative decree, and they cannot even operate any other way. They don't just think this is valid, they think it is the ONLY way truths are decided.

 

[Ringtone]

So, Chuckles, did you acknowledge the logical necessity of a timelessly eternal existent yet, or are you still denying the logical imperatives regarding God’s nature? In other words, did you acknowledge that science has falsified Hindu cosmology yet?

Hot damn!

Classical theists have understood per the imperatives of logic and mathematics that the notion of an actual infinity of materiality is an absurdity for centuries.

Write at least one sentence thanking me for your new found appreciation of things. Be sure to double space if necessary.

Thanks.