(October 17, 2017 at 12:56 am)Joods Wrote:

(October 17, 2017 at 12:23 am)Tizheruk Wrote: It's funny the same people who often comment on my grammar fuck it up themselves . And also use it as an excuse to never address my posts . They also suffer from the delusion i give a shit what they think of my grammar .

I've learned to move past your spelling errors. I find that you are highly intelligent and have a lot of good things to say. I read your posts based on their content and am less concerned with presentation. You do you, man. Fuck everyone else

And i very much appreciate it  

(October 16, 2017 at 11:53 pm)Joods Wrote:

(October 16, 2017 at 11:21 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Sort of like your non punctuated posts?

That would be non-punctuated posts. 

Learn to check your own grammatical errors before pointing out someone else's.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/non-

Quote:The prefix non- may be joined to a word by means of a hyphen, which is standard in British usage. In many cases, especially in American usage, non- is joined without a hyphen.

Tizheruk is the one that started with the insults...

(September 12, 2017 at 8:08 pm)Tizheruk Wrote: No huggy you moron our response is there is nothing here that can't be explained by mundane means.

(September 11, 2017 at 7:31 pm)Tizheruk Wrote: At this point i'm surprised you can think

(September 25, 2017 at 10:50 pm)Tizheruk Wrote: A person can't be defined as property . Idiot

Therefore calling his nonpunctuated nonsensical posts into question is fair game.

(September 18, 2017 at 12:06 pm)Tizheruk Wrote: Last check no one dismissed it . And are huggy arguing all Wikipedia articles are equal?.

"And are Huggy"?  
Question mark AND period?

(September 13, 2017 at 4:32 am)Tizheruk Wrote: Ah so this is how you excuse your failures . And no huggy you have yet to disproved squat .

(September 25, 2017 at 10:50 pm)Tizheruk Wrote: An tell me huggy do eat veal ?

The moral of this story is if you want to come at me... fine, but you can't dictate the terms of the clap back.

I'm not dictating anything. I'm willing to bet that belittling others isn't something that your god would approve of. So why don't you take a page from your own god and show some compassion and consideration for others, eh?

(October 16, 2017 at 3:19 pm)Drich Wrote: And what I said in a nut shell is there is not one example of a major change. The 'algorithm' simply has not yielded one example of a major change. the 24 hour fruit fly is proof of that. 50,000 Generations of 24 hour fruit flies since they were first studied, and what did evolution do? it made one group blind and another tranlucent. that said they were all still 24 hour fruit flies after 50K generations. nothing morphed into anything else!

Already answered. Are you going to continually spam us with the same points and not listen to the answers?

(October 10, 2017 at 10:21 am)Mathilda Wrote: Now to explain about the 24 hour fruit fly. You are making assumptions about how quickly evolution works. What you are also ignoring and probably don't remember or know because you do not understand the theory of evolution, is that there needs to be evolutionary pressure for a species to adapt. There may have been hundreds of thousands of generations and plenty of mutations, but there has no been evolutionary pressure in your example for the fruit fly to change in any significant way so the mutations do not propagate throughout the population.

Yet the Peppered moth is an example of rapid change taking place because of a strong environmental pressure.

Another example, African elephants are being born without tusks due to poaching, researchers say

You are also deliberately ignoring the point I made before, that the fossil records show evolutionary change happening over a much longer time span. So of course persistent large scale changes have not been made in the short time span that you are referring to. The evidence in the fossil records shows though that evolution does happen over longer time scales. It is also inconsistent with your hypothesis.

Again it's a strawman argument from you because scientists aren't claiming that such large changes happen in such short time scales.

---

(October 16, 2017 at 11:14 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: The question was rhetorical, it wasn't meant to be answered.

Yeah and my question still stands. So?

If it's so simple that you wonder why we can't get your point then it should be simple enough to explain it to us.

I've posted the context. You've told us that it's a rhetorical question and you've even tried to correct someone's grammar.

So what if "flight has been around a long time, and neither prayer or science had anything to do with it."

Quote:Tizheruk is the one that started with the insults...

Apparently facts insult you . And commenting on my grammar would only be insulting if i cared which i don't . 

Quote:Therefore calling his nonpunctuated nonsensical posts into question is fair game.

Non-punctuated yup 

Nonsensical nope after all other people are able to read and understand them fine . The fact your hung up on grammar  rather then content is your problem . 

Quote:"And are Huggy"?   
Question mark AND period?

And i don't care   

Quote:The moral of this story is if you want to come at me... fine, but you can't dictate the terms of the clap back.

Nor do i intend to. But as i said if this is your idea of clap back . You might have well have just pressed the R key a hundred times . It has the same amount of impact on me. I will write in my own fashion. And everyone else expect you will bother to respond to the content .While your busy playing English teacher in some vain attempt to make me look foolish. The real moral here is your shame games don't work on me.

(October 16, 2017 at 3:19 pm)Drich Wrote: Harry Nevis
[quote pid='1639064' dateline='1508167558']
Except for one having supported evidence and the other....not, they're the same thing.

THE EVIDENCE IS THE SAME "the dude" just a different explanation as to how it all comes together. matter of fact it comes together far more cleanly.
[/quote]

Ha!  Right.  By "comes together far more cleanly", you mean it's simplistic, makes you feel warm and fuzzy and you don't have to do any pesky thinking.

(October 17, 2017 at 8:10 am)Harry Nevis Wrote:

(October 16, 2017 at 3:19 pm)Drich Wrote: Harry Nevis
[quote pid='1639064' dateline='1508167558']
Except for one having supported evidence and the other....not, they're the same thing.

THE EVIDENCE IS THE SAME "the dude" just a different explanation as to how it all comes together. matter of fact it comes together far more cleanly.

Ha!  Right.  By "comes together far more cleanly", you mean it's simplistic, makes you feel warm and fuzzy and you don't have to do any pesky thinking.
[/quote]

"pesky thinking" like the inability  of producing 1 transition animal to support inner species evolution? remember those transitional being would have to have lived for 10s if not hundreds of millions of years, and not one is found ever. yet think about that seems to allude you, or do you have a solid answer?

---

(October 17, 2017 at 2:08 am)Mathilda Wrote:

(October 16, 2017 at 3:19 pm)Drich Wrote: And what I said in a nut shell is there is not one example of a major change. The 'algorithm' simply has not yielded one example of a major change. the 24 hour fruit fly is proof of that. 50,000 Generations of 24 hour fruit flies since they were first studied, and what did evolution do? it made one group blind and another tranlucent. that said they were all still 24 hour fruit flies after 50K generations. nothing morphed into anything else!

Already answered. Are you going to continually spam us with the same points and not listen to the answers?

(October 10, 2017 at 10:21 am)Mathilda Wrote: Now to explain about the 24 hour fruit fly. You are making assumptions about how quickly evolution works. What you are also ignoring and probably don't remember or know because you do not understand the theory of evolution, is that there needs to be evolutionary pressure for a species to adapt. There may have been hundreds of thousands of generations and plenty of mutations, but there has no been evolutionary pressure in your example for the fruit fly to change in any significant way so the mutations do not propagate throughout the population.

Yet the Peppered moth is an example of rapid change taking place because of a strong environmental pressure.

Another example, African elephants are being born without tusks due to poaching, researchers say

You are also deliberately ignoring the point I made before, that the fossil records show evolutionary change happening over a much longer time span. So of course persistent large scale changes have not been made in the short time span that you are referring to. The evidence in the fossil records shows though that evolution does happen over longer time scales. It is also inconsistent with your hypothesis.

Again it's a strawman argument from you because scientists aren't claiming that such large changes happen in such short time scales.

---

(October 16, 2017 at 11:14 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: The question was rhetorical, it wasn't meant to be answered.

Yeah and my question still stands. So?

If it's so simple that you wonder why we can't get your point then it should be simple enough to explain it to us.

I've posted the context. You've told us that it's a rhetorical question and you've even tried to correct someone's grammar.

So what if "flight has been around a long time, and neither prayer or science had anything to do with it."

Already answered. Are you going to continually spam us with the same points and not listen to the answers?

What the fuck has gone wrong with science education in America?

This thread title distresses me whenever I see it.

WTF does 1000% opposite mean? 10 times more than completely opposite? WTF!??! UGHHHHHHH.

It's so inelegant.

(October 17, 2017 at 2:40 pm)Drich Wrote:

(October 17, 2017 at 8:10 am)Harry Nevis Wrote: THE EVIDENCE IS THE SAME "the dude" just a different explanation as to how it all comes together. matter of fact it comes together far more cleanly.

Ha!  Right.  By "comes together far more cleanly", you mean it's simplistic, makes you feel warm and fuzzy and you don't have to do any pesky thinking.

"pesky thinking" like the inability  of producing 1 transition animal to support inner species evolution? remember those transitional being would have to have lived for 10s if not hundreds of millions of years, and not one is found ever. yet think about that seems to allude you, or do you have a solid answer?

---

There are plenty of transitional fossils.  You just deny that there are.  And I have no idea what "inner species" means.