One question for Christians

[Esquilax]

Which is not something you're familiar with. You seem to be quite irritated I don't know why you're being treated the same as you treat Christians and you just laugh at what you try to do to them.

Yawn.

I've provided plenty of scriptural evidence, you're not able to see it because you want to be blind to the truth, that is a pitiful thing, you know less about the scriptures than most here.

You've done what you usually do: make by fiat assertions as to what plainly written english really means, and then when you're questioned even a little you get all haughty and start guffawing about how uneducated the questioner is. But that's not an argument, and "evidence" is very different from "whatever godschild says."

You're hardly ever kind why would I expect you to change.

I'm rarely kind to ignorance.

I understand that the theory has never shown us a transitional form of any kind,

Did you do any research before you opted to declare that? Because, once again, all this is is more proof that you don't understand what evolution even is: all organisms are transitional forms, according to evolution. We are all steps in the process of evolution, additional branches on the tree. Not that I expected you to know this; for someone so eager to get us to study the bible, you're remarkably unwilling to open a biology textbook.

oh I know people have opinions on fossils, but they are just that opinion, no evidence, no proof.

I can't even parse this, it frustrates me so. So, the genetic evidence means nothing to you? The predictive power of evolution, such that we can use it to predict in advance of a fossil dig what kind of creature we'd find in a specific stratographic layer- and be dead on every time- means nothing to you? The constant stream of fossils that confirm the evolutionary lineage of organic life- and the total lack of the same for creationism- means nothing? The living creatures, actually evolving, that I showed to you? All of that's just opinion?

But the shit you spout daily, you want us all to accept that as fact, huh?

You show me a specie in change, I need to see it to believe it, not some magical unseen force that makes one specie another.

I feel like I already know the answer, but did you take up my offer to study what evolution actually is, GC?

I have with some very intelligent professors and scientist

Name them.

I've spent time looking into evolution and find it impossible.

Care to give us all a definition of what evolution is, real quick?

Hey gc, what's an allele?

Just because you can be fooled by those who want anything to be true just so they can dismiss God... well it ain't my fault.

Simply untrue! There are plenty of scientists who still believe in god while fully accepting the fact of evolution. So do numerous ordinary believers. Here's a list.

You've fallen into the trap of the false dichotomy, here: it's not a binary proposition at all. You can be an evolutionist without denying god. However, there is one binary choice at play here: you can be a christian evolutionist, but you can't be a creationist who cares about facts.

Why you are describing your actions toward scripture and God.

I've read the bible, GC. I just disagree with you as to what it means. That doesn't mean I'm ill-educated, but it does mean you're a pompous twat with a huge ego who thinks his word is the only one there is.

How many times have you seriously looked at what mainstream, peer reviewed scientists have to say about evolution?

At least I have enough confidence in what I say and believe that I do not have to revert to the practice in ignorance of name calling.

Nor do I. The name calling is a free seasoning I provide atop the logical smackdown you've been getting all thread.

You were by giving your assumptions that things like that are possible.

Did I? Prove it. I rather think I've been arguing for what evolution actually is, rather than your grotesque strawmen, all this time.

You may be an ape man, however I have a creator in the living God, loved enough to bring me into this world and offer to me salvation.

Funny how your religion treats everyone as fallen sinners destined for hell, then.

Sorry you god of evolution can only offer you death, what a sad way to live.

Now I'll resort to just pure name calling: you're a goddamn idiot, GC.

You purpose a bunch of worthless junk, all the money spent to tell lies when it could have been used to help the needy, at least the church doesn't through good money into dirt holes, we us some of our money to help the needy.

Did you look at my links before you declared my position to be wrong, gc? Did you do some research?

By the way, do you perhaps know about the advances in, say, medicine that our knowledge of evolution has brought about? Know anything about evolutionary algorithms and their uses? Or did you just decide that the theory gives nothing of value without even looking?

Canine is a species and you can not change that, the wolf, fox, wild dogs and domesticated dogs all belong to it. Some may be small, some may be large, fur of different lengths and color, different eye colors, yet they are all canines. They will always be canines and they show no evidence they will ever be anything else, if this is dumb, then what does it make you.

And here, we see an inability to comprehend basic biology: canine isn't a species, you dolt. Canidae, of which the member species are called Canids, is a family classification, two orders above the level of species. You'd still need to drill down through the genus level before you hit a biological definition of a species.

Incidentally, the Canidae family splits into two tribes- Canini for wolf-relations and Vulpini for fox-relations- which shows just how wrong you are. That's why there are different species of wolf; wolf isn't a species on its own, but rather part of a larger taxonomic classification, an umbrella that encompasses numerous species within it.

You are not making arguments, how is it that you can make an argument about such fairy tales, that use some magical action to poof new species from other species. There is no argument against a fairy tale, nor is there an argument for such.

So why keep arguing for the bible?

There's no magic involved here, genius. Just natural selection, winnowing down successful- or at least non harmful- genetic traits over time. Did you even know that? Seriously: how much study have you done into this theory that you're declaring to be false? Do you have a degree in biology?

I nearly did laughing at your assertions, you have presented no proof, you post biased material, you can't even defend it with your own words.

So, the five links I provided you a few pages back are...?

And if you actually went and looked in a biology text book, or an online resource, you'd see it back me up, while giving no credence to your idiocy.

I learn a lot about many things that are not religious, I've learned from professors and scientist about the lie of evolution, I do not need you biased opinions on the matter.

Name them, and watch me tear apart their qualifications bit by freaking bit, because if you show me a scientist that denies evolution, then I will show you a scientist with fake credentials.

You have never offered proof against any passages I've quoted. You want this whole thing to be your side.

The facts are on my side.

Seriously you think I would be fascinated by your fairy tale of delusion.

So are you admitting that you've decided it was wrong before you even looked at what the scientists who believe it say it is? You presupposed it?

Now you are saying you do not know that which you claimed to know, how do you expect to learn if you are not willing to look at the counters against your belief. At least the Christians here take on the challenge of from our critics.

I asked you straight out to link me to the mainstream, peer reviewed papers that you used to come to the conclusion that evolution is wrong. How else can I show a willingness to learn? Since you're clearly well informed about this subject, I'm sure you have numerous real studies and documents showing how evolution is incorrect, I figured you'd be willing to share them.

Why haven't you?

I learned about macro a long time ago by people that are very well educated and know more about the theory than you will ever know.

Name them. And hey, real quick: who coined the term?

I want squirm over a lie, I do not admit to being wrong when I know you are the one who is wrong. Frankly I'm over this, you have no proof, the science you rely on is biased and you're gullible enough to believe it.

How is it biased, gc? Since you've clearly not even read any of it, how do you know?

Additionally, I noticed you skipped over a number of my pertinent questions, like the ones I had about your determination that the Dover trial was biased. Why didn't you answer those? Is it because you didn't have the answers to the basic questions I asked, but the few minutes of research it would have taken to save face and give me the correct ones after the fact was too much work? Is it because you're intellectually lazy, and when you're called on it your favored option was to pile more dishonesty on top of that? Shall I just take it as an admission you were lying out your ass?

Happily, your response here more than clears up the other question I asked, about whether you'd even bothered to check the link I sent you before deciding it was wrong.

You're a liar and a hypocrite, godschild. And now everyone can read and see it for themselves.

Again.

---

As far as naming professionals on a forum like this and not using written papers is not ethical, you need to grow up little missy.

So link us to the papers, dimwit. Even just the abstracts. Enough for us to see you're not just talking out your ass.

But you won't do that, because that would require those experts and their papers to, you know, exist.