Creation/evolution3

[Esquilax]

Uhhh. No.

At some point a non-chicken (albeit very close to a chicken) layed an egg that contained the first full on chicken.

I completely get this is a very slow and deliberate process that makes tiny changes over vast periods of time. However like it or not The chicken was a mutation from it's former 'choke-un' counterpart (This is what I'm calling whatever preceeded the chicken in the evolutionary chain) As some point the Choke-un laid an egg, and that egg contained what 'science' in all it's wisdom would identify as a chicken.

So, you understand that evolution is a gradual process of small alterations to an organism... but you don't think that the difference between the "choke-un" and the legitimate chicken, in the span of one generation, would be one of what you fully accept to be small changes? Which is it, Drich? Do you understand that evolution is a bunch of small changes, and hence that the change between the "choke-un" and the chicken would be, you know, small, or don't you? Was your need to disagree with me really so strong that you'd contradict yourself so thoroughly?

I also get that you don't like how flipant I am with your version of God/science. to which I say, so what. How is this any different then what you all say/Do against My God?

Well, I guess the difference is that when you're flippant against science, you tend to say idiotic things, like intimating that science is my god. Or you say demonstrably wrong things about science, like when you asserted that the Large Hadron Collider had found no evidence of the Higgs Boson, when in truth it had explicitly confirmed the existence of the thing two years ago. I'd say that's the difference: when you're being flippant about science you are always wrong, and so your flippancy not only makes you come across as a colossally ignorant buffoon, but it also psychologically conditions you to devalue science, so you don't feel the need to actually research anything before you're flippant the next time, causing you to make more obvious mistakes.

It's basically that you're trapped in a vicious cycle of Dunning-Kruger shit-wittery, whereas I say demonstrably true things and observe the total lack of evidence for a god. That's the difference.

If I am wrong, then like I do with you provide BCV via one of your bibles and show me where I am wrong. otherwise pound sand, because theoritical science is barly science at all, and the fact that you all are so quick to marry it to real pratical science should speak volumes to you on it's legitimacy.

The last time we had a conversation about theoretical science, you made some assertions about the Big Bang theory not being based on evidence, and basically being the guess of one man. It took me all of five minutes to locate the history of the theory and show that not only was it not a guess, not only was it based on easily viewable evidence, but it also wasn't the work of just one person, but rather many, building a case based on observation and evidence over many years.

I was able to prove you wrong on every point with five minutes on google, which so easily that you actually never replied to that thread again (it was that one you made a few months ago about education and science) and I think that all this is actually a good example of my point: you don't understand any kind of science, theoretical or otherwise, because you're so sure of how much you know that you won't be bothered to actually look into the details before you talk. Though you prattle on about science here, the truth is that on every claim you've made that I can remember on science, you've been flat out, completely wrong.

And you don't even seem to realize it. You're a perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.