Thoughts

[Ravenshire]

You shouldn't sell yourself short.  You're the one who pulled together all the bits you prefer to emphasize while dropping (I hope) the parts concerning the severity of beating God would have you limit yourself to when beating your slaves.  You don't just aim to follow His word, you follow the parts that seem fitting to you.

 I do not sell myself short I realize who I am and what I need, it is a secure knowledge of life.

GC

---

Willful ignorance working overtime.

 I'm over you also, you have no reasonable statements, I'm bored with your lack of knowledge. Bye.

GC

Don't let it hit ya.

[Jehanne]

GC,

Are you a geocentrist?  If not, and you believe that the Earth moves, what is your evidence for that?

Dawn

[Brian37]

If you understood us you'd ditch your position that a sky wizard exists.

You don't understand and we do.

We didn't leave our former positions out of spite or hate of fictional beings. We left for one reason only, no evidence. Just like you'd rightfully say there is no evidence for Apollo or Thor. We don't hate human rights either, but theists bad logic is a different story. If our species never questioned social norms, our species never would have left the caves.

[Mister Agenda]

Actually, none of that is . . . anything you've ever bothered reading.

But what the hell. Enlighten us. In broad strokes, what is the theory of evolution?

I've read it, unlike you I look at opposing arguments. That's called studying, something it seems you want do. You trust in your evolutionary science gods to tell you what to believe and never question they could be wrong, where is that critical thinking atheist chairish. Short but true evolutionary science definition, bunk.

GC

Would you explain the theory of evolution, please? I promise not to criticize if you get it right. I just want to know if you understand the thing you're so confident that you know isn't so.

---

She can't defend against what is known, understand this DNA can't have new information add to it and thus eliminates the possibility for on kind to become another, period. This is something you can not get around.
GC

It's just an unsupported claim, nothing to get around. How information can be added to DNA is intimately known. The information comes from the environment, and point mutations and gene duplication provide the raw material for the selection process. In a way, the theory of evolution is all about how information gets added to DNA, and it was figured out before DNA was even discovered and all that was known was that variations are inherited, somehow.

---

Just a combination of existing information nothing new was added, the child is still a human being. I would think that those who believe that statement you made above would be appalled at abortion, just how could evolutionist kill off new information and justify it.
GC

It's a shame that you don't realize how ignorant it sounds when you remark that if the child of a human is still human, no information has been added to the child's DNA. What definition of information are you using?

The abortion remark is a non sequitur, and employs the naturalistic fallacy. We shouldn't base our determination of what is right and wrong on what nature does. We don't refuse to pump water uphill because it goes against the law of gravity, do we?

---

Nor does neo-Darwinism account for the massive number of mutations required just to implement an opportunistic re-purposing of an existing feature. I'm not saying that it cannot happen, just that "chance-in-the-gaps" isn't even close to being plausible.

Not even close to being plausible to you. Argument from personal incredulity.

[Harry Nevis]

I'm glad you asked that because there is the fossil record of which is replete with transitionary fossils showing all the stages.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary...vograms_05

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_...y_ossicles

Notice the Wikipedia contained a list of the fossil evidence and the berkely one showed clear illustrations of the stages.

 there are no transitional fossils, all that is only opinion read what it says. No one was there so no one can say with certainty what is what.

GC

---

Of course.  Because with you, facts are opinion, unless you agree with them.

[Whateverist]

You shouldn't sell yourself short.  You're the one who pulled together all the bits you prefer to emphasize while dropping (I hope) the parts concerning the severity of beating God would have you limit yourself to when beating your slaves.  You don't just aim to follow His word, you follow the parts that seem fitting to you.

 I do not sell myself short I realize who I am and what I need, it is a secure knowledge of life.

GC

Attaboy. If that doesn't qualify you for the job of winnowing the right cherries out of the bible, what would?

[Amarok]

It's bunk it refutes itself if one uses critical thinking.

Then you don't comprehend what critical thinking is . And have confused it with ignorance and wishful thinking .

---

 I do not sell myself short I realize who I am and what I need, it is a secure knowledge of life.

By your ideology you sell yourself short . You have no idea who you are. And you only see a veil you declare life .

---

 there are no transitional fossils, all that is only opinion read what it says. No one was there so no one can say with certainty what is what.

Their are hundreds of fossils . Objective standards of science is what it says. Certainty is an unreasonable standard and they have more then enough information to say whats what . Your denial and demands do not change that.

---

Nor does neo-Darwinism account for the massive number of mutations required just to implement an opportunistic re-purposing of an existing feature. I'm not saying that it cannot happen, just that "chance-in-the-gaps" isn't even close to being plausible.

Yes it does .Stop quoting fucking ID  Propaganda . And argument from incredulity . No one cares what likely to YOU .

[Cyberman]

Plus, as I keep saying, I actually was there. Everything happened just as the palaeontologists say it did.

[Amarok]

[/url]

[url=http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/282/1813/20151019]Extended Evolution (Royal Society) To me the most fascinating research has to do with niche construction and genetic plasticity.

EE is just a re hatch of already dealt with idea's nothing revolutionary here . And nothing that will help you push your religion into biology.

---

Or to say it another way, it is like a deleterious change in the signal to noise ratio. If you drop a letter into a puddle, the ink always smears and blurs, it never gets sharper or adds new words.

Stupid analogy . Mutations are not words on paper .

---

It's not very important to me but you probably already knew that. I just think both sides have moved beyond what the most recent science seems to be suggesting, i.e. that there is some unknown teleological component(s) to evolutionary processes. I think the ID advocates point out serious flaws in the neo-Darwin paradigm but I also don't see a clear indication of external agency directing natural selection. On the other hand, the neo-Darwinists are ignoring that the odds are so astronomically  stacked against chance that the synthesis has become untenable.

ID bullshit that's been refuted a billion times.

---

 just think both sides have moved beyond what the most recent science seems to be suggesting

Your not engaged in the latest anything . Your just repeating quackery and re- hatched bunkum .

[Godscreated]

I've read it, unlike you I look at opposing arguments. That's called studying, something it seems you want do. You trust in your evolutionary science gods to tell you what to believe and never question they could be wrong, where is that critical thinking atheist chairish. Short but true evolutionary science definition, bunk.

GC

Would you explain the theory of evolution, please? I promise not to criticize if you get it right. I just want to know if you understand the thing you're so confident that you know isn't so.

 
 Your referring to it as theory tells me you do know there's no proof for evolution and you would be right.
GC