For Christians (or anyone else) who deny Darwinian evolution.

[The Grand Nudger]

It means whatever is convenient at the time

I strongly suspect that this is the case, and that no one will ever find the time to clarify...but I think I'm going to save it and repost it whenever a new one of these threads crops up, lol.

It would lead to much more informative and interesting conversation than the endless chorus of "Nyuh uh, it never happens and you can't prove it happens and what about this thing I just made up?"

[Abaddon_ire]

LOL. NONE of these answers my question: how does two or three functions that depend on each other for a survival benefit evolve through small incremental changes that are selected for a survival benefit? 

And there is your error. All you have is an argument from incredulity. YOU cannot understand it, therefore nobody can.

It doesn't work now and it never has.

[Amarok]

LOL. NONE of these answers my question: how does two or three functions that depend on each other for a survival benefit evolve through small incremental changes that are selected for a survival benefit? 

And there is your error. All you have is an argument from incredulity. YOU cannot understand it, therefore nobody can.

It doesn't work now and it never has.

And yet they expect us to blindly trust the supposed superior good of their god without him having to explain evil .

[Ravenshire]

It means whatever is convenient at the time

I strongly suspect that this is the case, and that no one will ever find the time to clarify...but I think I'm going to save it and repost it whenever a new one of these threads crops up, lol.

It would lead to much more informative and interesting conversation than the endless chorus of "Nyuh uh, it never happens and you can't prove it happens and what about this thing I just made up?"

To give him his due, Huggies has tried even if it amounted to nothing more than him conflating some terms and twisting their meanings because the word kind was in their definitions.

[Cod]

Roadrunner wrote..

1.) I think my answer would depend on the type of change that you are talking about.
  
2.) That type of begging the question, and the arguing from popularity in the OP.... don't really help your position from my perspective.

---

Sorry about the copy and paste but I had little choice.

1.) I think you are avoiding the question.

2.) Makes zero sense.

[Abaddon_ire]

And yet they expect us to blindly trust the supposed superior good of their god without him having to explain evil .

Isn't that one a bucket of fun. Personally, were bible god to be proven to exist, I still would not worship it. Who needs to worship that level of thuggery.

ETA: I can think of a descriptor for bible god beginning with "c". I defer to the MA.

[Cod]

1.) I think my answer would depend on the type of change that you are talking about.  
2.) That type of begging the question, and the arguing from popularity in the OP.... don't really help your position from my perspective.

I think I've worked it out.

[LadyForCamus]

1.)  Cod is now going to ask you specifically; Do you agree that over millions of years, evolution is responsible for changes in characteristics of biological populations.

2. )  Why do I believe you should you believe that? Because evolution is a fact and a theory.

1.) I think my answer would depend on the type of change that you are talking about.  
2.) That type of begging the question, and the arguing from popularity in the OP.... don't really help your position from my perspective.

---

@RR

This is what I mean by 'your position'.  (you said it better than I was going to, Khem, so thank you.)  

Telling me all the little things that bug you about the theory of evolution is not stating a position on the subject of diversity of life on earth.  So, care to take another crack at it?

Sorry,  I was referring to what was said.   I didn't realize you where trying to change the subject.   Did my questions make you uncomfortable?

You're making this harder than it is, Road.  I have characterized your position incorrectly according to you, and I asked you to clearly state what it actually is.  Khem asked you the same thing and you answered him, but then quickly made it clear that you aren't interested in discussing the details.  I wonder why that would be?  😏

[Cod]

You're making this harder than it is, Road.  I have characterized your position incorrectly according to you, and I asked you to clearly state what it actually is.  Khem asked you the same thing and you answered him, but then quickly made it clear that you aren't interested in discussing the details.  I wonder why that would be?  😏

I'm just quoting you now because I can
I have read the thread and have no idea what Roadrunners position is. (I don't think he knows what his position is either)

[LadyForCamus]

You're making this harder than it is, Road.  I have characterized your position incorrectly according to you, and I asked you to clearly state what it actually is.  Khem asked you the same thing and you answered him, but then quickly made it clear that you aren't interested in discussing the details.  I wonder why that would be?  😏

I'm just quoting you now because I can
I have read the thread and have no idea what Roadrunners position is. (I don't think he knows what his position is either)

You're a fast learner.  😁  No one ever knows exactly what RR's position is, because he refuses to reveal it.  Surely, this is because he knows that any positive claims on his end will bear a burden of proof he knows he doesn't have.  This inevitably results in him complaining about being strawmanned.  And he wonders why, lol.  His style in discussions is fairly predictable.  For example, I predict he is going to incorrectly accuse me of ad hominem, or poisoning the well here.