First Prev
of 2
Next Last
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#21 Sep 7, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>An honest view of science
... is something you don't have. And never had.
Shubee wrote:
could be impossible.
Sorry, but that is NEVER the case. Why? Your position is Goddidit with magic. There is NO scenario which is impossible, ergo for you to argue otherwise is irrational and dishonest.

But then, since that's what we KNOW you to be, why go against your nature?(shrug)
Shubee wrote:
Darwin wrote
And has since been vindicated, as I pointed out. He also didn't know about evidence which would come later, such as punctuated equilibrium and genetics. The latter of which cemented evolution into the science books, as you'd have to be an outright reality-denier to deny it.
Shubee wrote:
Darwin's faith that all life descended from a single cell belongs with all the other non-theorems in science. Clearly, at this moment, the Common Descent Postulate only has faith to support it and not a shred of science.
Blatant lie on your part. Which is WHY evolution is accepted by the scientific community today. We could always present you with the evidence (again) but then you were never able to address it the first time.

Of course as an outright crank and non-scientist who happens to be plagued with mental health problems, not the least of which fundamentalist beliefs of the SDA kind which are SO fundamentalist that even a fundamentalist SDA church put a restraining order out on you, there is very little reason to take you seriously.

This is the point where you should be reminding us of Ellen G White's accurate prediction of Jesus's forthcoming comeback, when all us infidels will be very sorry.
Shubee wrote:
"The fundamental principle of science, the definition almost, is this: the sole test of the validity of any idea is experiment." Richard P. Feynman. Where is the sensible model from confirmed experimental evidence showing that a gradual transition from invertebrates to vertebrates is possible?
It's called the nested hierarchies observed in the fossil record, combined with the existence of fossils consistent with observations of organisms characteristic of early vertebrates as predicted by common ancestry. I see however that you're using the same dishonest approach as Ranger88 by essentially claiming "Science doesn't know everything yet therefore GODDIDIT!"

As usual, you always lose out to reality.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Darwin on the rocks 7 min Chimney1 831
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 14 min Blitzking 141,886
"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 hr thetruth 14,507
Why Are There No Transitional Animals Today? (Mar '09) 9 hr General Robert E Lee 784
Science News (Sep '13) 19 hr Ricky F 2,961
The conditions necessary for homo sapiens to sp... Sun NoahLovesU 5
Posting for Points in the Evolution Forum (Oct '11) Sun -TheExam- 13,957
More from around the web