What evidence would you accept for human evolution?

[Alexiev]

[
Right. But stretching out the timeframe only makes it much, much worse for the Evolutionists' story. If a little time produces so much variation through selective breeding, then longer times with random mutation produce much, much more. So you're actually hurting the Evolutionists' case.

A trajectory off by one degree may be okay if the distance is not great; but if it's the vast reaches of space, then one degree means your rocket misses the mark by hundreds of miles. Likewise, random variations by mutation would produce many MORE transtional forms as the timespan is lengthened, not result in fewer.

Basic logic.

You clearly don't understand evolution. Also the "Evoluionists' story" is the story told by every well-educated, modern individual, including most intelligent Christians. CS Lewis, for example, thought that the argument about evolution vs. Intelligent design was a false dichotomy. God could "create" in many complex ways-- including evolution.

[Immanuel Can]

[
Right. But stretching out the timeframe only makes it much, much worse for the Evolutionists' story. If a little time produces so much variation through selective breeding, then longer times with random mutation produce much, much more. So you're actually hurting the Evolutionists' case.

A trajectory off by one degree may be okay if the distance is not great; but if it's the vast reaches of space, then one degree means your rocket misses the mark by hundreds of miles. Likewise, random variations by mutation would produce many MORE transtional forms as the timespan is lengthened, not result in fewer.

Basic logic.

You clearly don't understand evolution.

I think somebody doesn't...but it ain't me.

Just listen to the lies they try to tell, and compare them with the facts. That's all it takes.

[Age]

[
Right. But stretching out the timeframe only makes it much, much worse for the Evolutionists' story. If a little time produces so much variation through selective breeding, then longer times with random mutation produce much, much more. So you're actually hurting the Evolutionists' case.

A trajectory off by one degree may be okay if the distance is not great; but if it's the vast reaches of space, then one degree means your rocket misses the mark by hundreds of miles. Likewise, random variations by mutation would produce many MORE transtional forms as the timespan is lengthened, not result in fewer.

Basic logic.

You clearly don't understand evolution.

I think somebody doesn't...but it ain't me.

But it is you... that is the point.

you have proved this over and over, again and again, throughout this thread. As others attest to.

Just listen to the lies they try to tell, and compare them with the facts. That's all it takes.

Who are 'they', what do they say?

For you to answer these clarifying questions is all it takes. The fact that you will not just answer these clarifying questions proves the point.

[Alexiev]

I think somebody doesn't...but it ain't me.

Just listen to the lies they try to tell, and compare them with the facts. That's all it takes.

The facts are available to all. When 98% of educated people agree on how to interpret them, maybe they are right and you are wrong. You are like the hack poet who thinks he's great. Editors reject his poems; his best friends tell him to give up poetry. But no! He believes in himself! Still, perhaps it would behoove him to believe == scary, I know -- in other people.

[Immanuel Can]

I think somebody doesn't...but it ain't me.

Just listen to the lies they try to tell, and compare them with the facts. That's all it takes.

The facts are available to all.

Well, they are, and they aren't. They're there for those who are willing to question the narrative, but hidden to those who just "trust Science," in a Fauci sort of way.

When 98% of educated people agree on how to interpret them...

Let me know when anything close to that happens. It will still be "bandwagon fallacy," but it's not the case yet.

[Alexiev]

I think somebody doesn't...but it ain't me.

Just listen to the lies they try to tell, and compare them with the facts. That's all it takes.

The facts are available to all.

Well, they are, and they aren't. They're there for those who are willing to question the narrative, but hidden to those who just "trust Science," in a Fauci sort of way.

When 98% of educated people agree on how to interpret them...

Let me know when anything close to that happens. It will still be "bandwagon fallacy," but it's not the case yet.

For most people, the facts precede the theory, and lead us to it. For you, the theory precedes the "facts".

[Impenitent]

my favorite bandwagon fallacy is when it rolls over a pothole, the accordion shifts, and it sounds haunted...

-Imp

[Immanuel Can]

For most people, the facts precede the theory, and lead us to it. For you, the theory precedes the "facts".

That's actually how Evolutionism works. That's why it took so long to "discover" it -- there's actually a long history of people trying to make evolutionary progressivism of some kind work, including Lyell, Lamarck, Cuvier, Linnaeus...all the way back to Nasīr al-Dīn al-Tūsī and beyond him to Aristotle, and including Darwin's own grandfather, Erasmus. When you read all of that, you realize that it's a charter case of a theory that was prepared long before there were any alleged "facts" capable of supporting it, and that, far from being some wonderous original thinker, Charles Darwin was merely the first of these jokers to whip the theory into a form that the public would accept.

So Evolutionism is actually the case of the theory preceding the facts...and that, by thousands of years.

[Age]

For most people, the facts precede the theory, and lead us to it. For you, the theory precedes the "facts".

That's actually how Evolutionism works. That's why it took so long to "discover" it -- there's actually a long history of people trying to make evolutionary progressivism of some kind work, including Lyell, Lamarck, Cuvier, Linnaeus...all the way back to Nasīr al-Dīn al-Tūsī and beyond him to Aristotle, and including Darwin's own grandfather, Erasmus. When you read all of that, you realize that it's a charter case of a theory that was prepared long before there were any alleged "facts" capable of supporting it, and that, far from being some wonderous original thinker, Charles Darwin was merely the first of these jokers to whip the theory into a form that the public would accept.

So Evolutionism is actually the case of the theory preceding the facts...and that, by thousands of years.

IMAGINE being SO ABSOLUTELY CLOSED that it MAKES you ABSOLUTELY BLIND FROM SEEING the ACTUAL CHANGES WITHIN species, which are BLATANTLY OBVIOUS, and which is what LED TO DIFFERENT species, and INSTEAD ONLY BEING ABLE TO 'see' that A 'Thing', with a penis of all things, created EACH and EVERY species ALL AT and IN the VERY EXACT SAME MOMENT?

Now, IMAGINE BELIEVING 'that' SO MUCH that you END UP CONTINUALLY FIGHTING FOR your BELIEF, and AGAINST ANY thing OPPOSING 'that BELIEF'?

you would OBVIOUSLY ALWAYS KEEP FIGHTING FOR 'that BELIEF' and would ALWAYS KEEP FIGHTING AGAINST ANY thing OPPOSING 'that BELIEF' BECAUSE if you SUDDENLY DID DECIDE TO JUST LOOK and SEE FROM AN OPEN PERSPECTIVE, then IMAGINE HOW Truly STUPID you WOULD FEEL WHEN you REALIZED just HOW Truly STUPID, ILLOGICAL, IRRATIONAL, and SILLY you WOULD REALLY FEEL?

Now, 'this' IS EXACTLY WHY people like "immanuel can" DO NOT BECOME Honest and OPEN, here.

[Alexiev]

For most people, the facts precede the theory, and lead us to it. For you, the theory precedes the "facts".

That's actually how Evolutionism works. That's why it took so long to "discover" it -- there's actually a long history of people trying to make evolutionary progressivism of some kind work, including Lyell, Lamarck, Cuvier, Linnaeus...all the way back to Nasīr al-Dīn al-Tūsī and beyond him to Aristotle, and including Darwin's own grandfather, Erasmus. When you read all of that, you realize that it's a charter case of a theory that was prepared long before there were any alleged "facts" capable of supporting it, and that, far from being some wonderous original thinker, Charles Darwin was merely the first of these jokers to whip the theory into a form that the public would accept.

So Evolutionism is actually the case of the theory preceding the facts...and that, by thousands of years.

If by "evolutionism" you mean the notion that things change ("evolve") you continue to be wrong. People look around and see that things change. These are observed "facts". Then they develop theories explaining or predicting these facts. I know the Bible says "there is nothing new under the sun" -- but observations contradict this adage. There are lots of new things, and lots of old things that elucidate the origin of the species homo sapiens.

[Immanuel Can]

For most people, the facts precede the theory, and lead us to it. For you, the theory precedes the "facts".

That's actually how Evolutionism works. That's why it took so long to "discover" it -- there's actually a long history of people trying to make evolutionary progressivism of some kind work, including Lyell, Lamarck, Cuvier, Linnaeus...all the way back to Nasīr al-Dīn al-Tūsī and beyond him to Aristotle, and including Darwin's own grandfather, Erasmus. When you read all of that, you realize that it's a charter case of a theory that was prepared long before there were any alleged "facts" capable of supporting it, and that, far from being some wonderous original thinker, Charles Darwin was merely the first of these jokers to whip the theory into a form that the public would accept.

So Evolutionism is actually the case of the theory preceding the facts...and that, by thousands of years.

If by "evolutionism" you mean the notion that things change ("evolve") you continue to be wrong. People look around and see that things change.

Mere "change" is nowhere near "evolution." Evolutionism requires that one species...like cats, say...can become a totally different species...like dogs, eagles or lizards, say. Change within species is very routine and observable: change between species is observable nowhere.

And change between apes and humans is an absurdity, and a genetic impossibility, though Evolutionism taught it as dogma for decades, and claimed it was also "fact." It behooves us, therefore, to be a little cautious about people who tell us that "X is a fact" or "X is Science (capital "S," the dogma)." They often lie.

[attofishpi]

Mere "change" is nowhere near "evolution." Evolutionism requires that one species...like cats, say...can become a totally different species...like dogs, eagles or lizards, say. Change within species is very routine and observable: change between species is observable nowhere.

And change between apes and humans is an absurdity, and a genetic impossibility, though Evolutionism taught it as dogma for decades, and claimed it was also "fact." It behooves us, therefore, to be a little cautious about people who tell us that "X is a fact" or "X is Science (capital "S," the dogma)."

Do you believe birds evolved from dinosaurs?

*Actually, do you believe dinosaurs existed?

[Immanuel Can]

Mere "change" is nowhere near "evolution." Evolutionism requires that one species...like cats, say...can become a totally different species...like dogs, eagles or lizards, say. Change within species is very routine and observable: change between species is observable nowhere.

And change between apes and humans is an absurdity, and a genetic impossibility, though Evolutionism taught it as dogma for decades, and claimed it was also "fact." It behooves us, therefore, to be a little cautious about people who tell us that "X is a fact" or "X is Science (capital "S," the dogma)."

Do you believe birds evolved from dinosaurs?

*Actually, do you believe dinosaurs existed?

There's no importance to questions about the timing, sequence or mechanisms of creation, except those involving human beings. And that is the subject here.

I have no interest in mere speculations...mine, or those of other people.

[attofishpi]

Mere "change" is nowhere near "evolution." Evolutionism requires that one species...like cats, say...can become a totally different species...like dogs, eagles or lizards, say. Change within species is very routine and observable: change between species is observable nowhere.

And change between apes and humans is an absurdity, and a genetic impossibility, though Evolutionism taught it as dogma for decades, and claimed it was also "fact." It behooves us, therefore, to be a little cautious about people who tell us that "X is a fact" or "X is Science (capital "S," the dogma)."

Do you believe birds evolved from dinosaurs?

*Actually, do you believe dinosaurs existed?

There's no importance to questions about the timing, sequence or mechanisms of creation, except those involving human beings. And that is the subject here.

I have no interest in mere speculations...mine, or those of other people.

No interest in speculations? Everything philosophical is "mere" speculation.

So are you suggesting that you believe birds evolved from dinosaurs over millions of years, but GOD put humans on Earth?

How long ago did GOD put humans on Earth? (*I'm not planning on a gotcha, genuinely interested in your perspective as a fundamentalist Christian)

[Immanuel Can]

Do you believe birds evolved from dinosaurs?

*Actually, do you believe dinosaurs existed?

There's no importance to questions about the timing, sequence or mechanisms of creation, except those involving human beings. And that is the subject here.

I have no interest in mere speculations...mine, or those of other people.

No interest in speculations? Everything philosophical is "mere" speculation.

You think so? I don't. I think there are good arguments and bad arguments, and there are evidentiary ones, and non-evidentiary ones, and logical ones, and absurd attempts at argument. But "speculation" doesn't figure at all.