toldailytopic: The theory of evolution. Do you believe in it?

[Stripe]

It isn't even remotely that simple.

Yeah .. evolutionists are always vehemently opposed to simple, easy to understand ideas. :chuckle:

Kinds are YOUR idea not mine. I don't make other people's arguments for them. Again . .kinds are YOUR idea. YOU back it up. Post your data then. Give us a testable hypothesis. If you think it doesn't, you explain it.

Yet you know exactly what the answers are and refuse to acknowledge them.

How on earth did you come up with this idea that other people are supposed to argue what YOU believe? It has to be one of the stupidest things you've ever done, and that is saying something.

It's a rarely used tactic, usually only effective when one has well documented evidence that one's opponent consistently lies and misrepresents what she is arguing against.

 

[Alate_One]

Yeah .. evolutionists are always vehemently opposed to simple, easy to understand ideas. :chuckle:

The world isn't based on simple, easy to understand concepts. You'll have to argue with the Maker if you don't like it.

It's a rarely used tactic, usually only effective when one has well documented evidence that one's opponent consistently lies and misrepresents what she is arguing against.

It's a tactic you use when you don't actually have anything to say, because when pressed you always grow silent. You have more bluster in you than the last blizzard that went through here. I think we could probably power a small city with your empty airflow.

Give us a kind. Tell us exactly what is in it so we can test it. I am 99% positive you have never done this. If not, show me where I am wrong.

Claiming I am lying without being able to show it makes you the liar. Come on Stripe, how about you contribute something substantive for a change?

 

[Stripe]

The world isn't based on simple, easy to understand concepts.

Sure, it is.

You'll have to argue with the Maker if you don't like it.

:rotfl:

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". What is complicated about that?

It's a tactic you use when you don't actually have anything to say, because when pressed you always grow silent. You have more bluster in you than the last blizzard that went through here. I think we could probably power a small city with your empty airflow.

So you cannot explain how a kind is defined? I can do so precisely and completely in about 12 words. :idunno:

Give us a kind. Tell us exactly what is in it so we can test it. I am 99% positive you have never done this. If not, show me where I am wrong.

You're wrong. And you're lying through your teeth .. unless you have the memory of a goldfish.

Claiming I am lying without being able to show it makes you the liar. Come on Stripe, how about you contribute something substantive for a change?

I've shown how you are a liar enough times. I'm not really interested in rehashing the matter. We can move on in spite of your unwillingness to acknowledge the structure of the argument against you.

 

[The Barbarian]

Since Stipe can't come up with a testable definition of "kind", perhaps Yorzhik can think of one.

(Don't hold your breath)

 

[Alate_One]

Sure, it is.

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". What is complicated about that?

It isn't and I believe that. But it's the HOW that is complicated. The fundamental forces that support the existence of life and the planets are complicated.

Just as saying "The United States was victorious in a war against Japan in WWII", okay that's simple but HOW is obviously NOT simple. Otherwise there wouldn't be thousands of books and movies on the subject.

Interestingly, there are almost as many books covering the interpretation of Genesis. But if Stripe says something it must be true . . . . . . right? :chuckle:

So you cannot explain how a kind is defined? I can do so precisely and completely in about 12 words. :idunno:

I'm not saying define it. I am aware of your "definition" and I am saying it is functionally useless. I'm asking you to use your definition and give us an example of the organisms that are members of a "kind". If it's all so obvious and simple you should be able to do it in a matter of moments.

I've shown how you are a liar enough times. I'm not really interested in rehashing the matter. We can move on in spite of your unwillingness to acknowledge the structure of the argument against you.

No you haven't showed me a liar numerous times. You've certainly claimed it enough. Several times I took the time to show you were wrong. At least Yorz has enough integrity to admit he was wrong. You have never ever proved me a liar and you have never ever admitted you were wrong.

 

[Stripe]

It isn't and I believe that. But it's the HOW that is complicated. The fundamental forces that support the existence of life and the planets are complicated. Just as saying "The United States was victorious in a war against Japan in WWII", okay that's simple but HOW is obviously NOT simple. Otherwise there wouldn't be thousands of books and movies on the subject. Interestingly, there are almost as many books covering the interpretation of Genesis.

Atheists love to point to the popularity of an idea as if it is reason to believe that idea.

It doesn't matter how many books are written on a subject, all that matters is the truth.

And the truth is that if you read beyond "In the beginning..." you will find the 'how'.

And it's pretty simple. :thumb:

I'm not saying define it. I am aware of your "definition" and I am saying it is functionally useless. I'm asking you to use your definition and give us an example of the organisms that are members of a "kind". If it's all so obvious and simple you should be able to do it in a matter of moments.

You have those goalposts on rails, right?

No you haven't showed me a liar numerous times. You've certainly claimed it enough. Several times I took the time to show you were wrong. At least Yorz has enough integrity to admit he was wrong. You have never ever proved me a liar and you have never ever admitted you were wrong.

Liar.

 

[The Barbarian]

The last thing anyone wants to do, is define his favorite buzzwords. Once that's done, they are of no further use.

 

[Stripe]

There isn't an alternative (to phylogenetics) that is not based on evolutionary classification systems.

Yes, there is.

I am aware of your "definition" (an alternative to phylogenetics). I'm asking you to use your definition and give us an example of the organisms that are members of a "kind".

So, Alate. You're a liar. You need to give up this constant insistence that you do not know very well the argument presented against you.