Summations Only

Only by ignoring the fact that to get new phenotypes requires losing the genetic underpinnings of other phenotypes, for a net loss of genetic diversity as selection continues to create new species. If evolution requires losing genetic diversity eventually evolution has to come to a stop.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Dredge writes:
What you consider to be a scientific conclusion is actually an absurd extrapolation - observed small changes mean big changes are possible. After weighing up the evidence you have come to the conclusion that universal common descent is a fact. But I disagree - it's not a fact, but an absurd extrapolation. I think my hypotheis is worth serious consideration: "This extrapolation was inspired by an hallucination induced by an overdose of peyote that Charles Darwin experienced while in South America. He then used the hallucination as the basis for his first science-fiction novel." It explains everything.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Thank you for providing this example of you arriving at what you think is a scientific conclusion, but is in fact an absurd extrapolation.

Dredge writes:
Talk Origins describes Universal Common Descent as a "hypothesis". So I was wrong to call it a "theory" - way too generous. Not scientific ... rather, atheistic.

Faith, please stop pulling your typical crap. We both know that that has been explained to you over and over again and yet you persist in keeping yourself willfully ignorant.You know I have no patience for the stupid crap that you are pulling, so let's just stop it right here. Learn something!

Dredge writes:
Of course not. An explanation can be true yet useless to applied science. What I'm going on about about is, scientific explanations can be wrong. I like science that produces a practical use, because then you know that the principles involved are more or less correct.

You really like to throw that word around, "atheistic". I have to wonder whether you even have any clue what it means and especially whether you are able to tell whether something is actually atheistic or not.So then, yet again, explain why you consider that idea to be "atheistic."

Except when science is abused as a front for atheistic philosophy, which is what ToE does.

This is how your quoting should have looked: So you can nest qs quote boxes however deeply you would want to. Click on the Peek button of this message to see how.Doing it correctly will make your replies much clearer ... except for the poor quality content.Edited by dwise1, : " ... except for ..."

You're getting as bad and irrelevant as DavidJay. Lately you're nothing more than a troll.

Well, ToE is actually an invention of Satan; but it is transmitted to the world at large by atheists. Out of the Enlightenment came a tsunami of atheism. It's was only a matter of time before a pseudo-scientific creation story came along to make all these atheists feel "intellectually fulfilled". It's so obvious. Why can't you see it?Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Cut the bullshit!! Why do you consider it atheistic? Be very specific in giving your reasons. What is obvious is how far your head is wedged in and how deeply deluded you are.Of course, if you truly think that you are not deluded, then you can explain your reasoning in having made your determinations. If you cannot, then you have never actually thought it through and you are deluded.Show us that you are not deluded.

That's not a very nice thing to say. The cult you have willingly joined doesn't like dissenters who shine lights in their dark dungeons. You are childishly deluded if you think the purpose of ToE is to advance science.

That's not a very nice thing to say. Well, ToE is actually an invention of Satan; but it is transmitted to the world at large by atheists. Out of the Enlightenment came a tsunami of atheism. It's was only a matter of time before a pseudo-scientific creation story came along to make all these atheists feel "intellectually fulfilled". It's so obvious. Why can't you see it?

Thanks for the tip.