Problems with evolution? Submit your questions.

Actually I only thought you were confusing what was meant. I don't think the cosmological constant is light.A knowledge of physics wasn't the point of the conditional implication, which was to show how a confirming evidence is represented as the consequent.Do you actually realize that I was talking about logic in relation to science?You do realize that if I use daisy the pig for an analogy, I don't claim to have a great knowledge of farming? It's just an example.My goodness me, you have worked yourself up haven't you. Oh ofcourse. Like everybody else I know far less than I don't know. But then, I don't recall making a claim that I am omniscient.Always I am learning. But I am afraid this doesn't lead me to have an evolutionary ideology.

What people are telling you isn't that you "will" accept evolution if you learn enough about it. They're telling you that non-acceptance of evolution correllates closely with ignorance of evolution. Most people who deny evolution do so without knowing the first thing about it. What is it, specifically, that you don't accept about evolution?(Please, please, please don't say that evolutionists are trying to prove there's no God.)

---

"I'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"

I think, rather predictably,it's become, now all jump on the Christian thread.I think it's futile to continue at this stage. Why when I give my views it leads to a deluge of evolutionists thinking I have time to answer innumerable requests I'll never know. Did you guys break buzsaw or something? Hasn't he been around this year or something?

This is only one of the many things that you are wrong about.

A quick response.It's usually a big error that creationists are ignorant, and that this lack of knowledge of evolution, correlates.Th fact is - it's a compositional illusion. That means - I do not "reject" the knowledge and hypothetics of evolution, only the final conclusions, that we stemmed from a common ancestor - even every organism.With the same facts of mutations, NS, and most of the scientific work put into evolution, you can accept an adaptation of organisms.Usually evolutionists will say; "where is the barrier to mutations and selection", but logically it's like saying; Where is the barriers to that completely paralyzed person?That is to say - first you have to prove that a man can jump a hurdle, before I have to prove there is a hurdle.The fact is that the evidence does not show that there should CERTAINLY follow that a phylogenetic tree-of-life existed, and that all organisms down the lineage eventually stemmed from a simpler ancestor.Logically, you can shout at mikey - you can ban him, you can dishonestly try and make a show out of an honest person, with you fantastic relative morality that goes out of the proverbial window, but alas, you will be unable to infer, soundly, that the facts show that macro-evolution happened.They simply and clearly do not.Even a base study of DNA, and how the information is synthesized, processed, etc... does not correlate with a macro-evolution. The designs are there, and were there, even in the cambrian, and the fossils show what should follow given organisms generally stay the same.There. You now know, please no more questions. Sheesh. Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

No - I am not.(Now tell me, what did that exchange actually prove? Am - am not - am - am not.)I am sure you believe it my friend, but tire me no more. Go in peace

I quoted Einstein saying that c was a constant. You replied by saying, and I quote, "No - the cosmological constant was his gravest error, he admitted it." And you thought that I was confusing what is meant? Apparently what you are learning is how to spout nonsense.Try learning some science, a little basic logic, and the meanings of some --- perhaps even all --- of the words that you wish to employ.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

So, do you have a question about evolution? I just meant scientists. I should have asked: As for the rest of your response, I admit that my mental powers are inferior to yours. I cannot understand what you are saying. What? Seven million bibles on one slide? What the heck are you talking about?The rest seems to be a Gish Gallop but I'm too dense to get your points.If you are trying to increase my knowledge it went right over my head.

---

Tactimatically speaking, the molecubes are out of alignment. -- S.ValleyWhat if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty PythonYou can't build a Time Machine without Weird Optics -- S. Valley

mike the wiz writes:

quote:

---

I believe in many of the following;

​

Genetic drift
natural selection
mutations
isolated population
the homo genus
all of the fossils
speciation
micro-evolution
adaptation
allele frequencies
normalised selection etc,

​

I only disagree with the very final conclusions inferred from such facts.

---

That's like saying you agree 1 exists, 2 exists, addition exists and works, equality exists and works, but none of that means 1 + 1 = 2.If you agree that all of the mechanisms by which evolution works are real and functional, how can you deny the reality of evolution? How can the processes by which evolution is carried out actually work and yet not be evidence of evolution?What, specifically, is the problem?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

You request I learn base logic.So I was wrong when I said the following is fallacious?X = Z therefore Z = X.Was I wrong about the modus ponen/tollens? Was I wrong about induction, and the weakness of evidence?(Are you understanding my post thus far, I can use smaller words if you wish. I can only try my best.)

So... we have to show you where the horse is before you can put the cart in front of it?

---

"I'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"

Yes indeed. If the time stamps are correct, you can have spent no more than nine minutes writing that --- and it shows.Perhaps you could take a little time, or a lot, to give some coherency to your thoughts. If we are fortunate, coherence of language may follow.

I'm sorry to see it, mike, but you seem to have lost your wizness.

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie

Those were ideas from a creationist. Creation Worldview Ministries.I am not dogmatic about those things, but by all means think what you will of me old bud.Would it mean I was any less mike if I believed in a young earth rather than an old one?nwr, my old friend, am I less simply for such a thing that doesn't really matter?

The problem is your maths.You missed the it about composition. The units can be true without the whole being true.For example, If I add 3 and 3 and 3 it doesn't mean the answer must have a 3 in it.Lots of the work of evolutionists, deals with provable facts I agree with, such as an isolated population leading to change.But I am not convinced that mutations and NS actually change designs. I think they can dramatically alter designs that are already there.Bye guys.