"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

Delirium · 01-08-2011 10:45am

J C wrote: »

Here are some examples (courtesy of Creationwiki):

* Felidae — Scientists from Creation Ministries International and the Institute for Creation Research have proposed that the original feline kind was comparable to the Liger and the Tigon.
* Canidae — Including Wolves, Foxes, Jackals, Coyotes, and Domestic dogs.
* Camelidae — Including both the Camel and the Llama, which are reproductively compatible, their hybrid offspring being known as "Camas."
* Bovidae — Including Cattle, Buffalo, Bison, and Yaks.
* Equidae — Including Horses, Zebras, and Asses.
* Caprinae — Including Sheep, Goats, and Ibex.
* Crocodilia — Including all the varieties of Alligators, Crocodiles, and Gharials.
* Elephantidae — Including African and Asian elephants, Mammoths, Mastodons, and Gomphotheres.

Thus the created kind corresponds roughly to the family level of taxonomic classification, and possibly even the order with the notable exception of humanity wherein the genus is representative.

* Humanity — Creationist Sigrid Hartwig-Scherer concluded that H. erectus/ergaster, Neanderthals and H. sapiens were members of the same basic type (which corresponds to a monobaramin) Homo; with the fossils called Australopithecus afarensis, A. anamensis, A. africanus, A. robustus, A. aethiopithecus, A. boisei and possibly Ardipithecus ramidus assigned to another basic type, Australopithecinae.

... and here are some more facts of created life:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/cfol/ch2-species.asp

any chance of the full list of kinds?

Here is a peer-reviewed paper on the subject
http://www.bryancore.org/jcts/index.php/jctsb/article/download/4/7

hardly unbiased since it was "peer review" was done by an evangelical Christian college.

Mr. Boo · 01-08-2011 10:36pm

J C wrote: »

... but the the Jenkins-Fischbach effect mean that decay rates aren't constant across all radio-isotopes ... and so, nuclear half-lives aren't definitive either for any of these.
... and therefore the 'counter-creationist arguments' that you say are based on radio-nuclear dating are also invalid ... like most other things about Materialistic Evolution.:)

I see nothing disrespectful about a Christian telling anybody that they need to be Saved ... nor do I see anything disrespectful about an Atheist saying "there is no God, move on" ... they are both consistent with their respective beliefs ... and they both invite a reasoned respose from the other party.

I don't think that it is polite to scoff at other peoples beliefs ... but it is certainly vaid to question them ... and if they don't have answers, then maybe they should have a long hard look at what they believe ... that's what true skepticism is all about.;)

Equally, discriminating against people simply because they don't share your beliefs ... or censoring what they have to say, when you have no counter argument is quite abnoxious. In this regard, the way that I am confined to this thread on the A & A is quite ironic for a group of people who clam to be skeptics ... and who routinely rail against similar suppression of opposing opinion in the Medieval Church.
The reason that the church engaged in such censorship was often because it didn't have any valid answers to the questions raised ... and it therefore suppressed the questions and the questioners!!!
... I wonder could that also be the reason why there is such suppression of the the Creation Science viewpoint, as well?

You would indeed have a valid point, if that was what Creation Scientists actually did ... but they don't base all of their arguments on one Book ... they base their science on real world observations, maths and logic. The basis of their theology also varies ... there are Creation Scientists who are Muslims, Jews and Christians ... and there are ID proponents who are of all faiths and none, for example, the Deist (and former leading Atheist) the late Prof Sir Anthony Flew.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew

It's almost like you quoted my entire post and then said a bunch of stuff that's vaguely related to it. By stuff I mean fluff. I'm not really sure I can decipher it. Peace out.

dead one · 02-08-2011 5:06am

koth wrote: »

any chance of the full list of kinds?
hardly unbiased since it was "peer review" was done by an evangelical Christian college.

If i say God's Greatest creation is evolution.... then, will you agree?

in case of disagreement please scientifically explain the raisons for your disagreement?

Delirium · 02-08-2011 8:46am

dead one wrote: »

If i say God's Greatest creation is evolution.... then, will you agree?

No.

in case of disagreement please scientifically explain the raisons for your disagreement?

simple. No scientist has proven that god is involved in evolution.

CerebralCortex · 02-08-2011 12:25pm

dead one wrote: »

If i say God's Greatest creation is evolution.... then, will you agree?

Wow! That's the best "He" could do?

Sarky · 02-08-2011 12:41pm

I've spent most of the morning looking at a bacterial chromosome. It's a bit of a mess, to be honest, junk and flipping direction at random and transposons that cut bits of DNA out and paste them back in somewhere else at random. God really didn't try very hard.

And that's a simple chromosome. It's nothing compared to the absolute shambles of arseways genetic sequences that make up a typical animal gene. They're all over the damn place. I'd expect this kind of sloppiness from a final year undergrad who waited until the last month or two to start working on the dissertation they should have been working at all year.

robindch · 02-08-2011 12:48pm

Sarky wrote: »

I've spent most of the morning looking at a bacterial chromosome.

Video or GTFO!

Sarky wrote: »

It's a bit of a mess, to be honest,

Bacterial genetics isn't my thing, to say the very least, but I understood that many bacteria + viruses contain genetic sequences that can be read in either direction, ie that they code for different, but useful, proteins depending on which direction they're read in?

Sarky · 02-08-2011 3:46pm

robindch wrote: »

Video or GTFO!

It's not terribly exciting. Mostly looks [url=https://us.v-cdn.net/6034073/uploads/attachments/16986/169287.jpg[/url] with a lot of database searches just to spice things up.

Bacterial genetics isn't my thing, to say the very least, but I understood that many bacteria + viruses contain genetic sequences that can be read in either direction, ie that they code for different, but useful, proteins depending on which direction they're read in?

Yup, it takes a block of 3 nucleotides to code 1 amino acid (or a start/stop signal), so that gives you 3 possible starting points for a gene and potentially 3 completely different end proteins (depending on the shape of protein binding to the DNA, different codes in the same space could be activated, but it's rare enough). Then there's the same thing on the other strand of the double helix to make 6. And then you need to look for a start and stop code on your sequence, and there could be dozens of them in a small sequence, and not all of them would code genes and they all overlap and combine with the 6 potential start points, so it takes a huge amount of computer power to figure out just what the hell even a small piece of DNA might do. We're talking multiple clusters of machines with a dozen processors, racks of graphics cards because there's a lot of matrix calculations, a few hundred gigs of RAM between them, and a few days of computation. And then you might still be wrong because the bacteria doesn't make the kind of protein required to activate it. It generates so much information that it's sometimes more convenient for scientists to send eachother boxes full of terabyte hard disks as correspondence.

And that's just bacteria/viruses, where a gene is one continuous chunk. Animal genes usually come in segments separated by "intron" space, and those segments can recombine in different ways to create even more varied proteins.

It's all over the place, it makes very little sense sometimes, and it looks far more like a bunch of bits and pieces thrown together by chance that happen to work than any kind of intelligent design. Any programmer would at least have the decency to add in a few explanatory comments. If this is God's handiwork, then he's sloppy, lazy, and not entirely sure what he's doing.

himnextdoor · 02-08-2011 3:46pm

dead one wrote: »

If i say God's Greatest creation is evolution.... then, will you agree?

I think it would be more accurate to say that evolution created God.

fontanalis · 02-08-2011 4:32pm

dead one wrote: »

If i say God's Greatest creation is evolution.... then, will you agree?

in case of disagreement please scientifically explain the raisons for your disagreement?

IF evolution is true then I'm assuming you think Adam and Eve weren't created/planted ther ein their human form, where does this leave original sin/jesus dying for our sins etc?

Undergod · 02-08-2011 5:35pm

fontanalis wrote: »

IF evolution is true then I'm assuming you think Adam and Eve weren't created/planted ther ein their human form, where does this leave original sin/jesus dying for our sins etc?

dead one is a muslim, I think.

dead one · 03-08-2011 6:08am

koth wrote: »

No.

Right, then what? if not GOD-- Please explain in detail, who is behind the process of evolution....

koth wrote: »

simple.

Quite difficult--because ignorance isn't crime

koth wrote: »

No scientist has proven that god is involved in evolution.

I think, you are mixing Science with materialism-- A scientist can be materialistic--- why because, Scientist are human, they also have faith-- A materialistic Scientist will search on evolution according his faith--- A scientist who have faith in God, will search according to his faith---- I guess you have wasted your life on studying the facts of materialistic scientists----because it torches your hypothesis--- because you prefer not to believe in God----you prefer to believe in chances--- Can chances produce complexity?---what is chance for that in this whole universe?-- If chances were to produce life and complexity then Titan would have life like earth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titan_(moon)

himnextdoor wrote: »

I think it would be more accurate to say that evolution created God.

You believe in science, your statement is wrong as per science---why?---
Evolution is natural process to the human-- Processes need first cause- They can't happen by chances/accidents--- It is against logic and science-- I am talking about the processor which is handling this process of evolution -- So it is scientific to believe that God is behind present evolution...

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Wow! That's the best "He" could do?

See that's problem with your native language--- God isn't "He" or "She"---
The occupancy of the neuter gender in English and its absenteeism in Arabic (or French) causes linguistic mismatch---A result of this mismatch is that in English, if u use the manlike (i mean masculine) or girlish (feminine) pronoun to refer to something that is without natural gender, one is symbolizing the thing as a person, usually for powerful rhetorical effect--This rhetorical instrument is called personification, and is often used by poets

Here is an example

In thoughtless gaiety I coursed the plain,
And hope itself was all I knew of pain;
For then, the inexperienced heart would beat
At times, while young Content forsook her seat,
And wild Impatience, pointing upward, showed,
Through passes yet unreached, a brighter road.
Alas! the idle tale of man is found
Depicted in the dial's moral round;
Hope with reflection blends her social rays
To gild the total tablet of his days; 30
Yet still, the sport of some malignant power,
He knows but from its shade the present hour.
But why, ungrateful, dwell on idle pain?
To show what pleasures yet to me remain,
Say, will my Friend, with unreluctant ear,
The history of a poet's evening hear?
http://www.bartleby.com/145/ww114.html

Arabic like languages have no neuter gender, and such manlike or girlish pronominal references carry no connotations of humanness--- so in arabic The girlish of shams (Sun) or the manlike of qamar (moon) is grammatical sex established really on language convention-- The Quran uses masculine pronoun huwa for Allah---- because the word "Allah" is grammatically manlike, not because Allah is naturally masculine (Allah be refuge)

using "He" for anything,in English, without natural gender implies human characteristics, but not in Arabic. ---
If you want to know natural gender for Allah--- Here is hint that's why he sent his manual to guidemankind--
"There is nothing like unto Him"
http://quran.com/42/11

himnextdoor · 03-08-2011 7:03am

dead one wrote: »

Right, then what? if not GOD-- Please explain in detail, who is behind the process of evolution....

I just want to point out that you ask 'who' which itself has connotations of gender. Unless of course there is a third gender that can be applied to 'who'.

Noone is 'behind' evolution any more than someone is 'behind' rain-fall distribution; prevailing conditions affect outcomes.

dead one wrote: »

I think, you are mixing Science with materialism-- A scientist can be materialistic--- why because, Scientist are human, they also have faith-- A materialistic Scientist will search on evolution according his faith--- A scientist who have faith in God, will search according to his faith---- I guess you have wasted your life on studying the facts of materialistic scientists----because it torches your hypothesis--- because you prefer not to believe in God----you prefer to believe in chances--- Can chances produce complexity?---what is chance for that in this whole universe?-- If chances were to produce life and complexity then Titan would have life like earth

A weather vane, a device to show wind direction, is materialistic as it operates on the basis of material phenomena. And yet it points in the correct direction.

Titan is not like Earth and so Titanic life is likely to be different to Earth life.

dead one wrote: »

You believe in science, your statement is wrong as per science---why?---
Evolution is natural process to the human-- Processes need first cause- They can't happen by chances/accidents--- It is against logic and science-- I am taking about the processor who is handling this process of evolution -- So it is scientific to believe that God is behind present evolution...

No, it is precisely 'unscientific' to believe God is behind evolution.

Equally, it is unscientific to claim that ALL processes require a first cause except for the first process, God, which caused itself. Where is the logic and reason there?

If you can accept that one process can occur without a cause then why not another?

What 'causes' fire? Is it the match? The flammable material? Oxygen? Fire is 'caused' by all of them.

It's not about causes but outcomes of random interactions. Or do you believe that God made a conscious decision to make 'fire' dependent on those three things; heat, fuel and oxygen?

No oxygen, no fire; so sayeth the Lord.

dead one wrote: »

See that's problem with your native language--- God isn't "He" or "She"---
The occupancy of the neuter gender in English and its absenteeism in Arabic (or French) causes linguistic mismatch---A result of this mismatch is that in English, if u use the manlike (i mean masculine) or girlish (feminine) pronoun to refer to something that is without natural gender, one is symbolizing the thing as a person, usually for powerful rhetorical effect--This rhetorical instrument is called personification, and is often used by poets

Arabic like languages have no neuter gender, and such manlike or girlish pronominal references carry no connotations of humanness--- so in arabic The girlish of shams (Sun) or the manlike of qamar (moon) is grammatical sex established really on language convention-- The Quran uses masculine pronoun huwa for Allah---- because the word "Allah" is grammatically manlike, not because Allah is naturally masculine (Allah be refuge)
using "He" for anything,in English, without natural gender implies human characteristics, but not in Arabic. ---
If you want to know natural gender for Allah--- Here is hint that's why he sent his manual to guidemankind--
"There is nothing like unto Him"
http://quran.com/42/11

We could refer to God as 'it' if there was a gender problem but there isn't. God made Eve from Adam's rib and therefore womankind is the property of men.

What do you expect from a 'patriarchy'?

It was Sarah's offspring that became the nation of the Jews, not Abraham's or Ishmael would have been the 'one'.

Little wonder then that women are second-class citizens in Judaism, Islam and Christianity.

If you need a lesson in materialism, have a look at religion.

Delirium · 03-08-2011 8:47am

dead one wrote: »

Right, then what? if not GOD-- Please explain in detail, who is behind the process of evolution....

I never said anything was behind the process of evolution

I think, you are mixing Science with materialism-- A scientist can be materialistic--- why because, Scientist are human, they also have faith-- A materialistic Scientist will search on evolution according his faith--- A scientist who have faith in God, will search according to his faith---- I guess you have wasted your life on studying the facts of materialistic scientists----because it torches your hypothesis--- because you prefer not to believe in God----you prefer to believe in chances--- Can chances produce complexity?---what is chance for that in this whole universe?-- If chances were to produce life and complexity then Titan would have life like earth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titan_(moon)

thanks for the concern but I don't think I've wasted my life due to my not buying into the creationist origin myth.

I don't accept science to suit my point of view. I accept it because they produce evidence and documentation to back up their claims.

CerebralCortex · 03-08-2011 9:54am

dead one wrote: »

See that's problem with your native language--- God isn't "He" or "She"---
The occupancy of the neuter gender in English and its absenteeism in Arabic (or French) causes linguistic mismatch---A result of this mismatch is that in English, if u use the manlike (i mean masculine) or girlish (feminine) pronoun to refer to something that is without natural gender, one is symbolizing the thing as a person, usually for powerful rhetorical effect--This rhetorical instrument is called personification, and is often used by poets

Here is an example
blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah... ...Strawman!
http://quran.com/42/11

Okay then, is this the best "it" could do?

Doc_Savage · 03-08-2011 10:33am

screw strawmen arguments... the two lads are plain old clutching at straws to provoke reactions now!

Undergod · 03-08-2011 10:49am

dead one wrote: »

Can chances produce complexity?---what is chance for that in this whole universe?-- If chances were to produce life and complexity then Titan would have life like earth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titan_(moon)

That's not how 'chance' works. That's like an unlucky gambler looking at a successful player across the roulette table, and saying "Well that proves there's a god. If random chance caused that gambler to win, then surely chance would have cause me to win by now."

J C · 03-08-2011 8:36pm

Doc_Savage wrote: »

screw strawmen arguments... the two lads are plain old clutching at straws to provoke reactions now!

Come on lads ... I was once just like you ... an evolutionist ... believing in materialistic miracles!!!!
... the real question is how something as highly complex and totally specified as living creatures could ever be produced from scratch using non-intelligently directed processes.

... and don't say 'evolution' without explaining exactly how this could produce the 'mega giga bites' of complex functional specific information found in even a simple cell ... and no, NS doesn't explain where the complex functional specific information comes from, in the first place, for it to select.

Sarky · 03-08-2011 8:53pm

So have you lied about watching all those videos, or have you lied about understanding them?

J C · 03-08-2011 9:01pm

koth wrote: »

I never said anything was behind the process of evolution.

There is nothing behind it ... only the vain imaginings of men ... in denial of their Creator God.

I wouldn't believe that it is possible for so many people to believe in something as patently ridiculous as Spontaneous Evolution ... except I once was just as deluded as you are ... and I too believed that CFSI could be spontaneuosly produced ... but then I realised that it couldn't.

J C · 03-08-2011 9:09pm

Sarky wrote: »

So have you lied about watching all those videos, or have you lied about understanding them?

In general, the videos are just wishful thinking and examples of NS of created CSI ... which requires a creator, in the first place !!!:)

fatmammycat · 03-08-2011 11:16pm

J C wrote: »

In general, the videos are just wishful thinking and examples of NS of created CSI ... which requires a creator, in the first place !!!:)

Poor 'scientist' JC, try stick with facts old boy, not 'wishful thinking'.

http://boingboing.net/2011/08/02/bertrand-russells-advice-to-internet-commenters.html

Doc_Savage · 04-08-2011 12:41am

jc, how can you actually test your creation hypothesis or gather evidence for it in order to ever have it peer reviewed?

Misquoting and selectively reading all the peoples statements here who take time to respond to and question you, calling their opinions materialistic miracles and saying you were once like them obviously isn't working, in fact you're probably only serving to reinforce the blinkered stereotype that exists for creationists.

This thread has amused me for ages and you've changed recently... repeating yourself and showing little effort concerning something that you claim to take very seriously!

By the way...

Don't tell me i'm the one that's blinkered..... that's what i expect...
Don't ask for my proof....there's plenty of theory and evidence in this thread you've already ignored...
And don't tell me i can be saved! I find it petty...

Sarky · 04-08-2011 12:53am

J C wrote: »

In general, the videos are just wishful thinking and examples of NS of created CSI ... which requires a creator, in the first place !!!:)

You must have missed the truckload of videos that explained how life can emerge from nothing, then. There really have been a lot of them. I watched at least 2 of them myself, they're quite good at explaining the emergence of life.

So, you're lying about something. I'll ask again: Did you lie about watching them, or did you lie about understanding them?

dead one · 04-08-2011 4:29am

himnextdoor wrote: »

I just want to point out that you ask 'who' which itself has connotations of gender. Unless of course there is a third gender that can be applied to 'who'.

Like i said, that's the problem with English---not my problem--- So tell, what should i use instead of "who" - -

himnextdoor wrote: »

Noone is 'behind' evolution any more than someone is 'behind' rain-fall distribution; prevailing conditions affect outcomes.

lets have a look at some art then?---
The surprising design and complexity of living things gives strong evidence for a Maker/Creator -- One visible feature of this aliment is that God has arranged the ‘recipe’ for all these arrangements on the famous double-helix molecule DNA----This recipe has an vast information content, which is transmitted one generation to the next, so that living things make more copies ‘after their kinds’---- See, atheistic evolutionist Richard Dawkins says:

There is enough information capacity in a single human cell to store the Encyclopaedia Britannica, all 30 volumes of it, three or four times over.’

I hope you believe that encyclopedia had smart authors--- So it is scientifficc to believe that the data in the world likewise had an original writer/author/sender---
There is no be informed non-intelligent originator that has ever been noticed to generate even a small portion of the correctly encyclopedic information needed for life. See, that's how you are going against Science---- You believe what your prefer to believer!!!!! The genetic code is not an result of raw data--- When you say--- You violate science--- You choose part of that science which matches with your information to make you believe what you believe.....

himnextdoor wrote: »

Noone is 'behind' evolution

himnextdoor wrote: »

A weather vane, a device to show wind direction, is materialistic as it operates on the basis of material phenomena. And yet it points in the correct direction.

You need insight eye to find God--- You can't find God with material devices which are used to detect material things--- You really want to find God in A weather vane--- Look at the picture and try to understand and tell what you have learned from picture

himnextdoor wrote: »

Titan is not like Earth and so Titanic life is likely to be different to Earth life.

You aren't getting the point :rolleyes:-- When you say titan isn't like Earth- It shows your ignorance about Titan and Earth--- and ignorance isn't crime

The atmosphere of Titan, similar to the Earth's early atmosphere.

Now tell--- why there is no life on Titan, if chances/accidents can create complex enviorment like earth --- You can contact stephen hawken in order to get answer? :cool:

himnextdoor wrote: »

No, it is precisely 'unscientific' to believe God is behind evolution.

You choose "No" because you prefer to believe in "No" --- Even you choose that part of science which matches with your "No"

himnextdoor wrote: »

If you can accept that one process can occur without a cause then why not another?

First God isn't process - What caused God---- to explain this God has sent down his revelations--- If i say God has no cause, i ain't saying on my own behalf but on behalf of revelation of God--- When you say, "one process can occur without a cause then why not another"--- You speaking on behalf of your bias and your bias isn't revelation from God---

himnextdoor wrote: »

God made Eve from Adam's rib and therefore womankind is the property of men.

Again, ignorance!!!! Quran doesn't say that -- please provide reference from quran which says God made Eve from Adam's rib--- Genesis isn't Quran- Right you should study quran before making claims---

himnextdoor wrote: »

Little wonder then that women are second-class citizens in Judaism, Islam and Christianity.

You want to discuss women--- First define freedom of women? and how a first class women should be look like?

dead one · 04-08-2011 4:41am

koth wrote: »

I never said anything was behind the process of evolution

Where, i said, "you said" - I am asking a simple question to you--- what makes process of evolution so smooth that it is going with out errors - Name that thing/idea/concept/fresh hell?

koth wrote: »

thanks for the concern but I don't think I've wasted my life due to my not buying into the creationist origin myth.

You buy some cheap modern myths to sell reality - Wasted time - wasted life-
may be you will see soon

koth wrote: »

I don't accept science to suit my point of view. I accept it because they produce evidence and documentation to back up their claims.

What fresh hell is this - What is your point of view? please explain

dead one · 04-08-2011 4:57am

J C wrote: »

... I was once just like you ... an evolutionist ... believing in materialistic miracles!!!!
...

I am sure your would be better evolutionist than him

Undergod wrote: »

That's not how 'chance' works. That's like an unlucky gambler looking at a successful player across the roulette table, and saying "Well that proves there's a god. If random chance caused that gambler to win, then surely chance would have cause me to win by now."

So, that where is life in your example

Sarky wrote: »

You must have missed the truckload of videos that explained how life can emerge from nothing,

Why you choose special videos which explain how life can emerge from nothing---- There are videos which say it is unscientific to believe nothing can produce life

dead one · 04-08-2011 5:11am

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Okay then, is this the best "it" could do?

Again--- That's problem with English ----

--- The word "He" is used without referring Gender to Allah in quran. It would be completely wrong to use the word "it" and would not convey the proper understanding of Allah being who Allah is; Alive, Compassionate, Forgiving, Patient, Loving, etc. It is not correct to associate the word "He" with gender, So you can use "He" without associating it to gender---- Again Problems in English--- Now think why God chooses a special language to convey his message--- Why Quran isn't revealed in English? Think and make your weekend---
his= You know why i am using his--- because there is no other fresh hell in English instead of his-- I can't use "its" instead of "his"--- By what insane calculus you can answer questions like these?

Delirium · 04-08-2011 8:21am

J C wrote: »

There is nothing behind it ... only the vain imaginings of men ... in denial of their Creator God.

I wouldn't believe that it is possible for so many people to believe in something as patently ridiculous as Spontaneous Evolution ... except I once was just as deluded as you are ... and I too believed that CFSI could be spontaneuosly produced ... but then I realised that it couldn't.

Oh, I'm well aware that you have difficulty understanding evolution.

dead one wrote: »

Where, i said, "you said" - I am asking a simple question to you--- what makes process of evolution so smooth that it is going with out errors - Name that thing/idea/concept/fresh hell?

You want me to explain how evolution works?

Have a read of this to get yourself started

What fresh hell is this - What is your point of view? please explain

I did explain. It's actually the sentence after the one you bolded. Read an entire post in future, it helps everyone in the discussion

dead one · 04-08-2011 8:59am

koth wrote: »

Oh, I'm well aware that you have difficulty understanding evolution.

Pasting links and articles from net, doesn't it mean, you don't have difficulty understanding evolution---

koth wrote: »

You want me to explain how evolution works?
Have a read of this to get yourself started

I want you to explain me how evolution works--- Why you don't do me a favor-- -Can you sum up in single phrase--- As i said God is behind evolution- or explain it yourself---- So that i can differentiate between ignorance and knowedlge

koth wrote: »

I did explain. It's actually the sentence after the one you bolded. Read an entire post in future, it helps everyone in the discussion

Here is what you said

Originally Posted by koth
I don't accept science to suit my point of view. I accept it because they produce evidence and documentation to back up their claims.

You said you don't accept science to suit your point of view--- and i asked you what is your point of view-- Actually your point of view favors materialism and you choose that science which favors materialism -- Quite simple

"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

Comments