You know, I used to enjoy reading your posts because they typically made arguments of substance. Now all you do is attack me and my character. It’s old. It’s boring. It’s unoriginal. It’s unproductive….and, most importantly, it is a classic symptom of someone who has nothing of any real meaning to offer. For someone who claims to think so logically, you are guilty of ad hominem arguments in an extreme way. You have made it quite clear that you are of the opinion that your beliefs are all that matter and that anyone who contends with them are fools and idiots and derserving of zero respect. How arrogant is that.
and more baseless claims in an attempt to claim I have “nothing of real meaning to offer”. Retreating to Now you want to claim that magically my posts are worthless too you. And I’m so so concerned with your opinion, BS
Especially again when you cannot support it as fact. I demonstrate how you lie and yep, that is an attack on your character because it shows how little of that you have. and again, more lies about how that’s all my posts are. Too bad for you that this is a written medium and anyone can see that you are wrong. You claim I am guilt of an ad hominem. Show me where, BS. Go ahead, I’m sure you can if you make the accusation. I’m waiting. And more strawmen arguments, how not supirising. Please do show me how I am now magically of the opinion that only my beliefs matter. Again, you try to conflate belief with acceptance of facts. I do feel that you are indeed an idiot and a fool because of your own actions. You do not deserve any respect because I give no liar respect nor do I give the willfully ignorant respect. It is not arrogant at all, it is simply respect for the actual truth and actual honesty. I don’t run around claiming that my beliefs should be immune from criticism because I like them and they’re old.
I suspect you also do not give liars respect, if you know that they are lying. If you did, why?
You have made false claims, BS and I’ve called you on them. You are a liar. You are willfully ignorant. And those aren’t ad hominems or baseless character attacks, those are fact-based conclusions about you determined by your actions. I have not said that your arguments are bad because you dress funny, I have supported my assertions with facts.
I’ll play along, though. Here are just three very basic questions. Remember, the challenge is for you to fill holes here by giving concrete evidence for whatever your claims are. If you qualify any of your answers with statements that are along the lines of “to the best of my/our knowledge”, you lose. If you have answered these before somewhere else and you want to link to those answers or copy and paste, I am fine with that. Here you go:
1. Is Archaeopteryx universally accepted as a transitional fossil? If not, why?
Oh these are hilarious. Let me clarify what you are really asking so we don’t waste time. What do you mean by “universally accepted”? Can you tell me if any idea is “universally accepted” and what that indicates? Define transitional fossil for me so I know you know what you are asking and tell me if you think that there are *any* transitional fossils. Do you know how fossils are formed and why they are uncommon?
Now, I ask these questions so we don’t get mired in the usual ‘BS ignores anything he doesn’t like’ nonsense. I’ll let you make sure you understand the parameters so I don’t come up with anything you don’t like.
2. When, why, and how did humans evolve intelligence, morality, and altruism? Please provide the order in which each evolved and please provide the specific biological process that has been thoroughly tested and accounts for this.
oh this is even better! The ignorance you show is amazing. We know it comes from the brain. Concrete #1. The brain has been evolving in primates for quite a long time. Concrete #2. We have intellignce, morals and altruism, and they are damaged when the brain is damaged. Concrete #3. We don’t have the gooshy brains from 10,000 years ago so tah-dah, we don’t know the sequence yet. Humans have shown various levels of intelligence since 2.6 million years ago. Humans show altruism and care since at least 130,000 years ago, concrete #4. They show morality as defined by laws since at least 1772 BC. All supported by plenty of evidence, Concrete #5 Can’t even get Christians to support when the flood was, when “creation” was, when the “exodus” was, when their savior supposedly existed, etc. Rather sad for something claimed repeatedly as the “truth”. No better than any other myths.
Ooh, see, I used yet. Did I lose here? Could be, you could consider “yet” a qualifier, though it makes no sense since humanity has been showing religious myth wrong through out the ages, it being only a matter of time. Back in the 1600s, against a claim that a disease is from God’s will, I could say “No, but we don’t know for sure “yet” and be correct then supported by evidence in this 200 hundred years later. If you asked any questions at all, I knew you’d try to ask questions like this and claim them as “holes” since you don’t understand evolutionary theory at all and are indeed a hypocrite. You’d claim that anything I said was a loss. And that’s what I wanted, you to destroy yourself even further. I’ll make a faulty prediction for that happily. Too bad you can’t say the same for your god.
You seem to not like hypotheses and theories. Funny how you benefit from them everyday, things exactly like this. Take aspirin. We still don’t know exactly how it works. We have various hypotheses and theories on why. That doesn’t chance the fact that it works. Now, with your abhorrence of science without the complete answer, you would have to believe that aspirin doesn’t work at all. So, going to keep taking it or any other of a multitude of modern medicines? Why or why not?
3. Explain how and why bipedalism in humans evolved? There are varying scientific hypotheses behind the answer to this so choose wisely and, again, please provide the concrete tested proof for your claims.
Yep, scientific hypotheses that have evidence supporting them (see above for your silliness). Unlike your claims that a god made man out of mud. Again, we don’t know for sure *yet*. Got a lot more Africa to dig up. We are bipedal #6, we have changes in legs and hips just like how evolutionary theory predicts, Concrete #7. The only thing in question is top-down or bottom up. It was one or the other. What happens when we get more confirmation one way or another? Your god further into the cracks and you still with no evidence for its existence. This little game has been going on for at least a hundred years now. And still poor creationists have nothing to show for it.
You want to claim that oh “microevolution” is okay but “macro” isn’t, but 50 years ago, creationists would have been horrified that you went that far. Again, creationists have to change their supposed “truths” again and again, to keep up with reality. You try to claim that “oh we knew all along” and unfortunately, your ridiculous books show you wrong. Pity you can’t just ring up the Ministry of Truth and have them change everything you’ve written.
After we have addressed these, we can continue on with more questions if you would like? There are plenty more “holes” to be filled.
keep going, always am amused to watch you try to be clever. it’s like a Mr. Bean episode. Or if you like address my “concrete” bits. Show how they are wrong. You can can’t you? Offer up a supportable alternative? Show that your myths are true?