Evomumbojumbo Posted January 21, 2022 Author Posted January 21, 2022 I could answer this from so many angles but the bottom line for me is this, there were so many creationists at the birth of modern science including Isaac Newton whose house is just up the road, that it would take some convincing for me to accept they were wrong. Darwin doesn’t have it, Dawkins and Krauss couldn’t lace his boots, and the whole thing smells of atheist propaganda. I’m not here to change your mind but if you calmed down a bit and entered into a discussion along the lines of ‘ why are finches evidence that Darwin was wrong?’ I’d be happy to tell you
studiot Posted January 21, 2022 Posted January 21, 2022 (edited) 20 minutes ago, Evomumbojumbo said: there were so many creationists at the birth of modern science including Isaac Newton whose house is just up the road, that it would take some convincing for me to accept they were wrong. What please is your definition of a 'creationist' and in what way do you align with them ? Edited January 21, 2022 by studiot
Evomumbojumbo Posted January 21, 2022 Author Posted January 21, 2022 They observed the world around them and created scientific disciplines from that with no need to investigate origins. Gravity and electromagnetics are testable and demonstrable. Evolution is conjecture despite how often we are told it’s fact. I have so many objections to it I could spend a lifetime debating it but I am sure no one really cares.
studiot Posted January 21, 2022 Posted January 21, 2022 3 minutes ago, Evomumbojumbo said: They observed the world around them and created scientific disciplines from that with no need to investigate origins. Gravity and electromagnetics are testable and demonstrable. Evolution is conjecture despite how often we are told it’s fact. I have so many objections to it I could spend a lifetime debating it but I am sure no one really cares. I am sorry but I am no clearer than I was without this answer as it does not directly address my question. More especially since your answer in a previous thread was that DNA always existed or something similar. You have yet to provide a clear answer to Zapatos' question about that. I am finding that this dancing around three or four threads with the same agenda is quite wearing. If, as you have said more than once now, you would like to debate the pros and cons of your idea of 'darwinian evolution' why don't you start a proper thread on the subject ? I must admit that when I read Darwin's book I was suprised at the contents, in particular the consideration he gave to alternatives and also what he actually propsed as opposed to popular misconceptions about his proposals.
iNow Posted January 21, 2022 Posted January 21, 2022 1 hour ago, Evomumbojumbo said: I could answer this from so many angles You keep saying this, and yet you keep failing to even try doing so. It feels like I'd have better luck picking up a turd by the clean end than engaging in an intelligible conversation with you. Please... prove me wrong.
Evomumbojumbo Posted January 21, 2022 Author Posted January 21, 2022 Ok I’ll try from one angle. Fossils are not formed today so why were they in the past?
swansont Posted January 21, 2022 Posted January 21, 2022 16 minutes ago, Evomumbojumbo said: Fossils are not formed today Establish the truth of this statement. 1 hour ago, Evomumbojumbo said: I could answer this from so many angles but the bottom line for me is this, there were so many creationists at the birth of modern science including Isaac Newton ! Moderator Note Newton died decades before Darwin was even born, so congratulations, you've demonstrated a lack of knowledge of the basics of time. Not going to let this trolling go on any further 1
Recommended Posts