There is a scripture for you to contemplate. It commands a wise man to not cast his pearls before swine, for they will trample the pearls, turn and rend (bite, tear open) you.
You don't want to hear, fine. Ignore that radio-metrics are now suspect because the dating depends on constant radiation levels, and radiation levels are rising right now. When your constants are variables, your equations are garbage. Pretend that demonstrated errors do not exist, if they disturb you so. Believe that ID only works when flowers and genetics do it, not anything that you may have to answer to in the future. Perhaps you could call it UD for unintellegent design, which frankly the whole evolutionary house of cards is built of. Frankly I find it a lot harder to believe an amoeba knows more about genetic engineering than men, but hey, Got to say, you have a lot of faith.
Its a free world, you can do with your life what ever you want. But life does have consequences...
Nope. Perhaps you'd care to learn how to read what is actually written.
A trillion to one odds occurrence, occurs with TxTxTxTxTxTxTxTxTxTxTxTxTxTxTxTxTxT odds? That is, with 9 breeding pairs 1 to 10to the 167 square odds. 1 two full lines of text zeros following it. Talk about winning the lottery. Man, now that is faith.
No, that's your bizarre and wild misunderstanding of biology. That's not at all how it works. Perhaps you should go back to ninth grade and try again.
If ID is real, men occurred at the same time as the Koala,
Gee, really? Please state the portion of "ID" which makes this claim, and what evidence it uses to support it.
so your proof is circular logic at best.
Again, you might want to learn how to read. My analysis of the "Ark" scenario not only doesn't ignore the case where "men occurred at the same time as the Koala", it SPECIFICALLY EXAMINES THAT SCENARIO. Reading comprehension is your friend.
Men captured the teddy bears and sold them elsewhere for a good profit. Go figure that as hard odds somehow compared to your infinitesimally minute odds of multiple instant simultaneous spontaneous parallel positive mutation. (punctuated equilibrium).
Yet again, you are mistaking your bizarre misunderstandings of biology for reality. Try again. You are also obviously entirely ignore of what punctuated equilibirum actually is, because it has absolutely nothing to do with the scenario you describe.
As I often say, "you don't have to be entirely ignorant of biology to be an anti-evolution creationist, but it sure helps."
Species tend to head and breed where the environment favors them, fish tend to go to water,
Fish "tend to" go to water? Like they start out elsewhere? Oooookay...
birds migrate to good habitat, bears head for the woods etc. Dang, that is hard to figure out. We have a flu that is spreading world wide in one season with animals under their own power it is just so impossible for anything to go a few thousand miles in a few thousand years.
Is there any reason you're "pretending" that I didn't mention that it is indeed pretty impossible for Koalas to cross three hundred miles of open water? This isn't some simple "migration to good habitat", as you're dishonestly trying to present it, it's suicide. Let me know the next time you observe Koalas jumping into the ocean and heading out for parts unknown. Yeah, sure, they do that *all* the time...
Besides, as I stated before I am not against adaptation, it is easily observed in nature, just trans species changes have never been observed.
They don't have to be "observed" in order for the evidence to establish beyond all reasonable doubt that they have, indeed, done so. And the evidence is vast and overwhelming on that point. Deal with it.
Look, it is becoming increasingly obvious that you are defending your Atheist ways, and not interested in a observational discussion.
Look, it is becoming increasingly obvious that you have nothing to offer but cheap evasions and childish ridicule when I try to get you to deal with the vast evidence for evolution. But it would be nice if you would be honest about it instead of pretending that *I'm* the one who is not interested in examining the facts. Why are you guys so transparntly dishonest and weasel-like?
M I keep having to repeat myself, and beyond sarcasm, I do not see much discussion here.
Right -- as I was saying, you have nothing but sarcasm and foot-stomping repetitions of "is so!!!" to go on.
At this part of the game I am busy and no longer bored and do not have time for you anymore.
Just be honest and admit you can't hold up your end of the discussion, and refuse to deal with the evidence.
There is a scripture for you to contemplate. It commands a wise man to not cast his pearls before swine, for they will trample the pearls, turn and rend (bite, tear open) you.
I am more optimistic -- I'm glad to share pearls of knowledge with everyone. And I am in no danger of being rent.
You don't want to hear, fine. Ignore that radio-metrics are now suspect because the dating depends on constant radiation levels,
Please stop posting standard creationist lies like this. No, dating methods do *not* depend on "constant radiation levels". This is standard dishonesty from the creationists, who hope that their audience will be ignorant enough to not realize that they're being lied to.
and radiation levels are rising right now.
Not a problem for dating methods.
When your constants are variables, your equations are garbage.
Not when they take the variations into account, as dating methods do. So stop lying like that.
Pretend that demonstrated errors do not exist, if they disturb you so.
Just as soon as an actual error *is* demonstrated, I'll be glad to respond accordingly. But creationist lies about non-existent errors are another thing entirely.
Frankly I find it a lot harder to believe an amoeba knows more about genetic engineering than men, but hey, Got to say, you have a lot of faith.
Yawn. Another dishonest straw man attack from a creatonist. How utterly typical.
Sorry, son, but no one claims that "an amoeba knows more about genetic engineering than men", and anyone who thinks that evolutionary processes actually require such a thing is, frankly, a complete idiot.
So do you really want to continue to pretend that you actually think that, or would you like to admit that you're just being grossly dishonest? Your choice, let me know how you decide.