Replies

[[I notice you never did, and I’m assuming you never will answer that question]]

there’s no need to- you took my post out of context and tried to make it appear as though there was only one beleif in evolution that life had to start from chemicals- that was the whole basis of your ‘rebuttle’? Wow- I’ll refer you to my previous post to you as you seem unwilling to address the facts IN CONTEXT- and I expaliend to you that EVEN IF you allow that God began the process of mega evolution- it is STILL IMPOSSIBLE- It doesn’t matter where you begin the process- You can beleive God created Monekys and just let nature take over from there- it’s still impossible

[[It started out so badly it was painful to continue.]]

i see yopu are swtil lgoign to play the game of ignoring the facts and leading the conversation down one rabbit trail after antoher- IF you don’t care to show the following, then conversation is over with you- not itnerested i nyour silly little games- however, IF you care to address any of the points below, then I’ll be more than happy to discuss the issue- if not- then whatever- everythign I’ve said stands on it’s own merrits:

here’s a neat idea- how about actually takign the precepts I laid out and refutign them with coutner facts?
For instance Mathemeticians have concluded it is scientifically impossible that evoltuion coudl have overcoem impossible odds- that’s a FACT- several scietific symposiums/meetings have taken place and come to thsoe conclusions- I’m NOT statign anythign that isn’t o nthe record- IF you have proof mega-evolution coudl have violated thsoe odds- then let’s see it-

Biologists have stated that species have several built in layers of protectiosn that PREVENT an alterign of their cells beyond species specific parameters (the layers don’t just make it hard, they PREVENT it from happening) IF you have evidence to refute that- let’s see it-

- IF you have If you beleive nature coudl have overcoem trillions of odds, show some scientific proof that it could have- or if you think the basis of this htread’s precepts that recombination throws a monkey wrench into the ‘primate to man’ evolutio ntheory is wrong, how about showing some evidence that refutes that? The thread was kind enough to show you soem evidence that scientists have discovered that what they thought turns out to be incorrect, but all you seem to be cotnent to do is htrow red herrings out while ignorign the key points- perhaps you think peopel will be distracvted long enough to ignore the rest of my posts by tryign htese tired out diversionary tactics, but I doubt it-