I will give you one more chance to answer the quesitosn I asked, to provide the evidence to refute the assertions that SCIENTISTS made- and remember, repeated dodging and avoidance whiel simpyl insulting htose that present evidence you don’t like just further makes a mockery of science on your part- -
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-
sorry peterprinciple- that post was meant for tactic logic- I clicked the wrong reply by mistake-
I don’t think your argument is with me. The evidence does not support the theory of evolution. A good scientist will then go back and examine their theory. The evidence points to God but they will not go there...................
If all the time and resources were spend on discovering the design instead of trying to prove there was not a design, think about how much further along we would be. Same for global warming. If all that time money effort could only be spent on solving real problems.