Posted on 12/16/2016 2:27:06 PM PST by fishtank
I didn’t ask if everybody is accountable. I asked if you were accountable. If you had any real confidence in your statements, then you would freely answer the question.
To switch like you did from the focus on you to referencing “everybody” is a known tactic of the left. But what the left typically doesn’t understand is the larger picture. To use Alinsky as an example: his founding principle of dishonesty before anything forces its followers to constantly be covering their tracks and avoiding real discussion.
Meanwhile, your scare tactics about antibiotic and other kinds of resistance are utter nonsense.
I’ve answered the question freely. I’ve even mostly ignored the fact that it’s a stupid question. Meanwhile you have contributed nothing to the discussion other than pointless fallacies and the declaration you are unconvinced. I’d love to engage in real discussion, but you’re not offering any, asking if someone is willing to be accountable isn’t a reasonable discussion, it’s not even an unreasonable discussion.. It’s a pointless, stupid question that has nothing to do with any topic ever.
It’s not scare tactics. It’s reality. For it to be scare tactics there’d have to be a an “or else”. There is no “or else” there is NOTHING we can do about it. Bacteria ARE evolving, antibiotic resistant strains ARE taking over, that’s just how it is. It’s like the sun rising in the east, it’s an inevitable part of life. You either admit it, or you don’t, but you can’t change it.
Are you claiming that if you don’t believe in evolution then you must believe the stars “revolve around the earth?”
I’m pointing out that there’s a long and sad history of people treating the Bible as a science text and being very very wrong and going to great lengths to pretend they’re right. If you don’t believe in evolution you might might as well believe the stars revolve around a flat earth, because you’ve relegated yourself to the pile of deliberately ignorant useless people, might as well go all in.
I asked for the purpose of further clarifying your general ideology for the purpose of context, knowing that leftists don’t believe in accountability.
A strong argument can be stated in concise (meaning few words) form by clear thinkers who understand the concept well.
Please tell me in a concise way what is the strongest evidence for evolution.
Ideology doesn’t have anything to do with facts. I’m discussing FACTS.
DNA. Fossils. Mendel.
But...Macro evolution is a different matter entirely.
Please explain how it is possible for evolution of the clotting of blood. Missing even one step in the biochemical cascade is fatal so gradual evolution does not explain this. And...No, I am NOT looking for a, “ God did it.” explanation. The scientific method isn't about a reliance on a supernatural being.
Please, Lay out the evidence. If the evidence doesn't fit then another must be explored.
What about the clotting of blood. How did that evolve?
It wasn't much of a “knock out” since I have had the chemistry, organic chemistry, biochemistry, and genetics courses ( both on the undergrad and grad school level) to fully understand the article.
However...the author states:
“Now, it would not be fair, just because we have presented a realistic evolutionary scheme, supported by gene sequences from modern organisms, to suggest that we now know exactly how the clotting system has evolved. That would be making far too much of our limited ability to reconstruct the details of the past. But nonetheless, there is little doubt that we do know enough to develop a plausible and scientifically valid scenario for how it might have evolved. And that scenario makes specific predictions that can be tested and verified against the evidence.”
Well yeah, as with anything that involves the universe before humans started taking notes it’s unobserved and therefore we’re guessing based on trace evidence and logic. Until somebody invents a time machine we’re kind of stuck with that for astronomy, planetary sciences, geology, anthropology, paleontology, evolutionary science and a bunch of others.
It will be interesting to see the predictions “tested and verified against the evidence’.
Most of them already have been.
Anything about DNA you claim as evidence for evolution can be shown to be logically explainable by scenarios other than evolution. To understand this is very important.
The best way for you to retain credibility is to answer directly. Don’t attempt to avoid or obfuscate. If you recognize that you don’t have an answer for a particular question, or that your idea has been refuted, the best thing to do is be accountable to the truth. I believe this will serve both your credibility and your general well-being.
I would like to ask you to give examples of speciation.
If speciation is true, there will be both fossils and living species consistent with expected results of evolution.
Think very carefully about the term “expected results.”
First you said few words, now you want lots of words. Make up your mind.
I answered directly. You just don’t like the answer so you’re pretending it doesn’t exist. Not my problem.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.