Quote:You cannot really be this dense.

 

Personal insults just let me know how weak your position is.  


 

The greatest scientific minds disagree with you on your "analysis" of the science. They are more trustworthy than you. Why? Because they are scientists and you are arrogant to think you are smarter then them.

 

Science isn't about trust worthy, its not about credible, its not about letters after your name, its about VERIFIABLE, DUPLICATABLE RESULTS!  When you have some of those you can talk to me all you want, until then all you have are glorified opinions and they should be taught as such.  


 

The science is trending in that direction. That you can't see that is your problem. Science does not care. 

 

And the lie detector test determined that was a LIE!  For the better part of human history it was believed that life spontaneously generated.  In the last two hundred years we found that life doesn't spontaneously generate and have codified the LAW of Biogenesis.  It was believed for the longest time that the age of the universe and existence was infinite.  The revelation that our universe appears to have a starting point is paradoxical with the LAW of conservation of energy.  When Darwin first articulated the concept of macro-evolution he a.) didn't have to explain his theory in the context of genetic structure which we now know is 1.)far more complex 2.) resistant to spontaneous introduction of new information 3.) through the miracle of sexual reproduction and conjugation naturally allows for almost infinite variation within a reproductively isolated population, and b.) he predicted enumerable links in the fossil record.  The absence of said contiguous links in the fossil record has forced most modern evolutionists to adopt in whole or in part the concept of Punctuated Equilibrium to explain why the overwhelming trend in the fossil record is STASIS among species.


 

You have a conclusion with zero evidence supporting it. You never had any and you still don't. Attempting to have a conversation about a scientific matter with a person who has a reached a conclusion based on nothing is pointless. How should I engage in that conversation other than asking again for a single shred of evidence? I mean I have only asked, what four times now? 

 

Funny, I cites scientific law about the behavior of matter and living systems as a foundation for my conclusion and you want to sit there and accuse me of not having support for my argument when all you can offer me is the names of OTHER PEOPLE you think might have some original thoughts on this matter?  Lol.  What a joke.  

 

When you take the time to develop a real foundation for your conclusions so that you can actually refute a point yourself you let me know.  I can only imagine how someone who espoused creationism would be excoriated if the only thing that they had to offer in the wake of being challenged with actual fact was to say "well my Pastor went to college."  

 

I don't care what you think of me, or my opinions, but i will say this.  At some point you are going to have to take ownership of the conclusions that you espoused and you darn well better do better than what i have seen here if you are going to lead the charge to have certain subjects banned in the public square because they don't meet our biased sensibilities!

---