Coffee House Musings on Creationist Topic Proposals

Yes, the village idiot does apparently think he knows this. How odd - I also seem to recall you making such claims. For example, didn't you say words to the effect that we can't possibly know how evolution worked in the past? I don't think I've ever seen theory defined this way.--Percy

Never litigated one.

I'm sure you're a very competent lawyer.

Fair point and I understand your confusion.To clarify ...
I don't accept that humans evolved, but were instantaneously created by God as per Genesis 2:7.
I don't accept or deny that non-human life-forms are the result of a contiguous process of biological evolution, although the fossil record reveals a history that could be referred to loosely as one of "evolution".

Please be advised that ToE is neither a fact and nor is it knowledge.

No one can say your god exists let alone created humans. You can't prove god. You can't prove creation. You have no evidence. You have no facts at all.Your bible is a badly written sleazy poronographic fiction that has no credemce, no provence and no legitimacy. It stands as nothing and means nothing and cannot be used as evidence of anything other than some 3000 year old goat herder's wet dream.

On the contrary, millions of people can and do say those things. I never said I can prove those things, nor claimed that they're facts.Do please try and pay attention, lest you make more embarrassing blunders like this one.

No one can say your god exists let alone created humans.You can't prove god. You can't prove creation. You have no evidence. You have no facts at all.Your bloody fantasy stories give no knowledge or comfort to humanity and make evil in society.

Only around 5% of lawyers are involved with litigation. The rest of us deal with contracts and similar.

I see. Thank you for that information.

Do you specialize in any area of the law?

This comment represents a degree of progress and thus, a glimmer of hope.
You've at least admitted that ToE is based, not on a fact, but on an assumption. Well done. I can't recall arguing that life in the past was different from life today. I'm afraid not. You can't prove that known evolutionary mechanisms were responsible for producing the fossil record, therefore you can't claim to know how evolution works.Simple logic shoots your claim down in flames. Sorry. Can you see how confused you are? You say "We know exactly how evolution works" and in the very next sentence in your post you admit that you don't "know" that life on earth evolved according to ToE. I don't recall "making absurd comments about [my] IQ." There is an almost-unanimous opinion on this thread that I am an idiot. I agree with that opinion, which, after all, is formed by individuals of exceptionally high intelligence. No one has ever observed known evolutionary mechanisms ever producing even a new genera, so what we see happening today is a very poor explanation for what happened in the fossil record, where entire new phyla appear. I agree that that theory of evolution is the best scientific explanation for the fossil record ... which however, doesn't permit anyone to claim to know how evolution works. You can't prove, for example, that the genome of a fish eventually gave rise to the gemone of a mammal.
​​

A shameful example of contextomy.

This comment represents a degree of progress and thus, a glimmer of hope. You've at least admitted that ToE is based, not on a fact, but on an assumption. Well done. I can't recall arguing that life in the past was different from life today. I'm afraid not. You can't prove that known evolutionary mechanisms were responsible for producing the fossil record, therefore you can't claim to know how evolution works. Simple logic shoots your claim down in flames. Sorry. Can you see how confused you are? You say "We know exactly how evolution works" and in the very next sentence in your post you admit that you don't "know" that life on earth evolved according to ToE. I don't recall "making absurd comments about [my] IQ." There is an almost-unanimous opinion on this thread that I am an idiot. I agree with that opinion, which, after all, is formed by individuals of exceptionally high intelligence. No one has ever observed known evolutionary mechanisms ever producing even a new genera, so what we see happening today is a very poor explanation for what happened in the fossil record, where entire new phyla appear. I agree that that theory of evolution is the best scientific explanation for the fossil record ... which however, doesn't permit anyone to claim to know how evolution works. You can't prove, for example, that the genome of a fish eventually gave rise to the gemone of a mammal.
​​

Edited by Dredge, .

By "evolution" I don't necessarily mean a contiguos process of biological change. Not even close ...