Evolution and Creationism

[o_mlly]

It’s an honest question. You said it wasn’t the facts in the paper we should concern ourselves with. So are you saying we should ignore them?

C’mon, this isn’t a gotcha. I need to be sure what you’re saying.

It’s an honest answer. I cited the author’s logic which is independent on any facts. Do you disagree with the logic presented?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

You asked to which species I was referring. I answered you: All extant species. How is a specific answer a non sequitor?

Yeah, I got that. And it doesn’t add to the discussion. We’re looking for evidence of an inability to reproduce between a known (not merely believed) “great great etc grandchild” and its ancestor. Do you not see the circularity? “A new species is, well, a creature that I think is a new species. See, look at my tree thingy, here.”

Then you should have said ‘I don’t believe that there are any’. Why did you specifically ask for details about speciation which you don’t believe exists (despite you linking to papers that base it’s findings on the very fact that it does)?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

It’s an honest question. You said it wasn’t the facts in the paper we should concern ourselves with. So are you saying we should ignore them?

C’mon, this isn’t a gotcha. I need to be sure what you’re saying.

It’s an honest answer. I cited the author’s logic which is independent on any facts.

It’s an incredibly complex paper with more facts that you could poke a stick at. The whole paper is nothing but facts (did you make any attempt to read it?). The conclusion they reach is based on the litany of facts they list.

I think you want us to accept their conclusion (which is some obscure proposal about where in the taxonomic tree a crustacean should be placed) and ignore all the facts (especially the ones that contradict your beliefs). You even say his conclusion is ‘independant of any facts’.

I’m going to say ‘Good grief’ again.

 

[o_mlly]

Then you should have said ‘I don’t believe that there are any’. Why did you specifically ask for details about speciation which you don’t believe exists (despite you linking to papers that base it’s findings on the very fact that it does)?

How many left in that six-pack? The sensibility of your posts is degrading.

 

[o_mlly]

I’m going to say ‘Good grief’ again.

Perhaps you should rather say, “Good night”.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Then you should have said ‘I don’t believe that there are any’. Why did you specifically ask for details about speciation which you don’t believe exists (despite you linking to papers that base it’s findings on the very fact that it does)?

The sensibility of your posts is degrading.

You might be right. Let me check…

You asked for details about speciation.
We know you don’t believe it’s possible.
You asked the question despite not believing it happens.
You passed on making a statement such as ‘What you said must be wrong because speciation doesn’t occur’ and still asked the question.
You posted a link which you presumably would like us to accept as being authorative but which contains facts which directly contradict your beliefs.
You suggested we should ignore the facts within the paper which is all that it bases it’s conclusion on.

Looks pretty accurate to me.

 

[o_mlly]

Looks pretty accurate to me.

Of course it does. That’s the problem.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Looks pretty accurate to me.

Of course it does. That’s the problem.

Yeah, I always find that me being accurate is a problem. Just not for me.

 

[o_mlly]

Yeah, I always find that me being accurate is a problem. Just not for me.

I could not have said it better.

 

[EndTimes]

So we have a link that you want us to accept as being authorative and it is based on something in which you don’t believe.

Those who don’t or worse refuse - to believe have only themselves to blame for their lack of Faith