Oh. My. God.

[Taft2016]

And none of those statements conflict with anything I have said.

I also posited that man could have come from lesser species but was gifted with a vaguely described "divine enlightenment," be it from a divinity, extra terrestrial presence, or something else unknown. Or even evolution, although I find that to be the least likely scenario.

And it's also possible that man is a separately created divine being apart from the beasts of the world.

All of which fits perfectly with my original premise that evolution and Creationism are not mutually exclusive.

And I don't suppose you know there are theories that plant life and animal life came from two separate ancestors? Pfft, some evolution scholar you are.

You simply haven't the faculties to keep up with this discussion.

But there's a good question in there I'd like you to answer: How does the evolution of other species PRECLUDE the Divine creation of man?

That's the heart of the conversation, where it all got started.

I said evolution and Creationism are not mutually exclusive. So how does the evolution of other species PRECLUDE the Divine creation of man?

 

[Timshel]

And none of those statements conflict with anything I have said.

These two points obviously conflict.

I accept the possibility of the evolution of every form of life on this planet except for one

I never said that any of these creatures are unrelated.

Do you need me to explain why?

The first also conflicts with this...

I also posited that man could have come from lesser species but was gifted with a vaguely described "divine enlightenment," be it from a divinity, extra terrestrial presence, or something else unknown. Or even evolution, although I find that to be the least likely scenario.

Because it makes you feel special.

And it's also possible that man is a separately created divine being apart from the beasts of the world.

There is no scientific basis for that and it would obviously call into question the toe that you once claimed to accept.

All of which fits perfectly with my original premise that evolution and Creationism are not mutually exclusive.

If creationism is the belief that man was created in his present form then that obviously conflicts with the toe.

And I don't suppose you know there are theories that plant life and animal life came from two separate ancestors? Pfft, some evolution scholar you are.

You simply haven't the faculties to keep up with this discussion.

But there's a good question in there I'd like you to answer: How does the evolution of other species PRECLUDE the Divine creation of man?

That's the heart of the conversation, where it all got started.

I said evolution and Creationism are not mutually exclusive. So how does the evolution of other species PRECLUDE the Divine creation of man?

As I have explained to you multiple times...

Explain to us why the evidence for the toe fits for other species but not for man? How is it that the homologies between a gorilla and a cat can prove their relationship but those between gorilla and man do not support their relationship?


There is no way to dismiss the evidence for man's evolution without challenging the evidence of toe at a fundamental level. Not unless you are choosing your position based on faith and whim, which you obviously have. That's ol, you can pick a new one.

 

[Timshel]

What was the point of the horse race video?

 

[Taft2016]

Clipped incessant drivel

[/quote]
There is no way to dismiss the evidence for man's evolution without challenging the evidence of toe at a fundamental level. Not unless you are choosing your position based on faith and whim, which you obviously have. That's ol, you can pick a new one.[/QUOTE]

And yet I didn't dismiss it. I hold it out as a possibility but think it's the least likely one based on the wildly inequitable results.

But straw man arguments are your strong suit, so have at it.

 

[Taft2016]

These two points obviously conflict.

If creationism is the belief that man was created in his present form then that obviously conflicts with the toe.

.

Interesting.

You know if you had a shred on intellectual honesty, and were not so agenda driven, you would recognize my beliefs are more at odds with Creationism than evolution.

Sadly, you lack both the intellectual and honesty capacity needed.

 

[Timshel]

And yet I didn't dismiss it. I hold it out as a possibility but think it's the least likely one based on the wildly inequitable results.

But straw man arguments are your strong suit, so have at it.

You did dismiss it and claimed it was not possible.

I accept the possibility of the evolution of every form of life on this planet except for one.

If the "wildly inequitable results" disprove the evolution of man or just it make it unlikely then it challenges the entire toe, dummy. You don't accept the toe. Your positions have nothing to do with any of the relevant science, they are based on faith and whim.

 

[Timshel]

Interesting.

You know if you had a shred on intellectual honesty, and were not so agenda driven, you would recognize my beliefs are more at odds with Creationism than evolution.

Sadly, you lack both the intellectual and honesty capacity needed.

You don't seem to know anything about the toe. If you did then I would not have to explain to you the problem it causes when you question the evolution of man and you might be able to address those problems.

 

[Timshel]

Again what was the horse race thing about. Since the cowardly TapsOut is not going to answer....

Watch this. The difference between the 4th and 5th horse is meaningless. The important thing is the distance Secretariat put between himself and the rest of the pack. Your argument would be to diminish the winner, and focus on how well #4 and #5 did. In other words, irrelevant.

I can only presume that you meant to suggest that the evolution of apes, or palm trees (who were fourth or fifth in your metaphor) is irrelevant to toe and we should instead only consider the development of man. This is such a laughable misunderstanding of what the toe is and once again demonstrates the narcissistic bias that you bring into this discussion.

The toe explains the relationship of all living things and the facts that lead us to this conclusion. If you challenge the evolution of any species then you need to show us why the proof that applies to that "4th place" (I don't accept this metaphor I am just using it as you did) finisher does not apply to the "1st place" finisher. If homologies do not prove evolution in one case then how can they prove it in another (NOTE: I am not suggesting that homologies alone prove toe but they are a significant line of proof and one any challenger to the toe must deal with).

 

[Taft2016]

You did dismiss it and claimed it was not possible.

Except in your wild agenda-driven madness you neglect to explain the context, which was that if I accept that 8,699,999 species were produced by evolution and that I believe one arrived through different means, you as the fundamentalist Imam of Evolution declare me an apostate and heretic.

You belong to the Church of Evolution.

I belong to neither the Church of Evolution nor the Church of Creationism. I find too many gaping holes and discrepancies to adhere completely to either. I am an independent thinker.

You, on the other hand, are neither independent nor a thinker.

 

[Timshel]

Except in your wild agenda-driven madness you neglect to explain the context, which was that if I accept that 8,699,999 species were produced by evolution and that I believe one arrived through different means, you as the fundamentalist Imam of Evolution declare me an apostate and heretic.

You belong to the Church of Evolution.

I belong to neither the Church of Evolution nor the Church of Creationism. I find too many gaping holes and discrepancies to adhere completely to either. I am an independent thinker.

You, on the other hand, are neither independent nor a thinker.

Again, I never used any language like that. I have pointed out repeatedly now that the only way to challenge the toe of man without calling into question the toe entirely is through an act of faith or whim or by addressing the problems your assertion creates. You are ignoring the facts about man and all of life that evolution explains and that you now have called into question. Why do we share these things in common with other species? If it is not proof of our relationship then how can it be proof of the relationship among other species?

You don't want to answer so you will curl up into the fetal position and claim not to have an opinion while still pretending that you are not rejecting evolution and science in general.

 

[domer76]

Except in your wild agenda-driven madness you neglect to explain the context, which was that if I accept that 8,699,999 species were produced by evolution and that I believe one arrived through different means, you as the fundamentalist Imam of Evolution declare me an apostate and heretic.

You belong to the Church of Evolution.

I belong to neither the Church of Evolution nor the Church of Creationism. I find too many gaping holes and discrepancies to adhere completely to either. I am an independent thinker.

You, on the other hand, are neither independent nor a thinker.

"Independent thinker"?

I'm laughing, but of course, you are correct for once.

Independent of science. Independent of logic. Independent of reality.

 

[Taft2016]

Again, I never used any language like that.

No, you didn't use the words. The numbers said it.

I accept that evolution is probably responsible for the condition of 8,699,999 of the species on the planet. I question whether it was responsible for the current state of ONE species, and you conclude I'm some kind of religious nut that rejects all science.

You are an evolutionary fundamentalist who will tolerate not one iota (I won't even do the math of what percentage 1 is out of 8.7 million) of dissent from your religious zealotry.

Now you will go on and demand I prove something I said I'm not even sure of what happened.

It's getting all pretty predictable.

 

[Timshel]

TapsOut is a riot. His standard that technological similarities are the standard of proof for biological relationship would mean that he is not closely related to his great great grandparents. I am sure he strongly favors one of them which is basically a homology. If there is any doubt we could check his dna. These are the things that prove our relationship not whether we have the same technology.

Hell, TapsOut standard suggest he was not closely related to his mother who surely did not have a Samsung 7. LOL!

 

[Taft2016]

TapsOut is a riot. His standard that technological similarities are the standard of proof for biological relationship would mean that he is not closely related to his great great grandparents. I am sure he strongly favors one of them which is basically a homology. If there is any doubt we could check his dna. These are the things that prove our relationship not whether we have the same technology.

Hell, TapsOut standard suggest he was not closely related to his mother who surely did not have a Samsung 7. LOL!

Imam Liesalot is a tiresome windbag full of falsehoods, strawmen, and mischaracterizations. As I stated, man had the capacity for these items centuries ago, but not the knowledge. His advanced intelligence built the base of knowledge to allow him to reach this capacity. As I stated, and Imam Liesalot ignores, capacity is not bound by a timeline.

He is basically no different than the guy who has the Dinosaur Park with humans in it.

 

[domer76]

Imam Liesalot is a tiresome windbag full of falsehoods, strawmen, and mischaracterizations. As I stated, man had the capacity for these items centuries ago, but not the knowledge. His advanced intelligence built the base of knowledge to allow him to reach this capacity. As I stated, and Imam Liesalot ignores, capacity is not bound by a timeline.

He is basically no different than the guy who has the Dinosaur Park with humans in it.

The nuances of the English language escape you. Capacity includes knowledge. Use the dictionary. It's your friend. What is NOT your friend is science, logic, and rational thinking.

You should really drop this thread. You've thoroughly embarrassed yourself. So much so that I doubt you could do any more. It would be best for you to STFU and move on. You've lost this one miserably. Take your ball. Go home and lick your wounds.

 

[Taft2016]

The nuances of the English language escape you. Capacity includes knowledge. Use the dictionary. It's your friend. What is NOT your friend is science, logic, and rational thinking.

Yes, the dictionary is my friend. This is the sense in which I meant "Capacity."

"actual or potential ability to perform, yield, or withstand"

Man, as a species, had the potential. Which became a realized potential, and which still has unrealized potential.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/capacity

You should really drop this thread. You've thoroughly embarrassed yourself. So much so that I doubt you could do any more. It would be best for you to STFU and move on. You've lost this one miserably. Take your ball. Go home and lick your wounds.

No, in fact I just embarrassed you on your own criteria. Thanks for stopping by.

 

[domer76]

Yes, the dictionary is my friend. This is the sense in which I meant "Capacity."

"actual or potential ability to perform, yield, or withstand"

Man, as a species, had the potential. Which became a realized potential, and which still has unrealized potential.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/capacity



No, in fact I just embarrassed you on your own criteria. Thanks for stopping by.

I won't get sucked into a hair-splitting battle of semantics with a moron like you. Dick made that mistake for pages. Your posts have revealed what an incredibly massive fool you are.

Really. Shut the fuck up and move on. It's sound advice, cretin. Take it.

 

[Taft2016]

I won't get sucked into a hair-splitting battle of semantics with a moron like you. .

You won't get sucked into something you started and lost?

Smart thinking.

Dick should have thought of that long ago.

 

[Timshel]

Imam Liesalot is a tiresome windbag full of falsehoods, strawmen, and mischaracterizations. As I stated, man had the capacity for these items centuries ago, but not the knowledge. His advanced intelligence built the base of knowledge to allow him to reach this capacity. As I stated, and Imam Liesalot ignores, capacity is not bound by a timeline.

He is basically no different than the guy who has the Dinosaur Park with humans in it.

First off, capacity means ability. If you are using that in any other sense then you need to state that because its meaningless as you are using it currently.

Without the knowledge man certainly did not have the ability to build a space shuttle.

There is no way to test capacity/ability other than by demonstrating that capacity/ability. I don't know what other species will be capable of in 4 million years and neither do you. Therefore you have no basis on which to claim they lack the capacity.

It's not a mischaracterization. Your argument implies that the most important fact in considering biological relationship is comparable technology. You ignore all the other proof suggesting we are biologically related with other species and claim that our technology disproves the relationship. Therefore in considering your relationship with your great great grandparents or your mother we should ignore the fact that you look like them or that your dna shows a close match instead we need to prove they had technology comparable to yours.

Hey, you even claimed you would accept the toe if bears used canes. If we can teach one to use a cellphone maybe you will call it mom. LOL

I am sorry that you are too stupid to understand what you suggest. You might appreciate how silly you sound.

 

[domer76]

First off, capacity means ability. If you are using that in any other sense then you need to state that because its meaningless as you are using it currently.

Without the knowledge man certainly did not have the ability to build a space shuttle.

There is no way to test capacity/ability other than by demonstrating that capacity/ability. I don't know what other species will be capable of in 4 million years and neither do you. Therefore you have no basis on which to claim they lack the capacity.

It's not a mischaracterization. Your argument implies that the most important fact in considering biological relationship is comparable technology. You ignore all the other proof suggesting we are biologically related with other species and claim that our technology disproves the relationship. Therefore in considering your relationship with your great great grandparents or your mother we should ignore the fact that you look like them or that your dna shows a close match instead we need to prove they had technology comparable to yours.

Hey, you even claimed you would accept the toe if bears used canes. If we can teach one to use a cellphone maybe you will call it mom. LOL

I am sorry that you are too stupid to understand what you suggest. You might appreciate how silly you sound.

Dick, he's a home-schooled flat earther. You can never enter into a logical discussion with them. They have no concept of reality.

I suggest you move on. You waste too much good energy on this cretin.