Real Science Radio 2013: List of Genomes that Just Don't Fit

[gcthomas]

So, Darwin put them in the wrong place.

Can't you read? I said that Darwin DID NOT PUT the elephant shrew in the evolutionary tree. He probably never even saw one as he researched South American flora and fauna, NOT AFRICAN.

You are factually incorrect but you are unable to correct yourself.

Your loss, though.

 

[Lighthouse]

Can't you read? I said that Darwin DID NOT PUT the elephant shrew in the evolutionary tree. He probably never even saw one as he researched South American flora and fauna, NOT AFRICAN.

You are factually incorrect but you are unable to correct yourself.

Your loss, though.

:blabla:

 

[gcthomas]

:blabla:

The old "stick your fingers in your ears and sing la la la" trick when your error is pointed out just reinforces my view of you as a recent school-leaver internetting from his mother's basement.

:chuckle:

 

[Lighthouse]

The old "stick your fingers in your ears and sing la la la" trick when your error is pointed out just reinforces my view of you as a recent school-leaver internetting from his mother's basement.

:chuckle:

You misspelled high school graduate of 14 years, whose mom lives in another state.

Actually I'm not sticking my fingers in my ears; I just don't like you. You know, as a person.

But if you'd like to actually post an image of Darwin's tree, go right ahead.

 

[gcthomas]

You misspelled high school graduate of 14 years, whose mom lives in another state.

Well done you! You just seem younger.

Actually I'm not sticking my fingers in my ears; I just don't like you. You know, as a person.

I didn't think you were actually sticking your fingers in your ears. It was a figure of speech.

But if you'd like to actually post an image of Darwin's tree, go right ahead.

I know what his 'tree' looked like, and it didn't have elephant shrews on it. So you are still wrong about Darwin's involvement.

 

[Lighthouse]

Well done you! You just seem younger.

Probably because my brain works better than yours.

I didn't think you were actually sticking your fingers in your ears. It was a figure of speech.

Oh? You mean you used it in the way I understood you to use it, and then (I) used it in the same way? I never would have guessed.

I know what his 'tree' looked like, and it didn't have elephant shrews on it. So you are still wrong about Darwin's involvement.

Declaring without evidence? Typical. So much for the scientific model.

 

[Jukia]

Declaring without evidence? Typical. So much for the scientific model.

Aren't you the one who said Charlie did have elephant shrews on his tree? Shouldn't you be the one posting the evidence?

And it took you 14 years to graduate from high school?

 

[Lighthouse]

Aren't you the one who said Charlie did have elephant shrews on his tree? Shouldn't you be the one posting the evidence?

No. The text in the OP did.

And it took you 14 years to graduate from high school?

:doh:

No. I've been out of high school for fourteen years. This is why people call you Jokia; because your IQ is a joke.

 

[gcthomas]

Declaring without evidence? Typical. So much for the scientific model.

I've seen the tree and it doesn't have the elephant shrew on it.

If you have one with it on drawn by Darwin, then only you can be posting the evidence. Don't you have it any more? Is that why your evidence cupboard is empty (again)?

 

[Jukia]

No. The text in the OP did.

:doh:

No. I've been out of high school for fourteen years. This is why people call you Jokia; because your IQ is a joke.

Wow, you have no sense of humor, in addition to having little knowledge of the real world.

 

[Lighthouse]

I've seen the tree and it doesn't have the elephant shrew on it.

Is that all you can offer? You've seen it? OK, then, I've seen God. Now what?

If you have one with it on drawn by Darwin, then only you can be posting the evidence. Don't you have it any more? Is that why your evidence cupboard is empty (again)?

:doh:

I'm not the one who made the initial claim. And it's hypocritical of you to ask for me to provide it when you won't.

Wow, you have no sense of humor, in addition to having little knowledge of the real world.

No, your jokes just aren't funny.

 

[Jukia]

Is that all you can offer? You've seen it? OK, then, I've seen God. Now what?

Really, what exactly did God look like? How often do you see him? Just the once? More often?

 

[Stripe]

Evolutionists will do anything to talk about anything rather than conduct a rational debate.

 

[gcthomas]

Is that all you can offer? You've seen it? OK, then, I've seen God. Now what?


:doh:

I'm not the one who made the initial claim. And it's hypocritical of you to ask for me to provide it when you won't.


No, your jokes just aren't funny.

Here's Darwin's tree of life. Can I see your picture of God now?

As an encore, perhaps you'd like to point out where on the tree of life Darwin put the elephant shrew.

 

[RevMAA]

If I draw a picture of god, it'll be about as accurate as that tree.

Posted from the TOL App!

 

[xAvarice]

"Of course as evolutionists do, New Scientist merely comes up with a story that accounts for this and for any and all contradictory evidence. Darwinists are like Star Wars trivia buffs, able to distinguish between a juvenile Wookiee and a mature Ewok, and explain from geology what froze the oceans on Hoth and how Tatooine was covered by desert, and when a contradiction surfaces, they merely rewrite the story. Falsification not allowed."

I'm drowning in irony.

"Real Science Radio"

"As EVOLUTIONISTS do... they create a story to fit the evidence and CHANGE it when a contradiction is pointed out."

"Falsification is now allowed."

Well then, why do they change the story? Can you write a post without projecting just once?

 

[RevMAA]

Well then, why do they change the story? Can you write a post without projecting just once?

They change the story over and over because the story Is just that, a story. Every time there is a scientific breakthrough I wait for the newest version to come out. Like Nightmare on Elm street part 14.


Posted from the TOL App!

 

[xAvarice]

They change the story over and over because the story Is just that, a story. Every time there is a scientific breakthrough I wait for the newest version to come out. Like Nightmare on Elm street part 14.


Posted from the TOL App!

Science changes to accommodate new evidence, if you think that's a bad thing. :kookoo:

 

[Lighthouse]

Really, what exactly did God look like? How often do you see him? Just the once? More often?

:doh:

Evolutionists will do anything to talk about anything rather than conduct a rational debate.

Clearly.

Here's Darwin's tree of life. Can I see your picture of God now?

As an encore, perhaps you'd like to point out where on the tree of life Darwin put the elephant shrew.

:doh:

If I draw a picture of god, it'll be about as accurate as that tree.

:chuckle:

 

[RevMAA]

Science changes to accommodate new evidence, if you think that's a bad thing. :kookoo:

Scientific method is not used to rewrite the story so your point is moot. We are talking about evolution not science, lumping them together is not honest. What you meant to say was evolution changes to accommodate the evidence that contradicts it. The changes are made without any science, only biased conjecture.



Posted from the TOL App!