No evolution is neither short nor long as it is based on the life span of different species.
So you’re trying to say that the buildup of microevolutionary changes that are supposed to lead to speciation doesn’t take a long time?
For species like fruit fly short life spans allow for quick changes in a short period of our time since multiple generation live and die within a human life span. Lifespan and rapid reproduction is where one tests evolution since whole generations can be born and die in weeks to hours. This is grade school biology...
So any day now those artificial selection fruit fly experiments should kick in and produce Super Fruit Fly 2.0, and it really ISN’T taking a really, really long time to finally (FINALLY!) get there. It’s just an illusion, am I right?
Peer-review is done before publications and printing not after. The book cites external studies. These studies can be cross referenced to see if the statements are accurate and the book's conclusion correct. It also allow one to figure out if the data set is outdated and incorrect.
Peer reviews are also often anonymous, so I don’t think you would know whether it was actually peer reviewed or not. I smell a bluff.
p. 104 Cites coins found in the 18th century in a 1820's journal. […]Now lets compare this article to a book by the man mentioned in the article, Comte de Bournon. Traité de minéralogie, Volume 2 ~ By Jacques Louis comte de Bournon pg 402-404
Peer reviews are also often biased and inaccurate and very non-thorough. Speaking of which, there must be at least a thousand or so items listed in that book. You’d better hurry up and check out the rest of them. There’s a lad. I’m sure all of them aren’t from the 1820s.
Nope only fringe work by non-experts using flawed methodology while screaming about conspiracies in their books. It is great for the tin-foil hat crowd which know no better.
So Boston University and Harvard Medical School are considered fringe workers now, hm?
Actually it was an LSD induced episode.
That would be a ‘vision’ just like I said.
Also it wasn't a vision but used an aid when he developing ideas.
lol That was clearly a vision.
If you read his biography he took LSD after the double helix was developed and confirmed not before. His work on DNA was started in the 50s and completed in 66. He did start his LSD trips until 67. Again this is an example of fact checking rather than accepting whatever you read on the internet.
Meanwhile he’d been using LSD the whole time as a “thinking tool.” Nice try.
Nope. There is a point where being open minded about ideas which have no merit becomes wishful thinking, gullibility and ignorance.
That precisely describes your own position on evolution except for the fact that your mind is snapped shut like a steel trap.
One can be so open minded the brain "falls out". No the verse means nothing since it a vague.
Please stop pretending an atheist has any kind of insight into sacred scripture. You forfeited that right and now have a closed heart & mind, remember? That’s why you sound the way you do.
Nope. Often when people are confronted while having their ignorance exposed they become emotional.
Is THAT why you act like that? Fascinating. Brave of you to come out of the closet (so to speak).
They see their own faults pointed out as attacks rather then merely pointing out the fact they do not know what they are talking about. Neither author is an expert.
lol The book is only a compilation of numerous anomalies and nothing more, used as a reference to counter a point claiming that there were no such unknowns. Why you perversely decided to gleefully attack the book as if it had any kind of actual relevance to the greater argument is beyond me.
You admitted you are not a biologist nor archaeologist.
You in turn aren’t any kind of intellectual and you lack integrity. Doesn’t stop you from ad nauseam sharing your thoughts with the uninterested.
You take offense to me pointing out what you have claimed yourself.
I don’t take offense that you prefer the stance of my ideological enemies over the position of truth. In fact, I show up on these message board precisely looking for those who uphold just such a stance. Let the record show that for all the thousands of words you have yet typed, not once do you have a single fact to support evolutionary theory’s claims.
It is not an insult when you confirmed my views in your own words.
lol
IE You are not educated in either topic being discussed. You mention no formal education in either field. Science is not a thing but a broad spectrum of fields. One could know physics but know nothing about archaeology. Likewise comparative religions is not a topic being discussed making you again a non-expert in this conversation.
You’ll win if you manage to provide proof of evolutionary theory’s 3 faith-based tenants. Shy of that, bogie, you are simply babbling and wasting keyboard energy.
Topic: TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran