AlanF

Nope. This is the fallacy of applying post-priori knowledge to a probabilistic situation, much like calculating the odds against True Tom Harley existing based on genetics. Such bogus calculations result in a near-zero probability that you exist. Yet here you are in all your glory. Can you figure out why such calculations are bogus?

You imply it in almost every post -- especially those where you advocate for Young-Earth Creationism. Nope. I know plenty who are not. You, on the other hand . . . HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! What you really do is hook your nose onto clips given you by Young-Earth Creationists and, to a lesser extent, the JW leadership, follow them wherever they lead you, and then pretend that you're stepping along by yourself. Here's proof: Every word of this nonsense was borrowed from Young-Earth Creationists. And you're too much of a very stupid apostate to accept the fact that your JW leaders have condemned these idiots.

Allowing for a possibility is in no way the same as advocating for it -- which is what you lied about. Easy to see if you're not completely stupid -- IF pigs could fly, how high could they go?

True Tom Harley said: Wow! You actually were correct for once! Congratulations! Now let's see if you can convince your idiot girlfriend. Probably not. Ben Stein and company are smart cookies. Thoroughly dishonest, but smart. Of course, assholes like Stein can only pull that off once. Most popularizing scientists have been forewarned. And Stein has been so thoroughly discredited that no scientist will ever talk to him again. She's right to a limited extent, but her implication is thoroughly dishonest. I usually first tackle debunkings fairly objectively, and resort to insults when a person shows himself too dishonest or ignorant to accept facts, or in Arauna's case, even to look at them. Arauna is particularly noisome since she combines Young-Earth Creationism with obsolete JWism and then proclaims her righteousness and superior intellect. She actually refuses to accept what Watchtower publications have clearly said. She's an apostate but too stupid to know it.

I've debunked EVERTHING. The fact you refuse to read books, links, arguments -- anything but Cretinist nonsense-- proves that you simply refuse to look. You're intellectually dishonest. Of course you are, having been trained by a dishonest cult.

You only read Cretinist material. But not even their books.

That's a Cretinist term.

The fossil record says you're wrong.

Apparently you're too stupid to understand the video I gave you to watch.

You're infantile even for a young-earth creationist JW.

The overall article concerns general evolution in the Galapagos, not just what happened in the 1970s-1980s situation, where a drought resulted in finches with larger beak sizes, which later reverted to the normal average size when the drought ended. Evolution has gone on for some 6 million years, so of course mutation and the other effects listed in Table 2 apply. But mutation cannot have been a factor in the drought situation, because it happened way too fast, and then reversed. Mutations do not generally reverse.

More Creationist nonsense. Wrong again. Look:

I've already spit out my coffee a few times. Arauna is a weird combination of ageing, obsolete JW and young-earth creationist. Even though Mommy Watchtower explicitly downgraded YECism as "unscriptural and unscientific" forty years ago, she's stuck in what she learned as a Watchtower drone sixty years ago.

Creationist simulations in no way represent reality. Pigs can fly in simulations. The earth has never been stable. As for maths, go right ahead and present some here. Not even wrong.

Well, as I understand that situation, mutations played little or no part in it. Rather, natural genetic variations -- not mutations -- were selected by environmental conditions. So the situation nicely showed how natural selection acts upon variations from any source.

Wrong. Would you like to see the physical calculations that disprove your claim? Remember that rock is about 5-8 times heavier than water, and mountains and depressions flooded by water would do the opposite of what you think.

True, but you're missing the point: Natural selection and such filter out the bad ones, leaving only what works. Read Richard Dawkins' book Climbing Mount Improbable for starters. Nonsense. You're not even remembering your Creationist sources correctly. How many times do you have to be told? Abiogenesis -- the origin of life -- has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution and is not known at this time. You seem incapable of learning.

I've debunked this nonsense for you several times now. Teutonic plates, and Aryan plates, and Gallic plates DO NOT move fast. You have ZERO evidence for this. Wrong. We find fossils of sea life embedded in rock that exists at all altitudes from below sea level to the top of Mount Everest. Plate tectonics explains how they were uplifted, such as I've already given you links for with respect to the Himalayas. "It"? As if there was just one tectonic episode. LOL! Plates have been moving around for 4 billion years. Where is this "bottom of the earth"? Even the Young-Earth Creationist Flood Geologists now admit that's impossible. Evidence, please. You're entirely ignorant of physical reality.

More nonsense. Mutations occur by chance. Evolution by natural selection and other mechanisms that select among mutations is not chance. You're talking out of your ass.

Nonsense. Hundreds of millions of fossils have been found over the last 200 years alone. Here's one where a Velociraptor and Protoceratops killed one another: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22530090-800-stunning-fossils-dinosaur-death-match/ More Creationist nonsense. Here is just one list of verified transitional fossils: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html In the fossil record. Again, the fact that you refuse to look says a great deal about you. Wrong. Read Prothero's book. The same can be said for Creationist claptrap. Except there is a huge amount of fossil and genetic evidence for Evolution. But the only evidence that Creationists put forth is some form of The Argument From Personal Incredulity -- "I can't believe it's true so it isn't!"

Evolution requires no miracles -- only well established science. Nonsense. Many books proving that all manner of intermediate forms existed have been written. A particularly good one is Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters by Donald Prothero. The fact that you refuse to read science books is beside the point. I've already disproved your lie half a dozen times in this thread alone. Still no proof of miracles. Still no arguments about why Genesis is inspired when it has many physical claims wrong.

Your point? Remember that much of this decline gathered a great deal of steam when Ronald Reagan got into power.

And according to you, an epoch is 7,000 years long.

Yes, the moon is indeed made of cheddar cheese. The fact is that not a single supposed miracle can be proved to have happened. Not a single predicted event has taken place in the manner clearly predicted. The order of creative events stated in Genesis is demonstrably wrong. Etc. etc. etc. What is "assured expectation"? Assured by who and what? Words written in a set of books that so clearly contradict reality on so many levels? For JWs, the total failure of everything predicted and claimed for "the generation of 1914" ought to be a wakeup call. But as Carl Sagan said, religions are tough. After such complete failures they do a reset and reinvent or reinterpret dogmas. But eventually the piper gets paid, as has happened with Harold Camping and so many others.

By faith one can believe that the moon is made of cheddar cheese. One can believe that the earth is shaped like a pizza pie. On the other hand, if supposedly God-inspired writings contradict demonstrable reality, it should be evident that those writings are mere manmade speculations.