A 35,000-year-old flute refutes the idea of historic evolution!

[جوري]

Greetings,


You invited comments, so that's what I gave.

It's not like it's actually worth discussing anything with you, is it?

Peace

I didn't invite comments at all, in fact if you'd followed the 'evolution' of this thread, instead of coming in to loan support to your friend you'd have seen this :

Gossamer:
what is your hope of this exercise?
Do you think, by subversive thinking and an attempt to discredit the author (rather than content of the article with like science) or subject us to yet another ad populum argument that you'll gain a position of advantage? or by appealing to my intellect or even vanity if I am to let go of the brain all together? You haven't so far written anything of substance it almost infuriates me to waste time on a thread that I could be using toward any number of less inane tasks.

You understand English better than anyone I know on this forum.. does that seem like an invite?

Don't get me wrong, I like that you came to support him.. it shows valor..
but it doesn't do anything for me personally.. :smile:

all the best

 

[Azy]

in fact increased bone density in and of itself is a form of disease called osteopetrosis..

If you'd read the article you might have noticed it says "There was no radiographic evidence of osteopetrosis, and the shape of the vertebral bodies was normal."

And even if I am to accept that 'because everyone else has' what is the relation of adaptation to becoming a different specie? you want to shed some light on that?

'"Adaptive speciation' refers to speciation processes in which the splitting is an adaptive response to disruptive selection caused by frequency-dependent biological interactions." Dieckmann, Ulf. 2004. Adaptive speciation. Cambridge University Press.

I'm sure you know there are other causes of speciation such as geographical isolation, but I suppose that's a different matter which you can deny at your leisure.

'Species' is the singular as well as the plural, specie isn't a word (well not related to this topic anyway).

 

[جوري]

If you'd read the article you might have noticed it says "There was no radiographic evidence of osteopetrosis, and the shape of the vertebral bodies was normal."

we are talking manipulated in vitro biochemical studies, with the conclusion summed up in the abstract:

[FONT=arial, helvetica]Conclusions The LRP5V171 mutation causes high bone density, with a thickened mandible and torus palatinus, by impairing the action of a normal antagonist of the Wnt pathway and thus increasing Wnt signaling. These findings demonstrate the role of altered LRP5 function in high bone mass and point to Dkk as a potential target for the prevention or treatment of osteoporosis.[/FONT]
​

The goal is to manipulate directly to find a curative rx. for osteoporosis. Not only isn't not nature made but lab made, but it is to find if not a full cure, a permanent rx. for osteoporosis as from the above it isn't without its problems for the mandible and torus palatinus. high bone density as occurs in nature is a disease state called osteopetrosis..or are you simply denying that such a condition exists? I don't see the relevance in isolation or to evolution.. do you want to shed some light on that, or perhaps get one of your staunch supporters to make sense of it for you?

'"Adaptive speciation' refers to speciation processes in which the splitting is an adaptive response to disruptive selection caused by frequency-dependent biological interactions." Dieckmann, Ulf. 2004. Adaptive speciation. Cambridge University Press.

That is nice.. I took from that abridged conclusion that speciation occurs due to a number of occurrences within a given time period' that is what 'frequency' in and of itself means, which I believe Dr Mullan dove into fully down to every last detail.. but you didn't think it of much relevance.. are you simply retracting your words now or see relevance only in superficial comments that support your views?

I'm sure you know there are other causes of speciation such as geographical isolation, but I suppose that's a different matter which you can deny at your leisure.

geographical isolation..micropsia, necrobiotic xanthogranuloma, diastrophism, ice cream sundae.. there is no logical or meaningful connection here dear.. throwing words out or articles with no bearing on the subject I fear are not making a strong case for you..

'Species' is the singular as well as the plural, specie isn't a word (well not related to this topic anyway).

by God, you got one thing correct.. cheers..

all the best

 

[Azy]

I don't see the relevance in isolation

Well since it isn't what those people have it doesn't really matter does it

which I believe Dr Mullan dove into fully down to every last detail..

I've asked you to elaborate on what relevance you believe the random assembly of a cell has to this discussion, but it seems you're just talking nonsense. Feel free to pull out some gems from this treasure trove of knowledge and set me straight.

geographical isolation.. there is no logical or meaningful connection here dear..

Sorry my dear, allopatric speciation.

I cannot imagine that a molecular biologist doesn't actually know how speciation works or even that you believe mutations cannot possibly under any circumstances confer any benefit.
Just how does the happy muslim explain away the gradual change in life represented in the fossil record?

 

[جوري]

Well since it isn't what those people have it doesn't really matter does it

ha? should I understand from this, that you have no interest in expounding on your illuminating articles and their relevance to speciation?

I've asked you to elaborate on what relevance you believe the random assembly of a cell has to this discussion, but it seems you're just talking nonsense. Feel free to pull out some gems from this treasure trove of knowledge and set me straight.

I have elaborated on many a great many thread, you always manage to come back from a different hole ignoring all the previous discussions..I have no interest in setting you in any form, why don't you get your wife/girlfriend/significant other to do that for you?

Sorry my dear, allopatric speciation.

Same thing as you have written before .. Allopatry is the occurrence of related organisms in separate geographical areas with no overlap (as per dictionary) the word or the definition is rather missing the details of the phenomenon.. ....

I cannot imagine that a molecular biologist doesn't actually know how speciation works or even that you believe mutations cannot possibly under any circumstances confer any benefit.
Just how does the happy muslim explain away the gradual change in life represented in the fossil record?

Familiarize yourself of the difference between macro and micro-evolution ..
as well of the contents you are reading, (such as with the sickle cell example above) or actually any article you bring me as I notice repeatedly when explained to you in simple words you seem to ignore them and then make a move from another empty angle..
.... fossil records, are records of extinct species like a Quagga or a caspian tiger.. 'related to' doesn't mean descendant of or that it is your great(some large exponent) uncle bob with a really bad hair problem ...
Also even if I were to accept this as the ultimate truth it still doesn't explain the origins of things.. which is actually where Dr. Mullan's paper comes in.. evolution from the proposed mechanisms by same scientests who brought you, your ape grandfather. Whereas you'll have me stop at apes and ask no more questions.. he takes it back to the inception..
It isn't a difficult choice to make, if we are to excercise some logic!


I am still at a loss of your pursuit though, does it matter to you what I know to be factual or theoretical, what I accept as false or true? Any particular reason at all as to why you enjoy consuming my time? Can you not read or reason? Do you need someone to explain the contents to you for free?

all the best

 

[Charzhino]

If you want to tell us why 50% of our genomes are similar to those on bananas then you'll have proved evolution by common fruit..


all the best!

Now, now, you answered my question, with a question!
And your question has nothing to do with my orginal statement about ERV's being in exact poisitions in chimp and human genome.

 

[جوري]

Now, now, you answered my question, with a question!
And your question has nothing to do with my orginal statement about ERV's being in exact poisitions in chimp and human genome.

I love that interjection of rebuke you'd think the following would be ground breaking.. nonetheless, vacuous poorly phrased questions deserve rhetorical replies if at all given how many times I have addressed that exact point. once you work on my query can we address you 'original statement'..
pls don't have at me with more platitudes to save your manhood... we have a maximum allowance of one thicko per thread!


all the best

 

[Charzhino]

I love that interjection of rebuke you'd think the following would be ground breaking.. nonetheless, vacuous poorly phrased questions deserve rhetorical replies if at all given how many times I have addressed that exact point. once you work on my query can we address you 'original statement'..
pls don't have at me with more platitudes to save your manhood... we have a maximum allowance of one thicko per thread!


all the best

Poorley phrased question? Ok let me re-phrase it.
An ERV is a endogenous retrovirus which can ''insert'' itself in an organism genome and remain dormant for the remainder of the organisms life. If this virus is happens to be insert itself into a sperm/egg cell, then the entire following generation of offspring will contain this retrovirus in their genome. Now, scientists have discovered that not only one ERV exists in the exact same location in a human genome and a chimp genome, but several do.
This leads to the conlclusion that chimps and humans had a common ancestor which had this ERV inserted into it's genome, resulting in all offspring to contain the retrovirus.
How can this be explained without evolution by common descent?

 

[جوري]

Poorley phrased question? Ok let me re-phrase it.
An ERV is a endogenous retrovirus which can ''insert'' itself in an organism genome and remain dormant for the remainder of the organisms life. If this virus is happens to be insert itself into a sperm/egg cell, then the entire following generation of offspring will contain this retrovirus in their genome. Now, scientists have discovered that not only one ERV exists in the exact same location in a human genome and a chimp genome, but several do.
This leads to the conlclusion that chimps and humans had a common ancestor which had this ERV inserted into it's genome, resulting in all offspring to contain the retrovirus.
How can this be explained without evolution by common descent?

I asked you to use the search feature no? if for no other reason such as blatant lifting of someone else's (Aurora's) 'intellectual' property, at least to save ourselves webspace of the frequent spamming with queries that have been addressed to (to no party's satisfaction).

http://www.islamicboard.com/health-...es-idea-historic-evolution-2.html#post1182674


How shameful!

all the best

 

[Charzhino]

I asked you to use the search feature no? if for no other reason such as blatant lifting of someone else's (Aurora's) 'intellectual' property, at least to save ourselves webspace of the frequent spamming with queries that have been addressed to (to no party's satisfaction).

http://www.islamicboard.com/health-...es-idea-historic-evolution-2.html#post1182674


How shameful!

all the best

No answer? Thats ok.

 

[جوري]

No answer? Thats ok.

love those cojones after being caught 'plagiarizing' another member's words; if she herself didn't leech them off someone else.. did you bother open the page? it is a completely different thread by the same title.. and the answers are offered there... feel free to take a dive for a few days and resurface later with other equally intelligent queries of your own though!


all the best

 

[Azy]

ha? should I understand from this, that you have no interest in expounding on your illuminating articles and their relevance to speciation?

Take from it whatever you fancy, you usually do.
The articles were posted in relation to your assertion that all mutations cause a disease state. I disagree with your opinion and posted the articles above as a basis for my disagreement, the subjects of the articles I posted have mutations which are not disease causing.

Instead of telling me why you think I'm wrong you tend to go off on a tangent thus:-

Azy : These people have a mutation resulting in increased bone strength due to high bone density.
Skye: High bone density occurs as a result of osteopetrosis.
Azy : But these people don't have osteopetrosis, it says in the article. That condition has no relevance to this discussion.
Skye: Ha? So you don't want me to carry on whooping your behind?

You haven't really furnished us with any reasons or evidence as to why you think all mutations are disease causing.

Further:

"Rare mutations arise de novo in the population each generation, breaking the molecular mechanism encoded by every gene in the genome in every possible way, most mutations being either neutral or deleterious to the gene's function; should the effect disrupt a critical physiological pathway, they are 'disease-causing.'"

According to that 'most', not all mutations are either neutral or deleterious to gene function and not all of those are 'disease-causing'.

I am simply suggesting that your statement "every frameshift, missense, nonsense, acrocentric DNA break etc has given us a state of disease..." is false, nothing more.

Familiarize yourself of the difference between macro and micro-evolution ..

You haven't actually shown me anything to suggest there is a significant difference between them, only asserted that macroevolution doesn't actually happen.

Also even if I were to accept this as the ultimate truth it still doesn't explain the origins of things.. which is actually where Dr. Mullan's paper comes in..

Now I see why you brought up this article. I was right then in thinking we were speaking at cross purposes since the origin of things does not fall under the heading 'evolution'. Evolution is concerned with change in populations of organisms, not where those organisms came from in the first instance, you're thinking of abiogenesis.

I am still at a loss of your pursuit though, does it matter to you what I know to be factual or theoretical, what I accept as false or true? Any particular reason at all as to why you enjoy consuming my time?

It pleases me that people make decisions based on empirical truth, where such a thing is possible.

 

[جوري]

Take from it whatever you fancy, you usually do.

Is that supposed to be deep? I fear the level-headedness of it is lost to me..

The articles were posted in relation to your assertion that all mutations cause a disease state. I disagree with your opinion and posted the articles above as a basis for my disagreement, the subjects of the articles I posted have mutations which are not disease causing.

I never said 'All mutations cause a disease' state.. silent mutations don't do anything at all some cause diseases, some cause death, some confer benefits at the price of something else (sct) ex... none cause us to speciate.. you do yourself a great disservice by reading only what you desire between the lines..

Instead of telling me why you think I'm wrong you tend to go off on a tangent thus:-

Azy : These people have a mutation resulting in increased bone strength due to high bone density.
Skye: High bone density occurs as a result of osteopetrosis.
Azy : But these people don't have osteopetrosis, it says in the article. That condition has no relevance to this discussion.
Skye: Ha? So you don't want me to carry on whooping your behind?You haven't really furnished us with any reasons or evidence as to why you think all mutations are disease causing.

Again, you do yourself a great disservice, for this is what I'd actually written:

-- increase in bone density isolate to help those with osteoporosis, I fear has no relevance to speciation.. in fact increased bone density in and of itself is a form of disease called osteopetrosis..
here is the first website that came up:
http://www.osteopetrosis.org/


Also, do you understand the difference between in vivo and in vitro? shouldn't you be familiar with basic scientific concepts before you engage in a debate? We are talking about a manipulated biochemical process to stop a disease, not to help you back to ape or to super human!


Further:

According to that 'most', not all mutations are either neutral or deleterious to gene function and not all of those are 'disease-causing'I am simply suggesting that your statement "every frameshift, missense, nonsense, acrocentric DNA break etc has given us a state of disease..." is false, nothing more..

See first paragraph and my many previous posts!
I don't need to delve into every mutation or enzyme or whatever and thus I have stated and allow me to re-quote myself:

I am not here to name every enzyme, or mutation, as I can guarantee listing some that will have you in your encyclopaedia for hours it won't change the outcome one bit.. also I see no relevance of the other articles, having resistant mice, or osteopetrosis, or FCH doesn't or the entire medical compendium still won't turn you into a different specie or a relative specie for that matter.. it gives you a medical condition... the problem is that you still can't synthesize what you are implying here to make sense to topic or have any relations to speciation.. all you do is give me personally a chuckle.. I am not sure as to how this affects other members, but you seem to tighten the noose around your own neck as far as I am persoanlly concerned!

You haven't actually shown me anything to suggest there is a significant difference between them, only asserted that macroevolution doesn't actually happen.

And you are yet to show me one mutation/insertion/deletion/jumping gene ...etc that has caused speciation!

Now I see why you brought up this article. I was right then in thinking we were speaking at cross purposes since the origin of things does not fall under the heading 'evolution'. Evolution is concerned with change in populations of organisms, not where those organisms came from in the first instance, you're thinking of abiogenesis.
It pleases me that people make decisions based on empirical truth, where such a thing is possible.

evolution in the terms you desire us to subscribe to is a sequence of events involved in the development of one species from another.. where is the starting point I question?
Do we start at ape? where did ape come from and what did it evolve out of..

I am not interested in quasi science or in your case willful perversion of facts (which in your case happen to be a direct result of ignorance)...

.. bottom line is you can believe what you want.. you evolved from donkey, monkey, whale, whatever, go be happy oscillating between animal states.. I really fail to understand why you stalk me on posts or why this should matter to me personally?

all the best

 

[Azy]

I never said 'All mutations cause a disease' state..

You'll have to forgive me, I don't see any great distinction between
"every frameshift, missense, nonsense, acrocentric DNA break etc has given us a state of disease..."
and
"All mutations cause a disease"

Also, I don't see any sense in your statement
"I never said 'All mutations cause a disease' state.. silent mutations don't do anything at all"
Those silent mutations are still covered by your first statement, they aren't a different type of mutation, just not outwardly visible.

evolution in the terms you desire us to subscribe to is a sequence of events involved in the development of one species from another.. where is the starting point I question?

I don't know, but that is a different subject. If you want to use a different definition of 'evolution' to the accepted one, feel free, just don't expect subsequent arguments to make any sense.

And you are yet to show me one mutation/insertion/deletion/jumping gene ...etc that has caused speciation!

I've never claimed that one mutation would or could cause speciation. I suppose it is certainly possible but it would be much more likely that an accumulation of changes would cause reproductive isolation and thus speciation.

Anyway, you keep whinging about me not coming up with the goods even though this discussion is the result of a question I asked you, but hey ho, couldn't you just [read about it] and save us some time. I guess you've probably been through all that, but there's not much else I can say when you're so reluctant to share the reason why you "have problems with the scientific aspects of it", and seem to have arrived at an alternative conclusion to most of the scientific community.


As an aside, I have a question.
Hypothetically speaking, given say, a small cat population, an infinite amount of time and various environmental scenarios, could an infinite number of 'adaptive' mutations occur to the cat genome but it would always remain a cat?

 

[جوري]

You'll have to forgive me, I don't see any great distinction between
"every frameshift, missense, nonsense, acrocentric DNA break etc has given us a state of disease..."
and
"All mutations cause a disease"

Also, I don't see any sense in your statement
"I never said 'All mutations cause a disease' state.. silent mutations don't do anything at all"

I have covered with enough expanse for your level, I need not mention any finite detail to someone who can compass so much and on a public blog of all places.. hence and let me re-quote:

Gossamer : I am not here to name every enzyme, or mutation, as I can guarantee listing some that will have you in your encyclopaedia for hours it won't change the outcome one bit.. also I see no relevance of the other articles, having resistant mice, or osteopetrosis, or FCH doesn't or the entire medical compendium still won't turn you into a different specie or a relative specie for that matter.. it gives you a medical condition... the problem is that you still can't synthesize what you are implying here to make sense to topic or have any relations to speciation.. all you do is give me personally a chuckle.. I am not sure as to how this affects other members, but you seem to tighten the noose around your own neck as far as I am personally concerned!

you are really in no position to question me on anything, given your ridiculous folly of quoting me NEJM per regard to therapeutic treatment for osteoporosis from which I am to magically draw relevance to evolution.

the relevance of the last comment per regard to silent mutation is to cement the fact that I haven't mentioned everything, its function and have no cause or reason to!

Those silent mutations are still covered by your first statement, they aren't a different type of mutation, just not outwardly visible.
I don't know, but that is a different subject. If you want to use a different definition of 'evolution' to the accepted one, feel free, just don't expect subsequent arguments to make any sense.

Can't make sense of this mindless drivel

I've never claimed that one mutation would or could cause speciation. I suppose it is certainly possible but it would be much more likely that an accumulation of changes would cause reproductive isolation and thus speciation.

Your thinking is superficial and fuzzy at best.. you haven't provided any logical steps that would make anything you resolve for other than poetic and inconclusive!

Anyway, you keep whinging about me not coming up with the goods even though this discussion is the result of a question I asked you, but hey ho, couldn't you just [read about it] and save us some time. I guess you've probably been through all that, but there's not much else I can say when you're so reluctant to share the reason why you "have problems with the scientific aspects of it", and seem to have arrived at an alternative conclusion to most of the scientific community.

Again, I am not whining about anything -- I'd go so far and kindly point out, that the only one who is doing any whining is you and loaning yourself to one hilarious blunder after the next.. from logical fallacies to irrelevant material. Even on two hours sleep, I am still more lucid than you.

As an aside, I have a question.
Hypothetically speaking, given say, a small cat population, an infinite amount of time and various environmental scenarios, could an infinite number of 'adaptive' mutations occur to the cat genome but it would always remain a cat?

what factor does time play? (a little wind and a little tide and a little sunshine?), and what environmental scenarios are you talking about and what are the means of these 'adaptive changes'?

your above proposed conditions for your hypotheticals are actually addressed in quite the detail by Dr. Mullan.. why don't you read the paper instead of bull ****ting for another five pages?

I am going to take a much needed afternoon snooze and hope you carry your pounding and abrading to some other thread.. I lost interest the day before yesterday!

all the best

 

[Azy]

your above proposed conditions for your hypotheticals are actually addressed in quite the detail by Dr. Mullan.. why don't you read the paper instead of bull ****ting for another five pages?

Are you going to continue with this ridiculous game? All you've said so far is :-
"A solid refutation of evolution is in there, you can't see it, the vast majority of reputable scientists can't see it and I'm not going to tell you where it is... but it's in there!"

Since we're going nowhere fast let me take a different approach.

Let's take your own opinion on scholarship, expressed in another thread:

Scholars (men and women) to use the masculine in Arabic doesn't necessarily exclude the feminine (but I digress) I don't know who Tariq Ramadan is.. his name sounds suspicious .. nonetheless, if his opinion is shared by sunni scholars and he has graduated from an institution that produces scholars then he is.. otherwise he isn't...

can't become an architect and presume that it would also make you a scholar on marine biology...

We can see from Mullan's own CV that he has never achieved a qualification in any biological discipline, he's a specialist in astrophysics.

Is his opinion shared by other scholars? The NCSE says no, 97% of scientists agree that evolution has occurred.

The paper was published in the creationist journal 'Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design'. Why not in the Journal of Evolutionary Biology, surely that would be the best place to inform the world's misguided evolution supporters? (Come to think of it, why does that journal even exist when there is no such thing as evolution?)

In summary, his opinion is not shared by the vast majority of scholars, and he never graduated in any biological science; according to your standards he's not qualified to speak on the matter.

 

[جوري]

Are you going to continue with this ridiculous game? All you've said so far is :-

you flatter yourself to think that parading your folly in public equates to playing games..

"A solid refutation of evolution is in there, you can't see it, the vast majority of reputable scientists can't see it and I'm not going to tell you where it is... but it's in there!"

argumentum ad populum! and begs the question as to your own qualifications and whether or not your beliefs should be contingent on your qualifications rather than merit!

Since we're going nowhere fast let me take a different approach.

pls do us all a favor and quit while you are ahead..

Let's take your own opinion on scholarship, expressed in another thread:

We can see from Mullan's own CV that he has never achieved a qualification in any biological discipline, he's a specialist in astrophysics.

irrelevant fact about the author who still has a doctorate (that you don't) and quite expansive in scientific details that compassed all the propositions of said theory in a logical concise fashion makes this yet another fallacy as I still haven't seen you tackle content! unless you mean to say that those who are accredited in evolutionary biology are the only believers in your brand of evolution? and that the content doesn't appeal to like scientific mind and I can be game with that and in such a case 'not all scientists' subscribe as you'd like to have us believe.. for you are yet to define to us what credibility is.. I believe the accrediting body decides that when it awards doctorate to individuals who have earned it not some snotty nosed preposterous individual whose every thread has revolved around some desperate appeal than valid reasoning!

Is his opinion shared by other scholars? The NCSE says no, 97% of scientists agree that evolution has occurred.

another argumentum ad populum!.. I don't know what these individuals consider 'evolution' it is a catch all phrase, and have no idea who goes around surveying individuals, what kind of pool of scientists they target etc.. but let's contrast to see if you'd benefit from the same style argument.
According to a recent study most doctors believe in God and an afterlife. This conclusion apparently contradicts earlier research which showed that in general, people tend to become less religious as education and income levels rise.

The survey by Farr Curlin, a doctor and instructor at the University of Chicago, of 1,125 U.S. doctors, found that 76 percent believe in God and nearly 60 percent in some sort of afterlife.




or




Scientists' Belief in God

http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/050811_scientists_god.html

Who has vested interest in this style surveys? atheists and creationists? perhaps just folks with alot of free time on their hand such as you?..
can we maybe cut the crap?

The paper was published in the creationist journal 'Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design'. Why not in the Journal of Evolutionary Biology, surely that would be the best place to inform the world's misguided evolution supporters? (Come to think of it, why does that journal even exist when there is no such thing as evolution?)

It was published on ISCID
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0521829496/iscid-20 [/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design (ISCID) is a cross-disciplinary professional society that investigates complex systems apart from external programmatic constraints like materialism, naturalism, or reductionism. The society provides a forum for formulating, testing, and disseminating research on complex systems through critique, peer review, and publication. Its aim is to pursue the theoretical development, empirical application, and philosophical implications of information- and design-theoretic concepts for complex systems.[/FONT]


http://www.iscid.org/papers/Mullan_PrimitiveCell_112302.pdf

'speciation' deserves to be heard, accredited or discredited as is the case with any other theory.. the world 'evolves' indeed and so should your minuscule brain? Nothing in science is etched in stone.. you'd subscribe to 200 year old beliefs without amending your knowledge as science becomes more expansive, then don't come and make your ignorance common place for everyone to pick on like a scab that itches!
we have a large data base of many things.. put anything on google (christianity) for instance and you'll get a zillion hit and some journals and even encyclopedia.. but I like that you seem to draw satisfaction out of such simplistic conclusions for you are indeed a simpleton!

In summary, his opinion is not shared by the vast majority of scholars, and he never graduated in any biological science; according to your standards he's not qualified to speak on the matter.

Whatever you have to say to yourself to rectify your beliefs is fine with me.. I am glad each and everyone one of your posts has been some desperate appeal to logical fallacies.. it will serve you well in the world..
as for my standards you are the last person to comment on them, just given how you misapprehend, mis-quote, and misconstrue.. and the level and lack of cohesion with which you carry your debates I believe can be topped by my four year old niece..

all the best

 

[Azy]

argumentum ad populum!

The problem with that is that I'm not using it as an argument for anything, just applying your standards to your argument.

 

[جوري]

The problem with that is that I'm not using it as an argument for anything, just applying your standards to your argument.

You don't know the first thing about my standards.. rather your own mind is so restrained by herd mentality, that you are in fact exactly what you despise only standing a diametrical opposite!

 

[Azy]

You don't know the first thing about my standards..

Well, again I can't be at fault if what you say is not representative of what you think.

rather your own mind is so restrained by herd mentality

Miss, I'm not in the slightest bothered by having to change my mind. If you came here with something resembling evidence or a coherent argument explaining why supernatural creation is a better fit for the evidence than the conclusions people have drawn up until now then I'm happy to listen to it.
If you're going to insist that any evidence or argument I present is genuinely scientific, clear and from the pen of someone who has credentials representing relevant expertise then you can't expect us to accept any less from you.

If you want to present a paper on an alternative to evolution by a theist biology graduate, feel free, I'll read the thing as many times as is necessary.

If you want to present a paper on abiogenesis coin flipping by an astrophysicist, forget it.