All arithmetic is math. Not all math is arithmetic. Not that it matters since you still haven't shown me you are capable of doing simple multiplication. Oh and did you know that not all arithmetic is multiplication? Thought you might need clarification on that point. You are kind of dense that way.

@hippyjoe1955 lol!

Hilarious!


[b]No[/b] arithmetic is math

All math [b]contains[/b] arithmetic

I cannot see where you have ever asked me to perform a multiplicative task... perhaps you could point that [i]multiplicative [/i] task out to me?

[quote]did you know that not all arithmetic is multiplication?[/quote]

As I have never said that all arithmetic is multiplication, that seems to be something that you've just now realised.

Did you know that Indian ink isn't actually from India? You seem to be interested in trivia, so perhaps that will be of interest to you.

@TheOneyouwerewarnedabout [quote]all those who do are idiots[/quote]

Please show me where I have [i]ever[/i] used the word 'idiot'

It's rather amusing that the person being insulted spells the insult correctly, unlike the person trying to insult her, someone living in Australia, who seems to think he's a banger in South-Central L.A.

Which reminds me, and on the off-chance that you haven't already seen it... if you'd like a good laugh, I recommend:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW7607YiBso

(a word of warning... it contains a great deal of offensive language - that seems to be the standard creationist substitute for reasoned argument)

@hippyjoe1955 Your response seems irrelevant.

I'll repeat my comment.

You're trying to equate the origin of the universe and evolution.

They're two different topics!

Rather than make assumptions about my understanding of either logic or science, and a further assumption about my reaction when coming across a chemical, perhaps you could respond to what I actually posted?

@newjaninev2 Yawn. I am done. When you have a point to make get back to me. Until then I am gone.

@hippyjoe1955 I have several points to make.

As I said... let's get started.

The genetic evidence compels us to choose one of a limited number of conclusions, and I have listed them (non-exhaustively) at the end of a couple of the links I have offered you.

I'm here, right now, ready to discuss both the genetic evidence and the conclusions to which it drives us.

Let's get started.

@Crazywaterspring You don't know a thing about science. Evolution is religion not science.

@Crazywaterspring Indeed. They also love science when they use it in ways to get "their message" across - whether it's Smartphones, computers, telephone, television, radio, the printing press or other things. Or, taking a plane somewhere, driving a car, air conditioning their church, or on and on.

@Celine nah,it’s Saturday..im sitting here with a beer and reached my inner peace for the night. Just wanna see the comments

@SW-User comments are the best part , i agree with you there. haha

@Stardust519 🍿

@MrBrownstone Thanks

@MikeSp Who said that 'nothing exploded'? Some creationist pamphlet, perhaps?

We know that the singularity began to expand. There wasn't an 'explosion'... there was an expansion (it's still going on). It's observable and demonstrable. (Would you like to discuss, and otherwise account for, the Cosmic Background Microwave Radiation?)

The singularity wasn't 'nothing'... it was everything. Without expansion, there was no spacetime. Therefore everything was everywhere at once... because without spacetime [i]there's no means to differentiate[/i].

With expansion, everything could be somewhere (relative to everything else) and be there at a certain time (relative to other times)

@newjaninev2 Hi Janine. I listen to both sides of this discussion with both skepticism and appreciation that someone gave it some intelligent thought. I'm not an astrophysicist and never will be, and don't want to be. I don't really care exactly how the universe, as we can see it, was formed or evolved. I'm only here for a nanosecond on the cosmic timeline, so I don't matter anyway in the grand scheme of things. My faith points me to the Book of Genesis, but as I said earlier, I believe a lot was lost in translation. My admiration for science and the brighter minds than mine have come up with some quite compelling theories as to how we got here. However, I believe that we need to venture many lifetimes of light years out into space, and to other galaxies, in order to gain a more accurate picture. As long as we are stuck in this solar system, our knowledge will be limited. Unless some friendly intelligent visitors can share what they know.

@MalteseFalconPunch That guy is a troll. No need to even bother with them.

@hippyjoe1955 So, now you want to not only avoid addressing the genetic evidence, you also want to avoid addressing fossil evidence?

Well, OK... looks like we're going to be busy!

To show gradual evolutionary change within a single lineage, you need a good succession of sediments, preferably laid down quickly (so that each time period represents a thick slice of rock, making change easier to see)

Very small marine organisms, such as plankton, are ideal for this. There are countless billions of them, many with hard parts, and they conveniently fall directly to the seafloor after death, piling up in a continuous sequence of layers. Sampling the layers in order is easy: you can thrust a long tube into the seafloor, pull up a columnar core sample, and read it from bottom to top (Well, it sounds easy, but marine scienists tell me that it's technically extremely demanding)

Nevertheless, the results are well worth the effort. Tracing a single fossil species through a two-hundred-meter-long core sample taken from the ocean floor near New Zealand (representing eight million years of evolution) gave an [u]unbroken[/u] fossil sequence as the marine foraminiferan [i]Globorotalia conoidea[/i] diverged into a new species. The same method, using an eighteen-meter-long core extracted near Antarctica (representing two million years of sediments) allowed us to see the [u]unbroken[/u] fossil sequence as [i]Eucyrtidium calvertense[/i] gradually diverged into the new species [i]Eucyrtidium matuyamai[/i]

I could fill our day with such examples (and that's exactly what I intend to do... for variety, we'll discuss [i]Tiktaalik roseae[/i] next).

Before that, however, I was wondering, Joe, what your reaction is to my statement that all fossils are transitional fossils. Additionally, I was wondering if you realise that 'transitional species' is not the same thing as 'ancestral species'?

I ask because I'd like to avoid the confusion and misunderstandings that often arise when creationists try to discuss fossils, so I'd like to get those two points cleared up from the outset.


In the meantime, let's look at retroviruses in apes...

@Celine Bwahahaha ...... I bet you're lots of fun after a few drinks! Probably even without the drinks...🤓

@Celine However, I can see under that feminine guise lies a feisty spirit! I bet you listen to Coast to Coast!