This happens to have been the first points I made on my thread on this subject. If the op, who claims to accept evolution as fact, can show us which aspects he agrees with and which of the aspects of evolution he has difficulties with, then it can be a genuine discussion where we can point out areas where we agree and where we do not agree, and possibly, reconcile our knowledge and viewpoints on the subject. Sometimes, scientific details are long and complicated and most people's attention span are not good enough to absorb the information being presented. If the op's mind is not ready accept the knowledge, then he uses fancy words to make the question as complicated as possible, that way he could would always claim that no one was able to answer his questions.ģ. If one does not accept common ancestry for all living forms, then again, it is pointless trying to explain how things evolve from simple to complex.Ģ. One cannot expect a scientific explanation on a subject if one does not accept some of the basic scientific premises underlying the subject.įor example, if one believes that the earth is less far less 4.7 billion years old, then it is pointless to ask how come this and how come that.

Even 10 minutes on google would throw plenty of answers to these so-called posers.ġ. They confuse it with 'progressive change' One thing that I have noticed is that people do not even understand the meaning of 'evolution'. However, it is true that the evolution theory as it stands still have a long way to go and a lot of holes to fill. I have already started debunking one for him. Lots of answers to some of the posers the op made.

Logicbots copying robots