robosmith

Just another ahole trying to destroy democracy by discrediting elections and riling up the LOSERS. Putin? Russians already said they are STILL interfering in our elections. NO EVIDENCE, just YOU KNOW IT HAPPENED!!!! When you have no evidence of fraud, all you have is the CERTIFIED VOTE COUNT. But thanks for revealing just how little evidence (none) is required to gain your belief.

Science is the best knowledge we have. It is ALWAYS vulnerable to BETTER SCIENCE. The greatest problem with your religious FAITH, is there is not an accepted mechanism for updating it to account for new empirical knowledge. AKA, always stuck in the PAST.

No such thing happened in Nevada with the Cortez Masto WIN! Nevada LAW specifies mail in ballots count if they arrived by TODAY. You guys just keep revealing your ignorance.

No one said scientists are "infallible." That claim would be from religious leaders about their religion and the Bible. From my cite: Lenski’s E. Coli  Long-Term Evolution Experiment

How would you know when you fail to read about it?

So said MEN. Men who may have been insane for all we know. Hearing voices when others aren't present is something my nephew does. Diagnosed with Schizophrenia. In ancient times, he coulda been a priest who heard God. Point is, NOT empirical evidence.

IF you'd read my cite, you'd know ^this is wrong. Experiments showing evolution are CITED there.

Only MEN said the Bible came from God. Men who claimed the authority of God in the form of their status to determine what "he said."

You said "they are not the same AT ALL." They are 84% the same according to your cite. There's obviously a reason you resorted to HYPERBOLE.

Yes, I stated that already. I didn't say anything about "absolute truth." I said it is backed by the vast majority of EXPERTS. And I mean real experts, not just someone that believes what an ancient book of myths says. Why do you believe a book with no empirical evidence over empirical evidence that scientist gather TODAY? When you have 2 options, one of which is believing TODAY'S empirical evidence and other depends on ancient myths in a single book, empirical evidence is a much stronger case; NOT BIAS. Exactly. Any conclusions about those topics drawn from the Bible is crap. Anything NOT backed by the latest empirical evidence is a myth. And the older it is, the more suspect.

I understand you're admitting a lack of expertise, but unwilling to take the word of an expert who is backed by the vast majority of experts wrt evolution because it is counter to what you have "long believed." And you are unwilling to acknowledge that the science "experts" employed by Creation Ministries International make a lot of errors as detailed in the rebuttal I cited. Do you not know that CMI is very selective in the "experts" they employ; meaning that they have to be willing to believe what the Bible says, despite the FACT that the Bible was written LONG BEFORE what we KNOW about evolution TODAY. The MEN who wrote the Bible knew shit about the processes that created man. Why are you so distrustful of modern science that you continue to believe MYTHS instead of empirical EVIDENCE? Are you also unable to understand the REASONS I cited behind your belief in those MYTHS?

So you argument boils down to, because you can't understand the reasons given why Sanford's thesis is erroneous, you're just going to believe him ON FAITH, right?

I don't think we can ever "suffer withdrawal" from the brain damage that lead fumes causes. I've long suspected it was responsible for most of any statistical intellectual disability of inner city dwellers.

Sorry, but I'm not here to take your stupid "test," just like you refuse to provide evidence for YOUR CLAIMS and arbitrarily dismiss ALL evidence proving them wrong. I learned enough simple arithmetic in 1st grade to compute your answer. Of course I didn't understand why others claimed difficulty with solving "story problems." LMAO That you believe your "test" is difficult only reveals YOUR IQ. Frankly, I'd expected better from you. But now I understand why you so often resort to name calling and denigrating terms.

Except for one thing, you own video cite says there is an 84.38% exact match of nucleotides. So your bolded statement is NOT TRUE. Any exact match strongly indicates common ancestry, cause coincident common evolution is relatively much more improbable.

Is ^this simple arithmetic a statistician's idea of an IQ test? LMAO

No, I never bothered to join. I've got better things to do. Like correct your misinterpretations. It's full time job.

Of course YOUR OWN CITE proves she was NOT Aunt Jemima. It says she was "the 1st" ACTOR who PLAYED THE PART as a corporate SHILL.

I certainly do know. That is the standard for admittance to Mensa. Or YOU....

How is your calendar working? Seems like it's either broken or you have yet to learn how to read it. Your deadline passed and little has changed. As for mail in ballots, NO ONE has proven they are insecure. Esp NOT YOU.

Well, I did a little research on your creation.com sources, and found this which thoroughly REFUTES them: Assessing Limits to Evolution and to Natural Selection: Reviews of Michael Behe’s “Edge of Evolution” and John Sanford’s “Genetic Entropy” I will read that BEFORE I watch your video which you have not even summarized.

Too bad neither you nor Trump have ANY evidence of fraudulent vote counts. Trump tried and FAILED to prove that in court 60+ times.

Geological time on Earth? Do you know that life can survive in the rocks and ice of asteroids and comets? The evolution of life is NOT confined to this planet. Certainly the building blocks can arrive here from elsewhere. Not that that is necessary. It is entirely likely that your expert was biased and made invalid assumptions in his statistical analysis. The FACT is, we see empirical EVIDENCE of the progress of the evolution of life over time right here on Earth. Complex animals such as man did NOT just suddenly appear in the fossil record. There is a record of the evolution of primates that preceded man. IF the beginning of life takes much much longer, then primitives forms COULD have arrived here from space.

Right off the top of my head, I can offer 2 possibilities for "Doppelganger genes." One is the gene developed in a common ancestor and was strongly preserved because it gave a crucial survival advantage. Another is, the same genetic structure evolved independently, again because it gave a crucial survival advantage. Another problem with ^this is, death is most definitely an empirically proven process, No empirical evidence for the FAITH of life after death as described in the that book of MYTHS.

No one was expecting a "blue wave." duh