Why are you still on about the 2 to 3 chambered heart? Did you read through the articles from google scholar, or are you wanting Booktalk.org members to do it for you?

I'm still on 2-3 chambers heart because evolution can't explain this.... and not only this, but also many more.

People let me save you some time:

No point continuing bringing me examples of similarities between different organisms... I will always have identical examples of those similarities from human design experience. Gradual increase in complexity (iphone 1,2,3.. ), "evolutionary tree" (skateboard,bycicle,motorbike, three wheeler, car, truck, semitrailer, airplane, cargo ship)

Also I have plenty "transitional examples":


half boat half car:

https://www.google.co.il/search?q=half+ ... zyFE2nlPfM:


half car half airplane:

https://www.google.co.il/search?client= ... P6wHeyEwdM:

half motorbike half car:

https://www.google.co.il/search?client= ... Rf3JT2McAM:


half 3 wheeler half helicopter

https://www.google.co.il/search?client= ... f3tLiF9nEM:


and many more...

So no point keep bringing me those examples... it's pointless. It supports both inteligent design and darwinian evolution equally.

The problem begins when we have complex structures that can't be explained by gradual mutations... that's a problem for evolution.

Person wrote:I'm still on 2-3 chambers heart because evolution can't explain this.... and not only this, but also many more.

That's an ontologically postitive claim. The onus is on your to prove this negative. So stop spouting this foolishness and read the articles that proves your point. Scour the existing knowledgebase and show that an explanation doesn't exist. Stop asking for others to do the legwork.

So no point keep bringing me those examples... it's pointless. It supports both inteligent design and darwinian evolution equally.

Not according to the best methods we have at acquiring knowledge. If we come up with some explanation that is untestable, intangible, not reproducible, etc, then it can be discarded. There's nothing here but the fog of foolishness surrounding a mountain of evolution.

Those examples also prove the alien dream hypothesis, the futuristic human video game hypothesis, the satanic illusion hypothesis, the invisible alien interruptor hypothesis, and likely hundreds more. And they're all garbage because they aren't tangible, aren't testable, the crucial experiments aren't reproducible, and they're the last thing from parsimonious. Stick to what's real and there's a single competitor in the cage. Don't let youtube tell you otherwise.

The problem begins when we have complex structures that can't be explained by gradual mutations... that's a problem for evolution.

Are you talking about the thousands of examples that ARE explained? Or the missing puzzle pieces that aren't? The fog of war doesn't become uncovered in a heartbeat. Research the long history of "irreducibly complex" traits that have since been shown to be anything but. The success rate of evolution to provide an explanatory framework for these gaps is 100%. If you think you've finally found the jackpot of a trait that can't be explained, you're going to be proven wrong by history.

"That's an ontologically postitive claim. The onus is on your to prove this negative. So stop spouting this foolishness and read the articles that proves your point. Scour the existing knowledgebase and show that an explanation doesn't exist. Stop asking for others to do the legwork."

I did do the legwork... no one knows how anything have evolved really... only guesses and maybe stories... no one knows how eyes evolved, how lungs evolved, how kidneys evolved, how liver evolved etc etc....

"Not according to the best methods we have at acquiring knowledge. If we come up with some explanation that is untestable, intangible, not reproducible, etc, then it can be discarded. There's nothing here but the fog of foolishness surrounding a mountain of evolution.

Those examples also prove the alien dream hypothesis, the futuristic human video game hypothesis, the satanic illusion hypothesis, the invisible alien interruptor hypothesis, and likely hundreds more. And they're all garbage because they aren't tangible, aren't testable, the crucial experiments aren't reproducible, and they're the last thing from parsimonious. Stick to what's real and there's a single competitor in the cage. Don't let youtube tell you otherwise."

So does evolution... it's not testable, tangible, no experiments can support it etc etc... it's just a fantasy. a myth.



"Are you talking about the thousands of examples that ARE explained? "

what examples are explained? give me at least one...

"Are you talking about the thousands of examples that ARE explained? "

what examples are explained? give me at least one...

Giraffe neck length? Algae cell walls? Nose hairs? Ear hairs? Whisker hairs?

I mean, what are you looking for? A list of a thousand examples? Those lists exist, with evidence. Might have to venture outside the bounds of Youtube to find them though, unfortunately.

Link failure

Interbane wrote:

"Are you talking about the thousands of examples that ARE explained? "

what examples are explained? give me at least one...

Giraffe neck length? Algae cell walls? Nose hairs? Ear hairs? Whisker hairs?

I mean, what are you looking for? A list of a thousand examples? Those lists exist, with evidence. Might have to venture outside the bounds of Youtube to find them though, unfortunately.

What is the problem with giraffe neck length and algae cell walls? What the problem with hairs?

Hey people... just want to tell you all something.
I have a problem... since too many people are purchasing my book, I got a phone call from the bank, telling me they run out of room where to put all the money that is coming in.
So I decided to make my book be availabe for free for a whole week starting from tomorrow (30 dec), so that the bank will have time to make arrengments and clear some room to all the money that is coming in.
So here is the link for the book, check it out tomorrow:

https://www.amazon.com/Logic-Against-Ev ... 557&sr=8-1

I read the first page of the Introduction, it is filled with grammatical errors. I don't know if it's too late, but you might want to give it another glance before the rush of downloads.