Go on and find some more evolution evidence. Go and build a stronger case against evolution with it. After all, you need to have a goal in life. Why not strengthen the proof that evolution doesn't exist, by going out and finding more evolution evidence that proves it? So all the proof for evolution disproves evolution? This is the worst argument I've ever read on the topic, on this thread or anywhere else. The level of proof available for evolution is on par with level of proof we have for gravitational theory or the germ theory of disease i.e. unequivocal. Why not choose any one of the papers I've linked and offer a sound scientific rebuttal? If "more proof = less proof" is best argument you can come up with, I will continue to ignore your child-like posts. Er... what proof? I'm still waiting for somebody to show us a point of proof for evolution. List one simple evolution proof that is stated to be absolute proof by the evolution scientific community. And don't do like Astargath, copying and pasting a whole bunch of nonsense from some website, while barely being able to grasp what is being said. Rather, express a proof point in simple language, and then back it up with scientists and referrences that show evolution is absolutely proven by that point.  That's literally exactly what I've been doing for the last 50 posts that you chose to ignore. |
|
|
|
I did just give you some "actual mutation" (emphasis added):
Hemoglobine already existed - it is the reason you can breath.... So well.... If it's mutated it would be faaaaar away in time, and to prove that one would need to prove the theory of evolution was true... That is a circular logic. You can not be serious to give me such logical fallacies and be happy with it....... Im fairly sure it is a fascinating reading..... but come on.... Just because someone that is aproved by the group think wrote that means absolutely and completly nothing if it is a pure example of classical group biases. If scientist would wrote that your head should be chopped off and he would be peer-reviewed. Would you believe it? That could be true that your head should be chopped off - but its highly unlikely. First, it didn't. The paper describes how it evolved. You clearly didn't even read it. Secondly, haemoglobin binds oxygen. To say it is the "reason you can breath" is a gross oversimplification that suggest you do not understand biology in addition to evolution. Thirldy, it is not circular logic whatsoever. It is clear evidence of evolution, regardless of how hard you pretend it isnt'. Fourthly, you dismiss it without even reading it. Hilarious. Honestly, I thought we were about to make progess. Shame that your creationism indoctrination won't even allow you to consider the evidence. Seriously, you didn't even read it before deciding it was wrong. You are a lost cause. |
|
|
|
I thought you would give me some actual mutation not just a guess what comes from what... Im disappointed.
I did just give you some "actual mutation" (emphasis added): The functional diversification of the vertebrate globin gene superfamily provides an especially vivid illustration of the role of gene duplication and whole-genome duplication in promoting evolutionary innovation. For example, key globin proteins that evolved specialized functions in various aspects of oxidative metabolism and oxygen signaling pathways (hemoglobin [Hb], myoglobin [Mb], and cytoglobin [Cygb]) trace their origins to two whole-genome duplication events in the stem lineage of vertebrates. Whereas the Ngb, Adgb, and GbX genes originated prior to the divergence between deuterostomes and protostomes, the remaining members of the vertebrate globin gene repertoire are all products of vertebrate-specific duplication events In the Hb gene lineage, a subsequent tandem gene duplication gave rise to the proto α- and β-globin genes. This duplication event appears to have occured roughly 450–500 million years ago in the Ordovician, before the ancestor of cartilaginous fish split from the lineage leading to the common ancestor of ray-finned fishes and tetrapods. During the course of vertebrate evolution, the duplication event that gave rise to the progenitors of the Hb, Mb, and Cygb proteins opened up new opportunities for the evolution of aerobic energy metabolism in both jawed and jawless vertebrates. Moreover, the capacity to synthesize functionally distinct Hbs at different stages of development was made possible by repeated rounds of gene duplication in which newly created paralogs evolved new biochemical properties in conjunction with changes in the ontogenetic timing of expression. |
|
|
|
Give me articles that are unbiased that shows a new informations are coming from mutations. I just warn you - do not give me the rats that are naturally somewhat resistant to pesticides so that and bacterias that are already somewhat although limited resistance to antibiotics. The mutations are not giving more informations it just makes the informations more readily available by making other information less neccesary so to speak.
Do not give me articles about the resistance to anemia. I know all about 3 of those seemingly new informations that are not new informations but decrease in genetic information.
Do not give me these proven examples of evolution because I don't like them? Lol? Anyway, haemoglobin (the compound in your blood that carries oxygen) evolved from a duplication mutation. Storz JF, Opazo JC, Hoffmann FG. Gene duplication, genome duplication, and the functional diversification of vertebrate globins. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2013 Feb; 66(2): 469–478. |
|
|
|
Go on and find some more evolution evidence. Go and build a stronger case against evolution with it. After all, you need to have a goal in life. Why not strengthen the proof that evolution doesn't exist, by going out and finding more evolution evidence that proves it? So all the proof for evolution disproves evolution? This is the worst argument I've ever read on the topic, on this thread or anywhere else. The level of proof available for evolution is on par with level of proof we have for gravitational theory or the germ theory of disease i.e. unequivocal. Why not choose any one of the papers I've linked and offer a sound scientific rebuttal? If "more proof = less proof" is best argument you can come up with, I will continue to ignore your child-like posts. Because everything I know of suggest mutations take away information. Not true: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_duplication. For example a blue eyes is not a special gene - it is a mutation of lacking enough melanine in the eye. It took away information and not make something new. Again not true. There are up to 15 different genes controlling eye colour, and the colour in different species can come from a variety of pigments (of which melanin is one): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_colorYou are arguing against a strawman. Maybe if you spent more time reading about evolution from scientific, unbiased sources to find out what it really is (i.e. not AnswersInGenesis or similar nonsense sites), you might find you start to understand it more. |
|
|
|
My favourite moment was when scientist were following some trait and they thought that DNA could prove their claims - the closest specie in comparison with DNA is pig that they eat constantly.... Or when they compared chromosomes of human to apes it was proven to be completly random after all - to show a complete embarassement to all who do not rely strictly on the evolutionists dosing of information matrix of alternative reality.
An original argument! Oh my god! I've waited so long. Now, give me some proof of these claims and we'll talk further. Since BADecker is choosing just to ignore all the evidence presented to him, I'm just going to keep on ignoring his child-like posts. |
|
|
|
Guys, please do not answer on alias posts anymore. Thank you.
To be fair here, you did just lock a thread that contained an ongoing discussion. |
|
|
|
Alia you are not the topic here! Open a thread in the off-topic area.
I wasn't talking to you, shitbag. Your whole life should be in the off-topic section, imho. And now the true colours start to show. |
|
|
|
OP lied (saying that I have scammed people and insinuating that I will scam more), and instead of letting me reply, locked the thread instantly. Take his words with a grain of salt because he has been proven to be a manipulative liar.
*With significant proof that you and potentially a brother/boyfriend control a number of accounts, the others of which are known to be scammers, as well as tried to use the forum to partake in tax evasion and gambling scams, OP help to bring this to light before locking the thread after 15 pages of discussion after you confirmed these facts, insulted other forum members, and left yourself positive trust feedback twice. |
|
|
|
You like to deal in absolutes
Confirmed that Nullius = Sith Lord. |
|
|
|
Like I said... not only to we both use each other's accounts sometimes, we also have similar interests, etc. etc.
As in you both are camgirls / love Game of Thrones / incest? Just curious. I mean, it certainly looks that way:  |
|
|
|
I repeat: you can't fake a Skype call!
You can absolutely pay someone to pretend to be you on a Skype call. Although honestly, I'm not even sure what a Skype call would achieve any more. As I said before, you have admitted your accounts and wallets are frequently used by a known scammer (be that you, your brother, your boyfriend, whoever). Proving that you are a 19 year old girl changes none of that. |
|
|
|
As I've stated before... we occasionally share accounts and have similar interests. Go as deep as you want, I've already told you everything there is to know. And if people really don't want to Skype me over some bullshit... fine, I'll keep my negative trust. Watch how many epic deals I do here. I'm sure I'll go into the green within a couple months  Even if everything you say is true, and even if you are completely trustworthy, your brother is a known scammer across multiple accounts and multiple mediums, even going so far (you claim) to forge your ID in an attempt to gain access to your exchange accounts. You have publically stated that you share forum accounts, wallet addresses, and now payment accounts with him. Even if everything you say is true, someone would have to be mad to trust you, knowing that a scammer has access to all your accounts. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin will exist as long as there's one or at least few computers running a bitcoin full node. What could possibly stop this? Probably a global blackout or a huge EMP(electromagnetic pulse)[1] or something.
Even if an EMP hit or a global blackout occurred, wouldn't that only be a temporary halt in activity? I don't think this would be the death of Bitcoin, unless I misunderstand something the blocks should just pick back up with extremely low-difficulty once we get power back. I'm really not 100% sure, but yea I do think it will only be a temporary halt. What I think is though, that EMP can actually destroy electronic hardware, not just sort of crash/stop them like when a blackout occurs. Though it's probably unlikely for an EMP to destroy 100% of the harddrives of the whole world. EMP interference is generally disruptive or damaging to electronic equipment, and at higher energy levels a powerful EMP event such as a lightning strike can damage physical objects such as buildings and aircraft structures. - WikipediaYou raise some interesting points. The most likely cause of a worldwide failure of technology is a Coronal Mass Ejection (CME) - a release of plasma and magnetic field from the sun. There was a major CME that hit Earth in 1859, that if it happened today, would likely disable/damage/destory all electrical equipment on Earth. There was another big one in 2012 that passed through our orbit, but just missed Earth. If it had hit us, the estimated time to global recovery would be 4-10 years. Be interesting to see how crypto would cope with this. Theoretically, it is possible that all copies of the blockchain were destroyed, or that only one or two people were still able to run nodes. A lot of wallets would be destroyed and lost forever. Would crypto even be viable if it would take 10 years for global recovery? I feel people might have more important things to deal with. |
|
|
|
The failure of evolution is in two parts: 1. All the foundational evolution scientists always say in their basic, foundational evolution papers, wording to the effect of: "if, maybe, it looks like, possibly, probably," etc. This means that they do not know, and that they do not have proof; 2. All the scientists and people who build on this foundation of: "if, maybe, it looks like, possibley, probably," etc., are saying that they don't know and don't have proof, right along with the foundational papers they build on.. That's all there is for evolution. There is "if, maybe, it looks like, possibley, probably," etc., and those who base their stuff on the "if, maybe, it looks like, possibley, probably," etc. There is no proof that says "definitely," that is not based on "if, maybe, it looks like, possibley, probably," etc. Forget it. Evolution is a hoax. your argument? That scientific papers don't use the word definitely? I would probably believe creationism as well if I was this uneducated. You are even more clueless than the other guy. If the two of you could go back to elementary science classes for a couple of years, then come back and message me, that would be great. Ok I will learn what you have wrote... You are so smart... Im amazed. Your intelligence is so awesome and your knowledge of not arguing with someone because he is not peer-reviewed is so absolutely amazing and is so useful. WOW. After 5 seconds I learned what you had learned o master! I learned your words are not peer-reviewed so they are not facts. The only facts are peer reviewed. If a bicyckle is not peer-reviewed I find its existance not fact in our evolution matrix. in my amazing insight I learned the only way to safe my evolutionist beliefs is to ignore everything anyone else says. You are genious! I belieeveeeee. I believe in evolution because im so scientifical. My science is better than your science because your science is not science because a group thinking was not willing to place a stamp of review on it. Meh.... science is so science with scientific science in scientific scientism. Im so scientific now. Thank you for you awesome peer-reviewed insights. This dialog is so useful for us evolutionist. Im evolutionist now - do you think im smart now? Yes I am so smart I feel it... I take it back. You are equally clueless. |
|
|
|
|
Looks like it will be a nice product if they can pull it off. Adoption will be their biggest hurdle I think.
A couple of issues, however:
How can they promise "From the customer’s wallet to the merchant’s wallet in a few minutes", when we recently saw the blockchain being so congested that payments were taking 24+ hours.
They heavily feature "low fees" and "free introductory pricing" on the website, but they don't tell you what the fees will be after the introductory period.
|
|
|
|
|
There is absolutely zero chance I would use a Google Wallet. Just like other big companies (Facebook, Apple, etc). Google have been shown to collect massive amounts of personal data, and who knows what they do with it. I certainly don't want my cryptocurrency portfolio being linked to my real life identity and available to god knows how many people to look at.
I'll stick with my privacy, thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
Crypto: Come for the money. Stay once you realise it is changing the world.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
