AiG: "Evolution not a theory" and "Four power questions"

[abelcainsbrother]

Yes I do,you don't know what evolution is,which is why you think it is the same thing as reproduction and adaptation,you don't know the difference between the three.I do. Evolution is change in a population over successive generations but there is no change only reproduction or adaptation.

Change in what? I gave you the technical definition of evolution some time ago, but it appears not to have stuck.

Never mind all that, though. What is the mechanism by which adaptation occurs?

Change is not variations in reproduction or adaptation.Dogs bread from wolves proves this.Is reproduction evidence of change?I don't think so at all.It is up to you to show life evolves,not that there is variation in reproduction,you cannot use this as evidence and assume the rest,this is what Darwin did and what you are doing with no evidence.Stop playing word games trying to imply evolution is the same thing because they are not. Be intellectually honest.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

You haven't answered the question.
What do you think "change in a population over successive generations" means without "reproduction and adaptation"?
It is a change in what?

Why is it so complicated to give a straight answer?

 

[abelcainsbrother]

I know what it is.Micro-evolution is variations in reproduction.And the word micro-evolution has that word evolution on the end of it with the assumption of evolution but all it is is the different breeds of dogs that were bread from wolves and this is not evidence life evolves,you are assuming it leads to evolution but have no proof,keep in mind dogs were bread from wolves thousands of years ago and all we still have are dogs and no evolution or evidence that life evolves.

 

[abelcainsbrother]

You haven't answered the question.
What do you think "change in a population over successive generations" means without "reproduction and adaptation"?
It is a change in what?

Why is it so complicated to give a straight answer?

It does not matter what I think or assume based on reproduction or adaptation,I only go by the evidence,not what is assumed.It is up to the one making the assertion and assumption life evolves to show reproduction or adaptation leads to life evolving and the evidence does not show life evolving.

Nobody denies variations exist in reproduction,nobody is denying this or is ignorant about it and nobody denies life can adapt but according to the evidence all we are seeing is variations in reproduction or adaptation and the assumption this leads to evolution and the amnesia about natural selection also,you are jumping over both natural selection too,only showing variations in reproduction or adaptation,no natural selection effecting any life or evolution.

You are overlooking both and jumping to conclusions.Shouldn't the evidence show the effects of natural selection and then evolution? Well it doesn't it only shows variations in reproduction or adaptation,natural selection has no effect and life does not evolve.

You cannot ignore or pretend natural selection is not apart of evolution,you cannot overlook that the evidence does not show natural selection even effects life.All you have is nature telling us there is variations in reproduction and life can adapt and this is ALL the evidence shows,nothing more.

 

[surreptitious57]

Evolution is change in a population over successive generations but there is no change only reproduction or adaptation

As has already been explained to you adaption is evolution as adapting to environment is how species manage to evolve

So you are engaging in totally irrelevant semantics here for you just can not bring your self to admit that evolution is a fact

Evolution is a theory and in science it is the most comprehensive framework of scientific knowledge that is actually possible

And so therefore your objection to it is entirely on philosophical grounds not scientific ones and as such has zero justification

 

[abelcainsbrother]

Evolution is change in a population over successive generations but there is no change only reproduction or adaptation

As has already been explained to you adaption is evolution as adapting to environment is how species manage to evolve

So you are engaging in totally irrelevant semantics here for you just can not bring your self to admit that evolution is a fact

Evolution is a theory and in science it is the most comprehensive framework of scientific knowledge that is actually possible

And so therefore your objection to it is entirely on philosophical grounds not scientific ones and as such has zero justification

Wrong! You are,adaptation is different than evolution,you are the one playing semantics and word games thinking they are the same thing when they are not,even if they was though you have no evidence that shows adaptation leads to life evolving,the evidence does not show it or prove it at all.

I'm tired of me being accused of semantics when it is the other way around.You people do not know the difference between life adapting and life evolving or reproduction,to you all they are all the same thing.You have been tricked and don't even realize it,that is the sad part because it has nothing to do with a belief in God,this is evolution and there are believers and non-belivers that believe it.This is about truth and what the evidence shows without assumptions,it is not a trick or philosophy.

I am going by the evidence used as evidence ya'll are not going by the evidence.Y'all are giving scientists the benefit of the doubt when I'm demanding evidence that shows life evolves.Y'all are going on assumptions and don't even realize it.I'm not going on assumptions to believe life evolves for I don't need two faiths,I believe the bible by faith,not man telling me life evolves while using reproduction or adaptation as evidence.

You all believe life evolves by faith based on what secular man says is true,I don't believe man without evidence,this keeps me from being deceived because Jesus warned over and over about great deception in the last days and I'm not going to be deceived because I go by evidence before I accept what secular man said is true.

I do not believe what man says is true without evidence,evidence is a lot more important to me than it is to you.I refuse to believe what man says is true when he does not have evidence to back it up.I know and understand how Satan the father of lies deceives people with lies in society and I'm not going to be fooled by his lies in our world.

Man has been right but he has been wrong too and there is so much false information in our world in these last days.Jesus is coming! Repent! And be ready when he comes.Don't be decieved!

 

[abelcainsbrother]

Devil Fell!

https://m.youtube.com/?#/watch?v=Ue-wEuRIUPk

 

[surreptitious57]

evidence is a lot more important to me than it is to you

Absolutely not since for you it is conditional upon subjective interpretation or emotional reasoning

Though if you paid attention to what others here are telling you you may actually learn something

It is obvious from your last post as with all others in the thread you have zero intention of doing so

 

[Visaki]

Wrong! You are,adaptation is different than evolution,you are the one playing semantics and word games thinking they are the same thing when they are not,even if they was though you have no evidence that shows adaptation leads to life evolving,the evidence does not show it or prove it at all.

I'm tired of me being accused of semantics when it is the other way around.You people do not know the difference between life adapting and life evolving or reproduction,to you all they are all the same thing.You have been tricked and don't even realize it,that is the sad part because it has nothing to do with a belief in God,this is evolution and there are believers and non-belivers that believe it.This is about truth and what the evidence shows without assumptions,it is not a trick or philosophy.

I am going by the evidence used as evidence ya'll are not going by the evidence.Y'all are giving scientists the benefit of the doubt when I'm demanding evidence that shows life evolves.Y'all are going on assumptions and don't even realize it.I'm not going on assumptions to believe life evolves for I don't need two faiths,I believe the bible by faith,not man telling me life evolves while using reproduction or adaptation as evidence.

You all believe life evolves by faith based on what secular man says is true,I don't believe man without evidence,this keeps me from being deceived because Jesus warned over and over about great deception in the last days and I'm not going to be deceived because I go by evidence before I accept what secular man said is true.

I do not believe what man says is true without evidence,evidence is a lot more important to me than it is to you.I refuse to believe what man says is true when he does not have evidence to back it up.I know and understand how Satan the father of lies deceives people with lies in society and I'm not going to be fooled by his lies in our world.

Man has been right but he has been wrong too and there is so much false information in our world in these last days.Jesus is coming! Repent! And be ready when he comes.Don't be decieved!

I think "pathetic" is the right word to describe this rant. From the continued deliberate ignorance of what evolution is to the threats of Jesus, the universal sadist, this is perhaps the best example of sheer projection and idiocy I've seen ever and should be stickied to the top of the " The stupidest thing a creatonist has ever said to you" thread.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Natural selection is not evolution, it's natural selection, and it is a sub-process that explains some parts on how evolution happens in practice. Common descent is not evolution, it is common descent, and it is an inference about the relation between the different forms of life on earth which has evolution as a natural consequence.
This is irrelevant when talking about what evolution is. It's a red-herring used as an excuse to divert the attention from the question it is being put to you quite clearly.

Again:

What do you think "change in a population over successive generations" means without "reproduction and adaptation"?

It has become pretty clear as to why you won't answer the question. And the reason is because you are avoiding to admit to yourself the implications of what it would mean were you to answer it correctly. So you have to put up this circus so you don't have to admit what we have been trying to tell you all along.

 

[abelcainsbrother]

evidence is a lot more important to me than it is to you

Absolutely not since for you it is conditional upon subjective interpretation or emotional reasoning

Though if you paid attention to what others here are telling you you may actually learn something

It is obvious from your last post as with all others in the thread you have zero intention of doing so

I know it seems like we are talking past each other and it is because I go by the evidence used as evidence life evolves and I do not believe what man says without evidence.
Then when I point out the evidence and what it shows only adaptation or reproduction? Then I'm treated like I don't understand it and I must trust scientists,I cannot do this because if life truly evolves the evidence would show it does and I would accept it,but without evidence? It is kinda like a false religion to me.

I can back up what I say about what the evidence shows too,I'm not just making it up.And anybody is free to show me evidence that shows life evolves and they have never done it.If they did,I would point out it only proves there is variations in reproduction that nobody rejects or adaptation and it does not prove or show that these lead to life evolving like is assumed.I cannot control what people choose to believe but I reject it without evidence.

You're not going to get me to believe life evolves by faith because of what scientists say,I want evidence life evolves,then I will accept it,but I'm not going to believe life evolves by faith,it is not going to happen.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Devil Fell!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ue-wEuRIUPk

Then there is shit like this. Some random ass youtube video about how the devil has no power over Jesus. He really that this is the work of the devil trying to lead him astray from Jesus by planting doubts into his world view, and this is how he copes with it.
Its really pathetic what a mind poisoned with religion does.

 

[abelcainsbrother]

Natural selection is not evolution, it's natural selection, and it is a sub-process that explains some parts on how evolution happens in practice. Common descent is not evolution, it is common descent, and it is an inference about the relation between the different forms of life on earth which has evolution as a natural consequence.
This is irrelevant when talking about what evolution is. It's a red-herring used as an excuse to divert the attention from the question it is being put to you quite clearly.

Again:

What do you think "change in a population over successive generations" means without "reproduction and adaptation"?

It has become pretty clear as to why you won't answer the question. And the reason is because you are avoiding to admit to yourself the implications of what it would mean were you to answer it correctly. So you have to put up this circus so you don't have to admit what we have been trying to tell you all along.

It is up to you to demonstrate they do,you keep overlooking this.You are believing reproduction or adaptation leads to life evolving but the evidence does not show it,you only have reproduction or adaptation.You jeep overlooking this for some reason show that reproduction or adaptation causes life to evolve. You have never seen it and so assume.The propaganda is strong with you.

 

[Inferno]

I want evidence life evolves like you believe.

Didn't I just ask you what evidence you would accept? You've rejected everything so far without taking a look, so I asked you a very simple question:

Ablecainsbrother, what would YOU accept as proof that evolution happens? A fish with arms? A single celled organism becoming multi-celled? A dog giving birth to a cat?

What criterion would suffice for you to accept that evolution does happen?

You retort by saying "the evidence I would accept for evolution is evidence that evolution happens". Well holy redundancy, batman!

 

[Inferno]

Devil Fell!

https://m.youtube.com/?#/watch?v=Ue-wEuRIUPk

This reminds me of... what's his name... David Marzuke! :lol: :lol:

 

[abelcainsbrother]

Devil Fell!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ue-wEuRIUPk

Then there is shit like this. Some random ass youtube video about how the devil has no power over Jesus. He really that this is the work of the devil trying to lead him astray from Jesus by planting doubts into his world view, and this is how he copes with it.
Its really pathetic what a mind poisoned with religion does.

LOL! You think attacking the bible makes evolution true? It doesn't. Evolution stands or falls on its own.I think that certian atheist people get mad at God and attack the bible because we point out the lack of evidence life evolves like it makes evolution true,somehow.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

You didn't answer the question.

What do you think "change in a population over successive generations" means without "reproduction and adaptation"?

 

[abelcainsbrother]

I want evidence life evolves like you believe.

Didn't I just ask you what evidence you would accept? You've rejected everything so far without taking a look, so I asked you a very simple question:

Ablecainsbrother, what would YOU accept as proof that evolution happens? A fish with arms? A single celled organism becoming multi-celled? A dog giving birth to a cat?

What criterion would suffice for you to accept that evolution does happen?

You retort by saying "the evidence I would accept for evolution is evidence that evolution happens". Well holy redundancy, batman!

I want to see scientific evidence that shows reproduction or adaptation leads to life evolving but I' m going to tell you this,I already don't like it how scientists are using reproduction or adaptation as evidence life evolves and they are.I do not want to have to believe life evolves by faith.If you can produce evidence that shows and demonstrates life evolves then I'd like to see it,but if it shows reproduction or adaptation I'm going to point it out.

I don' t see how you can think I have not looked at the evidence for evolution.I mean viruses are used as evidence,so is bacteria,finches,salamanders,frogs,etc.I am not making this up,you all know this is evidence life evolves,yet they only show either reproduction or adaptation,not evolution. So how can you say I don't know what I'm talking about?Explain how the virus evolved,why don't you because it only adapts.How do you believe the virus evolved?

 

[abelcainsbrother]

You didn't answer the question.

What do you think "change in a population over successive generations" means without "reproduction and adaptation"?

Nothing without evidence.Stop ignoring this and show it,show they do instead of imply.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Nothing without evidence.Stop ignoring this and show it,show they do instead of imply.

What evidence? We are talking about the definition of evolution. Red-herring!

What do you think "change in a population over successive generations" means without "reproduction and adaptation"?

Is it "Nothing"? Do you then agree with the statement that your concept of evolution is meaningless and therefore wrong?