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

[Deleted member 619]

Let me ask you this I know you can explain evolution but where is your evidence that shows life evolves?

I just gave you yet another piece of evidence that life evolves, in the form of that paper on Heliconius butterflies but, as always, you insist that it doesn't show what it shows. That's why people keep asking you what would convince you, because what you're looking for is a caricature of evolution, because you're an ignorant idiot.

Keep in mind that you believe dinosaurs evolved into birds

No, I DON'T DO BELIEF. Get that through your thick fucking skull.

That is what the evidence shows.

and apes and man evolved from a common ancestor but all I see as evidence is butterflies that reproduce butterflies which I expect to see.

And apes reproducing apes, which is what evolutionary theory predicts. Or did you miss the memo that you ARE a fucking ape?

I don't expect to see a butterfly give birth to a dragon fly,etc

Nor does evolutionary theory predict that.

It seems your evidence for this is reproduction but you dress it up in scientific talk and explain it evolved and I guess this is what happened to you and you accepted it.

To me? No, that's what happened.

But I do not go on explanation,I go by evidence

Total fucking drivel. You go by the lunatic ramblings of people even more stupid and ignorant than you are. If you went only by evidence, you wouldn't for a second entertain the notion that this cosmic fuckwit of yours has any basis in reality.

which is why I often back up what I believe with evidence even if it is rejected.

You don't even know what evidence is.

I see no reason based on the evidence to believe life evolves even if they share genes,this is a different side issue but really only seems real if you believe life evolves and I don't.

It isn't a side issue, that's what evolution is.

I know that God could've given similar DNA to the life he created and that scientists have interpreted it wrongly by looking at it like life evolves,if you believe life evolves?

ERVs and nested hierarchies again. I know you're too stupid to understand this, but you could at least try. Your god is a fantasy, and not even a very good one.

This would seem like evidence life evolves but what if God just gave them similar DNA?

What if god used evolution to achieve his ends and you're doing nothing here but blaspheming?

Of course, he didn't, because yopur silly imaginary friend is just that; imaginary.

Then you are looking at it wrong.This is why I need evidence life evolves so that I do not interpret the evidence wrongly.

No, you're looking at it wrong, by being guided by a source of fiction that has fuck all to do with evolution.

And if evolution is so true scientifically? Then it should be no problem at all to show evidence that shows us that dinosaurs could evolve into birds and apes and man could evolve from a common ancestor

Did that.

but all I see is reproduction,which is what I expect to see.

All you see is this:

I'm not doing everything I can to reject evolution as it would not effect my belief in God if it were true but I just do not see evidence life evolves like you do.

You see only what you want to see. That's the way of stupid fucks with imaginary friends.

The real question is wehy you'd want your fantasy to be true. What a horror story.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

You're still not taking in what I've tried to explain to you:

1) It's all just chemistry;

2) "Kinds" and "species" don't exist - they're just categories in which we place various forms of life;

3) "Micro-" and "macro-" are terms we use in discussing evolution - they don't exist, so there's no "barrier" between them.

I'll repeat - yet again (x4)- what I said:

And you still haven't addressed the two questions I've asked you.

Nor have you provided proof regarding your "snow ball Earth" claim that scientists "weakened" the idea.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Grumpy Santa]

Reproduction is NOT life evolving.Life adapting is NOT life evolving.No matter how much you want to believe they are the same thing.You cannot use REPODUCTION or ADAPTATION as evidence LIFE EVOLVES and this is exactly what the evidence shows science is doing.

The fact is that the only thing scientists have proven is life reproduces and life can adapt to survive in hostile environments.They have not proven or showed anybody life evolves,AGAIN the evidence does not prove or show anybody life evolves,the only thing the evidence shows us is life reproduces and life can adapt,this DOES NOT prove or show anybody life evolves!

No matter how much you assume it happens,believe it happens,teach it happens,etc the evidence shows you are WRONG!
And life never evolves even though life reproduces and life can adapt,this is what the evidence PROVES!

Once again your apparent definitions of words seems to be confusing the hell out of me. What exactly do you think "adapting" means? You talk about life "adapting" but you're not clear on the level... are you talking individuals? Offspring? Whole populations? No argument makes sense if the terms aren't clear, so I ask that you please clarify what you mean by "adapting". Also, if you'd be so kind, what do you consider to be "reproduction"? Reproduction from my understanding of the word isn't, as you say, "life evolving"... it's the means through which genes mix which results in offspring of varying genetic traits from which natural selection can take place... i.e. it's a tool of evolution, not evolution itself. Again, clarity of terms would be lovely.

Hmm... that's it... please if you would clarify what you mean by "adapting" and "reproduction".

 

[abelcainsbrother]

Greetings,

You're still not taking in what I've tried to explain to you:

1) It's all just chemistry;

2) "Kinds" and "species" don't exist - they're just categories in which we place various forms of life;

3) "Micro-" and "macro-" are terms we use in discussing evolution - they don't exist, so there's no "barrier" between them.

I'll repeat - yet again (x4)- what I said:

And you still haven't addressed the two questions I've asked you.

Nor have you provided proof regarding your "snow ball Earth" claim that scientists "weakened" the idea.

Kindest regards,

James

About Snow ball earth? I cannot find the link I used to have that pointed it out that scientists would not accept it had they not weakened it some so that life could survive but this is as close as I can try to show it.Read the first part and you'll see it was first proposed as a completely frozen earth then go down to the survival of life through frozen periods section and you'll see that critics think it would cause all life to go extinct,it does not say it as well as the old link I had but it still shows that would be a hard sell if it couldn't be shown that at least some life survived it.

This does not effect the gap theory by the way whether it was completely frozen or not,I only point it out to prove science always makes sure at least some life survives through extinction events so that it can evolve.That was and is still my point.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball_Earth

As far as your statements about evolution? I see it as just blurring the lines about what reproduction,adaptation,evolution,natural selection,micro-evolution and macro- evolution are and what they represent to the theory of evolution as they all apply to it and not just one or two yet the evidence does not bear this out like it is explained.

 

[Grumpy Santa]

About Snow ball earth? I cannot find the link I used to have that pointed it out that scientists would not accept it had they not weakened it some so that life could survive but this is as close as I can try to show it.Read the first part and you'll see it was first proposed as a completely frozen earth then go down to the survival of life through frozen periods section and you'll see that critics think it would cause all life to go extinct,it does not say it as well as the old link I had but it still shows that would be a hard sell if it couldn't be shown that at least some life survived it.

This does not effect the gap theory by the way whether it was completely frozen or not,I only point it out to prove science always makes sure at least some life survives through extinction events so that it can evolve.That was and is still my point.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball_Earth

As far as your statements about evolution? I see it as just blurring the lines about what reproduction,adaptation,evolution,natural selection,micro-evolution and macro- evolution are and what they represent to the theory of evolution as they all apply to it and not just one or two yet the evidence does not bear this out like it is explained.

Not sure what you're referring to, but I do recall seeing something about how hydrothermal vents, for one, would have been a viable source of energy for life in the oceans to maintain itself even during a snowball earth scenario. Not only that but on the surface you have naturally occurring hot areas (hot springs, etc.) that would have maintained areas of relative warmth during a snowball as well. Basically, the entire earth would not have been uninhabitable to early microbial life.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Greetings,

You're still not taking in what I've tried to explain to you:

1) It's all just chemistry;

2) "Kinds" and "species" don't exist - they're just categories in which we place various forms of life;

3) "Micro-" and "macro-" are terms we use in discussing evolution - they don't exist, so there's no "barrier" between them.

I'll repeat - yet again (x4)- what I said:

And you still haven't addressed the two questions I've asked you.

Nor have you provided proof regarding your "snow ball Earth" claim that scientists "weakened" the idea.

Kindest regards,

James

About Snow ball earth? I cannot find the link I used to have that pointed it out that scientists would not accept it had they not weakened it some so that life could survive but this is as close as I can try to show it.Read the first part and you'll see it was first proposed as a completely frozen earth then go down to the survival of life through frozen periods section and you'll see that critics think it would cause all life to go extinct,it does not say it as well as the old link I had but it still shows that would be a hard sell if it couldn't be shown that at least some life survived it.

This does not effect the gap theory by the way whether it was completely frozen or not,I only point it out to prove science always makes sure at least some life survives through extinction events so that it can evolve.That was and is still my point.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball_Earth

If you read the first part, you should have noted that this idea was put forward before the discovery of plate-tectonics: at the time it was thought that the world looked as it does today with all the continents where they are now. This was discovered to be wrong - the continents have drifted over time: that means that earthquakes and volcanic activity would prevent a complete ice-ball forming, not to mention that it would only have been the surface that "froze" - not the oceans themselves or the land-masses.

In other words, a complete "snowball Earth" could not have happened, thus life always survived - even if it was drastically reduced.

And if you read the "Evidence" and "Scientific dispute" sections, you'd see that "ensuring survival of life" is not a reason for rejecting it: as well as the reasons actually given, it should also be noted that the satellites of gas giants - like Jupiter and Saturn - although frozen on the surface, are active and some (such as Europa, Ganymede, Titan, etc) may harbour life in their oceans.

As far as your statements about evolution? I see it as just blurring the lines about what reproduction,adaptation,evolution,natural selection,micro-evolution and macro- evolution are and what they represent to the theory of evolution as they all apply to it and not just one or two yet the evidence does not bear this out like it is explained.

Please think about what I've said and its implications - you're just not "getting it".

And you still haven't answered the two questions I asked in this post re your "world wide dust" claim.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[abelcainsbrother]

Dragan Glas,

Here is something about world wide dust caused by a draught.

http://www.zetatalk.com/theword/tword04i.htm

Here something else too about 4500 years ago and notice they don't know why,they would never consider Noah's flood yet it is better than "we don't know".
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/04/23/ancient-europeans-mysteriously-vanished-4500-years-ago-660620043/?intcmp=features

 

[SpecialFrog]

Dragan Glas,

Here is something about world wide dust caused by a draught.

http://www.zetatalk.com/theword/tword04i.htm

Nice source there, Abel.

ZetaTalk is an apocalyptic alien-contactee cult started in the mid-1990s by free-range nutbar Nancy Lieder. Nancy claims to be in telepathic communication with grey aliens from Zeta Reticuli, and publishes the communiques on her website of the same name. ZetaTalk has been one of the most endearingly crazy cults on the Internet for some time, though its membership has declined somewhat in recent years.

And as Dragan Glas asked, what does that have to do with a flood? Surely "the worst dry spell of the past 10,000 years" is the opposite of a flood?

 

[abelcainsbrother]

Dragan Glas,

Here is something about world wide dust caused by a draught.

http://www.zetatalk.com/theword/tword04i.htm

Nice source there, Abel.

ZetaTalk is an apocalyptic alien-contactee cult started in the mid-1990s by free-range nutbar Nancy Lieder. Nancy claims to be in telepathic communication with grey aliens from Zeta Reticuli, and publishes the communiques on her website of the same name. ZetaTalk has been one of the most endearingly crazy cults on the Internet for some time, though its membership has declined somewhat in recent years.

And as Dragan Glas asked, what does that have to do with a flood? Surely "the worst dry spell of the past 10,000 years" is the opposite of a flood?

I think it is just part of the puzzle,it kinda baffles scientists because they look at everything from a secular view point.I'm not saying it proves Noah's flood,I just think it is part of the puzzle and more will be revealed as time goes on.I also think that it makes sense for a drought after Noah's flood.I know they don't see evidence for a world wide flood but a global drought cannot be overlooked especially if it had to do with a flood.Science does not look at it from a biblical view,so it kinda baffles them.

 

[SpecialFrog]

I also think that it makes sense for a drought after Noah's flood.

Why?

 

[abelcainsbrother]

I also think that it makes sense for a drought after Noah's flood.

Why?

After a world wide flood there would be a drought?

 

[SpecialFrog]

After a world wide flood there would be a drought?

Do you have a basis for the claim that a drought would follow a worldwide flood or are you just making things up and pretending that they have some grounding in evidence?

 

[abelcainsbrother]

After a world wide flood there would be a drought?

Do you have a basis for the claim that a drought would follow a worldwide flood or are you just making things up and pretending that they have some grounding in evidence?

I just think it is part of the puzzle.I'm not saying it is proof but here is something else that seems to be part of the puzzle too,because the bible tells us water is inside the earth in several places and we know in Noah's flood the springs of the deep were opened up too,not just rain.But this kind of the puzzle might one day change the idea that comets brought water to the earth in science,perhaps it came from inside the earth? Or both?Again,not proof,but a possible piece of the puzzle.
http://www.geologypage.com/2014/08/scientists-detect-evidence-of-oceans.html#ixzz3WdC2Xxcq

 

[SpecialFrog]

Do you have a basis for the claim that a drought would follow a worldwide flood or are you just making things up and pretending that they have some grounding in evidence?

I just think it is part of the puzzle.

Have you ever actually done a puzzle? What you are doing is the equivalent of putting random household items next to each other and squinting until it looks vaguely like a picture.

You want evidence of a worldwide flood therefore all evidence must be evidence of a worldwide flood.

 

[Dustnite]

After a world wide flood there would be a drought?

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Dragan Glas,

Here is something about world wide dust caused by a draught.

http://www.zetatalk.com/theword/tword04i.htm

You posted this before with your claim that this was evidence for a "world-wide flood".

Two things:

1) There's no evidence for a world-wide flood;
2) The claim that a "world-wide drought" has anything to do with a non-existent "world-wide flood" is a non sequitur of the first magnitude.

If you actually read the article, you'll find this:

Given the uncertainties of carbon dating, the marine dust pulse and the abandonment of Tell Leilan could still have been several centuries apart. But Cullen and deMenocal found in the core another time marker that makes a somewhat tighter connection. Less than about 140 years before the dust pulse is a layer containing volcanic ash. And Weiss had already reported that a centimeter-thick ash layer lies just beneath the onset of aridity and abandonment at Tell Leilan. The strikingly similar elemental compositions of the two ashes imply that they stem from the same volcanic event. If so, then Tell Leilan was abandoned just after the start of a climatic change of considerable magnitude, geographical extent, and duration. "There's something going on, a shift of atmospheric circulation patterns over a fairly large region," says Cullen.

Some archaeologists agree that this climate shift did change history outside northern Mesopotamia. “Most people who work in this range of time don't pay much attention to climate,” says archaeologist Frank Hole of Yale; “rather, it's political and social events [that matter]. ... But I think the evidence is overwhelming that we've got something going on here.” While conceding that climate and culture interact, a number of archaeologists still think that Weiss is pushing the connection too far. Drought may well have driven people from farmland dependent on rainfall, like that around Tell Leilan, says Lamberg-Karlovsky, but Weiss “generalizes from his northern Mesopotamia scenario to a global problem. That's utterly wrong. ... Archaeologists fall in love with their archaeological sites, and they generalize [unjustifiably] to a larger perspective.”

I suggest you read this paper.

It makes the point that, rather than a "global" drought, the evidence indicates that the Northern Hemisphere suffered a drought between certain latitudes. It also notes that there are similarities between the one 4200 years ago and the mid-latitude drought of 1998-2002 - the main difference being that the former lasted a few centuries, hence was more severe.

The 1998-2002 drought was clearly not associated with a "world-wide flood".

It notes that sea surface temperatures (SST) are associated with each other and with land surface temperatures in different parts of the world: this inter-relationship means that aridity in one area of the world is balanced by humidity in others.

The combination of a reported up-tick in volcanic activity at the time, changes in SST/LST and associated wind patterns could account for the phenomenon - although the paper notes that more research is needed.

None of this implies or requires a "world-wide flood" as a explanation.

Here something else too about 4500 years ago and notice they don't know why,they would never consider Noah's flood yet it is better than "we don't know".
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/04/23/ancient-europeans-mysteriously-vanished-4500-years-ago-660620043/?intcmp=features

As usual, you post a link from a few years ago without actually looking for more recent sources.

Here, for example, is a recent (24 Mar 2015) newspaper article on the most recent research which shows that scientists have resolved the "we don't know":

The birth of Europe: DNA reveals how Russian grasslands people invaded central Europe 4,500 years ago - bringing with them the languages we speak today

Again, see how easy that was to show that your alleged problems that secular science has are, in fact, not problems at all?

Kindest regards,

James

 

[abelcainsbrother]

Greetings,

Dragan Glas,

Here is something about world wide dust caused by a draught.

http://www.zetatalk.com/theword/tword04i.htm

You posted this before with your claim that this was evidence for a "world-wide flood".

Two things:

1) There's no evidence for a world-wide flood;
2) The claim that a "world-wide drought" has anything to do with a non-existent "world-wide flood" is a non sequitur of the first magnitude.

If you actually read the article, you'll find this:

Given the uncertainties of carbon dating, the marine dust pulse and the abandonment of Tell Leilan could still have been several centuries apart. But Cullen and deMenocal found in the core another time marker that makes a somewhat tighter connection. Less than about 140 years before the dust pulse is a layer containing volcanic ash. And Weiss had already reported that a centimeter-thick ash layer lies just beneath the onset of aridity and abandonment at Tell Leilan. The strikingly similar elemental compositions of the two ashes imply that they stem from the same volcanic event. If so, then Tell Leilan was abandoned just after the start of a climatic change of considerable magnitude, geographical extent, and duration. "There's something going on, a shift of atmospheric circulation patterns over a fairly large region," says Cullen.

Some archaeologists agree that this climate shift did change history outside northern Mesopotamia. “Most people who work in this range of time don't pay much attention to climate,” says archaeologist Frank Hole of Yale; “rather, it's political and social events [that matter]. ... But I think the evidence is overwhelming that we've got something going on here.” While conceding that climate and culture interact, a number of archaeologists still think that Weiss is pushing the connection too far. Drought may well have driven people from farmland dependent on rainfall, like that around Tell Leilan, says Lamberg-Karlovsky, but Weiss “generalizes from his northern Mesopotamia scenario to a global problem. That's utterly wrong. ... Archaeologists fall in love with their archaeological sites, and they generalize [unjustifiably] to a larger perspective.”

I suggest you read this paper.

It makes the point that, rather than a "global" drought, the evidence indicates that the Northern Hemisphere suffered a drought between certain latitudes. It also notes that there are similarities between the one 4200 years ago and the mid-latitude drought of 1998-2002 - the main difference being that the former lasted a few centuries, hence was more severe.

The 1998-2002 drought was clearly not associated with a "world-wide flood".

It notes that sea surface temperatures (SST) are associated with each other and with land surface temperatures in different parts of the world: this inter-relationship means that aridity in one area of the world is balanced by humidity in others.

The combination of a reported up-tick in volcanic activity at the time, changes in SST/LST and associated wind patterns could account for the phenomenon - although the paper notes that more research is needed.

None of this implies or requires a "world-wide flood" as a explanation.

Here something else too about 4500 years ago and notice they don't know why,they would never consider Noah's flood yet it is better than "we don't know".
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/04/23/ancient-europeans-mysteriously-vanished-4500-years-ago-660620043/?intcmp=features

As usual, you post a link from a few years ago without actually looking for more recent sources.

Here, for example, is a recent (24 Mar 2015) newspaper article on the most recent research which shows that scientists have resolved the "we don't know":

The birth of Europe: DNA reveals how Russian grasslands people invaded central Europe 4,500 years ago - bringing with them the languages we speak today

Again, see how easy that was to show that your alleged problems that secular science has are, in fact, not problems at all?

Kindest regards,

James

I actually think its funny that with an earth with 70% water covering the earth,science says there was no global flood.I just don't believe it can be explained like YEC's explain it.
Thanks for the other links.This is interesting to me but I don't see how it changes much of my points even though I know you're not going to look at it from a biblical perspective.I can tell,because you always do,no matter what evidence I give.

 

[Visaki]

I actually think its funny that with an earth with 70% water covering the earth,science says there was no global flood.I just don't believe it can be explained like YEC's explain it.
Thanks for the other links.This is interesting to me but I don't see how it changes much of my points even though I know you're not going to look at it from a biblical perspective.I can tell,because you always do,no matter what evidence I give.

I think the bolded part says it all. You are not interested in what is true in the least, only in what your book says and how to twist things to fit your interpretation of the book.

Oh, and we're still waiting for your evidence. Mainly because, like in many other things, you don't seem to understand what that word means.

 

[abelcainsbrother]

I actually think its funny that with an earth with 70% water covering the earth,science says there was no global flood.I just don't believe it can be explained like YEC's explain it.
Thanks for the other links.This is interesting to me but I don't see how it changes much of my points even though I know you're not going to look at it from a biblical perspective.I can tell,because you always do,no matter what evidence I give.

I think the bolded part says it all. You are not interested in what is true in the least, only in what your book says and how to twist things to fit your interpretation of the book.

Oh, and we're still waiting for your evidence. Mainly because, like in many other things, you don't seem to understand what that word means.

There is nothing wrong with it like you imply.You're going to look at it and interpret it from a secular non-biblical view and I'm going to look at it from a biblical view.What's the problem?I did not say it was proof but how do you just explain away world wide dust dated to the time of Noah's flood?A drought after the flood makes sense and it was drought that produced the dust it is even in the ice sheets,this is not just made up stuff,science discovered world wide dust,its in the oceans too and it just so happens to date to Noah's flood.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

I actually think its funny that with an earth with 70% water covering the earth,science says there was no global flood.I just don't believe it can be explained like YEC's explain it.

There was no Noachian flood, and the Earth was never completely covered with water.

I've already explained it to you here.

Thanks for the other links.This is interesting to me but I don't see how it changes much of my points even though I know you're not going to look at it from a biblical perspective.I can tell,because you always do,no matter what evidence I give.

I agree with Visaki's observation - as, indeed, everyone else here has noted.

You are unable/unwilling to take your head out of the bible and look around you at things as they really are.

Kindest regards,

James