• Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
    If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
    Donations can be made via here

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

arg-fallbackName="abelcainsbrother"/>
You have faith life evolves because you have never seen any evidence that demonstrates life evolves.That virus always will be a virus,it will adapt,but will never evolve.The truth does not really matter to you,as you have faith.Don't ever mock a Christian again for believing the bible by faith,you faith based evolution believer.
 
arg-fallbackName="abelcainsbrother"/>
Here are more interesting links.

http://www.nature.com/news/mystery-humans-spiced-up-ancients-sex-lives-1.14196

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24603-mystery-human-species-emerges-from-denisovan-genome.html#.VTb_st_frGX

http://news.vanderbilt.edu/vanderbiltmagazine/early-earth-less-hostile-than-previously-thought/

http://themindunleashed.org/2015/04/150000-year-old-pipes-baffle-scientists-in-china-out-of-place-in-time.html

Nothing in these links effect the old earth gap theory.It seems scientists are always discovering new things.

I can't find the link about the discovery of dust in the universe that should not be there.
 
arg-fallbackName="Dragan Glas"/>
Greetings,
abelcainsbrother said:
Here are more interesting links.

http://www.nature.com/news/mystery-humans-spiced-up-ancients-sex-lives-1.14196

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24603-mystery-human-species-emerges-from-denisovan-genome.html#.VTb_st_frGX

http://news.vanderbilt.edu/vanderbiltmagazine/early-earth-less-hostile-than-previously-thought/

http://themindunleashed.org/2015/04/150000-year-old-pipes-baffle-scientists-in-china-out-of-place-in-time.html

Nothing in these links effect the old earth gap theory.It seems scientists are always discovering new things.

I can't find the link about the discovery of dust in the universe that should not be there.
Click to expand...
It does affect the gap idea because you can't place it anywhere in Earth's history - because it never happened.

None of the links posted by us or you change that fact.

Kindest regards,

James
 
arg-fallbackName="Deleted member 619"/>
Don't mind me, I'm just going to leave this here.
abelcainsbrother said:
It seems scientists are always discovering new things.
Click to expand...
 
arg-fallbackName="he_who_is_nobody"/>
hackenslash said:
Don't mind me, I'm just going to leave this here.
abelcainsbrother said:
It seems scientists are always discovering new things.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

:eek:

If I am not mistaken, that might be the only correct sentence abelcainsbrother has ever said on this forum.
 
arg-fallbackName="Deleted member 619"/>
That was one of the things I thought noteworthy. :mrgreen:
 
arg-fallbackName="abelcainsbrother"/>
We are just looking at it from different perspectives is all.You all look at everything from a theory of evolution point of view but I'm looking at it from an old earth gap theory point of view.We really do not disagree much as I only reject evolution because I believe it clouds the view of what the evidence really tells us.

There was a former world on this earth that perished before God created this world and this is what the evidence shows,it has nothing to do with life evolving.As a matter of fact there is no way the life that lived in the former world evolved into the life in this world because the former world perished completely and there was a gap of time until God created this world on the earth 6-10,000 years ago.

Science went with uniformitarianism because of the theory of evolution but the evidence does not really show uniformitarianism it shows instead mass death and extinction.One of the links above talked about a " Lord of the rings" type world and this is I agree with.Every link above I posted lines up with a former world with different life in it than the life in this world.I know we disagree but its because you all accept evolution and uniformitarianism.

Uniformitarianism goes all the way back to ancient Greece philosophy.
 
arg-fallbackName="abelcainsbrother"/>
Here look at this link and tell me how you can say beavers the size of black bears evolved into the small beavers in this world.They have not evolved at all and this is better explained by God making certain life " after their kind" or after his kind" so that the beavers the size of black bears in the former world did not evolve at all,God made them after their kind when he created this world.

I want you to explain how you say beavers the size of black bears evolved to be the small beavers in this world.This is not evolution and you know it.You cannot pick and choose which life evolved and which life didn't and this is what happens.

http://www.geologypage.com/2015/04/how-ice-age-climate-change-led-to.html
 
arg-fallbackName="Dragan Glas"/>
Greetings,
abelcainsbrother said:
We are just looking at it from different perspectives is all.You all look at everything from a theory of evolution point of view but I'm looking at it from an old earth gap theory point of view.We really do not disagree much as I only reject evolution because I believe it clouds the view of what the evidence really tells us.
Click to expand...
Your misguided belief in a "gap" clouds your view of what the evidence really says - that's the problem.
abelcainsbrother said:
There was a former world on this earth that perished before God created this world and this is what the evidence shows,it has nothing to do with life evolving.As a matter of fact there is no way the life that lived in the former world evolved into the life in this world because the former world perished completely and there was a gap of time until God created this world on the earth 6-10,000 years ago.
Click to expand...
That is simply not the case - there was no "former world" as you believe.

You are unable to place your "gap" anywhere in Earth's history - as such, you cannot claim it to be true.
abelcainsbrother said:
Science went with uniformitarianism because of the theory of evolution but the evidence does not really show uniformitarianism it shows instead mass death and extinction.One of the links above talked about a " Lord of the rings" type world and this is I agree with.Every link above I posted lines up with a former world with different life in it than the life in this world.I know we disagree but its because you all accept evolution and uniformitarianism.

Uniformitarianism goes all the way back to ancient Greece philosophy.
Click to expand...
Science didn't "go with uniformitarianism because of the theory of evolution" - science went with the theory of evolution because of the geological evidence: fossils were always found in certain strata in a particular order - ergo, life evolved over geological time.
abelcainsbrother said:
Here look at this link and tell me how you can say beavers the size of black bears evolved into the small beavers in this world.They have not evolved at all and this is better explained by God making certain life " after their kind" or after his kind" so that the beavers the size of black bears in the former world did not evolve at all,God made them after their kind when he created this world.

I want you to explain how you say beavers the size of black bears evolved to be the small beavers in this world.This is not evolution and you know it.You cannot pick and choose which life evolved and which life didn't and this is what happens.

http://www.geologypage.com/2015/04/how- ... ed-to.html
Click to expand...
Why don't you read what the article actually says and then go back and re-read what I said in my post that addressed this article?

Kindest regards,

James
 
arg-fallbackName="Gnug215"/>
abelcainsbrother said:
We are just looking at it from different perspectives is all.You all look at everything from a theory of evolution point of view but I'm looking at it from an old earth gap theory point of view.We really do not disagree much as I only reject evolution because I believe it clouds the view of what the evidence really tells us.
Click to expand...


Yes yes, we're all really just looking at the same thing from different perspectives. Kumbaya and all that jazz.

The thing is, Abel, whaty you don't seem to realize, is that YOUR view is entirely driven by your own personal belief.

You HAVE to see it from your perspective, because your faith makes you.

Your quite simply kidding yourself.

Some of us are actually former believers, and we recognize the deluded perspective that you're coming from.

The difference is just that as we educated ourselves, our integrity and intellectual honesty forced us to rethink our position, and in the end reason prevailed over faith.

You may one day take the same journey, but I have my doubts, since you so adamantly and desperately persist in denial and delusion over this topic.

So as it stands, all your time spent on this forum has amounted to nothing. You've managed to convince no one here. Your Gap "theory" is a joke, and everyone here is now convinced that it is absolutely without merit, defended only by the devout and deluded.
And when you eventually leave, you'll have been "just another fundie" who was too emotionally invested in their own faith to be able to see reason and logic, just like all the other creationists that have come here. And furthermore, you'll be forever relegated to posting on Internet forums about your cute little "theory", while the scientific world and society moves on without you.

But hey, thanks for the activity! It's been fun, in a masochistic kind of way.
 
arg-fallbackName="Dragan Glas"/>
Greetings,
I think it is funny how atheists think attacking the bible makes evolution more believable.You can believe the bible critics if you want to and you can reject Hough's views but no matter how you assume little steps lead to macro? There is no evidence behind it and this is Hough's point,you are just stating the obvious with your evidence.

Go ahead and deny Hough's views if you want to but his views are true proven by the evidence for evolution.I'm not going to argue the bible is true,I could find links that back up what I say about the dead sea scrolls and you'll just reject it.I've made my points and I stand behind them when it comes to the bible and evolution.

Thanks for taking the time to respond and all but you're just choosing to believe Dawkins and Coyne over Hough.I go by evidence and you already show everybody that you assume variations in reproduction like dogs leads to bigger changes like Macro but the evidence does not back you up,as it only states the obvious.

It tells me that evolution is not predictable,even in a lab.The truth is that science does not even understand life enough to say it evolves because man cannot create life,if man could create life?then he would have a much better understanding of life and how it was created and whether or not it evolves.
Click to expand...
Let me try to explain why Hough is wrong in simpler terms.

I used the analogy earlier of a flow of water entering a valley, the key question being:

Does the water (intentionally) seek to fill every crevice in the valley or does the valley (unintentionally) shape the flow of water, forcing it to fill every crevice?

The theory of evolution holds that it is the latter.

Shapiro's NGE and Hough's SDG claim it is the former.

Shapire claims that it's the cell which decides how to adapt to the environment - Hough, in contrast, goes a step further and claims that it's the genome (DNA) which decides how to adapt to the environment.

For all intents and purposes, it's as if the cell or the genome were "looking around" (through its senses) at the environment and deciding how to adapt to it.

These are nonsensical ideas: it grants the cell/genome a level of consciousness that only a person could have - and we have difficulty enough working out how to "adapt" to our environment ourselves.

In another thread we've dealt with the difference between teleology and teleonomy - which is what my analogy above represents. Shapiro and Hough are making the error of necessitating intent where none is needed.

The theory of evolution doesn't need these "fixes", nor does evolution itself - it occurs, we've witnessed it, therefore it's a fact.

Kindest regards,

James
 
arg-fallbackName="abelcainsbrother"/>
Dragan Glas said:
Greetings,
I think it is funny how atheists think attacking the bible makes evolution more believable.You can believe the bible critics if you want to and you can reject Hough's views but no matter how you assume little steps lead to macro? There is no evidence behind it and this is Hough's point,you are just stating the obvious with your evidence.

Go ahead and deny Hough's views if you want to but his views are true proven by the evidence for evolution.I'm not going to argue the bible is true,I could find links that back up what I say about the dead sea scrolls and you'll just reject it.I've made my points and I stand behind them when it comes to the bible and evolution.

Thanks for taking the time to respond and all but you're just choosing to believe Dawkins and Coyne over Hough.I go by evidence and you already show everybody that you assume variations in reproduction like dogs leads to bigger changes like Macro but the evidence does not back you up,as it only states the obvious.

It tells me that evolution is not predictable,even in a lab.The truth is that science does not even understand life enough to say it evolves because man cannot create life,if man could create life?then he would have a much better understanding of life and how it was created and whether or not it evolves.
Click to expand...
Let me try to explain why Hough is wrong in simpler terms.

I used the analogy earlier of a flow of water entering a valley, the key question being:

Does the water (intentionally) seek to fill every crevice in the valley or does the valley (unintentionally) shape the flow of water, forcing it to fill every crevice?

The theory of evolution holds that it is the latter.

Shapiro's NGE and Hough's SDG claim it is the former.

Shapire claims that it's the cell which decides how to adapt to the environment - Hough, in contrast, goes a step further and claims that it's the genome (DNA) which decides how to adapt to the environment.

For all intents and purposes, it's as if the cell or the genome were "looking around" (through its senses) at the environment and deciding how to adapt to it.

These are nonsensical ideas: it grants the cell/genome a level of consciousness that only a person could have - and we have difficulty enough working out how to "adapt" to our environment ourselves.

In another thread we've dealt with the difference between teleology and teleonomy - which is what my analogy above represents. Shapiro and Hough are making the error of necessitating intent where none is needed.

The theory of evolution doesn't need these "fixes", nor does evolution itself - it occurs, we've witnessed it, therefore it's a fact.

Kindest regards,

James
Click to expand...

Yeah but Hough seems to know more about the human genome project that was not really friendly to evolutionists,but they ignored it to keep the evolution dogma.Keep in mind that Hough is an atheist and is not a Christian nor desires to be as far as I can tell and he is still an evolutionist,he just is being honest and pointing out the problems with evolution but was ignored.You must understand that it is not easy to speak out about evolution and I think it takes guts to do it.

You can disagree with Hough but I think before you do? You should understand where he is coming from and then look at the evidence yourself,like I did and it lined up exactly with what Hough noticed and the problem still remains.If you want the truth and are not biased? Then compare what Dawkins and Coyne says,etc to what Hough says. Evidence speaks louder to me than words do. I'm siding with an atheist,imagine that.

Hough to me is kinda like Rupert Sheldrake who I' ve brought up before except that Hough is an atheist,but both accept evolution but just have tried to steer evolution in the right direction only to be ignored by evolution dogma.What is interesting is both Hough and Rupert Sheldrake seem to know about the human genome project and the truth about what it revealed,other evolutionists ignore it.
 
arg-fallbackName="abelcainsbrother"/>
Dragan Glas wrote :
Your misguided belief in a "gap" clouds your view of what the evidence really says - that's the problem.
Click to expand...

We'll have to agree to disagree.

That is simply not the case - there was no "former world" as you believe.

You are unable to place your "gap" anywhere in Earth's history - as such, you cannot claim it to be true.
Click to expand...

Yes I can,the evidence reveals it on its own.Tell me why there were wooly mammoths and mastadons in the former world?while in this world we have elephants.The evidence speaks for itself.
Science didn't "go with uniformitarianism because of the theory of evolution" - science went with the theory of evolution because of the geological evidence: fossils were always found in certain strata in a particular order - ergo, life evolved over geological time.
Click to expand...

The theory of evolution was blended in with uniformitarianism.The fossils were supposed to show all kindsvof intermediate life forms yet never did,which is why every fossil is a fully formed highly sophisticated life form like trilobite's that had eyes,a digestive system,nervous system,etc, they do not show any signs of evolution like they were supposed to.And you had beavers the size of black bears in the former world yet the small beavers we have in this world and no evolution has happened.God made the beavers in this world after the kind of beavers that were in the former world.

Genesis 1:24" And God said,Let the earth bring forth the living creature AFTER HIS KIND,cattle,and creeping thing,and beast of the earth AFTER HIS KIND:and it was so.
Why don't you read what the article actually says and then go back and re-read what I said in my post that addressed this article?
Click to expand...

Because you're trying to say beavers the size of black bears evolved into the small beavers in this world and that is not evolution and you know it is'nt.You cannot pick and choose which life evolves and which life doesn't.I cannot even believe you can be this dishonest to believe that is evolution.When life evolves it is supposed to evolve over time into another kind of life like dinosaurs evolving into birds,not beavers remaining beavers but just smaller,you're trying to make evolution stick to any situation when it does not fit.Like trying to put a square peg in a round hole.
 
arg-fallbackName="abelcainsbrother"/>
Gnug215 said:
abelcainsbrother said:
We are just looking at it from different perspectives is all.You all look at everything from a theory of evolution point of view but I'm looking at it from an old earth gap theory point of view.We really do not disagree much as I only reject evolution because I believe it clouds the view of what the evidence really tells us.
Click to expand...


Yes yes, we're all really just looking at the same thing from different perspectives. Kumbaya and all that jazz.

The thing is, Abel, whaty you don't seem to realize, is that YOUR view is entirely driven by your own personal belief.

You HAVE to see it from your perspective, because your faith makes you.

Your quite simply kidding yourself.

Some of us are actually former believers, and we recognize the deluded perspective that you're coming from.

The difference is just that as we educated ourselves, our integrity and intellectual honesty forced us to rethink our position, and in the end reason prevailed over faith.

You may one day take the same journey, but I have my doubts, since you so adamantly and desperately persist in denial and delusion over this topic.

So as it stands, all your time spent on this forum has amounted to nothing. You've managed to convince no one here. Your Gap "theory" is a joke, and everyone here is now convinced that it is absolutely without merit, defended only by the devout and deluded.
And when you eventually leave, you'll have been "just another fundie" who was too emotionally invested in their own faith to be able to see reason and logic, just like all the other creationists that have come here. And furthermore, you'll be forever relegated to posting on Internet forums about your cute little "theory", while the scientific world and society moves on without you.


But hey, thanks for the activity! It's been fun, in a masochistic kind of way.
Click to expand...


I think you were deceived away from Christ because YEC's make the bible seem so wrong when it comes to science.You probably got frustrated and could no longer tolerate it.Well you can come back now because the gap theory that was being preached and taught in the church before Charles Darwin came along and messed up the view of what the evidence was revealing by making evolution fit into the known scientific evidence of that time.

It was Christians like William Buckland that discovered the earth was old,discovered fossils and evidence of a former world that existed on this earth.Charles Darwin tricked the scientific elite of the west and sent them on an evolution quest for nothing covering up what the evidence was really proving and after 150 years it has never been demonstrated by any scientist life evolves.

We might be a minority but it does not change or effect the truth.You can come back to the God of the bible because when you have the right interpretation? Nature and what it reveals will line up with it and confirm it true,and if it doesn't? You might want to question your interpretation and search for alternative interpretations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top