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

[abelcainsbrother]

Greetings,

The fact that you don't accept evolution does not mean it doesn't occur - it's just your ill-informed opinion against those who actually study it professionally.

Do you believe that there are "five races" - white, yellow, red, brown, and black?

If so, have a DNA test and then explain the results.

It'll show the evolutionary path of our species - African -> European (plus Neanderthal) -> Asian (plus Denisovan) -> Native American.

Kindest regards,

James

All you're really saying is ignore the evidence and believe them.Also DNA does not prove life evolves at all,if you look at it from an evolution perspective you might assume it does but it does not prove life evolves.What proves life evolves is to actually show it does in a lab yet it has never been done and the evidence that has been produced only shows reproduction or adaptation.

If DNA is evidence life evolves then it could be demonstrated in a lab but it has not been done.It is assumptions being passed off as true science.Why do you settle for DNA as evidence life evolves? It only leaves you believing scientists by faith.

We don't have to believe scientists by faith when it comes to other science,so why when it comes to evolution? Something is wrong in the science of evolution.There are many other areas of science that have evidence behind them and I accept them but not when it comes to evolution.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Greetings,

The fact that you don't accept evolution does not mean it doesn't occur - it's just your ill-informed opinion against those who actually study it professionally.

Do you believe that there are "five races" - white, yellow, red, brown, and black?

If so, have a DNA test and then explain the results.

It'll show the evolutionary path of our species - African -> European (plus Neanderthal) -> Asian (plus Denisovan) -> Native American.

Kindest regards,

James

All you're really saying is ignore the evidence and believe them.Also DNA does not prove life evolves at all,if you look at it from an evolution perspective you might assume it does but it does not prove life evolves.What proves life evolves is to actually show it does in a lab yet it has never been done and the evidence that has been produced only shows reproduction or adaptation.

If DNA is evidence life evolves then it could be demonstrated in a lab but it has not been done.It is assumptions being passed off as true science.Why do you settle for DNA as evidence life evolves? It only leaves you believing scientists by faith.

It is not "believing scientists by faith" - it's trusting that experts who study a subject know what they're talking about based on empirical evidence.

Faith is when one believes despite the absence of evidence - or despite the evidence contradicting one's belief.

You're basic premise is that the bible is the "inerrant Word of God" - as such, you reject evidence that does not confirm your belief in the bible.

Your belief is without foundation - in the first place, you have no proof a god exists: as such, you cannot claim that the bible is "the Word of God" - nevermind the "inerrant Word of God".

It is you who has faith (unjustified belief) - it is we who have knowledge (justified belief).

Kindest regards,

James

 

[abelcainsbrother]

="Dragan Glas"]Greetings,

Greetings,

The fact that you don't accept evolution does not mean it doesn't occur - it's just your ill-informed opinion against those who actually study it professionally.

Do you believe that there are "five races" - white, yellow, red, brown, and black?

If so, have a DNA test and then explain the results.

It'll show the evolutionary path of our species - African -> European (plus Neanderthal) -> Asian (plus Denisovan) -> Native American.

Kindest regards,

James

All you're really saying is ignore the evidence and believe them.Also DNA does not prove life evolves at all,if you look at it from an evolution perspective you might assume it does but it does not prove life evolves.What proves life evolves is to actually show it does in a lab yet it has never been done and the evidence that has been produced only shows reproduction or adaptation.

If DNA is evidence life evolves then it could be demonstrated in a lab but it has not been done.It is assumptions being passed off as true science.Why do you settle for DNA as evidence life evolves? It only leaves you believing scientists by faith.

It is not "believing scientists by faith" - it's trusting that experts who study a subject know what they're talking about based on empirical evidence.

Faith is when one believes despite the absence of evidence - or despite the evidence contradicting one's belief.

You're basic premise is that the bible is the "inerrant Word of God" - as such, you reject evidence that does not confirm your belief in the bible.

Your belief is without foundation - in the first place, you have no proof a god exists: as such, you cannot claim that the bible is "the Word of God" - nevermind the "inerrant Word of God".

It is you who has faith (unjustified belief) - it is we who have knowledge (justified belief).

Kindest regards,

James

[/quote]

You're wrong plenty of people who believe in God accept evolution and I would too if there was evidence.You are thinking of me as a young earth creationist who ignores science but I don't.I'm an old earth creationist and do not ignore science.I can claim the bible is the word of God and I do,it is you that don't believe it.You are believing life evolves despite absence of evidence but you want to think bad at Christians for believing the bible by faith,you are doing the samething when it comes to evolution.Christians know all about believing things by faith.

 

[Gnug215]

Criticism is not going to effect me.Evidence will and if you don't like why I reject evolution then show me how what I say about it is wrong with evidence.Nobody has,instead all I get is mocked but I can handle that if I'm right and you're wrong.

Nothing I have said against evolution is untrue,I can't help it that you disregard the truth I speak then expect me to believe scientists by faith like you have chose to do because they are smarter than you.I go by evidence and I can't help it if that offends you.Prove me wrong! Instead of just mocking me because it just does not effect me when I know I' m right.

Why is it no big deal to you that when we examine the evidence used as evidence life evolves? We only see either reproduction being demonstrated or adaptation? How come we don't see natural selection? How come we don't see life evolve? This is a problem and I can' t help it if you choose to disregard this and ignore this and mock me for pointing it out.

To me you' re only hurting yourself,not me.I'm not going to keep repeating myself why don' t you actually go and look yourself? You just might realize that Christian you mocked is right.

Of course criticism isn't going to affect you. You've surrounded yourself with a shield made of faith, fueled by basic emotions. You're irrational to the extreme, so we know full well that you won't be swayed by reason.

But that's not gonna stop us from shooting down every misguided claim you make, and call you an unintelligent, uninformed (misinformed) and uneducated fanatic in the process, when that is what you're showing to us that you are.

You don't speak the truth, and you're deluded to think that you are. That's why we're calling you out on it.

You're not getting convinced by the actual truth when it's presented to you, partly because you're too unintelligent, uninformed (misinformed) and uneducated to be able to understand it, but also because you have massive preconceived bias stemming from your own personal, emotionally based faith.

It's been obvious all along that you've been unable to answer our questions about what other theory could possibly explain stuff like ERVs, atavisms, the nested hierarchy, the distribution of fossils, anatomical similarities, genetic similarities, Tiktaalik, the list goes on and on.

So, no, we will never realize that the Christian we "mocked" (we're calling you out on your bullshit, to put it accurately) was right, because you aren't.

God may exist, and evolution may be wrong, but NOT for the reasons you've put forth on this forum.

 

[abelcainsbrother]

I accept the gap theory because it actually fits the scientific evidence better than evolution does.The evidence in the earth proves a former world existed on this earth,and the former world was totally different than this world is,the former world had different plants,trees,etc and biological life as we can see.

This evidence is looked at from an evolution perspective and because of evolution they always make sure life survives extinction events so that it can evolve but the former world fully perished until God created this world.Showing me links that say life survived the ice age does not prove me wrong because they always say life survived through extinction events.

The problem is they have no evidence that demonstrates life evolves as I've pointed out and so there is no reason to make sure life survives all extinction events.We have a lost world that nobody knows about because of evolution and the evidence in the earth proves it.We had humanoids,dinosaurs,wooly mammoths,mastadomns,trilobite's,bacteria and many other kinds of life living in the former world and the only way to prove this wrong is to actually give evidence that demonstrates life evolves and not that it reproduces or can adapt because evolution is the only reason they make sure life survived the extinction events.

If you can't show life evolves? This theory fits the evidence a lot better and is more believable than evolution is even if you'll never change your mind.

 

[Gnug215]

I have told everybody that I look at science from a gap theory perspective and you all look at it from an evolution perspective,this means we are not always going to agree,but to say I am unscientific because I reject evolution is just not true.Nothing I have said about evolution has been refuted by anyone on here still.This thread is about evolution and I have not been corrected just because somebody posts something against the bible.

Just because you told everybody doesn't make it so.

You've basically just admitted that you're biased. I'm not looking at things for an "evolution perspective", I'm looking at things from a scientific perspective, and if science says evolution is wrong, you can be damned sure I'd listen.
If some uneducated Internet nobody gives me crappy, unsubstantiated arguments, you can be damned sure I will reject those arguments.

And as I keep telling you, "evolution" doesn't just include one branch of science, it includes many. You've basically made clear that you disagree with physics, too, but that doesn't seem to register with you at all.
I mean, hey! Why would it? It's just physics... that's just some useless scientific branch that no one cares about, and that has no real effect on us in our lives.

I believe the bible is the inspired word of God so I don't really care about lies critics spread about it.I am already aware of a lot of it.It does not prove the bible is wrong just because people post links from bible critics.It is not my job to try to persuade somebody to believe the bible,they either do or don't but I give all kinds of reasons and evidence why it is true,that is all I can do.

Yes, you believe that, but you have no evidence for it whatsoever.

So here you've basically admitted to being irrational and basing your worldview on personal emotions.

You may have given reasons, but they've all been poor ones. And you've certainly not given ANY kind of evidence.

 

[abelcainsbrother]

I have told everybody that I look at science from a gap theory perspective and you all look at it from an evolution perspective,this means we are not always going to agree,but to say I am unscientific because I reject evolution is just not true.Nothing I have said about evolution has been refuted by anyone on here still.This thread is about evolution and I have not been corrected just because somebody posts something against the bible.

Just because you told everybody doesn't make it so.

You've basically just admitted that you're biased. I'm not looking at things for an "evolution perspective", I'm looking at things from a scientific perspective, and if science says evolution is wrong, you can be damned sure I'd listen.
If some uneducated Internet nobody gives me crappy, unsubstantiated arguments, you can be damned sure I will reject those arguments.

And as I keep telling you, "evolution" doesn't just include one branch of science, it includes many. You've basically made clear that you disagree with physics, too, but that doesn't seem to register with you at all.
I mean, hey! Why would it? It's just physics... that's just some useless scientific branch that no one cares about, and that has no real effect on us in our lives.

I believe the bible is the inspired word of God so I don't really care about lies critics spread about it.I am already aware of a lot of it.It does not prove the bible is wrong just because people post links from bible critics.It is not my job to try to persuade somebody to believe the bible,they either do or don't but I give all kinds of reasons and evidence why it is true,that is all I can do.

Yes, you believe that, but you have no evidence for it whatsoever.

So here you've basically admitted to being irrational and basing your worldview on personal emotions.

You may have given reasons, but they've all been poor ones. And you've certainly not given ANY kind of evidence.

I have the same evidence that is used as evidence for evolution.Why do you ignore this?I know all branches of science accept evolution so you're not telling me anything I don't know.I am biased, but so are you,but I'm trying to point out a lost world that has been overlooked,while you're still looking at it from a biased evolution perspective,the difference is my theory fits the evidence better than evolution does.

If we look at the fossils? we will see no intermediate life forms like was supposed to be found according to Darwin and they never were,yet they have ignored this and made it fit into evolution,but the evidence speaks for itself and is evidence for the many different kinds of life that lived in the former world.

You' re denying evidence that confirms the bible true that a former world existed that perished while overlooking there is no evidence that shows life evolves,so you are the one biased,you claim there is no evidence for the word of God yet overlook no evidence that shows life evolves.I have at least given evidence to back up the bible about a former would but because you doubt the bible,you ignore it.

What you should be doing is giving evidence that demonstrates life evolves because until you can? This theory is more believable as people would love to hear the truth about a lost world.It would sell despite your doubt and evolution would have serious competition,more than it ever has.

Why should I have to post links that show fossils? Would that be evidence to you? No I'd be doing it for nothing but I'm dealing with people who know science,know all about the evidence behind evolution yet now are playing dumb.I know you all are smarter than you are letting on for even if you disagree with the gap theory,I' m still talking to you on a scientific level you know about.

Why should I waste time posting links right now?I can always do that in future debates in front of a crowd.

 

[SpecialFrog]

Abel, if you want to learn something about what fossils exist -- which covers virtually all major intermediates -- I'd suggest "Evolution: What the Fossils Say And Why It Matters". At the moment, you know less than nothing on he subject (because what you think you know is wrong).

Even if you still reject evolution afterwards you will at least know what fossils have actually been found.

 

[abelcainsbrother]

Abel, if you want to learn something about what fossils exist -- which covers virtually all major intermediates -- I'd suggest "Evolution: What the Fossils Say And Why It Matters". At the moment, you know less than nothing on he subject (because what you think you know is wrong).

Even if you still reject evolution afterwards you will at least know what fossils have actually been found.

I have looked at the fossils and heard all about how it shows signs of evolution.The fossils are actually some of the weakest evidence for evolution.

Here look at everyone of the fossils shown here and you'll see fully formed life forms that lived in the former world.http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil

 

[SpecialFrog]

When you say, "I have looked at the fossils", what have you actually looked at? That Hough book? Prothero's book is a pretty comprehensive survey.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

I accept the gap theory because it actually fits the scientific evidence better than evolution does.The evidence in the earth proves a former world existed on this earth,and the former world was totally different than this world is,the former world had different plants,trees,etc and biological life as we can see.

This evidence is looked at from an evolution perspective and because of evolution they always make sure life survives extinction events so that it can evolve but the former world fully perished until God created this world.Showing me links that say life survived the ice age does not prove me wrong because they always say life survived through extinction events.

The problem is they have no evidence that demonstrates life evolves as I've pointed out and so there is no reason to make sure life survives all extinction events.We have a lost world that nobody knows about because of evolution and the evidence in the earth proves it.We had humanoids,dinosaurs,wooly mammoths,mastadomns,trilobite's,bacteria and many other kinds of life living in the former world and the only way to prove this wrong is to actually give evidence that demonstrates life evolves and not that it reproduces or can adapt because evolution is the only reason they make sure life survived the extinction events.

If you can't show life evolves? This theory fits the evidence a lot better and is more believable than evolution is even if you'll never change your mind.

Fact: Mammoths survived the end of the Ice Age - to 1650BCE on Wrangel Island.

You cannot dismiss this fact - the fossils of these and earlier mammoths that died out on St. Paul's Island clearly show this to be the case:

Woolly Mammoth[/url]"]Most woolly mammoth populations disappeared during the late Pleistocene and early Holocene, alongside most of the Pleistocene megafauna (including the Columbian mammoth), during the Quaternary extinction event, which began 40,000 years ago, and peaked between 14,000 and 11,500 years ago. Scientists are divided over whether hunting or climate change, which led to the shrinkage of its habitat, was the main factor that contributed to the extinction of the woolly mammoth, or whether it was due to a combination of the two. Whatever the cause, large mammals are generally more vulnerable than smaller ones due to their smaller population size and low reproduction rates. Different woolly mammoth populations did not die out simultaneously across their range, but gradually went extinct over time. Most populations disappeared between 14,000 to 10,000 years ago. The last mainland population existed in the Kyttyk Peninsula of Siberia 9,650 years ago.[80][81] A small population of woolly mammoths survived on St. Paul Island, Alaska, until 6,400 years ago.[82][83][84] The last known population remained on Wrangel Island in the Arctic Ocean until 4,000 years ago.[85][86][87]

The facts speak for themselves - yet you continue to deny the scientific evidence, whilst claiming that you don't.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Greetings,

Tortucan.

Kindest regards,

James

Indeed. I'm meeting Captain Jack Sparrow there later and we're gonna get smashed on rum.

 

[abelcainsbrother]

Greetings,

I accept the gap theory because it actually fits the scientific evidence better than evolution does.The evidence in the earth proves a former world existed on this earth,and the former world was totally different than this world is,the former world had different plants,trees,etc and biological life as we can see.

This evidence is looked at from an evolution perspective and because of evolution they always make sure life survives extinction events so that it can evolve but the former world fully perished until God created this world.Showing me links that say life survived the ice age does not prove me wrong because they always say life survived through extinction events.

The problem is they have no evidence that demonstrates life evolves as I've pointed out and so there is no reason to make sure life survives all extinction events.We have a lost world that nobody knows about because of evolution and the evidence in the earth proves it.We had humanoids,dinosaurs,wooly mammoths,mastadomns,trilobite's,bacteria and many other kinds of life living in the former world and the only way to prove this wrong is to actually give evidence that demonstrates life evolves and not that it reproduces or can adapt because evolution is the only reason they make sure life survived the extinction events.

If you can't show life evolves? This theory fits the evidence a lot better and is more believable than evolution is even if you'll never change your mind.

Fact: Mammoths survived the end of the Ice Age - to 1650BCE on Wrangel Island.

You cannot dismiss this fact - the fossils of these and earlier mammoths that died out on St. Paul's Island clearly show this to be the case:

Woolly Mammoth[/url]"]Most woolly mammoth populations disappeared during the late Pleistocene and early Holocene, alongside most of the Pleistocene megafauna (including the Columbian mammoth), during the Quaternary extinction event, which began 40,000 years ago, and peaked between 14,000 and 11,500 years ago. Scientists are divided over whether hunting or climate change, which led to the shrinkage of its habitat, was the main factor that contributed to the extinction of the woolly mammoth, or whether it was due to a combination of the two. Whatever the cause, large mammals are generally more vulnerable than smaller ones due to their smaller population size and low reproduction rates. Different woolly mammoth populations did not die out simultaneously across their range, but gradually went extinct over time. Most populations disappeared between 14,000 to 10,000 years ago. The last mainland population existed in the Kyttyk Peninsula of Siberia 9,650 years ago.[80][81] A small population of woolly mammoths survived on St. Paul Island, Alaska, until 6,400 years ago.[82][83][84] The last known population remained on Wrangel Island in the Arctic Ocean until 4,000 years ago.[85][86][87]

The facts speak for themselves - yet you continue to deny the scientific evidence, whilst claiming that you don't.

Kindest regards,

James

I do not ignore it at all but I've already explained why scientists always say life survived the extinction events,no matter if it is " snow ball earth", The KT event or younger drya,it makes no difference because of evolution and uniformitarianism they always claim life survived the extinction events,but I more a believer in catastrophicism instead because this is what the evidence shows.The fact is wooly mammoths lived in the former world until they perished like all life did,they did not evolve into the elephants we have in this world as God created elephants when he made this world and this is what the evidence proves,not that life evolves.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

============
Dragan Glas wrote:

Greetings,

Fact: Mammoths survived the end of the Ice Age - to 1650BCE on Wrangel Island.

You cannot dismiss this fact - the fossils of these and earlier mammoths that died out on St. Paul's Island clearly show this to be the case:

Woolly Mammoth[/url]"]Most woolly mammoth populations disappeared during the late Pleistocene and early Holocene, alongside most of the Pleistocene megafauna (including the Columbian mammoth), during the Quaternary extinction event, which began 40,000 years ago, and peaked between 14,000 and 11,500 years ago. Scientists are divided over whether hunting or climate change, which led to the shrinkage of its habitat, was the main factor that contributed to the extinction of the woolly mammoth, or whether it was due to a combination of the two. Whatever the cause, large mammals are generally more vulnerable than smaller ones due to their smaller population size and low reproduction rates. Different woolly mammoth populations did not die out simultaneously across their range, but gradually went extinct over time. Most populations disappeared between 14,000 to 10,000 years ago. The last mainland population existed in the Kyttyk Peninsula of Siberia 9,650 years ago.[80][81] A small population of woolly mammoths survived on St. Paul Island, Alaska, until 6,400 years ago.[82][83][84] The last known population remained on Wrangel Island in the Arctic Ocean until 4,000 years ago.[85][86][87]

The facts speak for themselves - yet you continue to deny the scientific evidence, whilst claiming that you don't.

Kindest regards,

James
=============

I do not ignore it at all but I've already explained why scientists always say life survived the extinction events,no matter if it is " snow ball earth", The KT event or younger drya,it makes no difference because of evolution and uniformitarianism they always claim life survived the extinction events,but I more a believer in catastrophicism instead because this is what the evidence shows.The fact is wooly mammoths lived in the former world until they perished like all life did,they did not evolve into the elephants we have in this world as God created elephants when he made this world and this is what the evidence proves,not that life evolves.

You're talking utter nonsense.

Prove that the fossils of mammoths from St Paul's Island and Wrangel Island are not dated to the claimed dates.

Cite scientific papers that prove these mammoths died before the end of the Ice Age.

Hint: There are none.

If you ignore this fact then you're rejecting science.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Missing link in the evolution of complex cells discovered

A hot start to the origin of life? Researchers map the first chemical bonds that eventually give rise to DNA

Kindest regards,

James

 

[abelcainsbrother]

Greetings,

Missing link in the evolution of complex cells discovered

A hot start to the origin of life? Researchers map the first chemical bonds that eventually give rise to DNA

Kindest regards,

James

What kind of evidence is behind this?is what we should ask,both of us.It does not matter if I believe in God and you don't.I've explained many times that I go by evidence so I cannot just read these links and believe them without evidence.

These links are interesting and I'm glad you posted them as I try to post interesting links myself,when I can.I hope you understand where I am coming from.I cannot verify the links you gave and so until I can? I don't ignore it but I don't just accept it.There is a lot of false information today being presented as truth and so this is why evidence is so important to me.

 

[abelcainsbrother]

Here is an interesting link too.Now something that sticks out to me are two bottle necks in this article.Now I know science is secular,and do not consider the bible as they look at everything from an evolution perspective.But the bottle necks in this article can be better explained by Adam being created about 10,000 years ago and then Noah's flood,so we have Adam and Noah bottle necks.How come scientists never consider the bible or the Gap theory?

http://phys.org/news/2015-04-decline-male-diversity-humans-agriculture.html

 

[Collecemall]

Perhaps because this doesn't even come close to backing up what you are asserting it does? Basic reading comprehension fail.

 

[ldmitruk]

Here is an interesting link too.Now something that sticks out to me are two bottle necks in this article.Now I know science is secular,and do not consider the bible as they look at everything from an evolution perspective.But the bottle necks in this article can be better explained by Adam being created about 10,000 years ago and then Noah's flood,so we have Adam and Noah bottle necks.How come scientists never consider the bible or the Gap theory?

http://phys.org/news/2015-04-decline-male-diversity-humans-agriculture.html

Once again you're twisting legitimate research to fit your interpretation of the bible. You're the text book example of looking at the world through "bible glasses". Also since when is science not suppose to be secular?

The article states there was a shift from hunter-gatherer life starting about 10,000 years ago. It then states a bottle neck occurred around 8,000 to 4,000 years ago. Digging further the abstract of the paper the article says:

It is commonly thought that human genetic diversity in non-African populations was shaped primarily by an out-of-Africa dispersal 50–100 thousand yr ago (kya). Here, we present a study of 456 geographically diverse high-coverage Y chromosome sequences, including 299 newly reported samples. Applying ancient DNA calibration, we date the Y-chromosomal most recent common ancestor (MRCA) in Africa at 254 (95% CI 192–307) kya and detect a cluster of major non-African founder haplogroups in a narrow time interval at 47–52 kya, consistent with a rapid initial colonization model of Eurasia and Oceania after the out-of-Africa bottleneck. In contrast to demographic reconstructions based on mtDNA, we infer a second strong bottleneck in Y-chromosome lineages dating to the last 10 ky. We hypothesize that this bottleneck is caused by cultural changes affecting variance of reproductive success among males.

So the first bottle neck was about 40,000 years before "Adam" even appeared on the scene and the second occurred before the "flood". Therefore your "bible glasses" view on this fails at least twice. :docpalm:

And you wonder why scientists don't use holy books as reference material

 

[Grumpy Santa]

Here is an interesting link too.Now something that sticks out to me are two bottle necks in this article.Now I know science is secular,and do not consider the bible as they look at everything from an evolution perspective.But the bottle necks in this article can be better explained by Adam being created about 10,000 years ago and then Noah's flood,so we have Adam and Noah bottle necks.How come scientists never consider the bible or the Gap theory?

http://phys.org/news/2015-04-decline-male-diversity-humans-agriculture.html

"So the study suggests that there was a global collapse in genetic diversity of the males in contrast to that of females. Essentially this means there was an extreme reduction in the number of males who reproduced, but not a reduction in the number of females."

How in the hell did you leap from this conclusion to mythology?

Oh wait... I may have thought of the answer.

Boobies float in floods.