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

[abelcainsbrother]

When somebody tells you that you don't know enough about evolution to comment on it,red flags should go up.Everyone of you who believe life evolves have no evidence life evolves and this is why you say I don't know about evolution,you doubt my education and knowledge about it.

How is that I give evidence to all of you to back up my beliefs about the bible,yet when it comes to evolution none of ya'll can and all I get are excuses about not being educated enough about evolution? Anyone of you could prove me wrong with evidence but you can't,I know it and you know it too.

If I have to be educated about evolution to know it happens instead of examining the evidence for evolution then I don't want to be educated about it because it is just indoctrination.I can and have researched many different topics through the years and I have always went by evidence,yet I'm not allowed to do this when it comes to evolution and instead must be indoctrinated? Is that it?No thanks, I'll stick with believing the bible by faith instead.

This is why y'all try to stump me about kinds producing after their kind its because deep down you know I'm right but you just refuse to change your mind even when I explain it.It is a fact kinds produce after their kind and not a fact life evolves,admit it!

 

[Mugnuts]

He seems to be very happy in this position.

 

[abelcainsbrother]

He seems to be very happy in this position.

See no evidence that life evolves just mockery.I can handle it knowing that I'm right and you're wrong.Evidence that life evolves is mockery for not believing in it by blind faith.Don't ever mock a Christian again for believing the bible by faith.

 

[abelcainsbrother]

Yep! It's the same thing as before do not produce evidence life evolves and instead mock those who don't believe life evolves by blind faith.You sure do make me glad I believe kinds produce after their kind.I have evidence and you don't.

 

[Mugnuts]

Yep! It's the same thing as before do not produce evidence life evolves and instead mock those who don't believe life evolves by blind faith.You sure do make me glad I believe kinds produce after their kind.I have evidence and you don't.

[sarcasm]Yup this site has absolutely no evidence on it anywhere throughout the threads. Not one link or diagram. Not a single iota at all. Not a single person has shown you, or pointed in any direction where you can look and see for yourself. The amazing "life does not evolve" triumphs over us at every turn[/sarcasm]

What a fucking joke.
:facepalm:

 

[abelcainsbrother]

I have exposed this concept life evolves and showed everybody there is no evidence in science that demonstrates life evolves,none and this is why both before when I was here and even now,still no evidence life evolves.Nothing has changed people do not really value truth and are easily fooled because they don't really value evidence and instead believe what they are taught and what they want to believe without verifying.

Now since we know there is no evidence in science that life evolves I'm going to tell you the truth and back myself up with evidence unlike y'all who believe life evolves.

OK the trilobite's,dinosaurs,primates,woolly mammoths,sabre tooth tigers,etc and all of the evidence of death and extinction in the earth including plant and tree life,this evidence has nothing whatsoever to do with life evolving and instead proves that a former world full of life existed on this earth before God created this world we now live in.All of this evidence for an old universe and earth and all of this evidence proves a former world existed that perished and until you can present scientific evidence life evolves the biblical gap theory is more believable than looking at all of this evidence assuming life evolves like Charles Darwin did 150 years ago,he hyjacked all of this evidence and made evolution fit into it and that is the truth.

 

[abelcainsbrother]

Yep! It's the same thing as before do not produce evidence life evolves and instead mock those who don't believe life evolves by blind faith.You sure do make me glad I believe kinds produce after their kind.I have evidence and you don't.

[sarcasm]Yup this site has absolutely no evidence on it anywhere throughout the threads. Not one link or diagram. Not a single iota at all. Not a single person has shown you, or pointed in any direction where you can look and see for yourself. The amazing "life does not evolve" triumphs over us at every turn[/sarcasm]

What a fucking joke.
:facepalm:

You know they and you tried to and I remember showing you on a web-sight you gave me but I showed you and explained how life did not evolve and yet you ignored it.I do not ignore evidence you or anybody gives me.I looked through every bit of it and no life ever evolves.I showed you too.

All you see is reproduction and adaptation used as evidence life evolves,that is all it is reproduction and adaptation,you don't have to go in a science lab to know this happens but it is not evidence life evolves even though they say it is.

 

[IBSpify]

If your definition of kind is "a kind reproduces after it's own kind" then i can claim that there are really only a handful of kinds.

Diapsids produce other diapsids, therefor all crocodiles, lizards, snakes, tuatara, birds and non-avian dinosaurs are one kind.

Heck i can take this farther, Eukaryote only produce other Eukaryotes, therefor all multicellular organisms are the same kind, that would be all plants, animals, and fungi.

Now do you see why your definition is worthless? by your own definition all animals are the same kind.

No you cannot until you present evidence that demonstrates life evolves.Do you see how you are assuming life evolves with no evidence in science to back it up?You cannot assume life evolves and then group life together like it evolves which is what you're doing.You do not know life evolves. I don't understand how so many people can ignore this fact.

A Eukaryote is any organism whose cell's contain a nucleus and other organelles contain within a membrane, I am making no statement about anything evolving, I'm just pointing out that all multicellular life reproduces other multicellular life, therefor by your definition that is all one kind.

The problem is not that we are assuming that life evolves it's that your definition is so vague that all life fits together under your definition, which is why your definition is worthless.

but it's not your fault, nobody has ever been able to define kind in any meaningful way, it's always either so vague that we can group anything under it, or it's specific enough that it's easily proven false.

 

[Shanara99]

When somebody tells you that you don't know enough about evolution to comment on it,red flags should go up.Everyone of you who believe life evolves have no evidence life evolves and this is why you say I don't know about evolution,you doubt my education and knowledge about it.

How is that I give evidence to all of you to back up my beliefs about the bible,yet when it comes to evolution none of ya'll can and all I get are excuses about not being educated enough about evolution? Anyone of you could prove me wrong with evidence but you can't,I know it and you know it too.

If I have to be educated about evolution to know it happens instead of examining the evidence for evolution then I don't want to be educated about it because it is just indoctrination.I can and have researched many different topics through the years and I have always went by evidence,yet I'm not allowed to do this when it comes to evolution and instead must be indoctrinated? Is that it?No thanks, I'll stick with believing the bible by faith instead.

This is why y'all try to stump me about kinds producing after their kind its because deep down you know I'm right but you just refuse to change your mind even when I explain it.It is a fact kinds produce after their kind and not a fact life evolves,admit it!

Ok then. What do you know about retroviridiae markers?
Would you be able to understand the importance of tracking said markers thru different species?

See, science requires a minimal knowledge on a topic before you are even able to understand the language. I could (and have) tried to read a paper about information theory, and didn't understand a single word of it. But I can understand chemistry and/or biology papers easilly. So, unless you have the previous knowledge required for understanding complex topics, any link would be superflous, and confusing.

For example, I could link this: http://eurekamag.com/research/038/091/038091862.php#close and call it a day, since it's quite definitive proof that our DNA evolved from other primates, due to the existence of a particular marker in a very specific place. You can request the pdf version there.

That's just a random example that took me like 5 seconds on google. In fact, it took me longer because I was trying to find a link that wasn't behind a pay-wall.

The evidence is so extensive that anyone is able to find it for themselves, if they honestly try to find it. But, as I said, it requires prior knowledge to fully understand the implications. If you don't know what's a retrovirus, or how markers work, that paper will mean nothing to you.

In short, what you guys are requesting is not proof. Anyone with internet access can find proof in less than 5 minutes. What you guys are requesting is for a scientific paper explained in layman terms, but with scientific rigor. You guys want something you'd be able to understand, without having to study the required science. That won't happen. We can provide proof, but only if you understand the basic concepts required to understand such proof.

 

[Mugnuts]

You know they and you tried to and I remember showing you on a web-sight you gave me but I showed you and explained how life did not evolve and yet you ignored it.I do not ignore evidence you or anybody gives me.I looked through every bit of it and no life ever evolves.I showed you too.

[sarcasm]Oh you showed me alright.[/sarcasm] :roll:
'Exposed' is a more accurate description though. Yes, you exposed how ignorant you are being. Nothing more.

All you see is reproduction and adaptation used as evidence life evolves,that is all it is reproduction and adaptation,you don't have to go in a science lab to know this happens but it is not evidence life evolves even though they say it is.

I can literally look on every other thread at any time during your stint on these forums and pull out that near exact phrase. I can literally look on every other thread at any time during your stint on these forums and pull out that near exact phrase. I can literally look on every other thread at any time during your stint on these forums and pull out that near exact phrase. I can literally look on every other thread at any time during your stint on these forums and pull out that near exact phrase.

Did you get what I did there?

OK the trilobite's,dinosaurs,primates,woolly mammoths,sabre tooth tigers,etc and all of the evidence of death and extinction in the earth including plant and tree life,this evidence has nothing whatsoever to do with life evolving and instead proves that a former world full of life existed on this earth before God created this world we now live in.All of this evidence for an old universe and earth and all of this evidence proves a former world existed that perished and until you can present scientific evidence life evolves the biblical gap theory is more believable than looking at all of this evidence assuming life evolves like Charles Darwin did 150 years ago,he hyjacked all of this evidence and made evolution fit into it and that is the truth.

Look how simple it was to overthrow the Theory of Evolution with two run on sentences totalling 132 words in total. 61/71 ratio. Must be some sort of number magic that defeats science.
Click here http://www.onlinegrammar.com.au/how-many-words-are-too-many-in-a-sentence/

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

 

[Rumraket]

Yep! It's the same thing as before do not produce evidence life evolves and instead mock those who don't believe life evolves by blind faith.You sure do make me glad I believe kinds produce after their kind.I have evidence and you don't.

 

[Rumraket]

He seems to be very happy in this position.

See no evidence that life evolves just mockery.I can handle it knowing that I'm right and you're wrong.Evidence that life evolves is mockery for not believing in it by blind faith.Don't ever mock a Christian again for believing the bible by faith.

You are given evidence constantly, you just don't understand it and you dismiss it out of hand because you have so many misunderstandings. You say it is all "based on assumption that life evolves". No it isn't, it is based on no other assumption than that the person considering the evidence can physically sustain the process of rational throught for more than 3 seconds.

Life is empirically demonstrated to evolve and share universal common descent by the multiple nested hierarchies from comparative anatomy, embryology, biochemistry, biogeography and genetics.

There is no other explanation for the shared derived characteristics being capable of arrangement into the multiple nesting hierarchies from the mentioned fields of study than the fact that evolution happened and that we share common descent.

There is no assumption, you are WRONG when you say it is based on assumptions that life evolves.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Abel. Until you are able to commit, to follow along and be able to demonstrate that you are putting the effort to think correctly about this, you will never be able to get anywhere.
You should have realized this by now.

 

[abelcainsbrother]

You are given evidence constantly, you just don't understand it and you dismiss it out of hand because you have so many misunderstandings. You say it is all "based on assumption that life evolves". No it isn't, it is based on no other assumption than that the person considering the evidence can physically sustain the process of rational throught for more than 3 seconds.

Life is empirically demonstrated to evolve and share universal common descent by the multiple nested hierarchies from comparative anatomy, embryology, biochemistry, biogeography and genetics.

There is no other explanation for the shared derived characteristics being capable of arrangement into the multiple nesting hierarchies from the mentioned fields of study than the fact that evolution happened and that we share common descent.

There is no assumption, you are WRONG when you say it is based on assumptions that life evolves.

Yes I have been given evidence on here but it does not back up what you just explained.You don't even know if life evolves but you believe it does and expect me to just believe what you are explaining.Sorry but I don't operate that way,I go by evidence for what I accept as truth especially if man says this is true.You've got the cart before the horse explaining how life evolves without evidence life evolves.

 

[abelcainsbrother]

Abel. Until you are able to commit, to follow along and be able to demonstrate that you are putting the effort to think correctly about this, you will never be able to get anywhere.
You should have realized this by now.

I follow along but nobody,not one person on here has ever presented evidence life evolves even though I 've asked over and over and others gave me evidence but it does not demonstrate life evolves.

You've never seen evidence on here that demonstrates life evolves,all you get are web-sights or people explaining it does without evidence it does and yet you're telling me ignore it and just believe and follow along and I can't do that without evidence.

It should make you mad if you truly cared about evidence to look into the evidence in science used as evidence life evolves and realize it is scientists using reproduction or adaptation as evidence life evolves.They are tricking you and yet you can't see it because you already believe it.

 

[abelcainsbrother]

Let me try a different approach if you look at the evidence in science used as evidence life evolves?It is just reproduction or adaptation being used as evidence life evolves.But you who have examined it have overlooked it and believed them say this is life evolving.You were tricked and don't even realize it because you believed them.

It should make you angry that this is being used as evidence life evolves.Reproduction or adaptation is not life evolving at all.

 

[Rumraket]

You are given evidence constantly, you just don't understand it and you dismiss it out of hand because you have so many misunderstandings. You say it is all "based on assumption that life evolves". No it isn't, it is based on no other assumption than that the person considering the evidence can physically sustain the process of rational throught for more than 3 seconds.

Life is empirically demonstrated to evolve and share universal common descent by the multiple nested hierarchies from comparative anatomy, embryology, biochemistry, biogeography and genetics.

There is no other explanation for the shared derived characteristics being capable of arrangement into the multiple nesting hierarchies from the mentioned fields of study than the fact that evolution happened and that we share common descent.

There is no assumption, you are WRONG when you say it is based on assumptions that life evolves.

Yes I have been given evidence on here but it does not back up what you just explained.

Yes it does, it logically and rationally backs it up. That's the whole point. It is not based on assumptions, it is based on empirical observations of the evolutionary process.

You don't even know if life evolves

I do know that life evolves.

but you believe it does

No, I know it does because that's what the evidence shows.

and expect me to just believe what you are explaining.

No, I expect you to try to understand, but you don't.

Sorry but I don't operate that way

I know, you are all assertion, no effort to understant. You just blindly make claims all the time that are provably wrong.

I go by evidence for what I accept as truth especially if man says this is true.

You wouldn't know what evidence was if it was shoveled into your skull.

You've got the cart before the horse explaining how life evolves without evidence life evolves.

No, I've got empirical observations explaining how life evolves.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Reproduction or adaptation is not life evolving at all.

But adaptation as long as it is inheritable, combined with reproduction, is evolution.
That is what it has always been. that is what we mean when we say evolution.
What else would you think it was?

 

[abelcainsbrother]

Reproduction or adaptation is not life evolving at all.

But adaptation as long as it is inheritable, combined with reproduction, is evolution.
That is what it has always been. that is what we mean when we say evolution.
What else would you think it was?

You said reproduction or adaptation is evolution but the problem is that in every example there is no evolving going on.But you say it is,but there is no way to know based on the evidence so you and they must assume it is evolving.I hope this helps .I think this might help you look up the definition for evolution then examine the evidence.