"Let us reason amongst the brethren"

[Mugnuts]

Oh and thank you so much for making me have to listen to Mr. Luskin, and now read more of Behe's gobbledygook.

So far all I've found is nothing but releases from the DI, and nothing in relevant news.

It does seem to be like another change of subject in hopes we'll forget all those questions you keep ignoring, or how you brushed off Rock solid evidence with no good reason.


ACB, This is more than adequate to wreck your Behe distraction, but thanks for filling us in on more creationist/ID fails.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/07/17/quote-mined-by-casey-luskin/

 

[Inferno]

Finally! I am glad you've finally tried to give evidence for macro-evolution as it has been ignored by everybody else

Really? I've seen quite a few instances, where people linked to evidence and you ignored it.
DraganGlas linked to both of Senters' papers, I did so here, DraganGlas linked to alternate mechanisms of speciation, Laurens showed a picture of hominin skulls which make it difficult to distinguish between humans and apes, Rumraket condensed it all into one post and you just had to pick one. There are more, but I'll leave it at that. In all instances, you ignored the evidence and the posts and only responded to half of mine when pressured to respond.

all can see it is very weak evidence especially when the fish with legs is just a fish.

Well what did you expect, a Hippopotamus? You obviously don't understand what evolution predicts nor how it works, so why don't you at least take an introductory course? I'd recommend Mohamed Noor's excellent course "Introduction to Genetics and Evolution".

And the algea evidence is weak too. http://my.execpc.com/~jboxhorn/armsrace.html

How so? The article reinforces what I said:
"Boraas (1983) was able to induce multicellularity in Chlorella vulgaris by introducing the flagellate Ochromonas sp. into a chemostat in which the alga was growing. The colonial form appeared within five days (Boraas 1983, Fig. 1). It rapidly came to dominate the culture. Initially, colony size ranged from 4-32 cells. Eventually this stabilized at colonies of 8 cells. When they are produced, these colonies are barely small enough for the flagellate to ingest. After a short period of growth they are too big. Multicellularity in this new strain has persisted in the absence of the predator for over a decade. "

Not sure why this constitutes "weak" evidence...

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand he's off again to neverland. This calls for NyanCat:

 

[abelcainsbrother]

Inferno wrote:

Really? I've seen quite a few instances, where people linked to evidence and you ignored it.
DraganGlas linked to both of Senters' papers, I did so here, DraganGlas linked to alternate mechanisms of speciation, Laurens showed a picture of hominin skulls which make it difficult to distinguish between humans and apes, Rumraket condensed it all into one post and you just had to pick one. There are more, but I'll leave it at that. In all instances, you ignored the evidence and the posts and only responded to half of mine when pressured to respond.

I have made it clear that everything is looked at from an evolution perspective and the evidence presented in noway proves life evolves,it is anecdotal evidence built on top of a belief that life evolves without real evidence to demonstrate it does.Only if you look at this from an evolution perspective will you think evolution is true,but you overlook there is no evidence to prove a dinosaur can evolve into a bird,this is all assumed.Again if life evolves then how come in every case of viruses,bacteria,finches,fruit flies,etc no evolution happens?Yet you tell us dinosaurs evolved into birds.The evidence does not bear this out at all,you start out with a fruit fly and still have one at the end and no evolution has happened,why can't you see there are limits with the genes?This is what the evidence proves.

ablecainsbrother wrote:
all can see it is very weak evidence especially when the fish with legs is just a fish.


Well what did you expect, a Hippopotamus? You obviously don't understand what evolution predicts nor how it works, so why don't you at least take an introductory course? I'd recommend Mohamed Noor's excellent course "Introduction to Genetics and Evolution".

You see amnesia sets in,this is what I was talking about earlier.It is up to evolutionists to prove a dinosaur can evolve into a bird.So according to evolution that fish mght could evolve into a hippo over time.I mean dinosaurs evolved into birds didn't they?You must demonstrate a dinosaur can evolve into a bird and a fish evolving into a hippo,etc would prove it could happen,or something like this.But when you start out with a fruit fly and still have a fruit fly at then end? It proves and demonstrates a dinosaur cannot evolve into a bird and a fish cannot evolve into a hippo. You seem to imply evolution is a silly idea.

ablecainsbrother wrote:
And the algea evidence is weak too. http://my.execpc.com/~jboxhorn/armsrace.html


How so? The article reinforces what I said:
"Boraas (1983) was able to induce multicellularity in Chlorella vulgaris by introducing the flagellate Ochromonas sp. into a chemostat in which the alga was growing. The colonial form appeared within five days (Boraas 1983, Fig. 1). It rapidly came to dominate the culture. Initially, colony size ranged from 4-32 cells. Eventually this stabilized at colonies of 8 cells. When they are produced, these colonies are barely small enough for the flagellate to ingest. After a short period of growth they are too big. Multicellularity in this new strain has persisted in the absence of the predator for over a decade. "

Not sure why this constitutes "weak" evidence...

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand he's off again to neverland.

Because again you start out with algae and still have it at the end the same with all of the other evidence.Perhaps science is proving this true "For the wages of sin is death,but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." This implies the more man sins the more the curse that causes death grows but we have nothing to worry about if we have eternal life?Because they clearly are not proving life can evolve.

 

[abelcainsbrother]

Looks like someone's record player needs a new needle, it keeps skipping back to the beginning of the track.

Sent from my Commodore 64

Well see I want people to review all of the evidence I have given to back up the old earth biblical Gap theory so they can compare evidence.You see people come here to the last page and go off what is on the last page instead of reviewing and comparing evidence.I want people who come here to compare evidence I have given to the evidence evolutionists have given.

 

[Mugnuts]

:facepalm: We've heard this before, and it addresses ABSOLUTELY NOTHING

Same story, different date. Woo hoo.

Yes, people, guests, and unknown viewers. Please tell us all how you would rate the evidence presented.

 

[Mugnuts]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html

Here's more for you to ignore.

 

[Prolescum]

Re: "Let us reason amongst the brethren"

Looks like someone's record player needs a new needle, it keeps skipping back to the beginning of the track.

Sent from my Commodore 64

Well see I want people to review all of the evidence I have given to back up the old earth biblical Gap theory so they can compare evidence.You see people come here to the last page and go off what is on the last page instead of reviewing and comparing evidence.I want people who come here to compare evidence I have given to the evidence evolutionists have given.

For the sake of all fucks born after the 70's, you haven't presented anything that constitutes evidence. Not only that, you've deflected every question put to you, the ones you haven't ignored that is.
Not a single thing you've said in this thread can be verified in a meaningful way, and I'm beginning to think you are here simply for lulz. The pattern is spot on.
That being the case, you have until the end of the day to convince me not to close this utterly pointless thread permanently.
Good luck.

Sent from my Commodore 64

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Thank you for the acknowledgement, abelcainsbrother. I trust that, although we disagree, it doesn't mean that we need dislike each other.

My problem with what your claiming in your posts is that you do not appear to be taking any of the scientific evidence seriously when it disagrees with your beliefs.

You claimed to like science in a earlier post yet dismiss it when it threatens your belief in your "gap" theory, the bible and - of course - God.

Earlier, you claimed that science proved the Genesis account - but noted science said that life came from water whereas the bible says it came from land. And then you said that the science proves the bible true. Despite my pointing out this contradiction, you ignored it.

If you did respect science the way you claimed, then you should have put aside the bible and gone with the science. Instead, you ignore what the science said.

This is where you are being intellectually dishonest - you are cherry-picking (hijacking) science when it supports your belief in the bible but ignoring it when it disagrees with it.

I actually like atheists and non-believers so no I don't dislike you because we disagree and I like the challenge you give me and I respect you.I do like science and I do try to keep up with science the best I can but I am not going to lie as I admit I look at things from an old earth biblical Gap theory point of view but I have also made my point about how scientists look at everything from an evolution perspective and so no matter how you look at it on both sides circular reasoning is going on.

Creationists of all kinds start out with a belief in their respective religious texts being "The Truth" - they then cherry-pick scientific evidence which they believe supports their religious texts being "The Truth", and ignore anything that doesn't support their religious texts.

Scientists start out without any preconceptions. They look at the evidence, come up with an hypothesis, test it and falsify it - if it passes this stage it becomes a theory. From then on, the theory is tested against new evidence to see if it still holds up - if it doesn't, then the theory is dropped in favour of another explanation.

The first is circular - the second is not.

Yes I was watching National Geographic:The story of the earth" one day and as I watched it from knowing what Genesis 1 says I started to realize how similar it is to what the bible tells us in Genesis 1 if you ignore the implication it happened on its own and the evolution perspective.You see considering that science is secular and is not even considering what the bible says as they have made discoveries whether you realize it or not it is too similar to Genesis 1 to overlook,especially looking at it from an old earth biblical Gap theory perspective.Young earth creationists would overlook it, but I see how similar it is to what Genesis tells us and it goes in order to what Genesis says except for science says that life started in the water first and the bible says land but other than that it goes in order to what life comes first all the way to man being last just like Genesis says.

Now just because it is not exact does not mean much because science is looking at everything from a naturalistic and evolution perspective and are not considering what the bible says. I was amazed when I realized how similar it is to what the bible tells us. Try it your self,get out a bible and turn to Genesis 1 and watch National Geographic:The story of the earth" and as you watch it read the bible and I think you'll see how similar it is.

Just because what science says is "similar" to your religious text does not mean that your religious text has been vindicated.

If that were the case, then you should convert to Hinduism since science is in far more agreement with what the Vedas say. Indeed, a Hindu could claim the same thing that you're claiming - "Science proves the Vedas true!" - with far more justification.

You're making the same mistake that Andrew Parker makes in his book, The Genesis Enigma. as a number of reviews point out: here, here, here, and here.

As the Creation.com reviewer notes:

If we can simply re-interpret God’s Word in Genesis to fit man’s fallible opinion, then ultimately, it would only be consistent to be able to apply this same hermeneutic anywhere and everywhere we wanted. The consequence would be that anyone could come to any area of Scripture with a preconceived idea, and then simply reinvent the passage to fit with their preferred meaning, regardless of the historical/grammatical context. [...] Why do people feel the need to come up with such mind-boggingly stupid attempts to read things into the text that only they have seen for the first time, to try and distort its meaning and bow the knee to the secular science community—which doesn’t care about anything that Genesis has to say, anyway?

A similar erroneous attempt to cherry-pick science to justify belief in the bible is made by Gerald Schroeder's The Science Of God - again, as various reviews show: here, here, here, and here,

Again, as the Infidels.org reviewer notes:

It is very hard to resist the conclusion that Schroeder is trying desperately hard to find anything at all which can be twisted to support the case that he wants to make.

Or as the MCS reviewer notes:

That there should not be conflict between science and religion is one point that Schroeder and I agree upon. Studying nature to understand the mind of God is a great idea. Attempting to make the Bible a science book is where the wreck occurs. His first, and probably most significant, error is a perverted form of biblical literalism. It is odd in that his view is the statements in the Bible are correct, as long as you interpret them in a manner consistent with physics. Not biology however, just physics.

Giving an answer that is almost right is not the same thing as giving the right answer - as any child at school will tell you.

The continuing attempts to force religious texts to fit scientific discoveries is a exercise in futility - yet it doesn't stop people doing so in an attempt to hold onto their cherished beliefs.

I accept science that has evidence to back it up ...

And you are competent to decide what is and is not "evidence"?

Science is what's backed up by evidence.

Anything else is pseudo-science.

As Dara O'Briain put it:

"Oh, herbal medicine's been around for thousands of years!" Indeed it has! And then we tested it all, and the stuff that worked became ... medicine!

You're talking about science as if it's pseudo-science, as if some of it has evidence and some of it doesn't.

That is simply not the case.

You're showing your misunderstanding of science.

... which is why I reject evolution but according to you I should just ignore the lack of proof life evolves and go along with it because most scientists do,but I cannot do that when there is no reason to when both the bible and evolution are believed by faith.The bible does not tell us life evolves but it does tell us God created kinds to produce after their kinds and science has evidence to back this up so I accept it and it just so happens to confirm the bible true.So just because I reject evolution does not mean I'm anti-science.

The evidence for micro-evolution exists - macro-evolution is simply micro-evolution over long periods of time.

The preponderance of evidence from all the sciences shows that macro-evolution occurs because the evidence is consistent with what we would expect if macro-evolution were true.

And I have already pointed out that there is no evidence to show that mutations cannot "cross" these "barriers" you claim exist.

Science shows that there are no such thing as "kinds" - it is the genotype, not the phenotype, which determines how life-forms are related. Since there are no "kinds" in DNA, there are - indeed, can be - no such thing as "kinds" in body-shape.

If you claim otherwise, the onus is on you to prove it - as I've been telling you throughout this and other threads,

There are even die-hard evolutionists who see the problems with evolution like Derek Hough and his book "A case of stating the obvious" in it he claims that it is "preposterous nonsense" to believe that DNA copying errors causes life to evolve like Dawkins,etc believes and he is trying to find a more realistic mechanism and yet he still won't let go of evolution which I can't understand why.But he hasn't.

His hypothesis (page 46) - because that's all it is - is that there's a "program" in the genome for "designing new bodies which work perfectly in a world they have never seen" without reference to the environment.

How would it know what "perfect bodies" to produce if it doesn't know what the environment was like? Is it psychic??

In his most recent book he claims that the genome is involved in a "deliberate search for new variety" - this is no different than the NGE idea of James Shapiro, which has been debunked.

Then you have evolutionists like Rupert Sheldrake who accept evolution but have problems with it,these men are trying to help evolution.

Sheldrake has a "theory" that claims a "morphic field" exists - despite no scientific evidence of such.

I don't see how I can be cherry-picking when I show how it confirms the bible true.How can it fit?Iis the question you should ask.

I've already shown you why above - you believe the bible to be true, you pick the science that supports that belief whilst ignoring the science that doesn't support that belief.

If you still don't understand why, let me know.

PS You still haven't addressed the Neanderthal DNA issue - if you don't do this yourself, then I'll have to do so - but I'd prefer that you did so yourself first.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Inferno]

I have made it clear that everything is looked at from an evolution perspective

And I've made it clear you're full of shit. I'm bigger, stronger and way more handsome, ergo I'm right.

No seriously though, this whole "looking from an evolution perspective" thing is bullshit. I explained there here:

Inferno[/url]"]You keep repeating this "from an evolution perspective" nonsense, but do you even know why it's wrong? There is no "evolution perspective", there's only a scientific perspective and a non-scientific one. Before people came up with evolution, they obviously didn't have an "evolution perspective", so how did they arrive at evolution? Furthermore, you do understand that the person who would actually be able to prove evolution wrong would be rich and famous?

Let's be absolutely clear on this one: There is no "evolution perspective" and an alternate perspective. In science, we follow where the evidence leads, not which perspective we want it to support. That's the way apologist religious people act, not serious scientists. I've told you twice and I'm telling you a third time: Take a course in a scientific subject, I'd recommend biology, and in addition watch a few Richard Feynman lectures. The best remedy against ignorance in information and knowledge.

You see amnesia sets in,this is what I was talking about earlier.It is up to evolutionists to prove a dinosaur can evolve into a bird.So according to evolution that fish mght could evolve into a hippo over time.I mean dinosaurs evolved into birds didn't they?You must demonstrate a dinosaur can evolve into a bird and a fish evolving into a hippo,etc would prove it could happen,or something like this.But when you start out with a fruit fly and still have a fruit fly at then end? It proves and demonstrates a dinosaur cannot evolve into a bird and a fish cannot evolve into a hippo. You seem to imply evolution is a silly idea.

I don't imply anything, I state it outright: Your idea of evolution is a very silly idea, evolution is anything but silly.
You are constructing a Straw Man Argument of evolution, so of course it will sound silly. This is why I suggest again and again that you should take a course in basic biology/genetics/evolution: Because you don't have a clue what evolution is.

I can prove that, too:
Give me, in either your own words or quoted, a concise definition of what evolution is that is also accepted by scientists.

So far, even with the world wide web as a resource, no creationist on this forum has managed even that. Once you've provided a definition of what evolution is, you'll understand why it's idiotic to assume that a fruit fly will "turn into something else". That's Pokémon, not evolution.

Finally, I'll repeat what I asked before: Obviously you have very different ideas about what constitutes evidence for evolution than the most learned people on the subject have. So why don't you tell me what would, in your view, constitute evidence for evolution. For example: If we found a 375mya sarcopterygian with limb-like fins, even though its ancestor had fins and its descendants had limbs, would that be evidence for evolution? In other words, if we found an animal perfectly transitional between lobe-finned fish and tetrapods, would that be sufficient?
Or would you require evidence that both information (to be defined) can increase and traits be lost, that information can decrease and traits gained, which is exactly the opposite of what ID proponents would expect?
Or, if I were to indulge your search for bird-evolution, what fossils would we expect to see if evolution were true? What calculations would we have to perform to see if it is even theoretically possible?


Don't kid yourself, all of those have been found and I could show it to everyone's satisfaction. However, it's difficult to talk to you about Homer if you can't read ancient Greek. And if you ask yourself what this discussion has to do with ancient Greek... :facepalm:

 

[abelcainsbrother]

Inferno wrote:

So far, even with the world wide web as a resource, no creationist on this forum has managed even that. Once you've provided a definition of what evolution is, you'll understand why it's idiotic to assume that a fruit fly will "turn into something else". That's Pokémon, not evolution.

Thanks for admitting a dinosaur cannot change into a bird.

Inferno wrote:

I don't imply anything, I state it outright: Your idea of evolution is a very silly idea, evolution is anything but silly.
You are constructing a Straw Man Argument of evolution, so of course it will sound silly. This is why I suggest again and again that you should take a course in basic biology/genetics/evolution: Because you don't have a clue what evolution is.

I can prove that, too:
Give me, in either your own words or quoted, a concise definition of what evolution is that is also accepted by scientists.

So far, even with the world wide web as a resource, no creationist on this forum has managed even that. Once you've provided a definition of what evolution is, you'll understand why it's idiotic to assume that a fruit fly will "turn into something else". That's Pokémon, not evolution.

Finally, I'll repeat what I asked before: Obviously you have very different ideas about what constitutes evidence for evolution than the most learned people on the subject have. So why don't you tell me what would, in your view, constitute evidence for evolution. For example: If we found a 375mya sarcopterygian with limb-like fins, even though its ancestor had fins and its descendants had limbs, would that be evidence for evolution? In other words, if we found an animal perfectly transitional between lobe-finned fish and tetrapods, would that be sufficient?
Or would you require evidence that both information (to be defined) can increase and traits be lost, that information can decrease and traits gained, which is exactly the opposite of what ID proponents would expect?
Or, if I were to indulge your search for bird-evolution, what fossils would we expect to see if evolution were true? What calculations would we have to perform to see if it is even theoretically possible?

You do have amnesia because how can you teach that a dinosaur evolved or changed into a bird and yet none of the evidence used for evolution demonstrates it can happen? I mean come on it is not a straw man argument I'm making about evolution. If dinosaurs truly evolved or changed into birds then wouldn't you assume viruses,bacteria,fruit flies,salamanders,etc would evolve over time into something else like a dinosaur into a bird? And yet none of the evidence proves this can happen and it proves as you say that a fruit fly will never change into something else. Now I'm glad you admit that life cannot evolve.The fact is there is no reason to believe a dinosaur coulds evolve or change into a bird over time,like you admitted cannot happen.I agree.Evolutionists contradict themselves in order to believe life evolves because on the one hand they'll tell you dinosaurs evolved into birds and yet on the other hand tell you it cannot happen,as you did.

 

[abelcainsbrother]

Re:

Looks like someone's record player needs a new needle, it keeps skipping back to the beginning of the track.

Sent from my Commodore 64

Well see I want people to review all of the evidence I have given to back up the old earth biblical Gap theory so they can compare evidence.You see people come here to the last page and go off what is on the last page instead of reviewing and comparing evidence.I want people who come here to compare evidence I have given to the evidence evolutionists have given.

For the sake of all fucks born after the 70's, you haven't presented anything that constitutes evidence. Not only that, you've deflected every question put to you, the ones you haven't ignored that is.
Not a single thing you've said in this thread can be verified in a meaningful way, and I'm beginning to think you are here simply for lulz. The pattern is spot on.
That being the case, you have until the end of the day to convince me not to close this utterly pointless thread permanently.
Good luck.

Sent from my Commodore 64

I'm not sure I can but this thread sure stirred up debate which is good I think because we can all learn from it even if we disagree.I'm not sure this is a good enough reason but I've enjoyed coming here trying to back up what I believe while trying to show why nobody should accept evolution.I'm not just trying to be funny,etc IMO this has been some good debate which is a good thing,also just because I reject evolution now does not mean I couldn't change my mind based on evidence,but thus far it has been the same evidence we all know about for evolution and as I have tried to point out is believed by faith instead of real evidence that would confirm it true.I have tried to show that I accept science that is backed up by evidence,which is why I reject evolution and wonder why so many accept it.

I fail to see why people say I have not given evidence to back up the old earth biblical gap theory though just because I may not have answered every question,the question I shunned really had nothing to do with the Gap theory being true or not.Like Neanderthal and how I believe they were the descendents of Cain and that it baffled secular science why they died out and yet man lived,but I think they died out in Noah's flood.This does not effect the Gap theory,or even the question about when the former world perished.I personally think there is enough scientific evidence for me to say now at the end of the last ice age.But again this does not mean the Gap theory is wrong if people disagree about when the former world perished.The fact most life we know about has went extinct is strong evidence for a former world to have perished like the bible reveals to us.

 

[abelcainsbrother]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html

Here's more for you to ignore.

Thanks for the link and no I don't ignore it but I must say reading talkorigins is how I came to realize the evidence for evolution is so weak,not reading creationists web-sights.I always look at the evidence first before I accept or reject something as I did with evolution.I am not afraid of evidence that would finally truly demonstrate and prove life evolves but thus far there is none.Unless you look at the evidence from an evolution perspective and I don't do that.

 

[Mugnuts]

Well after that all being said, I might as well get one last post in before this thread is shut down.

The talk origins link goes through step by step, citing all of the sources that come from the people who have dedicated their lives to advancing human knowledge in the only direction it could go. That direction is where the evidence leads. Of course learning the truth about our origins as a species has upset a lot of people who hold on to ancient beliefs about history, the humble beginnings of mankind, and everything else that was held to be knowledge of where and how it all began. Along that way the evidence at every turn has shown the religious texts were passed on as knowledge from people who did not and could not understand the mysteries they tried to explain.

We all have to live together on this insignificant pale blue dot amidst the vastness of what we can hardly imagine to fully understand, but as time goes on and as history shows that the further we get, we learn more and more about everything there is. Our greatest discoveries are yet to come, and if we wish to keep going forward then we must put aside the childish answers to the questions we once asked. We must be mature enough to understand and accept what reality tells us.

Good luck ACB, I myself will need to go into any further discussions with you. You just don't want to accept anything other than what you believe on faith, and you just won't listen to reason.

Shout out to Dragan Glas for eloquently and graciously presenting posts in a spectacularly respectful manner every time. it's something I have not learned yet, but now I have witnessed how it is done in.

 

[Inferno]

Thanks for admitting a dinosaur cannot change into a bird.

Now you're just wilfully obtuse. Dinosaurs didn't turn into birds (at least not the way you would imagine), birds are dinosaurs. What I'm trying to teach you and what you're trying so hard not to learn is that there's no way you talk about dinosaurs without talking about birds, too.

Let me put this in other words. I was born into a family who has the surname "Brunner". My Grandfather was a Brunner, my Uncle was a Brunner, my mother was a Brunner. Then my mother married a guy called "Lernhart". Did she stop being my Grandfather's daughter simply because she has a different name? If the state asks my Grandfather to list all his descendants, will my mother not be among them?

In the same way, birds are still dinosaurs, they didn't "turn into something else", they just have a different name. In the analogy, my Grandfather is a dinosaur and my mother is a bird. (que for jokes)

If you knew anything at all about evolution, you would understand the not-so-subtle differences.

You do have amnesia because how can you teach that a dinosaur evolved or changed into a bird and yet none of the evidence used for evolution demonstrates it can happen? I mean come on it is not a straw man argument I'm making about evolution.

Actually it is. But don't take my word for it! Let's do a quick show of hands: Isotelus studies palaeontology, he_who_is_nobody I believe did too and Rumraket also has a degree in biology, though I forgot where exactly. Why don't you ask them if you completely misrepresent the science?

If dinosaurs truly evolved or changed into birds then wouldn't you assume viruses,bacteria,fruit flies,salamanders,etc would evolve over time into something else like a dinosaur into a bird?

No, because you're confusing modern organisms "turning into" other modern organisms. Instead, modern organisms are descendants of much older organisms. And you complete put things on their head when you suggest a modern organism "turning into" a much older one. That's the exact opposite.

However, it is entirely possible that in a few million years, salamanders will grow and grow and adapt and change until to laymen they look something like dinosaurs. It's not absolutely out of the question. Of course, they won't be dinosaurs because they'll be on completely different branches of the evolutionary "tree".

And yet none of the evidence proves this can happen and it proves as you say that a fruit fly will never change into something else.

I posted a few questions, why don't you answer them?

Now I'm glad you admit that life cannot evolve.The fact is there is no reason to believe a dinosaur coulds evolve or change into a bird over time,like you admitted cannot happen.I agree.Evolutionists contradict themselves in order to believe life evolves because on the one hand they'll tell you dinosaurs evolved into birds and yet on the other hand tell you it cannot happen,as you did.

You misrepresent me. I showed that your straw man idea of evolution was in error, not that evolution itself is in error. Did you gloss over the part where I said "That's Pokémon, not evolution"? That should have tipped you off.

 

[Prolescum]

Re: "Let us reason amongst the brethren"

I'm not sure I can but this thread sure stirred up debate which is good I think because we can all learn from it even if we disagree.

No, it didn't stir up debate, people have tried to point out your errors and you ignore or dismiss them; it's barely even a discussion.

I'm not sure this is a good enough reason but I've enjoyed coming here trying to back up what I believe while trying to show why nobody should accept evolution.I'm not just trying to be funny,etc IMO this has been some good debate which is a good thing,also just because I reject evolution now does not mean I couldn't change my mind based on evidence,but thus far it has been the same evidence we all know about for evolution and as I have tried to point out is believed by faith instead of real evidence that would confirm it true.I have tried to show that I accept science that is backed up by evidence,which is why I reject evolution and wonder why so many accept it.

If you only rejected evolution, I wouldn't be bothered at all. It's that you can't concede or acknowledge facts that dispute your position and just end up back at the beginning, repeating your quaint little comforting mantras. Like a troll would. I see no point continuing, but others apparently do, so I will set aside my annoyance for the time being.

I fail to see why people say I have not given evidence to back up the old earth biblical gap theory though just because I may not have answered every question,the question I shunned really had nothing to do with the Gap theory being true or not.Like Neanderthal and how I believe they were the descendents of Cain and that it baffled secular science why they died out and yet man lived,but I think they died out in Noah's flood.This does not effect the Gap theory,or even the question about when the former world perished.I personally think there is enough scientific evidence for me to say now at the end of the last ice age.But again this does not mean the Gap theory is wrong if people disagree about when the former world perished.The fact most life we know about has went extinct is strong evidence for a former world to have perished like the bible reveals to us.

:docpalm:

"Debate" my arse. You just state things.

Pah, I can't be bothered. Attrition is a terrible tactic in any form.

Sent from my Commodore 64

 

[Dragan Glas]

Re: Re:

Greetings,

I'm not sure I can but this thread sure stirred up debate which is good I think because we can all learn from it even if we disagree.I'm not sure this is a good enough reason but I've enjoyed coming here trying to back up what I believe while trying to show why nobody should accept evolution.I'm not just trying to be funny,etc IMO this has been some good debate which is a good thing,also just because I reject evolution now does not mean I couldn't change my mind based on evidence,but thus far it has been the same evidence we all know about for evolution and as I have tried to point out is believed by faith instead of real evidence that would confirm it true.I have tried to show that I accept science that is backed up by evidence,which is why I reject evolution and wonder why so many accept it.

I fail to see why people say I have not given evidence to back up the old earth biblical gap theory though just because I may not have answered every question,the question I shunned really had nothing to do with the Gap theory being true or not.Like Neanderthal and how I believe they were the descendents of Cain and that it baffled secular science why they died out and yet man lived,but I think they died out in Noah's flood.This does not effect the Gap theory,or even the question about when the former world perished.I personally think there is enough scientific evidence for me to say now at the end of the last ice age.But again this does not mean the Gap theory is wrong if people disagree about when the former world perished.The fact most life we know about has went extinct is strong evidence for a former world to have perished like the bible reveals to us.

What you're displaying is a "surface-level" knowledge about science, the scientific method and how science actually works.

As I said earlier, you simply grasp at any scientific straw as "evidence" for your belief.

If we actually went through all this sort of cherry-picked "evidence", we'd find that you have nothing of any value to support your belief in a "gap" - which is not surprising, given that it was originally a rescue-device invented towards the end of the 18[sup]th[/sup] century to save YEC.

A classic example of this is your claim that Cain was a Neanderthal because you've grasped at their brow-ridge as "evidence" that it is the so-called "Mark of Cain".

It is this ludicrously poor level of quality of "evidence" that makes your belief in a "gap" literally incredible.

Another example is your mammoth/elephant one - particularly that you now say the "gap" occurred at the last ice age.

Was that because I mentioned it as the latest example of a period of extinction?:

The evidence is mainly consistent with a "world" prior to ~66mya - however, other fossils also indicate "worlds" both earlier and later, the Ice Age being the most recent.

Despite the fact that I've shown that mammoths co-existed with elephants - not just after the last Ice Age but even after the supposed Noachian Flood!!

Thus mammoths survived not one but two Extinction Level Events (ELE): "Lucifer's Flood" (the "gap", now aka the last Ice Age) and Noah's Flood!

And your claim for a "gap" still doesn't hold based on the fossil evidence because the fossils are from many different time periods - not just one.

Yet you don't seem to register that this renders your claim for a "gap" ridiculous - until now that you've grasped at my mention of the (last) Ice Age as a means of including all the fossils into a single group. Despite the fact that radiometric dating still shows that they're all from vastly different time periods, not from a single "Lucifer-caused" ELE.

Can you not see how untenable is your belief in a "gap"?

I still want to give you a chance to properly address the Neanderthal question before I address it myself.

Please do so.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[abelcainsbrother]

Thanks for admitting a dinosaur cannot change into a bird.

Now you're just wilfully obtuse. Dinosaurs didn't turn into birds (at least not the way you would imagine), birds are dinosaurs. What I'm trying to teach you and what you're trying so hard not to learn is that there's no way you talk about dinosaurs without talking about birds, too.

Let me put this in other words. I was born into a family who has the surname "Brunner". My Grandfather was a Brunner, my Uncle was a Brunner, my mother was a Brunner. Then my mother married a guy called "Lernhart". Did she stop being my Grandfather's daughter simply because she has a different name? If the state asks my Grandfather to list all his descendants, will my mother not be among them?

In the same way, birds are still dinosaurs, they didn't "turn into something else", they just have a different name. In the analogy, my Grandfather is a dinosaur and my mother is a bird. (que for jokes)

If you knew anything at all about evolution, you would understand the not-so-subtle differences.

Really I'm being obtuse?You believe dinosaurs evolved into birds and yet have no reason to believe they did,you just say it and act like because I don't go by your evolution tree,I don't understand evolution. Your evolution tree was made up based on the belief that dinosaurs evolved into birds and when we ask for evidence this can happen,you simply say dinosaurs are birds.But you cannot trick us like that and get away with it.

We want it proven and demonstrated that a dinosaur can evolve and change into a bird over time,saying birds are dinosaurs is not going to get you off the hook.I don't believe birds are dinosaurs and I don't have to look at the tree and go by it when it can't be proven life can evolve and change into other kinds of creatures over time.A bird is totally different than a dinosaur and you know it,this why none of the evidence for evolution demonstrates life can evolve,because it doesn't.

We go by the evidence for evolution and it shows us and demonstrates that life cannot evolve and change into other kinds of creatures.Don't try to trick us by claiming birds are dinosaurs just because you have no evidence.Can't you see that word games are being played on you? Like they teach you how adaptation is the same thing as life evolving,when tjhey are two different things and we all know it.

Life can adapt sometimes to survive hostile conditions,this is observable but evolution is not observable.We don't need scientists in a lab to demonstrate to us life can adapt like they have.Then they pass this off as evidence assuming life evolves.

You do have amnesia because how can you teach that a dinosaur evolved or changed into a bird and yet none of the evidence used for evolution demonstrates it can happen? I mean come on it is not a straw man argument I'm making about evolution.

Actually it is. But don't take my word for it! Let's do a quick show of hands: Isotelus studies palaeontology, he_who_is_nobody I believe did too and Rumraket also has a degree in biology, though I forgot where exactly. Why don't you ask them if you completely misrepresent the science?

If dinosaurs truly evolved or changed into birds then wouldn't you assume viruses,bacteria,fruit flies,salamanders,etc would evolve over time into something else like a dinosaur into a bird?

No, because you're confusing modern organisms "turning into" other modern organisms. Instead, modern organisms are descendants of much older organisms. And you complete put things on their head when you suggest a modern organism "turning into" a much older one. That's the exact opposite.

However, it is entirely possible that in a few million years, salamanders will grow and grow and adapt and change until to laymen they look something like dinosaurs. It's not absolutely out of the question. Of course, they won't be dinosaurs because they'll be on completely different branches of the evolutionary "tree".

You see you are assuming without evidence and I know you must assume,it is just that I don't assume a salamander will change and evolve over time because of a lack of evidence.The evidence tells us they will never evolve or change,let's go by the evidence and not assume.

And yet none of the evidence proves this can happen and it proves as you say that a fruit fly will never change into something else.

I posted a few questions, why don't you answer them?

Now I'm glad you admit that life cannot evolve.The fact is there is no reason to believe a dinosaur coulds evolve or change into a bird over time,like you admitted cannot happen.I agree.Evolutionists contradict themselves in order to believe life evolves because on the one hand they'll tell you dinosaurs evolved into birds and yet on the other hand tell you it cannot happen,as you did.

You misrepresent me. I showed that your straw man idea of evolution was in error, not that evolution itself is in error. Did you gloss over the part where I said "That's Pokémon, not evolution"? That should have tipped you off.

 

[Mugnuts]

:?: creationists and the quote function. Simply amazing. :lol:

 

[Isotelus]

Really I'm being obtuse?You believe dinosaurs evolved into birds and yet have no reason to believe they did,you just say it and act like because I don't go by your evolution tree,I don't understand evolution. Your evolution tree was made up based on the belief that dinosaurs evolved into birds and when we ask for evidence this can happen,you simply say dinosaurs are birds.But you cannot trick us like that and get away with it.

We want it proven and demonstrated that a dinosaur can evolve and change into a bird over time,saying birds are dinosaurs is not going to get you off the hook.I don't believe birds are dinosaurs and I don't have to look at the tree and go by it when it can't be proven life can evolve and change into other kinds of creatures over time.A bird is totally different than a dinosaur and you know it,this why none of the evidence for evolution demonstrates life can evolve,because it doesn't.

We go by the evidence for evolution and it shows us and demonstrates that life cannot evolve and change into other kinds of creatures.Don't try to trick us by claiming birds are dinosaurs just because you have no evidence.Can't you see that word games are being played on you? Like they teach you how adaptation is the same thing as life evolving,when tjhey are two different things and we all know it.

I've been doing a damn good job at resisting responding to this for the last several weeks for various reasons, but I've reached my threshold. I posted this numerous times on the OFNF thread ages ago and you never responded, in spite of the fact that it highlights exactly why all of us have a reason to accept that birds are dinosaurs. I even offered to explain each one because they're not open access, but you showed no interest or any indication that you even read my posts. So I'm posting it again, not necessarily to you, but for other people on this thread who have the resourcefulness and initiative to click on informative and relevant links when they're provided.

Aside from that and for everyone's sake, here are some phylogenetic, physiological, molecular, and ontogenetic studies demonstrating the relationship between birds and dinosaurs (there are also numerous molecular clock studies, but I haven't found the citation I was thinking of yet):

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v498/n7454/full/nature12168.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/308/5727/1456
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/316/5822/280
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v487/n7406/full/nature11146.html

This is what you get when truly know how you look at fossils, abelcainsbrother.

And a bird is emphatically not totally different from a dinosaur. The opposite is true and extremely evident. The similarities between birds and theropod dinosaurs were recognized by Huxley in the 19th century, before natural selection/evolution was rigorously tested or widely accepted. That being the case, your accusation that people say birds evolved from dinosaurs is wrong because they're looking at things from an evolutionary perspective is demonstrably false. Get over it, accept it, and move on, because that fact is not debateable. Here's another link that everyone should find interesting: Briefly, it highlights some anatomical similarities between birds and theropod dinosaurs. Click on the image to enlarge. I want to emphasize feathers being a shared trait of theropods and birds, as well as the fact that we have a pretty detailed fossil record of the gradation and accumulation of increasingly bird-like traits over time and across groups.

 

[abelcainsbrother]

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-10/jws-dfd100405.php