"Let us reason amongst the brethren"

[Prolescum]

Re: "Let us reason amongst the brethren"

Let's see what else we find using a gap theory perspective. Those sentient creatures whose achievements include such fascinating and complex architecture as Stonehenge and Machu Pichu? Destroyed for no fathomable reason. Unless sin works retroactively, and at this point, it might as well; time has no meaning with this theory.

This gap theory is staring to make sense finally. I sure am glad to be corrected.

Sent from my Commodore 64

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Greetings,

As Isotelus has shown, the author's reputation has diminished in the eyes of the scientific community, and the paper has been superseded by others which disproved its claims.

And the evidence shows that, over long periods of time, the environment has resulted in morphological differences due to evolution - genetic mutations selected out by natural selection.

Yes it backs up my point that morphological differences are ignored by evolutionists.Also there is no evidence that proves the environment causes morphological differences due to evolution as I have pointed out.The evidence evolutionists has proves that environmental hazards still do not cause life to evolve or change morphologically despite hostile environments.We see this with finches,viruses,bacteria,fruit flies,salamanders,etc no matter how hostile the environment is even when life can adapt to survive?It still does not evolve,this is what the evidence shows us and yet you and others assume for no reason based on the evidence.

:facepalm:

This shows that you haven't a clue about how evolution actually works!

1) Mutations occur in the genome;
2) Natural selection selects out deleterious mutations - in other words, beneficial and neutral (majority) mutations are kept;
3) Mutations (beneficial and neutral) result in changes in morphology.

Ergo, the environment results in morphological differences!

It is irrelevant whether this is over a short period of time (micro-evolution) or long periods of time (macro-evolution = micro-evolution over long periods of time).

Fossils are not evidence for A "gap", they are evidence of both individual deaths and MANY "gaps" between various extinctions.

You've jumped about trying to fit all of them into a single "gap" - until I mentioned the last Ice Age and then grasped at that straw.

Yet I've shown that this does not fit your alleged "gap" either - both through the fact that mammoths and elephants co-existed, and that mammoths survived both your alleged "gap" and the alleged Noah's Flood.

Despite this, you continue to ignore the scientific evidence in your intellectual dishonesty.

Yes fossils are evidence for a former world that existed on this earth full of life that perished especially since there is no evidence that life evolves,you keep ignoring this fact. No there were not many gaps according to evolution,evolution teaches that there have never been full extinctions which is the point of 2nd Peter 3:3-7 which I have shown.It is from doing research that I've come to realize that the former world fully perished at the time of the last ice age because of dust in the ice cores from all around the earth and in the oceans,etc.

And I've shown that your "former world" did NOT "fully" perish - mammoths survived until 1630BCE, thus surviving your latest choice for a "gap" (the last Ice Age) and the alleged Noachian Flood: which is just one of the things which you completely ignore!

Evolutionists stick their fingers in their ears and go LA,LA,LA! but not one evolutionist can prove or demonstrate life evolves as I have shown all they do is deny what I believe but have not and cannot produce evidence that proves and demonstrates life evolves,this causes anger in them,they expect me to just accept it because they do with no evidence.

They say I'm not looking at the evidence right and I need to take classes on evolution,in other words I need to be indoctrinated to accept evolution like they have been,none of the evidence used as evidence for evolution proves it or demonstrates it like I have pointed out.This is because the fossils are not really evidence for evolution,they are evidence for the former world full of life that perished like 2nd Peter 3:5-6 tells us.

Remember the Gap theory was being preached in the church before Darwin wrote his books and evolution took off. My point is this the fossils cannot be used as evidence for evolution when there is no scientific evidence that demonstrates and proves life evolves and so the Gap theory is what the fossils prove and back up,not evolution.

If a former world full of life existed on this earth that perished then fossils would be evidence for it and you all know it and since scientists cannot prove and demonstrate life evolves this rules out the fossils being used as evidence that life evolves.

You are simply not competent to discuss this topic with other posters here - your lack of knowledge means you cherry-pick what appears to you to be "evidence" in support of your belief when, in actual fact, it doesn't.

You accuse scientists of sticking their fingers in their ears and denying what you believe.

Which is more likely to be true?

Scientists all over the world being wrong - or you?

As I've pointed out multiple times, the "gap theory" was invented towards the end of the 18[sup]th[/sup] century to rescue YEC - nothing more.

You are a "gap YECist" - or, more simply, a YEC, as your later diagram shows:

And adding words/meanings into the bible that aren't there is "wrong" - according to you.

So, you now claim that the "gap" occurred at the last Ice Age and that "this world" is 6,000 years old?

And you still haven't addressed the Neanderthal DNA issue - nor the new one of your mammoth/elephant claim being untenable.

Even if you believe it was invented by young earth creationists that means nothing because the Gap theory has been in the church atleast 500 years long before modern geology made their discoveries and the Gap theory was being preached in the church before evolution became so popular.It was before evolution science that we know about today.The fact is the evidence of an old earth,fossils,coal and oil were hijacked by evolutionists away from the Gap theory.

And I've already shown that Custance's claims of a several hundred year history for the "gap theory" was debunked by Fields - yet you keep repeating this claim.

Here is another debunking of the "gap" in Genesis.

You just don't understand the Gap theory because the Gap theory teaches THIS world we live in now is about 6-10,000 years old,however the former world that existed cannot be overlooked especially when we have evidence a former world full of life existed that perished until this world was created,in other words the former world was created billions of years ago and it was full of life until that world perished and all life in it went extinct. And we have evidence for this,we have evidence that the heavens and earth are very old and we have fossils,coal and oil as evidence that proves and confirms the former world was full of life until it perished.

And all of this evidence for a old cosmos and Earth comes from science - which has been hijacked by creationists to bolster their beliefs.

None of this evidence supports a "gap" except by twisting some and ignoring most of it.

We also have evidence of these ancient mysterious cities/structures that exist around this earth and I have given some evidence to back this up,it does not prove it wrong to show that man is able to move them,etc and it proves evolution wrong about man being dumb out of Africa because these structures prove whoever built these had a lot of knowledge and were not dumb hunter,gatherers out of Africa that evolution has taught us,evolution even effects history,eventhough there is no evidence that life evolves. Neanderthals have nothing to do with the Gap theory.

Neanderthals and Neanderthal DNA have everything to do with debunking your "gap" nonsense - as you can't answer any of the points I made to you about it or my debunking your mammoth/elephant nonsense.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

By your own claim adding anything to the Bible is wrong, and yet in this very image you are adding to the Bible. There is no "became void" or "then" in any of the translations offered here, you added that to make your claim. One translation even says the Earth was "as yet unformed". You are doing the very thing you claim is wrong just so you can sit there and demonstrate your ignorance of real science.

Please LISTEN to all the people who are trying to teach you instead of repeating easily disproved statements. Many people have been trying to show you the accumlated knowledge that supports evolution. People with backgrounds in the relevant fields of biology and a much more detailed understanding than your dribble; people with an interest in actually understanding the science instead of cherry picking facts and trying to force square pegs into round holes; basically people worth listening to. They have been unimaginably patient with you, while you ignore everything that they say and just repeat gibberish.

I do not ignore the evidence posters on here have presented for evolution but it is same old evidence we know about.The fact is macro-evolution is a myth and cannot be demonstrated by any evolutionist.

You have ignored the evidence.

It is a logical inference consistent with the existing evidence across all the fields of science.

I wiould never add to the word of God ...

Now you are bearing false witness.

As I and keepre541 have pointed out, you've added/altered words and their meanings to Genesis (as well as Jeremiah 4 and 2 Peter) to make your "gap theory" appear to be true.

If you read the above-linked article to the debunking of the "gap", you'll have seen the author's linguistic analysis of various words which "gap" proponents use to justify their belief in a "gap", and how he shows those interpretations to be false.

...the Gap theory was being preached before Darwin wrote his books,this seems to get skimmed over.

It's not being "skimmed over" - the "gap theory" and the claim it's been around for several centuries have been debunked.

The only evidence presented is evidence built around the idea that life evolves.Like I have said it might be convincing if you look at the evidence from an evolution perspective but there is no evidence that proves a dinosaur can evolve into a bird.

Proving that all life is related does not prove life evolves and building a evolution tree around the idea life evolves without evidence life evolves does not prove it either and yet this is the evidence evolutionists use to assume dinosaurs can evolve into birds.

All evolution is at this point in time is micro-evolution,adaptation and the assumption life evolves based on micro-evolution and adaptation this is why nobody here can produce evidence that would prove and demonsrate a dinosaur can evolve into a bird and yet everything is looked at from an evolution perspective.

All you have is micro-evolution and adaptation and all life is related as evidence,NOT macro-evolution which you cannot ignore as an evolutionist,yet you do.

The fact that life-forms can be organised on a phylogenetic tree that is statistically significant to such an extent, that it would be nigh impossible for any other random tree to be valid, is as close to proof as one can come, as Rumraket has shown elsewhere: here and here.

This is why the fossils are not evidence for evolution but are evidence for the Gap theory and a former world that existed on this earth full of life that perished.

If the Gap theory is true we should expect to find evidence for the life that existed in the former world and we do both plant life and animal life in coal and oil and fossils which is what you would expect to find and we do.We have evidence a former world existed with life that perished but we have no evidence that proves and demonsrates life evolves which I have clearly shown.

Nobody here has been able to provide evidence that would prove and demonstrate life evolves and the evidence used as evidence for evolution we all know about finches,viruses,bacteria,salamanders,fruit flies,etc proves and shows us that there are limits with the genes in life and life does not evolve even when life is able to adapt and survive hostile environments.

Since you can't say when the "gap" occurred - and all the fossils are from different time periods - you cannot hijack them as evidence for a "gap".

As I've already explained to you.

Thus you have neither biblical nor scientific evidence for a "gap theory".

Kindest regards,

James

 

[keeper541]

I do not ignore the evidence posters on here have presented for evolution but it is same old evidence we know about.The fact is macro-evolution is a myth and cannot be demonstrated by any evolutionist.I wiould never add to the word of God the Gap theory was being preached before Darwin wrote his books,this seems to get skimmed over.The only evidence presented is evidence built around the idea that life evolves.Like I have said it might be convincing if you look at the evidence from an evolution perspective but there is no evidence that proves a dinosaur can evolve into a bird.

Oh you most certainly do ignore the evidence. Your next line proves that.

Proving that all life is related does not prove life evolves and building a evolution tree around the idea life evolves without evidence life evolves does not prove it either and yet this is the evidence evolutionists use to assume dinosaurs can evolve into birds.

So demonstrating the relatedness of all organisms, we aren't talking just a genius, family, or class; we are talking about the ability to show the relatedness of all organisms by the same methodolgy that we can idnetify killers. We can track neutral mutations through the branches of the tree of life and produce the same tree as we can produce following fossil evidence (or similar enough).

All evolution is at this point in time is micro-evolution,adaptation and the assumption life evolves based on micro-evolution and adaptation this is why nobody here can produce evidence that would prove and demonsrate a dinosaur can evolve into a bird and yet everything is looked at from an evolution perspective.

Than by all means please show a mechanism within DNA that prevents an accumulation of mutations that result in a refinment of traits to the extent that speciation events cannot occur and the emergence of new clades of life becomes impossible. This is the point of the metaphor of "if I can walk a mile I can walk one hundred miles." Obviously you cannot walk a hundred miles if you are on a fifty mile wide island. You have to prove that the genome is only that fifty mile wide island because until you do than there's nothing stopping evolution from walking a hundred miles.

Now just hand waving going "well God said that things will produce after there own kinds" isn't a mechanism. To actually pull this off you are going to have to show something in the DNA (or supporting proteins) that can recognise when the slight modifications within a theropod dinosaurs feathers are going to far and becoming too similar to bird feathers. Good luck I hope to hear of your Noble Prize and your name being as recognised as Watson and Crick.

All you have is micro-evolution and adaptation and all life is related as evidence,NOT macro-evolution which you cannot ignore as an evolutionist,yet you do. This is why the fossils are not evidence for evolution but are evidence for the Gap theory and a former world that existed on this earth full of life that perished.

Well you got something right about evolution. All evolution is is micro-evolution/adaptation. The fact that all life is releated is really strong evidence since magically created things wouldn't all be related, even things of the same "kind" (whatever that is) wouldn't be related because they were independatly created.

If the Gap theory is true we should expect to find evidence for the life that existed in the former world and we do both plant life and animal life in coal and oil and fossils which is what you would expect to find and we do.We have evidence a former world existed with life that perished but we have no evidence that proves and demonsrates life evolves which I have clearly shown.

Oh, the "if God/Satan killed all life we'd expect find find dead things" claim. :docpalm: I'm sorry to disapoint you, but if things were dieing in general we'd expect to find that. Now the key concept here is HOW they are dieing, WHEN it's occuring, and if there's any sort of pattern. Randomly finding fossils doesn't demonstrate anything.

This harkens back to the idea of not finding a Cambrian bunny. Or a poodle in the Triassic. Which you'd understand if you were actually LISTENING instead of blathering on and ignoring people who are trying to very honestly teach you something.

Here's a hint, to prove your Gap you are going to have to define when your former world occured a lot better than you have already. As Dragon Glas has pointed out, you picking any random mass extinctions and claiming that that is one of your gaps doesn't work.

Nobody here has been able to provide evidence that would prove and demonstrate life evolves and the evidence used as evidence for evolution we all know about finches,viruses,bacteria,salamanders,fruit flies,etc proves and shows us that there are limits with the genes in life and life does not evolve even when life is able to adapt and survive hostile environments.

:lol:
I'm sorry but you ignoring everything that people have tried to teach you and than claiming no one has provided evidence isn't a very honest way to claim that we've been unable to demonstrate life evolves. (Expecting a quote mine.) Yes, life evolves within limits, once you are part of a clade you must always remain part of that clade because the clade is defined by traits that will be inherited and evolution can't back track (I expect a very dishonest quote mine). But those traits can be modified and further refined to new environmental niches and if enough of these collect up you can have a new daughter clade to the parent clade. (Example being primates and humans.) This is tracable. We can follow the accumulation of the neutral mutations in the genome and see how the daughter clades are related to the parent clades. And guess what, these mutations follow back well past anything you'd consider a "kind." What evolution never claims is an orgnaism giving birth to a distantly related organism by modern standards (a dog giving birth to a cat).

As I said before to disprove evolution you'll need to demonstrate a mechanism, not an argument from personal incredulity of how a finch is always a finch. You'll need a detailed observation of how some mechanism prevents the DNA from straying too far into a new trait that would than make a new species and later as the new trait is refined a new clade all together. I await your peer reviewed indepth study of the proteins that make up the chromsome, the already well understood proteins that control replication, and possibly a never before seen protein that can identify how far from a median line of characteristics is acceptable to remain part of a "kind".

We can make testable predictions on where to find fossils (geographically and geologically) based on when the emergance of traits occured, based on where we found decendent fossils. We have a near full lineage of a land mammal developing traits for marine life (Cetacea). We can make testable predictions on what sort of genetic and chromsomal findings should be present based on the relatedness of species and their current genes and chromsomes. This is the mountain of evidence of evolution. This is the sort of stuff you have to overturn. Not your strawman arguement based on personal incredulity of how X is always X or how no one can activly demonstrate the evolution of a bird from a dinosaur (which other than birds are extinct).


*edited due to grammatical error

 

[Isotelus]

I would like it pointed out to me and everyone else evidence the evolutionists on here have presented that would prove and demonstrate macro-evolution because I have looked through quite a bit of it and do not see the evidence. I don't overlook evidence either like you may think,if there was evidence that proved and demonstrated life evolves I would accept evolution,but I know there is none. But if there is evidence you think I have overlooked go ahead and present it.

Attributing this to mere oversight is an extraordinarily lame excuse. You have not in any instance on this or the OFNF thread directly addressed any refutation or links presented to you. I also think KNOW you're overlooking excellent research because you automatically assume that they're seeing it with an evolutionary perspective and therefore getting it wrong, as if you somehow possessed the expertise to make that judgment. And so you brush it aside without honestly taking it into consideration. Your best response to the 4 papers I offered was an out-of-date news report that has been soundly refuted, and yet you somehow overlooked the fact that Feduccia sees fossils from an evolutionary perspective too, so whether his study was correct or not, by your reckoning your own link completely contradicts your view point. That's more than simply overlooking evidence; it's a sign of laziness and lack of comprehension. And it's not working, is it? You have convinced no one of your position, and it would be poor form and counter-productive to blame this on us given what literally everyone on this thread has repeatedly pointed out to you.

http://labs.biology.ucsd.edu/mcginnis/Hoxmacroevoweb.pdf

This is the third time I've included this link. The researchers are essentially asking the question: given our current understanding, is macroevolution observable and can molecular changes account for it? The results say yes on both accounts.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v487/n7406/full/nature11146.html

This the fifth? Sixth? time I've provided this. These authors demonstrated how macroevolutionary changes between birds and theropod dinosaurs occurred by examining the skulls of both modern and fossil species to compare and assess their developmental trajectories. Their results unambiguously show that changes in the timing of development resulted in morphological shifts in certain groups to more a bird-like skull, adult bird skulls being essentially identical to embryonic/juvenile crocodilian and dinosaur skulls.

Can macroevolution occur? Can we see it using both modern and fossil organisms? Emphatically yes. Perspective need not and does not enter into it when the numbers and data are repeatedly and independently pointing towards the same conclusion.

 

[abelcainsbrother]

Wow! Still no scientific evidence that proves and demonstrates life evolves all I am getting is people telling me it happens yet again.I am supposed to believe them eventhough they have provided no evidence like I have pointed out many times.

I'm just supposed to take their word for it and believe them and you are too.They are just preaching expecting you to just believe them with no evidence and just because they say so.Life evolves "accept it" is their montra,but they have no evidence that can prove and demonstrate a dinosaur can evolve into a bird,and there own evidence they use as evidence does not back it up as I have pointed out but they tell you it happened and you believe them.Why not just believe a Christian preacher about salvation through Jesus Christ? I mean he doesn't prove it,he just preaches and people respond if they feel the need to. These evolutionists are doing the same thing.

Then they offer to refute the Gap theory "young earth creationist" talking points to refute it overlooking how the evidence of an old earth,the fossils in the layers of strata,the coal and oil and the ancient cities/structures backs up the Gap theory much better and proves a former world did exist that perished like 2nd Peter 3:3-7 revealed to us and this passage was ignored if you take a look at the young earth creationist talking points,2nd Peter 3 was not even brought up because they know the earth was not standing out of and in the water in Noah's flood that they stick here to defend a young earth.

But the evidence evolutionists have hijacked away from the Gap theory fits all of the evidence much better than it does evolution,because all they are doing is telling you evolution happens but cannot provide evidence to prove it like I have to back up the Gap theory. So you must go on what they tell you,while I tell you about the Gap theory and give evidence to back it up.

The Gap theory beats evolution because the evidence backs it up and proves it and no evolutionists here can give scientific evidence to demonstrate and prove life evolves.Like I have pointed out the evidence used as evidence for evolution does not back up what they say when they tell you how life evolves. Notice with them you just have to believe them explain how it happens without evidence while I have given evidence to back up what I tell you is true and that is the biblical Gap theory.

 

[Prolescum]

Re: "Let us reason amongst the brethren"

Yep, I am totally convinced by all the evidence you've provided. Remember when you used the word coal? That was some prime, grade A evidence. I was also blown away by the audacity of your use of the word oil. I mean, using it in a sentence? How can those evil-lutionists refute that? Check mate!
They're all so stupid. I want to hear more about Christ, as I've always not cared about the strength of one's argument and loved those who just say things.

By Toutatis, anyone who disputes that God killed an entire world one or more times beyond that which generic Christians teach, is wrong. I mean, look guys:

Is there coal?
Yes.
Is there oil?
Yes.
Are there fossils?
Yes.
Are there ancient buildings?
Yes.
Any further questioning required?
No.

See? All the science says Gap theory is proven, except they won't admit it because of big pharma, Tupac Shakur, and the Queen of the Netherlands (even the name of her country smells evil).

sent from my Commodore Amiga 500

 

[abelcainsbrother]

Re:

Yep, I am totally convinced by all the evidence you've provided. Remember when you used the word coal? That was some prime, grade A evidence. I was also blown away by the audacity of your use of the word oil. I mean, using it in a sentence? How can those evil-lutionists refute that? Check mate!
They're all so stupid. I want to hear more about Christ, as I've always not cared about the strength of one's argument and loved those who just say things.

Yes the word "coal" was good because it reveals to us just how much tree and plant life there was in the former world.And oil? Man there was a lot of life in the former world too that died and eventually perished.I mean we had primates,dinosaurs,and all kinds of weird creatures and animals,etc in the former world as the fossils reveal.

By Toutatis, anyone who disputes that God killed an entire world one or more times beyond that which generic Christians teach, is wrong. I mean, look guys:

Yes! God pours out judgment when it is necessary and Lucifer and a third of the angels rebelling was a very good reason to pour out judgment and start over with this world we live in now,God spared this world even when he poured out judgment on this world though,as this world survived Noah's flood so that Jesus would be born to save us like God said.There will be a new heaven and earth created in the future too after this world is destroyed by fire instead of water.

Is there coal?
Yes.
Is there oil?
Yes.
Are there fossils?
Yes.
Are there ancient buildings?
Yes.
Any further questioning required?
No.

See? All the science says Gap theory is proven, except they won't admit it because of big pharma, Tupac Shakur, and the Queen of the Netherlands (even the name of her country smells evil).

sent from my Commodore Amiga 500

Yes scientists are looking at the evidence from a secular view point and an evolution and naturalism view point also,they don't even consider what the bible has to say and how they could be proving it true.But as time goes on more will be discovered that confirms more of the bible true this is because so much of the bible is revealed over time and it will continue and if we are looking we will discover it because whatever is true has evidence to back it up..

 

[abelcainsbrother]

I would like it pointed out to me and everyone else evidence the evolutionists on here have presented that would prove and demonstrate macro-evolution because I have looked through quite a bit of it and do not see the evidence. I don't overlook evidence either like you may think,if there was evidence that proved and demonstrated life evolves I would accept evolution,but I know there is none. But if there is evidence you think I have overlooked go ahead and present it.

Attributing this to mere oversight is an extraordinarily lame excuse. You have not in any instance on this or the OFNF thread directly addressed any refutation or links presented to you. I also think KNOW you're overlooking excellent research because you automatically assume that they're seeing it with an evolutionary perspective and therefore getting it wrong, as if you somehow possessed the expertise to make that judgment. And so you brush it aside without honestly taking it into consideration. Your best response to the 4 papers I offered was an out-of-date news report that has been soundly refuted, and yet you somehow overlooked the fact that Feduccia sees fossils from an evolutionary perspective too, so whether his study was correct or not, by your reckoning your own link completely contradicts your view point. That's more than simply overlooking evidence; it's a sign of laziness and lack of comprehension. And it's not working, is it? You have convinced no one of your position, and it would be poor form and counter-productive to blame this on us given what literally everyone on this thread has repeatedly pointed out to you.

http://labs.biology.ucsd.edu/mcginnis/Hoxmacroevoweb.pdf

How can you claim this evidence demonstrates macro-evolution?Because it doesn't,I know it explains it but it is not demonstrated.You could just read a bible instead and believe it.

This is the third time I've included this link. The researchers are essentially asking the question: given our current understanding, is macroevolution observable and can molecular changes account for it? The results say yes on both accounts.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v487/n7406/full/nature11146.html

And again macro-evolution is not demonstrated.And like I have pointed out finches,fruit flies,salamanders,viruses,bacteria,eskimos,etc never evolve despite adapting to survive hostile environments.Natural selection has no effect on life and to assume it does without evidence that can demonstrate it can there is no need to keep piling on top of a theory that has not been proven,no matter how much you assume macro-evolution happens it must be demonstrated that it happens and then you can explain how it happens.

This the fifth? Sixth? time I've provided this. These authors demonstrated how macroevolutionary changes between birds and theropod dinosaurs occurred by examining the skulls of both modern and fossil species to compare and assess their developmental trajectories. Their results unambiguously show that changes in the timing of development resulted in morphological shifts in certain groups to more a bird-like skull, adult bird skulls being essentially identical to embryonic/juvenile crocodilian and dinosaur skulls.

No they explained it as if it happened but did not present evidence to confirm macro-evolution happens.It amazes me how you and they can assume with no evidence.Don't you see how it is causing you to look at the evidence all wrong assuming without evidence that life evolves?

Can macroevolution occur? Can we see it using both modern and fossil organisms? Emphatically yes. Perspective need not and does not enter into it when the numbers and data are repeatedly and independently pointing towards the same conclusion.

Not according to finches,viruses,bacteria,fruit flies,eskimos,etc. This evidence proves and demonstrates to us that even when life can adapt to survive hostile environments such as a virus natural selection or even environmental pressures still does not cause life to evolve.I remember when the virus evidence was discovered and evolutionists were overjoyed by this evidence that once and for all proves life evolves and yet the only thing that was proven was life can adapt to survive hostile environments yet still cannot evolve,as it will always be a virus,therefore no dinosaur could evolve to become a bird no matter if it survived hostile environments by adapting,it does not matter,natural selection has no effect on life.You cannot ignore the evidence for evolution and act like it doesn't count now in order to assume macro-evolution happens,no this evidence is important because it reveals to us that life does not evolve and macro-evolution does not happen but is assumed to happen.

 

[Mugnuts]

Then use the fucking bible to make some predictions for Christ's sake!

You know, like what scientists do/did with Evolutionary theory. You had just better not use a biblical perspective or you data might be suspect.

Do you realize how absolutely and fundamentally asinine your statements about everything are?

Not once have you been able to deconstruct a single post, link, or argument made regarding evolution, and at every single turn, yours have been thoroughly refuted, debunked, and flat out destroyed. Every time you repeat yourself over and over and over forcing us to spoon feed you the mountains of proof we have at out fingertips.

I've been holding back, but Prolescum just posted a near exact response to you that I had saved in a draft. ( almost except the Tupak, and Netherlands' Royalty - nice touch btw.)

Maybe you can learn this, at the very least. If you can I will start to believe in the validity of miracles.

1) press the space bar after ALL punctuation. Two presses after periods.

2) use the 'Preview' before 'Submit' to check if the quotes are readable and separate from the responses. Play around with it. It's not that difficult. Really. Check out the Help section here http://www.theleagueofreason.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=11541

 

[abelcainsbrother]

Then use the fucking bible to make some predictions for Christ's sake!

I don't mean this in a bad way but I think you are used to the evolution science cart before the horse evolution evidence way and fail to see how first your hypothesis must be backed up by evidence first and then you can add more on to it later.Science does not work this way when it comes to evolution,instead they have the cart before the horse and pile evience on top of their theory they have not proven can happen and just assume or put their faith in it.

You know, like what scientists do/did with Evolutionary theory. You had just better not use a biblical perspective or you data might be suspect.

They never proved life can evolve and have been assuming it does for 150 years and have piled up a bunch of evidence based on their belief life evolves,looking at everything and assuming without knowing.

Do you realize how absolutely and fundamentally asinine your statements about everything are?

I make mistakes we all do but I am serious when it comes to the Gap theory and no scientific evidence that proves or demonstrates life evolves.

Not once have you been able to deconstruct a single post, link, or argument made regarding evolution, and at every single turn, yours have been thoroughly refuted, debunked, and flat out destroyed. Every time you repeat yourself over and over and over forcing us to spoon feed you the mountains of proof we have at out fingertips.

Are you sure about that? Because I've not only been providing evidence for the Gap theory but also pointing out how there is no reason to believe life evolves and so the fossils cannot be looked at as evidence for evolution any longer and explaining why and how they are evidence for the former world that existed that perished.

I've been holding back, but Prolescum just posted a near exact response to you that I had saved in a draft. ( almost except the Tupak, and Netherlands' Royalty - nice touch btw.)

I can't change anybodies mind all I can do is present evidence for what and why Ibelieve what I do and explain why I reject evolution,I could do better though.

Maybe you can learn this, at the very least. If you can I will start to believe in the validity of miracles.

1) press the space bar after ALL punctuation. Two presses after periods.

2) use the 'Preview' before 'Submit' to check if the quotes are readable and separate from the responses. Play around with it. It's not that difficult. Really. Check out the Help section here http://www.theleagueofreason.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=11541

Thanks for the tips.

 

[Mugnuts]

Maybe you can learn this, at the very least. If you can I will start to believe in the validity of miracles.

1) press the space bar after ALL punctuation. Two presses after periods.

2) use the 'Preview' before 'Submit' to check if the quotes are readable and separate from the responses. Play around with it. It's not that difficult. Really. Check out the Help section here http://www.theleagueofreason.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=11541

Thanks for the tips.

Excellent job applying them :lol: :lol: :lol:

You know what would be awesome. If you were Eugenie Scott trolling us. Then I could have closure.

 

[abelcainsbrother]

Maybe you can learn this, at the very least. If you can I will start to believe in the validity of miracles.

1) press the space bar after ALL punctuation. Two presses after periods.

2) use the 'Preview' before 'Submit' to check if the quotes are readable and separate from the responses. Play around with it. It's not that difficult. Really. Check out the Help section here http://www.theleagueofreason.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=11541

Thanks for the tips.

Excellent job applying them :lol: :lol: :lol:

You know what would be awesome. If you were Eugenie Scott trolling us. Then I could have closure.

Did'nt she admit that an evolutionist should not debate a creationist because they would just lose or something like that?

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Wow! Still no scientific evidence that proves and demonstrates life evolves all I am getting is people telling me it happens yet again.I am supposed to believe them eventhough they have provided no evidence like I have pointed out many times.

I'm just supposed to take their word for it and believe them and you are too.They are just preaching expecting you to just believe them with no evidence and just because they say so.Life evolves "accept it" is their montra,but they have no evidence that can prove and demonstrate a dinosaur can evolve into a bird,and there own evidence they use as evidence does not back it up as I have pointed out but they tell you it happened and you believe them.Why not just believe a Christian preacher about salvation through Jesus Christ? I mean he doesn't prove it,he just preaches and people respond if they feel the need to. These evolutionists are doing the same thing.

Then they offer to refute the Gap theory "young earth creationist" talking points to refute it overlooking how the evidence of an old earth,the fossils in the layers of strata,the coal and oil and the ancient cities/structures backs up the Gap theory much better and proves a former world did exist that perished like 2nd Peter 3:3-7 revealed to us and this passage was ignored if you take a look at the young earth creationist talking points,2nd Peter 3 was not even brought up because they know the earth was not standing out of and in the water in Noah's flood that they stick here to defend a young earth.

But the evidence evolutionists have hijacked away from the Gap theory fits all of the evidence much better than it does evolution,because all they are doing is telling you evolution happens but cannot provide evidence to prove it like I have to back up the Gap theory. So you must go on what they tell you,while I tell you about the Gap theory and give evidence to back it up.

The Gap theory beats evolution because the evidence backs it up and proves it and no evolutionists here can give scientific evidence to demonstrate and prove life evolves.Like I have pointed out the evidence used as evidence for evolution does not back up what they say when they tell you how life evolves. Notice with them you just have to believe them explain how it happens without evidence while I have given evidence to back up what I tell you is true and that is the biblical Gap theory.

And still no answers to the issues raised.

Why don't you just admit that you are unable to answer the questions put to you?

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Mugnuts]

Maybe you can learn this, at the very least. If you can I will start to believe in the validity of miracles.

1) press the space bar after ALL punctuation. Two presses after periods.

2) use the 'Preview' before 'Submit' to check if the quotes are readable and separate from the responses. Play around with it. It's not that difficult. Really. Check out the Help section here http://www.theleagueofreason.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=11541

Thanks for the tips.

Excellent job applying them :lol: :lol: :lol:

You know what would be awesome. If you were Eugenie Scott trolling us. Then I could have closure.[/quote]

Did'nt she admit that an evolutionist should not debate a creationist because they would just lose or something like that?

[sarcasm]Yup, you're 100% accurate as usual on that one.[/sarcasm] (sarcasm function) But [sarcasm]I'm sure you knew that already[/sarcasm])

Was it too hard to look it up or do you really want me to answer that?

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Maybe you can learn this, at the very least. If you can I will start to believe in the validity of miracles.

1) press the space bar after ALL punctuation. Two presses after periods.

2) use the 'Preview' before 'Submit' to check if the quotes are readable and separate from the responses. Play around with it. It's not that difficult. Really. Check out the Help section here http://www.theleagueofreason.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=11541

Thanks for the tips.

Excellent job applying them :lol: :lol: :lol:

You know what would be awesome. If you were Eugenie Scott trolling us. Then I could have closure.

Did'nt she admit that an evolutionist should not debate a creationist because they would just lose or something like that?

Only because the science-oriented debater has to try and cram lots of science into the few minutes they have, whereas the creationist can trot out catch-phrases - “It is better to trust in the Rock of Ages than to know the ages of rock,”, as W. J. Bryan said in one of his speeches, not the Scopes trial(!)

If your local campus Christian fellowship asks you to "defend evolution," please decline. Public debates rarely change many minds; creationists stage them mainly in the hope of drawing large sympathetic audiences. Have you ever watched the Harlem Globetrotters play the Washington Federals? The Federals get off some good shots, but who remembers them? The purpose of the game is to see the Globetrotters beat the other team. And you probably will get beaten. In such a forum, scientific experts often try to pack a semester-long course into an hour, hoping to convey the huge sweep of evolution, the towering importance of its ideas, the masses of evidence in its favor. Creationist debaters know better. They come well prepared with an arsenal of crisp, clear, superficially attractive antievolutionary arguments--fallacious ones, yes, but far too many for you to answer in the time provided. Even if you win the debate in some technical sense, most of the audience will still walk away from it convinced that your opponent has a great new science that the schools should hear about. Teachers have enough problems. Above all else, do no harm." (Scott E.C, "Monkey Business," The Sciences, New York Academy of Sciences, January/February 1996, Vol. 36, No. 1; pp.20-25, p.25.)

Kindest regards,

James

 

[SpecialFrog]

Abel,
This is how you evaluate evidence.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=rW8fDw8VzKI

 

[Mugnuts]

Abel,
This is how you evaluate evidence.

I fix'so if u no mind

 

[Mugnuts]

Yeah, what Dragan said.

However, this is not timed. There is all the time to link, write out and present the quite long answers to the simple creation quips.

The audience can read everything presented, and it's only those that skim over everything that aren't being honest as to what they post here.

On a different note, I've been looking up your side of this because your representation really isn't very good so far.

I believe this was linked before but here it is again just in case.

http://ncse.com/cej/8/3/formless-void-gap-theory-creationism

Here's a teaser

Conclusion
The most thorough refutations of the gap theory come from rival creationists. They point out the absurdity of supposing that billions of years exist between the crack, as it were, of the first two verses of Genesis, which is a straightforward account of creation. They see no support anywhere in the Bible for such a notion. The alleged scriptural evidences for the gap theory do not concern these immense missing ages. Rather, they refer to Satan's rebellion and fall; as to when this occurred, the Bible is not at all clear. The apocalyptic passages used as evidence are about events of the then contemporary age or allusions to the future coming of the antichrist or, in mythic fashion, to both simultaneously.

Debunked by other creationists. :lol: love it. So sad.


Does this link help represent what you are attempting to defend? Specifically which parts, and why/how?

...on top of that

Could you help me find the specifics of the Cain/Neanderthal connections? Send me somewhere I can read this. You writing down hasn't done enough to convince me. Where/who did you learn it from?

I was also wondering where you can point out who and when it was explained/evidenced anywhere in film or writing pertaining to the coal, oil, fossil = former world.

 

[SpecialFrog]

I fix'so if u no mind

Thanks. I couldn't work out how to get the Youtube code working on my mobile.