"Let us reason amongst the brethren"

[abelcainsbrother]

Let's try an alternative tactic, since posting giant mountains of evidence isn't swaying you, ACB.

What evidence WOULD convince you that evolution happens? Be very specific. I'm willing to bet we can either provide what you request or your request will be nonsensical. Either way, this will set off this thread's denouement.

Scientific peer reviewed evidence that life truly evolves,evidence that demonstrates macro-evolution.I don't want to hear that evolution happens over such long periods of time that it cannot be observed,etc.I want to see it demonstrated that life evolves.

 

[Capn Planet]

Let's try an alternative tactic, since posting giant mountains of evidence isn't swaying you, ACB.

What evidence WOULD convince you that evolution happens? Be very specific. I'm willing to bet we can either provide what you request or your request will be nonsensical. Either way, this will set off this thread's denouement.

Scientific peer reviewed evidence that life truly evolves,evidence that demonstrates macro-evolution.I don't want to hear that evolution happens over such long periods of time that it cannot be observed,etc.I want to see it demonstrated that life evolves.

This has already been provided for you ad nauseum; some in this thread, most of it in the other threads in which you posted.

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

This simple link would do, but people like Rumraket have been very generous in they way they post pictures, plots, and lengthy explanations complete with peer-reviewed citations.

I don't think this thread needs to go any further. You're just being incredibly dishonest and have been for a while if this is really your standard.

 

[abelcainsbrother]

This has already been provided for you ad nauseum; some in this thread, most of it in the other threads in which you posted.

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

This simple link would do, but people like Rumraket have been very generous in they way they post pictures, plots, and lengthy explanations complete with peer-reviewed citations.

I don't think this thread needs to go any further. You're just being incredibly dishonest and have been for a while if this is really your standard.

Let's try an alternative tactic, since posting giant mountains of evidence isn't swaying you, ACB.

What evidence WOULD convince you that evolution happens? Be very specific. I'm willing to bet we can either provide what you request or your request will be nonsensical. Either way, this will set off this thread's denouement.

Scientific peer reviewed evidence that life truly evolves,evidence that demonstrates macro-evolution.I don't want to hear that evolution happens over such long periods of time that it cannot be observed,etc.I want to see it demonstrated that life evolves.

This has already been provided for you ad nauseum; some in this thread, most of it in the other threads in which you posted.

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

This simple link would do, but people like Rumraket have been very generous in they way they post pictures, plots, and lengthy explanations complete with peer-reviewed citations.

I don't think this thread needs to go any further. You're just being incredibly dishonest and have been for a while if this is really your standard.

It admits it is assumed.Read through it and you'll see it admits that because of micro-evolution it is assumed that macro-evolution happens and it is left open.All it does is use evidence that has been built around evolution to try to prove macro-evolution but none of it does.It does not prove life evolves if all life is related.Macro-evolution is assumed yet everything is looked at from this perspective.Unfortunately for 150 years scientists have overlooked the Gap theory as an explanation.

 

[Capn Planet]

It admits it is assumed.Read through it and you'll see it admits that because of micro-evolution it is assumed that macro-evolution happens and it is left open.

That's not even in the ballpark of what you find at that TalkOrigins link. You're not even trying to pretend that you read anything people post and you just repeat yourself without any useful punctuation. This is typically considered troll behavior.

It does not prove life evolves if all life is related.

Well, actually...it does. You and your cousin are considered "related" BECAUSE you share a common ancestor. English may be your first language, but you certainly don't know what a bunch of these relevant words mean.

Of course, that assumes you're for real. My personal opinion is that it would be an insult to your intelligence to pretend that you actually believe the crap you post.

 

[abelcainsbrother]

That's not even in the ballpark of what you find at that TalkOrigins link. You're not even trying to pretend that you read anything people post and you just repeat yourself without any useful punctuation. This is typically considered troll behavior.

I did read through it.Don't call me a troll if you think I've overlooked something point it out to me.What is the strongest evidence you know of that demonstrates life evolves?

Well, actually...it does. You and your cousin are considered "related" BECAUSE you share a common ancestor. English may be your first language, but you certainly don't know what a bunch of these relevant words mean.

Evidence would be good.Life being related does not prove life evolves.You must be able to show and demonstrate life evolves otherwise why doubt the bible about kinds producing after their kind?Life producing after their kind is what the evidence shows us.Speciation proves and demonstrates this not evolution.Why do you assume life evolves instead of what the evidence reveals?

 

[Mugnuts]

Wow! I have not seen that particular graph you posted before but I like it.As you can see looking at it there are different time periods in it with different species being found in each time period.Also I expect you to be intellectually honest if you know about evolution,you know about much of the evidence,the only think you have to do is look at it from a Gap theory perspective instead of an evolution one.You know about the fossils,evolutionists use that as evidence all the time just look at them from a former world that perished perspective and remove evolution,don't think of them as evolving,instead think of them living at one time in the former world and dying.

Fail still.

Living one at a time and dying, eh...So are you inferring that each and every one is a creation unto it's own. That each and every one of those species is not related in a progressive and sometimes branching hierarchy? Are you suggesting that god lets them live and prosper for a few million (or tens of millions) then lets them die out (or hits them with a flood, volcano, or meteor) and makes up and entirely new one?

Evidence would be good.Life being related does not prove life evolves.You must be able to show and demonstrate life evolves otherwise why doubt the bible about kinds producing after their kind?Life producing after their kind is what the evidence shows us.Speciation proves and demonstrates this not evolution.Why do you assume life evolves instead of what the evidence reveals?

Flat out, you have no concept of what evidence is, points to and conveys.

Months of this. Literally months of this troll like fucktardery. Do you know what a troll is and what they do? Can you grasp why so many are thinking you are possibly one?


BTW greets to Capn Planet.

 

[abelcainsbrother]

The Gap theory is just as true today as it was before Charles Darwin wrote his books.Because scientists accepted evolution and ran with it but after 150 years have not been able to demonstrate that life evolves perhaps they've taken it for granted and assumed they don't need evidence that life evolves but they do.

There was a former world on this earth like the bible reveals and it was full of life,it lasted for millions of years until it perished and all life went extinct,the earth sat in a damaged state,a gap of time until God created this world with different animals,beasts and man.Man sinned and caused death to come to this world God spared this world in Noah's flood unlike the former world,this world was spared by Noah and his family so that eventually Jesus would be born to save those of us who are lost.

The fossils testify to this former world that existed on this earth that perished and have nothing to do with evolution and life evolving over millions of years.

 

[Mugnuts]

There was a former world on this earth like the bible reveals and it was full of life,it lasted for millions of years until it perished and all life went extinct,the earth sat in a damaged state,a gap of time until God created this world with different animals,beasts and man.Man sinned and caused death to come to this world God spared this world in Noah's flood unlike the former world,this world was spared by Noah and his family so that eventually Jesus would be born to save those of us who are lost.

The fossils testify to this former world that existed on this earth that perished and have nothing to do with evolution and life evolving over millions of years.

Extinct means death. If everything went extinct before Adam sinned...see where this is going. Nice try.

 

[abelcainsbrother]

Extinct means death. If everything went extinct before Adam sinned...see where this is going. Nice try.

There was a former world on this earth like the bible reveals and it was full of life,it lasted for millions of years until it perished and all life went extinct,the earth sat in a damaged state,a gap of time until God created this world with different animals,beasts and man.Man sinned and caused death to come to this world God spared this world in Noah's flood unlike the former world,this world was spared by Noah and his family so that eventually Jesus would be born to save those of us who are lost.

The fossils testify to this former world that existed on this earth that perished and have nothing to do with evolution and life evolving over millions of years.

Extinct means death. If everything went extinct before Adam sinned...see where this is going. Nice try.

Yes there was death in the former world and we have evidence of it.It does not effect this world.Ken Ham and young earther's seems to think that we cannot have death before man sinned but man did not die until man sinned in this world.Man would not have died if we had not sinned in this world but we did and so it effected this world.Romans 5:12"Wherefore,as by one man sin entered into the world,and death by sin,and so death passed upon all men.for that all have sinned.5:19 "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners,so by the obedience of one(Jesus)shall many be made righteous."

 

[Mugnuts]

As painful as this is to go on with you, I'd like to get back to your math on human population. You said if evolution were true that there would be trillions and trillions upon trillions of people, and hold that eight people gave us the # we currently have.

Please show the math on both of these.

 

[Gnug215]

Abel, you keep talking about the old world dying, and how fossils are evidence of this old world.

But do tell us, exactly how did this old world die?

And how did it come about in the first place? What I mean is... if you say that all these fossils lived in the old world, but apparently didn't evolve, does that mean that all these lifeforms were created, and then lived, at the same time?

Last, a quick point... You mention that you're not the best typer. Fair enough, we all have ours to struggle with, but a quick tip to help: Please use more paragraphs. The Enter key is your friend. Please try to separate new points with some forced space. It makes it a LOT easier for everyone to read.

Don't necessarily use me as an example.

I tend to do it too much.

Way too much...

So... there.

 

[Inferno]

Don't necessarily use me as an example.

I tend to do it too much.

Way too much...

So... there.

Every time you hit the ENTER-key, God kills a kitten.

 

[Visaki]

Every time you hit the ENTER-key, God kills a kitten.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

 

[Prolescum]

Round and round we go...

ACB denies the conclusions of thousands of scientists of over a century and a half of applying the best means to attain an objective truth about the real world based on a conspiracy theory which is as nebulous and spurious as his risible assertions of his god creating a universe full to its brim with giant reptiles and weird looking crustaceans before drowning it all via star-water and deciding to start from scratch with a new dominant lifeforms based upon his own likeness (?). Before drowning them too, of course. When a question is put to him regarding one of the myriad stupid points, we end up at the beginning of this paragraph again.

This is unbelievably stupid, and we should all be embarrassed for entertaining it.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Perhaps if he addresses the fact that he has borne false witness, as I pointed out, we may start to get somewhere.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Capn Planet]

BTW greets to Capn Planet.

Thanks! I started coming here back when AronRa would link his debates on his YouTube channel, and there's still interesting discussion that happens. Glad to be part of it.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Greetings,

How does switching back to attacking evolution answer the points I made in my last post?

It doesn't.

@ Australopithecus, "kinds" are whatever a creationist needs it to be to make humans special, so that evolution doesn't apply - that's why it chops and changes depending on the circumstances.

Kindest regards,

James

I'm not really ignoring you just been busy and have not had time to address your last post but still I am making a point that without evidence that life evolves the Gap fact makes the most sense even if you don't fully understand the Gap fact right now.I've explained it from a biblical point of view and evolutionists cannot just attack it and win without evidence for evolution the truth will shine through.Evolutionists think attacking the bible instead of evidence that life evolves wins but it will not work against the Gap fact once it is explained.I don't have to really go into detail about it either but I try to,I could just put forth the theory of a former world that existed on this earth and use the fossils as evidence to back it up and point out no evidence for macroevolution and it would be just as believable as evolution is unless they are not intellectually honest,Nobody can make somebody change their mind but evidence will out shine everytime and we have evidence of a former world that existed on this earth that went extinct and perished evolutionists have just made it fit into evolution.

One thing you can clarify is when did this "previous world" perish? When did "this world" come into being?

PS Pardon my manners, Capn Planet, welcome to LoR!

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Prolescum]

Greetings,

Perhaps if he addresses the fact that he has borne false witness, as I pointed out, we may start to get somewhere.

Kindest regards,

James

I think there's as much of a chance of that as there are Nephilim in Birmingham.

Also, welcome to Lor, Capn Planet (you're my hero, assuming you take pollution down to zero)!

 

[abelcainsbrother]

Round and round we go...

ACB denies the conclusions of thousands of scientists of over a century and a half of applying the best means to attain an objective truth about the real world based on a conspiracy theory which is as nebulous and spurious as his risible assertions of his god creating a universe full to its brim with giant reptiles and weird looking crustaceans before drowning it all via star-water and deciding to start from scratch with a new dominant lifeforms based upon his own likeness (?). Before drowning them too, of course. When a question is put to him regarding one of the myriad stupid points, we end up at the beginning of this paragraph again.

This is unbelievably stupid, and we should all be embarrassed for entertaining it.

Scientists are looking at everything from an evolution point of view,you cannot even be a scientist if you go against evolution.Rupert Sheldrake is an example and he is an evolutionist too,not a creationist,etc.If a scientist accepted the Gap theory they would be kicked out of science,doors would suddenly close that were opened,every scientist must go along with it.

 

[Mugnuts]

Scientists are looking at everything from an evolution point of view,you cannot even be a scientists if you go against evolution.Reupert Sheldrake is an example and he is an evolutionist too,not a creationist,etc.If a scientist accepted the Gap theory they would be kicked out of scienxce,doors would suddenly close that were opened,every scientist must go along with it.

This is actually a perfect example, and everyone here is glad you used it. This what happens when you do science, and misinterpret data or make conclusions that do not back up the data. The reason he is shunned is because his peers can use the data correctly to falsify the claims made, yet he goes out in public with books and debates and sides with the likes of Deepak Chopra.

There is a reason it's called Pseudoscience and it gives the public a conflicted idea of what real science is about. Garbage in, garbage out.

If you can bring any hypothesis with objective and verifiable evidence, you will not be kicked out. It will be scrutinized, revised and retested accordingly and if it holds up through that, it stops being alternative, or pseudoscience and becomes just science.