Answers In Genesis on Facebook

[ImmortalFlame]

What is the point of saying there is evidence but wont cut and paste it? Why should I believe what people tell me without any supporting evidence? That is what those who accept evolution do.

What is the point of asking people to cut and paste evidence if, when they cut and paste it, you just dismiss it?

If you think a variation in a species is evidence of evolution, it is you who does not understand what evolution preaches.

Evolution is the name we give the process that causes change in allele frequencies over time, be they within species or above the level of species (both of which are observed). What you're saying here is akin to saying "If you think a cotton ball falling to the ground is evidence of gravity, it is you who does not understand what gravity preaches".

The color of the beetle is not dependent on a mutation. It is dependent which color in its parents is dominant. You lack understand of basic genetics.

Do you not understand that mutations occur? Two green beetles could mate and produce a brown beetle. Genetics isn't entirely determined by heredity; as has already been explained, mutations exist in all living organisms that make them distinct from their parent(s) and peers.

And you are insufficiently educated to make such an ignorant statement.

You've made several erroneous errors about evolution, including the assertion that "mutations cannot affect a single gene", that evolution says "an apple should become something other than an apple", that "whales evolved from dogs in a single generation" and that genetics is purely determined by dominant genes.

You are woefully ignorant, son.

 

[Jose Fly]

Do you really not understand that writing a paper is not evidence.

If what's written in scientific papers is not "evidence" to you, why are you asking people to copy and paste from them?

Pakicetus, a medium sized dog-like animal is in the line of whale evolution.

It is not a dog in any way at all.

Then cut and paste the genetic evidence they presented.

But you just said that what they write isn't evidence. So why are you asking me to copy and paste what they write?

And now we have an obvious issue.....you want people to "copy and paste the evidence", but you also don't see the writings of scientists as "evidence". So what exactly are you expecting people to copy and paste?

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Already knowing this is going to be a waste of time...

Because your whale experts say it happened but offer no science to support that it did.

The evidence is already there. (TIP: That's a link)

That is part of the fairy tale invented by your whale experts.

Skål for not attributing it to "satan." Isn't that the go-to for scientific deception?

Why do you object to me asking for evidence?

Given how anti-everything not Christian you are, that was a cynical criticism of you referencing use of something that your religion very much so condemns; magic and divination.

 

[omega2xx]

Please humor us all and explain what it is exactly you think Evolution "Preaches".

All living things originated from a single source. evidently an apple was not always an apple, or the first livin thing wa an app;le. Doens' it make you wonder how animals originated?

Except I am not ignorant of your bold faced lies.

You are so ignorant of real science you only think they are lies.

 

[McBell]

All living things originated from a single source. evidently an apple was not always an apple, or the first livin thing wa an app;le. Doens' it make you wonder how animals originated?

It is most comical how you so thoroughly demonstrate my signature...

You are so ignorant of real science you only think they are lies.

another bold faced lie.

Sad that we are no longer allowed to call liars liars.
Hurts their fragile little egos I guess

 

[omega2xx]

What does that even mean? Any mutations have the potential to impact a gene.

Mutations don't have the potential for attacking genes, that is what they do.

I've already provided you with multiple examples of observed instances of speciation. So yes, it does.

In your examples and all the others example of speciation,, the species did not change. Some them became impotent, but they remained the exact same species. Impotence does not change the species. Thus no evolution.

That is correct. What he says is unimportant, it's how we go about determining the truth of the statement that matters, so your quoting him has absolutely no impact on the debate.

If what he says is true and it is, it is critical.

What law of genetics, specifically?

The offspring can't receive a characteristic that is not in the gene pool of its parents/.

"Omega2xx is made of speghetti".

Do you want to discuss this or just show your ignorance by making stupid statements? If you don't have the intellect to discuss a difference, to back to the play ground with the other children and don't forget to look both ways if you have to cross the street,

Unless you can prove my statement wrong, and you can't, your opinion does not lend credibility to your argument.

I've done this five times already.

You only think you do because you don't know what evidence is. Clue: it is not an opinion.

That is a lie. Evolutionary theory says no such thing.

Yes it does. It is amusing you don't even know the basic doctrine of the religion you have accepted.

Before apples existed, there were fruits, and an apple is a variety of fruit. It is a variation on the "fruit category". It's funny that you should bring up dogs, because they're actually a perfect example of this. Because, at one point, dogs didn't exist. All dogs are descended from grey wolves. Does this mean that a grey wolf produced "something other than a grey wolf"? No. Because "dogs" are a variation on the "wolf category".

A perfect example of thinking rhetoric is evidence. Thank you

SOURCE: Evolution: Library: Evolution of the Dog

Do you understand?

Without reading your link, I will put on my prophecy had and predict it did not offer any evidence. Now is your big chance to prove me wrong. God back to your link and cut and paste the evidence they offered. While my prophecy hat is still on I will predict you will not do that simple thing but will complain about me not checking your link.

Your opinion is irrelevant. Only facts are relevant on this issue, and they uniformly indicate common descent.

Thanks again. Anther perfect example of you thinking rhetoric is evidence.

 

[omega2xx]

because it is a bold faced lie.

DUUH. How can asking a question be a lie? Is English your first language?

 

[McBell]

DUUH. How can asking a question be a lie? Is English your first language?

It is interesting that you of all people call others "ignorant"...

 

[McBell]

Mutations don't have the potential for attacking genes, that is what they do.

In your examples and all the others example of speciation,, the species did not change. Some them became impotent, but they remained the exact same species. Impotence does not change the species. Thus no evolution.

If what he says is true and it is, it is critical.

The offspring can't receive a characteristic that is not in the gene pool of its parents/.

Do you want to discuss this or just show your ignorance by making stupid statements? If you don't have the intellect to discuss a difference, to back to the play ground with the other children and don't forget to look both ways if you have to cross the street,

Unless you can prove my statement wrong, and you can't, your opinion does not lend credibility to your argument.

You only think you do because you don't know what evidence is. Clue: it is not an opinion.

Yes it does. It is amusing you don't even know the basic doctrine of the religion you have accepted.

A perfect example of thinking rhetoric is evidence. Thank you

Without reading your link, I will put on my prophecy had and predict it did not offer any evidence. Now is your big chance to prove me wrong. God back to your link and cut and paste the evidence they offered. While my prophecy hat is still on I will predict you will not do that simple thing but will complain about me not checking your link.

Thanks again. Anther perfect example of you thinking rhetoric is evidence.

jumping up and down with your fingers in your ears singing "La La La" does NOT a refutation make.

 

[omega2xx]

If what's written in scientific papers is not "evidence" to you, why are you asking people to copy and paste from them?

To show it is not evidence. Do you really think someone writing something is evidence?

It is not a dog in any way at all.

I didn't say dog, I said dog-like but that is irrelevant. It was a land animal with legs and a nose. There is not genetic way it could develope fins and a blowhole.


But you just said that what they write isn't evidence. So why are you asking me to copy and paste what they write?

And now we have an obvious issue.....you want people to "copy and paste the evidence", but you also don't see the writings of scientists as "evidence". So what exactly are you expecting people to copy and paste?

I haven't said what they write is not evidence, I can't tell unless someone cuts and pastes what they offer as evidence.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Mutations don't have the potential for attacking genes, that is what they do.

What are you talking about?

In your examples and all the others example of speciation,, the species did not change.

"Speciation" literally means "change in species".

Some them became impotent, but they remained the exact same species. Impotence does not change the species. Thus no evolution.

It's not impotence, it's inability to cross-breed with their original population while still being able to breed with their own population - thus establishing that they are no longer the same species as the population that they came from.

If what he says is true and it is, it is critical.

And if what I said about you being of spaghetti is true, it's crucial.

The fact is, he is wrong. Mutations have been demonstrated to cause evolutionary change.

The offspring can't receive a characteristic that is not in the gene pool of its parents/.

Yes they can. That's what mutation is. You're arguing against very basic facts of biology.

Do you want to discuss this or just show your ignorance by making stupid statements?

I'm starting to believe you're a POE.

If you don't have the intellect to discuss a difference, to back to the play ground with the other children and don't forget to look both ways if you have to cross the street,

Unless you can prove my statement wrong, and you can't, your opinion does not lend credibility to your argument.

You haven't proven that you aren't made of spaghetti - therefore, you are made of spaghetti.

You only think you do because you don't know what evidence is. Clue: it is not an opinion.

Evidence is the observations of speciation that I have cut and pasted as you requested. That's not opinion.

Yes it does. It is amusing you don't even know the basic doctrine of the religion you have accepted.

Then please enlighten me. Where exactly does it say this?

A perfect example of thinking rhetoric is evidence. Thank you

That's not rhetoric, it's an explanation of how evolution works and what evolution actually says.

Without reading your link, I will put on my prophecy had and predict it did not offer any evidence. Now is your big chance to prove me wrong. God back to your link and cut and paste the evidence they offered. While my prophecy hat is still on I will predict you will not do that simple thing but will complain about me not checking your link.

What is the point in debating with you? When I paste evidence, you ignore or dismiss it. When I link you to evidence, you tell me to cut and paste it. You literally have nothing to add to this discussion.

Thanks again. Anther perfect example of you thinking rhetoric is evidence.

You understand neither rhetoric nor evidence. You are finished, little boy. Learn to debate like an adult.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I didn't say dog, I said dog-like but that is irrelevant.

You are a liar. You said it three times:

Of course not. That is an opinion. They must show the scientific process that explains HOW it happened. HOW did a dogs leg, become the fins of a whale.

No they won't. They will only say it happened. For example they must give the science that causes it to happen. For example they must show genetically how a dogs leg can become a whale fin.

Whales didn't evolve from dogs.

You better check with your whale experts. They have pakicetus one generation from a whale.

 

[omega2xx]

Already knowing this is going to be a waste of time...

Probably

The evidence is already there.

(TIP: That's a link)

Tip: I have quit reading links because they NEVER provide any evidence for what they say. Prove me wrong. Go back to your link and cut and paste what they offered as evidence. I still have my prophecy hat on, so I will predict you will not do it.

]Skål for not attributing it to "satan." Isn't that the go-to for scientific deception?

I have no idea what you are referring to.

Given how anti-everything not Christian you are, that was a cynical criticism of you referencing use of something that your religion very much so condemns; magic and divination.

Since I am not anti everything not Christian, I have no idea what you are talking abut.

 

[omega2xx]

It is most comical how you so thoroughly demonstrate my signature...



another bold faced lie.

Sad that we are no longer allowed to call liars liars.
Hurts their fragile little egos I guess

I enjoy people like you calling me a liar. It points to their lack of civility, which is important for honest people to have and it points to their lack of the intellect needed to discuss a subject.

You better get home quick, your pants are on fire.

 

[omega2xx]

It is interesting that you of all people call others "ignorant"...

If you think asking a question is a lie you have a serious problem. Did you finish grade school?

 

[omega2xx]

jumping up and down with your fingers in your ears singing "La La La" does NOT a refutation make.

Such childish statements are necessary when you can't refute what I say, because of your lack of the intellect needed to refute what say.

Since you are not here to discuss the subject, don't expect any more responses from me.

Have a + day.

 

[omega2xx]

What are you talking about?[

Mutations attack genes. That is what they do.

"Speciation" literally means "change in species".

It is a definition of necessity and unless speciation cause a change of species, and it doe s not, it is wrong,

It's not impotence, it's inability to cross-breed with their original population while still being able to breed with their own population - thus establishing that they are no longer the same species as the population that they came from.

You can't have a salamander remaining a salamander and say it is evidence o evolution. They could not mate with what you are calling a new species. In fact some of them did mate just as before. Also, there is no way all of the salamanders could be observed to say with assurance then could not mate.

And if what I said about you being of spaghetti is true, it's crucial.

Then explain it.

The fact is, he is wrong. Mutations have been demonstrated to cause evolutionary change.

Then give me an example of how it happened.

Yes they can. That's what mutation is. You're arguing against very basic facts of biology.

What fact is that?

I'm starting to believe you're a POE.

Take this personally--I couldn't care less what you think,


>>You haven't proven that you aren't made of spaghetti -Yes I have. Spaghetti can't type

therefore, you are made of spaghetti.

Therefore your statement is childish and wrong.

Evidence is the observations of speciation that I have cut and pasted as you requested. That's not opinion.

Do you really not understand that saying something is not evidence. Let me give you a clue---a species staying the same species is not evidence of evolution---not being able to mate is not evidence of a change of species.


Then please enlighten me. Where exactly does it say this?

That's not rhetoric, it's an explanation of how evolution works and what evolution actually says.

Not true. they do not offer any scientific evidence that could account for it.

What is the point in debating with you? When I paste evidence, you ignore or dismiss it. When I link you to evidence, you tell me to cut and paste it. You literally have nothing to add to this discussion.

Then you should quit discussing it with me.

You understand neither rhetoric nor evidence. You are finished, little boy. Learn to debate like an adult.

It is truly sad when someone thinks they know everything but do not have the intellect or the civility to discuss it without becoming insulting.

 

[McBell]

I enjoy people like you calling me a liar. It points to their lack of civility, which is important for honest people to have and it points to their lack of the intellect needed to discuss a subject.

You better get home quick, your pants are on fire.

you truly are immune to truth and facts.

 

[McBell]

Such childish statements are necessary when you can't refute what I say, because of your lack of the intellect needed to refute what say.

Since you are not here to discuss the subject, don't expect any more responses from me.

Have a + day.

You have been refuted at almost every single turn.
You simply ignore it.

Then you claim those who have in fact refuted you have not.
You whine about not discussing the topic, yet you are the one ignoring and or dismissing every thing presented.
Based upon your posts in this this thread, the topic must be nothing more than you making bold empty claims and telling bold faced lies.

You whine about "childishness" of others when you are the biggest offender.

Your hypocrisy knows no bounds.

But don't let the truth stop you..

 

[Jose Fly]

To show it is not evidence. Do you really think someone writing something is evidence?

I haven't said what they write is not evidence,

You need to make up your mind.