Answers In Genesis on Facebook

[leibowde84]

Get your facts straight. Science has not confirmed evolution. Real science rejects it. I reject evolution on science, not on Scripture. You folks like to think our reason is only Scripture, that that is to avoid sticking to real science.

What evidence contradicts evolution? Can you provide some examples?

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Probably

There's your self-fulfilling "prophecy"; you've already made up your mind, and no amount of evidence is going to change it. You're no scientist, and you're certainly no prophet.

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.

You mean you still have your self-prophecy hat on. But I wonder, omega, are you intentionally trying to get people to break Rule #7, which states we're only supposed to post a paragraph of outside material per source, and still cite it? You do realize you're demanding decades of study and hundreds of books to be condensed into baby food and spoon-fed to you, right? All to disprove your ridiculous and inane Pokémon-style "evolution" where dogs magically turn into whales overnight.

The fact that species of cetaceans (that's the scientific word for whales) can be traced via DNA comparison (kind of like we do with people and parentage), and the fact that this shows a transition of skeletal structures from terrestrial (land) to aquatic (sea) mammals proves that whales evolved from a land ancestor.

The fact that they have remnant hind-legs and hip bones proves this. See below:

The fact that their finbones are made of phalange (finger bones) rather than a finbone proves that their fins evolved from digital hands.

Whale fin:

Fish fin:

The fact that whales (and dolphins, for that matter) have both nostrils and lungs proves that they are not native to the oceans, and evolved to survive there; elsewise they would have gills.

I enjoy people like you calling me a liar. It points to their lack of civility,

As has been pointed out to you before, so does things like saying "DUUH" to other posters.

 

[omega2xx]

you truly are immune to truth and facts.

Brilliant response. Did some adult at the playground tell you that, when you whined about some Christian bullying you?



"Faith is a sounder guide than reason. Reason can go only so far, but faith has no limits."
- Blaise Pascal

 

[omega2xx]

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

Thanks for confirming that you don't understand science or evidence.

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.

That is the usual response I get from those whose intellect is not high enough to allow them to understand simple science concepts and think opinions are evidence.

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

That's what all the children I discuss subjects with say when they can't refute what I say, because they can't understand even the simple concepts I present to them.

Your hypocrisy knows no bounds.

But don't let the truth stop you..

It seems you also do not understand the meaning of "hypocrisy." Don't worry, I am sure one of the adults at your playground will explain it to you.



"Faith is a sounder guide than reason. Reason can go only so far, but faith has no limits."
- Blaise Pascal

 

[omega2xx]

You need to make up your mind.

You need to understand what I say.


"Faith is a sounder guide than reason. Reason can go only so far, but faith has no limits."
- Blaise Pascal

 

[omega2xx]

What evidence contradicts evolution? Can you provide some examples?

Of course. The laws of genetics confirms "after their kind" and refutes evolution.

Plant some corn and in about 90 day, not only will you get corn, you will get the exact same variety you planted,

Now give me an example of an offspring being being a different species than it parents.


"Faith is a sounder guide than reason. Reason can go only so far, but faith has no limits."
- Blaise Pascal

 

[omega2xx]

There's your self-fulfilling "prophecy"; you've already made up your mind, and no amount of evidence is going to change it. You're no scientist, and you're certainly no prophet.

You are half right which is better than usual. I have made up my mind based on real science, especially the proved science of genetics. I am not a scientist but I have the ability to read and understand at least the basic concepts of science, and i know the difference between evidence and opinion. My predictions that none of the links mentioned offer scientific evidence has come true so far.

You mean you still have your self-prophecy hat on. But I wonder, omega, are you intentionally trying to get people to break Rule #7, which states we're only supposed to post a paragraph of outside material per source, and still cite it? You do realize you're demanding decades of study and hundreds of books to be condensed into baby food and spoon-fed to you, right? All to disprove your ridiculous and inane Pokémon-style "evolution" where dogs magically turn into whales overnight.

Cutting and pasting one example of scientific evidence could be less than a long paragraph.

The fact that species of cetaceans (that's the scientific word for whales) can be traced via DNA comparison (kind of like we do with people and parentage), and the fact that this shows a transition of skeletal structures from terrestrial (land) to aquatic (sea) mammals proves that whales evolved from a land ancestor.

Since all living things, with few exceptions, have DNA, you can't use DNA as a link. In fact DNA will separate them into separate and distinct life forms.

The fact that they have remnant hind-legs and hip bones proves this. See below:
View attachment 18065

View attachment 18066 View attachment 18067
View attachment 18068

The fact that their finbones are made of phalange (finger bones) rather than a finbone proves that their fins evolved from digital hands.

Whale fin: View attachment 18070

Fish fin:
View attachment 18071

The fact that whales (and dolphins, for that matter) have both nostrils and lungs proves that they are not native to the oceans, and evolved to survive there; elsewise they would have gills.
View attachment 18069[/QUOTE]

First of all your pictures are not evidence of whale evolution. None them included HOW a leg became a fin. While a blowhole could be considered a nostril, why did it come out one hole instead of 2. The fact that whales have a hip bone is also not evidence. That is the way God made them.

The pictures do not explain how it happened genetically

If you want to talk about the need to survive, explain why a land animal surviving quite well on land would ever need enter an environment more hostile to its survival at least in the beginning.

That concept actually refutes natural selection, a standard evo doctrine.

As has been pointed out to you before, so does things like saying "DUUH" to other posters.

Many thins have been pointed out to me but they are like what you just posted---opinions but no evidence as to how it happened. Give me the science that allows a leg to become a fin. and a tail to become a flapper.

I don't use DUUH as an insult, although I can see how it might be taken as one. I don't use it to imply the person is dumb, although I can see it might be taken that way, I use it to imply the person is not thinking about a simple, logical concept. They are accepting something as true that logically is not.

If it will make you happy, I will quit using it. There are other ways to say the same thing. They might even be better,


"Faith is a sounder guide than reason. Reason can go only so far, but faith has no limits."
- Blaise Pascal

 

[Jose Fly]

You need to understand what I say.

Then explain. On one hand you ask, "Do you really think someone writing something is evidence?". But OTOH you say "I haven't said what they write is not evidence".

So if I copy and paste from a scientific paper where scientists describe documented cases of populations evolving, is that "evidence of evolution"?

 

[omega2xx]

Then explain. On one hand you ask, "Do you really think someone writing something is evidence?". But OTOH you say "I haven't said what they write is not evidence".

I have explained that many times, but in case you missed them I will do it again---I read links for over 20 years. No one of them ever offered any scientific evidence to support what they said, so I have quite reading, what is a waste of time.

So if I copy and paste from a scientific paper where scientists describe documented cases of populations evolving, is that "evidence of evolution"?

Only if they include the science that allowed it. For example if their paper is about natural selection, they need to include the science that causes it.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

You are half right which is better than usual.

I have made up my mind based on real science

Then why don't you ever provide anything? See, that's the way real science works; if something is wrong, you refute it factually. Not saying "DUUH there's nothing to prove that!" Your "real science" is about as valid as Ken Ham's.

My predictions that none of the links mentioned offer scientific evidence has come true so far.

Oh, is that what it was now? Because before your prophecy (self-made) was that we wouldn't copy-and-paste evidences for your ease of dismissing. How do you know what the links mention, if you don't view them? I'm sensing more than a little academic dishonesty.

Cutting and pasting one example of scientific evidence could be less than a long paragraph.

No, it couldn't. Especially not for something like the Theory of Biological Evolution, and if you're aware of "real science" you would know this. You creationists love to lean on the crutch of "show me, prove it to me!" and just like the Ham, you expect people to be walking around with fossils that lay it all out right in their pocket. It's a preposterous and ridiculous thing to demand.

Since all living things, with few exceptions, have DNA, you can't use DNA as a link.

Is that your "real science"? All living things have DNA. If a species is related through enough significant genome markers, they absolutely can be linked into species groups and evolutionary lines.

First of all your pictures are not evidence of whale evolution.

A stunning (yet unsurprising) dismissal of evidence. Yes, those pictures are evidence, because they are physical evidences that whales once walked and lived entirely on land. Without even going into everything that you would find in an academic paper (if you bothered to do so yourself), there is no other explanation for why they have remnant leg bones, phalanges, and still have nostrils and lungs.

None them included HOW a leg became a fin.

Well, by following the line of evolution (as a scientist would do), as a method of adaptation to an aquatic environment, [hands] become wider, longer, less adept at grasping and more at moving water - a process that took several million years.

While a blowhole could be considered a nostril, why did it come out one hole instead of 2.

You didn't really look at the pictures, then. There are clearly two nostrils in a whale's blowhole. So much for "real science" if you're also calling a nose a nostril.

The fact that whales have a hip bone is also not evidence. That is the way God made them.

A.) That's not "real science" in the slightest, and B.) if that's the case then your god excels at making useless features. Tell us, omega, why would a creature that swims by undulating it's spine up and down, moving water with a tailfin have any use of hips? Hips that are purely remnant, and hold no motor function?

If you want to talk about the need to survive, explain why a land animal surviving quite well on land

How do you know they were surviving "quite well"? Perhaps there were larger predators that could not swim as well.

Give me the science that allows a leg to become a fin. and a tail to become a flapper.

Flipper, and the science that you're demanding is called Evolution and Adaptation. Look into it yourself (although I've been given prophecy that you won't.)

With statements like "if their paper is about natural selection, they need to include the science that causes it", though, it's clear that the "science" that you're looking for is the incredibly simplistic "god did it". Though if you would bother to actually look into the ToBE, you would quite clearly see that nothing in it sets out to disprove religion, faith, or divine governance. It is akin to finding out how a painter made a masterpiece. not saying that the paint formed itself.

I don't use DUUH as an insult, although I can see how it might be taken as one. I don't use it to imply the person is dumb, although I can see it might be taken that way,

If you can see how it might be taken as insult, or to imply that the person you're using it on is dumb, then to most people that would be clear common sense that perhaps you shouldn't do it.

 

[omega2xx]

Then why don't you ever provide anything? See, that's the way real science works; if something is wrong, you refute it factually. Not saying "DUUH there's nothing to prove that!" Your "real science" is about as valid as Ken Ham's.

I mention proved scientific truths you either ignore or don't understand. For example genetics has PROVED that the offspring CAN'T receive a characteristic not in the gene pool of its parents. Evolution says it can. You try to explain it with mutations, but mutations do not, can not add a characteristic. They only alter the characteristic the kid would have gotten without the mutation. You can't provide one example of a mutation being the mechanism for a change of species, and time will not change the laws of genetics.

Oh, is that what it was now? Because before your prophecy (self-made) was that we wouldn't copy-and-paste evidences for your ease of dismissing. How do you know what the links mention, if you don't view them? I'm sensing more than a little academic dishonesty.

It was a fulfilled prophecy until it became so embarrassing that a couple have posted what they considered evidence, indicating they do not understand scientific evidence. The posted pictures of a whale with a hip bone trying to say because pakicetus and whales had a hip bone pakicetus later became a whale. They ignored how a leg became a fin and how a nose became a blowhole

FYI. I have explained why i not longer read these evo links. I have read them for over 20 years and not one of them every had any scientific evidence. They just say it happened and the gullible accept it by faith alone.

No, it couldn't. Especially not for something like the Theory of Biological Evolution, and if you're aware of "real science" you would know this. You creationists love to lean on the crutch of "show me, prove it to me!" and just like the Ham, you expect people to be walking around with fossils that lay it all out right in their pocket. It's a preposterous and ridiculous thing to demand.

When did "prove it" become a dirty word? That is what real science does, prove/disproves theories. Evolution is more like Ham science than creation is.

Is that your "real science"? All living things have DNA. If a species is related through enough significant genome markers, they absolutely can be linked into species groups and evolutionary lines.

If you understood DNA, you would know it does both. It links species that do have a common ancestor and it separates them from other species that do not have a common ancestor. That is its beauty..

A stunning (yet unsurprising) dismissal of evidence. Yes, those pictures are evidence, because they are physical evidences that whales once walked and lived entirely on land. Without even going into everything that you would find in an academic paper (if you bothered to do so yourself), there is no other explanation for why they have remnant leg bones, phalanges, and still have nostrils and lungs.

If you think pictures are scientific evidence there is no hop for you to know the truth. They don't have remnant leg bones, they have fossil fins, and a picture doesn't show HOW a leg can become a fin when it parents did not have the gene for fins

Well, by following the line of evolution (as a scientist would do), as a method of adaptation to an aquatic environment, [hands] become wider, longer, less adept at grasping and more at moving water - a process that took several million years.

The fossil record say it didn't happen. Genetics says it can't happen and time will not change the laws of genetics.

You didn't really look at the pictures, then. There are clearly two nostrils in a whale's blowhole. So much for "real science" if you're also calling a nose a nostril.

I will go back and look again, but even if it is right, it still doe snot explain how a nose became a blowhole, A nose is not a nostril, it is the covering for the nostrils.

A.) That's not "real science" in the slightest, and B.) if that's the case then your god excels at making useless features. Tell us, omega, why would a creature that swims by undulating it's spine up and down, moving water with a tailfin have any use of hips? Hips that are purely remnant, and hold no motor function?

It is because the hips makes the undulations more effective.

How do you know they were surviving "quite well"? Perhaps there were larger predators that could not swim as well.

Good point. Since the became extinct they may not have been surviving quite well, but if you think wading in the ocean eating fish is a mechanism for them to become a whale, that is about as unscientific as one can get. That is so absured I am mystified as to why intelligent people would believe it. They believe it not on the evidence but because it is necessary to keep the myth alive and continue to give the faithful they have not believed in vain. The faith of the evolutionist is greater than the faith of the Christians. How wonderful.

Flipper, and the science that you're demanding is called Evolution and Adaptation. Look into it yourself (although I've been given prophecy that you won't.)

Don't embellish what I say. Asking is not demanding. Calling it something is not evidence, and you still can't explain how a leg became a fin, where the parents of the land animal did not have a gene for fins. You need to take your crystal ball to the magic shop and get it re-calibrated. I was uneducated in the public school system, including college and that is what I was taught.

With statements like "if their paper is about natural selection, they need to include the science that causes it", though, it's clear that the "science" that you're looking for is the incredibly simplistic "god did it". Though if you would bother to actually look into the ToBE, you would quite clearly see that nothing in it sets out to disprove religion, faith, or divine governance. It is akin to finding out how a painter made a masterpiece. not saying that the paint formed itself.

I haven't brought God into this discussion so why have you. This is about science, not religion.

If you can see how it might be taken as insult, or to imply that the person you're using it on is dumb, then to most people that would be clear common sense that perhaps you shouldn't do it.

Since it can and has been taken that way, I have decided not to do it any more.

I checked some whale fossils and they all only had one hole, not two.

 

[McBell]

Brilliant response. Did some adult at the playground tell you that, when you whined about some Christian bullying you?



"Faith is a sounder guide than reason. Reason can go only so far, but faith has no limits."
- Blaise Pascal

Your false bravado is most entertaining.

Your representation of Christianity is as effective as the Westboro Baptist Church.

 

[McBell]

Thanks for confirming that you don't understand science or evidence.

That is the usual response I get from those whose intellect is not high enough to allow them to understand simple science concepts and think opinions are evidence.

That's what all the children I discuss subjects with say when they can't refute what I say, because they can't understand even the simple concepts I present to them.

It seems you also do not understand the meaning of "hypocrisy." Don't worry, I am sure one of the adults at your playground will explain it to you.

"Faith is a sounder guide than reason. Reason can go only so far, but faith has no limits."
- Blaise Pascal

More false bravado.
You reinforce my not wanting anything to do with your chosen god with every post.

Keep up the "good" work, I am sure your god must be so proud.

 

[omega2xx]

Your false bravado is most entertaining.

Your representation of Christianity is as effective as the Westboro Baptist Church.

And your is lacking in some humor just as you Darwin theology is lacking is some evidence

 

[omega2xx]

More false bravado.
You reinforce my not wanting anything to do with your chosen god with every post.

Keep up the "good" work, I am sure your god must be so proud.

You rejected God long before I got into this forum. I will keep up the work of showing that "after their kind." refutes the theology of Darwin as long as I can.

 

[gnostic]

I have been on the Answers In Genesis facebook page for a couple of months. They post articles and arguments that their numerous followers eat up. They think evolution is ridiculous, athiestic and part of a plan to undermine the bible. A few people go to that page to try to convince them evolution is true but to no avail partly because the articles posted on the facebook page is very convincing to them.

I hope some you guys will share your knowledge of evolution on their facebook page because my scientific abilities are limited.

I hardly ever use Facebook, and for me, I don't have enough time to get into arguments in Facebook. The RF already take up a lot of my free time, when I have access to the internet.

 

[gnostic]

Of course. The laws of genetics confirms "after their kind" and refutes evolution.

There is no "law" to genetics.

"Law" is outdated terminology. Science today preferred to use "theory", as scientific explanation for respective natural or man-made phenomena.

Genetics is explained in theory, just as evolution, just as that of gravity, thermodynamics, technology that required science.

 

[Skwim]

Answers in Genesis operates under the following framework (from their Statement of Faith)....

"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."​

So they make it clear right up front that to them, it is impossible for there to be any evidence that contradicts their beliefs. Thus it is a complete waste of time to try and show them evidence that contradicts their beliefs. As with most of the creationists here at RF, they will just make up excuses to wave away whatever you present, or they will simply ignore you.

 

[DavidFirth]

I believe the same exactly except for the last bullet point. Christians should never ever resort to evil supposedly for the sake of good. The last bullet point is wrong strong.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

I mention proved scientific truths you either ignore or don't understand.

Fair, as you've literally ignored mountains of evidence thrown at you.

genetics has PROVED that the offspring CAN'T receive a characteristic not in the gene pool of its parents.

Genetics have proven that DNA is constantly changing and adapting, to however degree is applicable and beneficial to the organism. So I don't know what drivel you're pulling from.

The posted pictures of a whale with a hip bone trying to say because pakicetus and whales had a hip bone pakicetus later became a whale.

Uh, no. Sharing key species genes with pakicetus is what links whales to them, not hipbones. Birds have hipbones too, do you think they're related to pakicetus?

I have explained why i not longer read these evo links.

And this is why you're a poor example for a scientist. Science is ever changing and (ironically) evolving. If you've stopped viewing articles relating to evolution and related sciences, then you're grossly behind in terms of the most current and accurate information. It would be like some fool shutting out all knowledge of dinosaurs at 1842, and still thinks they're dragon-like reptiles.

When did "prove it" become a dirty word?

When people like you started ignoring everything that's shown to you, in favor of "goddidit", and fail to provide anything to counter founded science but inane theories, magic, and gross misrepresentation. That is not what real science does. It's not all skepticism (with a theological answer and bias firmly in mind) denying and rejecting everything because you can't or won't understand it.

If you understood DNA, you would know it does both. It links species that do have a common ancestor and it separates them from other species that do not have a common ancestor.

I understand that quite well. It's why whales and hippopotami are known to be separate species, yet have a common ancestor. Or apes and humans.

If you think pictures are scientific evidence there is no hop for you to know the truth.

You've ignored everything else.

They don't have remnant leg bones, they have fossil fins,

A baleen whale does not have "fossil fins," and it absolutely has remnant leg bones Since you've ignored photographic evidence, walk your happy *** to an actual whale skeleton and see for yourself.

The fossil record say it didn't happen. Genetics says it can't happen...

The fossil record and genetics have absolutely "said" that it happened.

It is because the hips makes the undulations more effective.

No, they do not. The hips aren't even attached to the spine anymore; they have no function - similar to our own wisdom teeth, appendix, and tailbone.

if you think wading in the ocean eating fish is a mechanism for them to become a whale, that is about as unscientific as one can get.

No, "God made them into separate kinds, and these kinds have existed, unchanged, since the creation in the Garden" is about as unscientific as one can get. I am glad that intelligent people don't believe this.

I checked some whale fossils and they all only had one hole, not two.

Obviously you didn't look at the pictures close enough. A whale clearly has two nostrils. Do you think that people only have one nostril, because we have one hole in our skull? You're like the people who thought that elephant skulls were the skulls of cyclopses. Where are the nose bones!?