Answers In Genesis on Facebook

[omega2xx]

I accept what the evidence supports. The evidence overwhelming supports evolution. Biology does not work without it. Nothing you have said against it is convincing to me. In fact, I find your posts on this thread to be intellectually dishonest. I am convinced you are a POE.

I am convinced you do not understand evidence. I know for certain you can't cut and paste any scientific evidence or you would have done so. I find it intellectually dishonest for someone to say there is scientific evidence to support the TOE, but is not willing to post it. To say Biology does not work without evolution is absurd. Biology was working long before the TOE was thought of. Actually when biology is understood it refutes evolution.

When someone doesn't have the intellect to discuss a subject, thee resort to insults. Thank you for what you are convinced of.

 

[omega2xx]

Yes it did. In fact, that's the entire point of the part I copied. It describes how the newly evolved species differs genetically from their parent species.

Is "Nuh uh" all you're going to be able to muster? Or are you going to address the actual content of the paper?

The paper did not say HOW. It just said it did. Do you really not understand what constitutes evidence?

 

[omega2xx]

No, it doesn't work like that. What I posted is still there, and I am still of a mind that I shouldn't have posted it in the first place, as the links we have given you are sufficient to set you on to doing your own work. I'm not going to hold your hand through this and post something again, just because you're too lazy to look at it closely before dismissing it off hand - as you've done with every scrap of evidence given in this thread.


Before yesterday you didn't even know the name ambulocetus. Your lot constantly tossing out "but there are no intermediate fossils..." is just wailing against the inevitable; biding time as more evidence mounts against the claims of creationism, while still not actually saying anything about a god or divine creation/guidance.

That's the truly ironic part. Creationists are so against evolution because they think it disproves their stance, when it only sets out to explain the how of it all. Their grip and belief is so frail that the slightest contradiction to it sets them into a piranha-like frenzy.


A.) I wasn't saying that you said I was a liar. I was avoiding out-right calling you one, while still showing that you did mention and bring your god into this debate.
B.) It was you, and I'm not confusing you with someone else. I literally quoted - and highlighted - all your statements from this thread alone that directly (and then strongly reference) your god and faith. I know you've got a phobia of links, but the quotes even link back to the original posts, where what you said can be clearly seen.


So in this very sentence, we see "My argument isn't religious, but the religious aspects are mentioned because they're proven". The mere fact that all you do is reject evolutionary evidence in fossil records, spout on about "kinds," and offer up some vague qualifier of "uh, genetics!" is laughably unscientific. Where at in genetics? What aspect specifically? What studies?

Provide something, as we have, or your rejection is nothing more than opinions born of ignorance.


Science did find their use, and it was tens of thousands of years ago.


Oh, we're going to play that game? What you have just quoted me with this ("provide some") was in response to a direct statement by you - and it's still there, I'm not going to repost it. By refusing to provide any names, I'm just going to assume that you have none.


Because you think it's impossible, yes, yes we've heard it before. Find me one sea creature - non-cetaceans, of course - that has nostrils and lungs, and requires air to breath.

I have quit responding to irrational rants and FYI I am well aware of ambulocetus.

When you have evidence that a leg of a land animal can become the fin of a sea animal, get back to me.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

No, I think you're just going to join the few and the shamed who I put on ignore, omega. You've never brought anything of worth to any "discussion" (a generous word) that we've had, you too quickly resort to childish tactics such as insult, active ignorance, and double standards (e.g. you accuse Skeptic Thinker of intellectual dishonesty yet you haven't provided a shred of data to back up your claims.) Buh-bye.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I am convinced you do not understand evidence. I know for certain you can't cut and paste any scientific evidence or you would have done so. I find it intellectually dishonest for someone to say there is scientific evidence to support the TOE, but is not willing to post it. To say Biology does not work without evolution is absurd. Biology was working long before the TOE was thought of. Actually when biology is understood it refutes evolution.

Keep repeating that to every person you come across, it seems to be working for you so far. I'm sure you're right about every other person on this thread not recognizing evidence. Apparently, only you are able to recognize evidence when you see it. What a laugh. Enough with arguing on internet forums with little peons around you who can't seem to figure out what evidence is. Get on with it and submit your paper that falsifies the TOE for peer review, and get back to us when you're vindicated.

I've provided evidence many times in the past for you actually, as have numerous people on this thread and others. I already know you will dismiss it without even looking at it. I've been around the block with you on this one before and I'm no longer willing to waste my time providing evidence to someone who doesn't actually care to see it anyway. That is what has convinced me that you are a POE.

I will rephrase ... nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. Biology doesn't not refute evolution at all. Such a statement doesn't even make sense to me.

When someone doesn't have the intellect to discuss a subject, thee resort to insults. Thank you for what you are convinced of.

Hmm, well you've been insulting people since practically the start of the thread so ....

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

The real problem is that there are different ways to define evolution. If you say evolution means that domestic dogs evolved from wild dogs, then of course that is true. If you say evolution means some beetles were green and evolved into brown beetles, then that is true. If you say evolution means a dinosaur laid an egg and a bird hatched from it, then that is harder to prove. If you say evolution means there was a time when there was nothing alive and some scum on a pond suddenly became alive, then that is probably not true. It all depends on what you mean by evolution. I personally do not believe I had monkeys for ancestors.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

I personally do not believe I had monkeys for ancestors.

Nor does the ToBE "say" that you did. It indicates that humans and apes had a common ancestor.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

That common ancestor obviously somehow split into two parts. One part became apes and one part became humans. So apes and humans are related by ancestors. Has anyone found that ancestor?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The real problem is that there are different ways to define evolution.

Not really. In biological terms, it means "change in allele frequency over time in living populations".

If you say evolution means that domestic dogs evolved from wild dogs, then of course that is true. If you say evolution means some beetles were green and evolved into brown beetles, then that is true. If you say evolution means a dinosaur laid an egg and a bird hatched from it, then that is harder to prove.

The only people who would say the third option are people who don't actually understand how evolution works.

If you say evolution means there was a time when there was nothing alive and some scum on a pond suddenly became alive, then that is probably not true.

Yes, because that would be abiogenesis, not evolution.

It all depends on what you mean by evolution. I personally do not believe I had monkeys for ancestors.

You didn't. So what does that have to do with whether or not you accept evolution?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

That common ancestor obviously somehow split into two parts. One part became apes and one part became humans.

No, one part became apes which then became contemporary apes including humans.

So apes and humans are related by ancestors. Has anyone found that ancestor?

Depends how far back you want to go. We haven't yet found the species which diverged from chimpanzees (our closest genetic relative), but if you look back into the history of hominid fossils you can find lots of examples of our more ape-like ancestors.

Fossil Hominids, Human Evolution: Thomas Huxley & Eugene Dubois

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

People try to use evolution to replace God. If life came from pond scum, then God is not needed. If life did not come from some scientific explanation then there must be a God who created life. People do not want to accept God so they say life evolved instead of it was created.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

The best suspect currently (though more evidence is needed before it's a surety) is Sahelanthropus tchadensis.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

People try to use evolution to replace God.

Not so. As I attempted to impart to omega, people use evolution to explain the process of life; the how. Nothing about evolution replaces or rejects any notion of gods or divinity.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Really?? Then why can't schools teach creation as an alternative to evolution? Because people want to leave God out and say life can be explained by science without God.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Really?? Then why can't schools teach creation as an alternative to evolution?

Because Creationism has no factual basis, and relies on one religion when it's not guaranteed that all students are Christian. This does not mean that evolution sets out to "cut out god", but that people don't want to be forced to heed a religious belief in public schools.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

But if creationism is true or even a reasonable answer to evolution then why shouldn't all students be able to hear about it. They are not forced to believe any one religion but a reasonable explanation of how life began. Actually there are a lot more than one religion that believes God created life.

 

[Jose Fly]

The paper did not say HOW. It just said it did. Do you really not understand what constitutes evidence?

Yes it did. I specifically copied that part into the post.

Tell me.....what exactly do you think the paper describes? Give your personal summary.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

But if creationism is true or even a reasonable answer to evolution then why shouldn't all students be able to hear about it.

It is a religious belief that requires a religious text to validate. If people want to hear about it, there's church and private schools.

Actually there are a lot more than one religion that believes God created life.

Pretty much every religion believes that their god(s) created life. Are you comfortable with your kid learning about the Völuspá?

 

[Jose Fly]

Oh, he is not going to address the actual content.
He will at some point tell you you are ignorant of science and evidence, etc.

Looks like a lot of empty bluster, doesn't it?

 

[SkepticThinker]

People try to use evolution to replace God. If life came from pond scum, then God is not needed. If life did not come from some scientific explanation then there must be a God who created life. People do not want to accept God so they say life evolved instead of it was created.

You are talking about abiogenesis.

I personally don't use evolution to replace god. I accept evolution because it's the best explanation we have that fits the available evidence. But there are plenty of people who accept evolution and also believe in god(s).