Evidence for God from Science

Storyteller wrote:

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:
No, the problem for you is you have not one fact to offer against ToE.

That is a big problem. Did you know that?

You wont be able to make this into a "gap theory" thread. You will be all alone, nobody
wants to discuss such nonsense.

How about if you just go off by yourself, find something that can be verified, and
dont come back till you have something besides your same-same of nothing-nothing?

Everything I have said about some of the evidence in evolution science is true. I don't have to bring the Gap Theory into this thread to deal with some of the evidence used for evidence life evolves from scientists that is real weak evidence.Don't take it personally,that this evidence in evolution science is so weak,instead embrace these problems and face up to them and admit it.Maybe even try to do something about them like Rupert Sheldrake,Derek Hough,etc.

Name name ONE thing you have said for evidence of ToE that is true. One.

All the above is empty blather until you can produce data that is contrary to ToE.

Why cant you just deliver, or admit that there isnt any?

I'm not going to repeat myself but everything I said about the evidence used in evolution science is true and it is very weak evidence life evolves. If scientists cannot make life evolve? It did not happen on its own,no matter how you can explain it did. If you can explain how or why life evolves, but cannot demonstrate it? It is you that have flawed data. You are still hiding behind the evolution wall when you say until I can produce data that is contrary to ToE.

No, abe, you simply do not know what you are talking about. "Weak evidence".

You can convince yourself; people generally find they themselves are the easiest people to fool.


Im not hiding, there is no "wall" which is just a metaphor anyway.

So please,...quit lying about me. It only reinforces the obvious about the poverty of your ideas.

Now..

Do you really not understand that to challenge a theory, you must provide contrary evidence? Insulting / lying about me, by saying I am HIDING?

Pretending that there is only weak evidence for ToE is pretending.

You have zero chance of ever producing evidence contrary to ToE. Perhaps you realize that, and try to make up for it by pointing false fingers at me, and hallucinating conspiracy. Both of those are dishonest and shameful.

Lets see if you are capable of being forthright about one simple thing.

Can you just say "There is no known data indicating ToE is false".

Try it. Say it a few times. Maybe the significance will sink in.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:
Everything I have said about some of the evidence in evolution science is true. I don't have to bring the Gap Theory into this thread to deal with some of the evidence used for evidence life evolves from scientists that is real weak evidence.Don't take it personally,that this evidence in evolution science is so weak,instead embrace these problems and face up to them and admit it.Maybe even try to do something about them like Rupert Sheldrake,Derek Hough,etc.

Name name ONE thing you have said for evidence of ToE that is true. One.

All the above is empty blather until you can produce data that is contrary to ToE.

Why cant you just deliver, or admit that there isnt any?

I'm not going to repeat myself but everything I said about the evidence used in evolution science is true and it is very weak evidence life evolves. If scientists cannot make life evolve? It did not happen on its own,no matter how you can explain it did. If you can explain how or why life evolves, but cannot demonstrate it? It is you that have flawed data. You are still hiding behind the evolution wall when you say until I can produce data that is contrary to ToE.

No, abe, you simply do not know what you are talking about. "Weak evidence".

You can convince yourself; people generally find they themselves are the easiest people to fool.


Im not hiding, there is no "wall" which is just a metaphor anyway.

So please,...quit lying about me. It only reinforces the obvious about the poverty of your ideas.

Now..

Do you really not understand that to challenge a theory, you must provide contrary evidence? Insulting / lying about me, by saying I am HIDING?

Pretending that there is only weak evidence for ToE is pretending.

You have zero chance of ever producing evidence contrary to ToE. Perhaps you realize that, and try to make up for it by pointing false fingers at me, and hallucinating conspiracy. Both of those are dishonest and shameful.

Lets see if you are capable of being forthright about one simple thing.

Can you just say "There is no known data indicating ToE is false".

Try it. Say it a few times. Maybe the significance will sink in.

When I say you are hiding behind the evolution wall,you are. You are saying unless I can go through the peer reviewed process to show why evolution is wrong,it does not matter what I say when I point out how weak the evidence in evolution science is.Eventhough I am right about how weak the evidence is.

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:
Name name ONE thing you have said for evidence of ToE that is true. One.

All the above is empty blather until you can produce data that is contrary to ToE.

Why cant you just deliver, or admit that there isnt any?

I'm not going to repeat myself but everything I said about the evidence used in evolution science is true and it is very weak evidence life evolves. If scientists cannot make life evolve? It did not happen on its own,no matter how you can explain it did. If you can explain how or why life evolves, but cannot demonstrate it? It is you that have flawed data. You are still hiding behind the evolution wall when you say until I can produce data that is contrary to ToE.

No, abe, you simply do not know what you are talking about. "Weak evidence".

You can convince yourself; people generally find they themselves are the easiest people to fool.


Im not hiding, there is no "wall" which is just a metaphor anyway.

So please,...quit lying about me. It only reinforces the obvious about the poverty of your ideas.

Now..

Do you really not understand that to challenge a theory, you must provide contrary evidence? Insulting / lying about me, by saying I am HIDING?

Pretending that there is only weak evidence for ToE is pretending.

You have zero chance of ever producing evidence contrary to ToE. Perhaps you realize that, and try to make up for it by pointing false fingers at me, and hallucinating conspiracy. Both of those are dishonest and shameful.

Lets see if you are capable of being forthright about one simple thing.

Can you just say "There is no known data indicating ToE is false".

Try it. Say it a few times. Maybe the significance will sink in.

When I say you are hiding behind the evolution wall,you are. You are saying unless I can go through the peer reviewed process to show why evolution is wrong,it does not matter what I say when I point out how weak the evidence in evolution science is.Eventhough I am right about how weak the evidence is.

Pretty lonely out there past the Oort cloud, huh?

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:
Everything I have said about some of the evidence in evolution science is true. I don't have to bring the Gap Theory into this thread to deal with some of the evidence used for evidence life evolves from scientists that is real weak evidence.Don't take it personally,that this evidence in evolution science is so weak,instead embrace these problems and face up to them and admit it.Maybe even try to do something about them like Rupert Sheldrake,Derek Hough,etc.

Name name ONE thing you have said for evidence of ToE that is true. One.

All the above is empty blather until you can produce data that is contrary to ToE.

Why cant you just deliver, or admit that there isnt any?

I'm not going to repeat myself but everything I said about the evidence used in evolution science is true and it is very weak evidence life evolves. If scientists cannot make life evolve? It did not happen on its own,no matter how you can explain it did. If you can explain how or why life evolves, but cannot demonstrate it? It is you that have flawed data. You are still hiding behind the evolution wall when you say until I can produce data that is contrary to ToE.

No, abe, you simply do not know what you are talking about. "Weak evidence".

Your inability to produce anything is YOUR inability. It isnt that I wont look. Its not that I am hiding. It is not me with "flawed data". It is not the fault of all the scientists in all the world. It is not a conspiracy. How many directions can you point your finger?

You-have-no-data-to-support-your-outlandish-ideas. None.

You have none to disprove ToE. None.

Whose fault is that?

You can only convince yourself with your excuses; people generally find they themselves are the easiest people to fool.

You are still hiding[/b] behind the evolution wall

No hiding, no wall.

So please,...quit lying about me. It only reinforces the obvious about the poverty of your ideas.

Now..

Do you really not understand that to challenge a theory, you must provide contrary evidence? Insulting / lying about me, by saying I am HIDING?

You are the one dodging and hiding, for lo, you hath not anything for your peashooter.

Pretending that there is only weak evidence for ToE is pretending.

You have zero chance of ever producing evidence contrary to ToE. Perhaps you realize that, and try to make up for it by pointing false fingers at me, and hallucinating conspiracy. Both of those are dishonest and shameful.

Lets see if you are capable of being forthright about one simple thing.

Can you just say "There is no known data indicating ToE is false".

Try it. Say it a few times. Maybe the significance will sink in.

When I say you are hiding behind the evolution wall,you are. You are saying unless I can go through the peer reviewed process to show why evolution is wrong,it does not matter what I say when I point out how weak the evidence in evolution science is.Eventhough I am right about how weak the evidence is.

Credibility matters on this planet.

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:
Name name ONE thing you have said for evidence of ToE that is true. One.

All the above is empty blather until you can produce data that is contrary to ToE.

Why cant you just deliver, or admit that there isnt any?

I'm not going to repeat myself but everything I said about the evidence used in evolution science is true and it is very weak evidence life evolves. If scientists cannot make life evolve? It did not happen on its own,no matter how you can explain it did. If you can explain how or why life evolves, but cannot demonstrate it? It is you that have flawed data. You are still hiding behind the evolution wall when you say until I can produce data that is contrary to ToE.

No, abe, you simply do not know what you are talking about. "Weak evidence".

You can convince yourself; people generally find they themselves are the easiest people to fool.


Im not hiding, there is no "wall" which is just a metaphor anyway.

So please,...quit lying about me. It only reinforces the obvious about the poverty of your ideas.

Now..

Do you really not understand that to challenge a theory, you must provide contrary evidence? Insulting / lying about me, by saying I am HIDING?

You are the one dodging and hiding, for lo, you hath not anything for your peashooter.

Pretending that there is only weak evidence for ToE is pretending.

You have zero chance of ever producing evidence contrary to ToE. Perhaps you realize that, and try to make up for it by pointing false fingers at me, and hallucinating conspiracy. Both of those are dishonest and shameful.

Lets see if you are capable of being forthright about one simple thing.

Can you just say "There is no known data indicating ToE is false".

Try it. Say it a few times. Maybe the significance will sink in.

When I say you are hiding behind the evolution wall,you are. You are saying unless I can go through the peer reviewed process to show why evolution is wrong,it does not matter what I say when I point out how weak the evidence in evolution science is.Eventhough I am right about how weak the evidence is.

"Hiding behind the evolution wall" would not be true even if it made any sense, which it does not.

ANY theory can be defeated with contrary evidence; you have none. Hide from your empty peashooter? So out to lunch, you! The world scientific community hies from you? lolol Out to lunch, out past the orbit of Pluto.

And, no, I am not saying "peer review". But I understand wty you make things up, you have nothing else.

There is no data showing ToE is wrong. You are funny, the way you try to get out of admitting that. Try being honest, and just admitting it.

You are right about one thing. Yes, you have convinced yourself that the evidence for evolution is weak. Of course, you know next to nothing about it. The world scientific community and educated people, who are, you know, educated and do know something
are not experiencing your difficulties. You would not be so ignorant and confused either, if you roused yourself from the negligence and ideology that hold you so in the bondage of ignorance.

Credibility matters on this planet.

Right again! Are you aware that you have none? The semi-literate way you write
and your complete inability to present a single fact to support your eccentric opinions
makes for no credibility.


Lets give you one more chance here:

Do you have even one fact to offer against ToE
or
Do you care to admit you dont have any.

Dont hide now, just say one or the other.

Audie wrote:Abe, I am going to ignore all the falsehoods, strawmen, and assorted other crap.

I asked you to provide me with some data contrary to ToE.

Your interpretation of what was the thinking behind a paper on salamanders is
nor data contrary to ToE.

Let me give you an example of "Data contrary to.."

Suppose the claim is that all the sedimentary strata were laid down in a single flood event.

So we go and examine some nice exposure.

In it we find one or more layers of igneous rock

That disproves the flood hypothesis for those strata.

Are you a flood-believer? If so this will be interesting.
You keep trying to disprove ToE, and there is no data to apply.

The flood, tho, there is a vast data base that disproves it.
Ever look at any of that?

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:Abe, I am going to ignore all the falsehoods, strawmen, and assorted other crap.

I asked you to provide me with some data contrary to ToE.

Your interpretation of what was the thinking behind a paper on salamanders is
nor data contrary to ToE.

Let me give you an example of "Data contrary to.."

Suppose the claim is that all the sedimentary strata were laid down in a single flood event.

So we go and examine some nice exposure.

In it we find one or more layers of igneous rock

That disproves the flood hypothesis for those strata.

Are you a flood-believer? If so this will be interesting.
You keep trying to disprove ToE, and there is no data to apply.

The flood, tho, there is a vast data base that disproves it.
Ever look at any of that?

Why are you bringing the flood into this?I have not brought creationism into this discussion

Perhaps if you read what I said you can figure it out? i DESCRIBED AN EASY WAY TO DISPROVE THE FLOOD STORY. AS AN EXAMPLE OF HOW ONE USES SCIENCE TO DISPROVE SOMETHING.

.I'm dealing with evolution based on its own evidence and no it is not a straw man to point out they are using normal variation in reproduction for evidence life evolves

But that is not what is used for "evidence of evolution" however confused you may be on this point. You are in fact arguing against a strawman.

,I mean you can tell,variation is normal in reproduction and it is not and cannot be evidence life evolves.I have already explained why it is not evidence life evolves

Now you have said this about a thousand times, it needs not to be repeated. It was as wrong this time as it was every time before.

,even if you reject a flood,it does not make evolution true,just because you doubt a flood

.


Three dumb mistakes in one short line! I dont "doubt" it; there is abundant proof it didnt happen.
Ther is no "just because" and nothing about evolution there.

We are talking about evolution,not the flood.

I know. You are the confused one. I used that as an example of how to disprove a theory or hypothesis.
You dont seem to have any idea how that is done.

But just so you know,I do not believe the fossils in the layers of strata are evidence for a flood,in a global flood the life that died would have decayed away or had been eaten by scavengers,etc because the sun was shining the whole time[/quote

The process by which various organisms become fossilized is a great deal more varied and complex than you seem to understand.

].But this also proves evolution science wrong too because they teach that alot of this dead life that are fossilized in the layers of strata layed out on the ground over millions of years without decaying and were covered over eventually and buried.

There is no disproof in that, just you expressing your extreme ignorance about geology, You did get an extremely weird bit of nonsense in there, bolded for convenience. Do you actually think anyone proposes such garbage?

This is impossible the life that we see in the layers of strata were buried alive under tremendous pressure to protect it from the elements so that it does not decay away and is preserved for us to see. Now sure not all fossils are all there though,but many are,in order to fossilize they were buried alive

.

This is incoherent.

Actually a better theory from a biblical perspective that makes more sense is that when God restored the earth and made this world he restructered the earth and created hell for the devil and his angels and in that restructering of the earth the fossils got mixed up in the layers of strata,of course though we could go with volcanoes or meteors hitting the earth also.

It is a better idea than the craziness that you make up about evolution and geology. However, anyone who is actually concerned with data, not fantasy, knows that your "gap", restart etc match only with fantasy.

The fossils in the layers of strata are evidence for a former world that had different kinds of life in it than this world we live in now

They show many different successive environments, not just two.

has,this is also why no fossil you can look at shows any signs of transition,they are all fully formed life forms that lived in the former world,fully functional as they were,until they died and were fossilized

.


The thing about "no transition" is ignorant falsehood; the thing about "fully functional" is yet another of your strawmen born of ignorance.

The whole "fully funcitonal" canard could take up a thread on its own. In essence, tho, two things:

-pray tell what it would mean for something to not be "fully functional"?
-another strawman, as nobody ever suggested that not-fully-functional organisms are in any way
something to do with evoltuion.

All relevant data shows that life did evolve, and that there was no flood.

Now, how about you try to come up with some data that shows ToE is false?
No more chanting of your dogma, just present some facts.

You are below giving an ideology-based opinion. No specifics.

Alot happened in the former world and it went on for millions of years based on the evidence in the earth and how much death and exctinction is in the earth.

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:Abe, I am going to ignore all the falsehoods, strawmen, and assorted other crap.

I asked you to provide me with some data contrary to ToE.

Your interpretation of what was the thinking behind a paper on salamanders is
nor data contrary to ToE.

Let me give you an example of "Data contrary to.."

Suppose the claim is that all the sedimentary strata were laid down in a single flood event.

So we go and examine some nice exposure.

In it we find one or more layers of igneous rock

That disproves the flood hypothesis for those strata.

Are you a flood-believer? If so this will be interesting.
You keep trying to disprove ToE, and there is no data to apply.

The flood, tho, there is a vast data base that disproves it.
Ever look at any of that?

Why are you bringing the flood into this?I have not brought creationism into this discussion

Perhaps if you read what I said you can figure it out? i DESCRIBED AN EASY WAY TO DISPROVE THE FLOOD STORY. AS AN EXAMPLE OF HOW ONE USES SCIENCE TO DISPROVE SOMETHING.

.I'm dealing with evolution based on its own evidence and no it is not a straw man to point out they are using normal variation in reproduction for evidence life evolves

But that is not what is used for "evidence of evolution" however confused you may be on this point. You are in fact arguing against a strawman.

,I mean you can tell,variation is normal in reproduction and it is not and cannot be evidence life evolves.I have already explained why it is not evidence life evolves

Now you have said this about a thousand times, it needs not to be repeated. It was as wrong this time as it was every time before.

,even if you reject a flood,it does not make evolution true,just because you doubt a flood

.


Three dumb mistakes in one short line! I dont "doubt" it; there is abundant proof it didnt happen.
Ther is no "just because" and nothing about evolution there.

We are talking about evolution,not the flood.

I know. You are the confused one. I used that as an example of how to disprove a theory or hypothesis.
You dont seem to have any idea how that is done.

But just so you know,I do not believe the fossils in the layers of strata are evidence for a flood,in a global flood the life that died would have decayed away or had been eaten by scavengers,etc because the sun was shining the whole time[/quote

The process by which various organisms become fossilized is a great deal more varied and complex than you seem to understand.

].But this also proves evolution science wrong too because they teach that alot of this dead life that are fossilized in the layers of strata layed out on the ground over millions of years without decaying and were covered over eventually and buried.

There is no disproof in that, just you expressing your extreme ignorance about geology, You did get an extremely weird bit of nonsense in there, bolded for convenience. Do you actually think anyone proposes such garbage?

This is impossible the life that we see in the layers of strata were buried alive under tremendous pressure to protect it from the elements so that it does not decay away and is preserved for us to see. Now sure not all fossils are all there though,but many are,in order to fossilize they were buried alive

.

This is incoherent.

Actually a better theory from a biblical perspective that makes more sense is that when God restored the earth and made this world he restructered the earth and created hell for the devil and his angels and in that restructering of the earth the fossils got mixed up in the layers of strata,of course though we could go with volcanoes or meteors hitting the earth also.

It is a better idea than the craziness that you make up about evolution and geology. However, anyone who is actually concerned with data, not fantasy, knows that your "gap", restart etc match only with fantasy.

The fossils in the layers of strata are evidence for a former world that had different kinds of life in it than this world we live in now

They show many different successive environments, not just two.

has,this is also why no fossil you can look at shows any signs of transition,they are all fully formed life forms that lived in the former world,fully functional as they were,until they died and were fossilized

.


The thing about "no transition" is ignorant falsehood; the thing about "fully functional" is yet another of your strawmen born of ignorance.

The whole "fully funcitonal" canard could take up a thread on its own. In essence, tho, two things:

-pray tell what it would mean for something to not be "fully functional"?
-another strawman, as nobody ever suggested that not-fully-functional organisms are in any way
something to do with evoltuion.

All relevant data shows that life did evolve, and that there was no flood.

Now, how about you try to come up with some data that shows ToE is false?
No more chanting of your dogma, just present some facts.

You are below giving an ideology-based opinion. No specifics.

Alot happened in the former world and it went on for millions of years based on the evidence in the earth and how much death and exctinction is in the earth.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:Abe, I am going to ignore all the falsehoods, strawmen, and assorted other crap.

I asked you to provide me with some data contrary to ToE.

Your interpretation of what was the thinking behind a paper on salamanders is
nor data contrary to ToE.

Let me give you an example of "Data contrary to.."

Suppose the claim is that all the sedimentary strata were laid down in a single flood event.

So we go and examine some nice exposure.

In it we find one or more layers of igneous rock

That disproves the flood hypothesis for those strata.

Are you a flood-believer? If so this will be interesting.
You keep trying to disprove ToE, and there is no data to apply.

The flood, tho, there is a vast data base that disproves it.
Ever look at any of that?

Why are you bringing the flood into this?I have not brought creationism into this discussion

Perhaps if you read what I said you can figure it out? i DESCRIBED AN EASY WAY TO DISPROVE THE FLOOD STORY. AS AN EXAMPLE OF HOW ONE USES SCIENCE TO DISPROVE SOMETHING.

.I'm dealing with evolution based on its own evidence and no it is not a straw man to point out they are using normal variation in reproduction for evidence life evolves

But that is not what is used for "evidence of evolution" however confused you may be on this point. You are in fact arguing against a strawman.

,I mean you can tell,variation is normal in reproduction and it is not and cannot be evidence life evolves.I have already explained why it is not evidence life evolves

Now you have said this about a thousand times, it needs not to be repeated. It was as wrong this time as it was every time before.

,even if you reject a flood,it does not make evolution true,just because you doubt a flood

.


Three dumb mistakes in one short line! I dont "doubt" it; there is abundant proof it didnt happen.
Ther is no "just because" and nothing about evolution there.

We are talking about evolution,not the flood.

I know. You are the confused one. I used that as an example of how to disprove a theory or hypothesis.
You dont seem to have any idea how that is done.

But just so you know,I do not believe the fossils in the layers of strata are evidence for a flood,in a global flood the life that died would have decayed away or had been eaten by scavengers,etc because the sun was shining the whole time[/quote

The process by which various organisms become fossilized is a great deal more varied and complex than you seem to understand.

].But this also proves evolution science wrong too because they teach that alot of this dead life that are fossilized in the layers of strata layed out on the ground over millions of years without decaying and were covered over eventually and buried.

There is no disproof in that, just you expressing your extreme ignorance about geology, You did get an extremely weird bit of nonsense in there, bolded for convenience. Do you actually think anyone proposes such garbage?

This is impossible the life that we see in the layers of strata were buried alive under tremendous pressure to protect it from the elements so that it does not decay away and is preserved for us to see. Now sure not all fossils are all there though,but many are,in order to fossilize they were buried alive

.

This is incoherent.

Actually a better theory from a biblical perspective that makes more sense is that when God restored the earth and made this world he restructered the earth and created hell for the devil and his angels and in that restructering of the earth the fossils got mixed up in the layers of strata,of course though we could go with volcanoes or meteors hitting the earth also.

It is a better idea than the craziness that you make up about evolution and geology. However, anyone who is actually concerned with data, not fantasy, knows that your "gap", restart etc match only with fantasy.

The fossils in the layers of strata are evidence for a former world that had different kinds of life in it than this world we live in now

They show many different successive environments, not just two.

has,this is also why no fossil you can look at shows any signs of transition,they are all fully formed life forms that lived in the former world,fully functional as they were,until they died and were fossilized

.


The thing about "no transition" is ignorant falsehood; the thing about "fully functional" is yet another of your strawmen born of ignorance.

The whole "fully funcitonal" canard could take up a thread on its own. In essence, tho, two things:

-pray tell what it would mean for something to not be "fully functional"?
-another strawman, as nobody ever suggested that not-fully-functional organisms are in any way
something to do with evoltuion.

All relevant data shows that life did evolve, and that there was no flood.

Now, how about you try to come up with some data that shows ToE is false?
No more chanting of your dogma, just present some facts.

You are below giving an ideology-based opinion. No specifics.

Alot happened in the former world and it went on for millions of years based on the evidence in the earth and how much death and exctinction is in the earth.

OK then look at all of these fossils and point out for us a fossil that shows transition.They are all fully formed creatures just like I said,that show absolutely no evidence of transition.Based on this evidence we know fossils are not and cannot be used for evidence life evolves,eventhough they are. You are still hiding and losing credibility based on fossils.You are circling the wagons and ignoring evidence whether you accept a flood,a former "Lost world" or not.

But I can tell you "a former world that perished" is already more believable of a theory based on the fact that no fossil shows any transition and they show life different than life in this world.Based on the evidence the former world was a Lord of the rings type world.You deny,deny,deny but offer no reasons why,or any evidence to the contrary.

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=f ... gws_rd=ssl

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:Abe, I am going to ignore all the falsehoods, strawmen, and assorted other crap.

I asked you to provide me with some data contrary to ToE.

Your interpretation of what was the thinking behind a paper on salamanders is
nor data contrary to ToE.

Let me give you an example of "Data contrary to.."

Suppose the claim is that all the sedimentary strata were laid down in a single flood event.

So we go and examine some nice exposure.

In it we find one or more layers of igneous rock

That disproves the flood hypothesis for those strata.

Are you a flood-believer? If so this will be interesting.
You keep trying to disprove ToE, and there is no data to apply.

The flood, tho, there is a vast data base that disproves it.
Ever look at any of that?

Why are you bringing the flood into this?I have not brought creationism into this discussion

Perhaps if you read what I said you can figure it out? i DESCRIBED AN EASY WAY TO DISPROVE THE FLOOD STORY. AS AN EXAMPLE OF HOW ONE USES SCIENCE TO DISPROVE SOMETHING.

.I'm dealing with evolution based on its own evidence and no it is not a straw man to point out they are using normal variation in reproduction for evidence life evolves

But that is not what is used for "evidence of evolution" however confused you may be on this point. You are in fact arguing against a strawman.

,I mean you can tell,variation is normal in reproduction and it is not and cannot be evidence life evolves.I have already explained why it is not evidence life evolves

Now you have said this about a thousand times, it needs not to be repeated. It was as wrong this time as it was every time before.

,even if you reject a flood,it does not make evolution true,just because you doubt a flood

.


Three dumb mistakes in one short line! I dont "doubt" it; there is abundant proof it didnt happen.
Ther is no "just because" and nothing about evolution there.

We are talking about evolution,not the flood.

I know. You are the confused one. I used that as an example of how to disprove a theory or hypothesis.
You dont seem to have any idea how that is done.

But just so you know,I do not believe the fossils in the layers of strata are evidence for a flood,in a global flood the life that died would have decayed away or had been eaten by scavengers,etc because the sun was shining the whole time[/quote

The process by which various organisms become fossilized is a great deal more varied and complex than you seem to understand.




There is no disproof in that, just you expressing your extreme ignorance about geology, You did get an extremely weird bit of nonsense in there, bolded for convenience. Do you actually think anyone proposes such garbage?


.

This is incoherent.




It is a better idea than the craziness that you make up about evolution and geology. However, anyone who is actually concerned with data, not fantasy, knows that your "gap", restart etc match only with fantasy.






They show many different successive environments, not just two.

.


The thing about "no transition" is ignorant falsehood; the thing about "fully functional" is yet another of your strawmen born of ignorance.

The whole "fully funcitonal" canard could take up a thread on its own. In essence, tho, two things:

-pray tell what it would mean for something to not be "fully functional"?
-another strawman, as nobody ever suggested that not-fully-functional organisms are in any way
something to do with evoltuion.

All relevant data shows that life did evolve, and that there was no flood.

Now, how about you try to come up with some data that shows ToE is false?
No more chanting of your dogma, just present some facts.

You are below giving an ideology-based opinion. No specifics.

OK then look at all of these fossils and point out for us a fossil that shows transition.They are all fully formed creatures just like I said,that show absolutely no evidence of transition.Based on this evidence we know fossils are not and cannot be used for evidence life evolves,eventhough they are. You are still hiding and losing credibility based on fossils.You are circling the wagons and ignoring evidence whether you accept a flood,a former "Lost world" or not.

But I can tell you "a former world that perished" is already more believable of a theory based on the fact that no fossil shows any transition and they show life different than life in this world.Based on the evidence the former world was a Lord of the rings type world.You deny,deny,deny but offer no reasons why,or any evidence to the contrary.

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=f ... gws_rd=ssl

Please explain in your own words what you mean by a "transitional" organism.
Transitional like from what to what?

How could you recognize it? What features might it have? How do you look at something and decide that it is not transitional?

Why do you talk about "fully formed"? Do you think that ToE somehow requires that
some plant or animal not be fully formed?

Please explain your thoughts on "transitional" and, "fully formed".

And please edit out all the editorial comments on what you think is believable, comments on me, etc.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Perhaps if you read what I said you can figure it out? i DESCRIBED AN EASY WAY TO DISPROVE THE FLOOD STORY. AS AN EXAMPLE OF HOW ONE USES SCIENCE TO DISPROVE SOMETHING.



But that is not what is used for "evidence of evolution" however confused you may be on this point. You are in fact arguing against a strawman.



Now you have said this about a thousand times, it needs not to be repeated. It was as wrong this time as it was every time before.

.


Three dumb mistakes in one short line! I dont "doubt" it; there is abundant proof it didnt happen.
Ther is no "just because" and nothing about evolution there.


I know. You are the confused one. I used that as an example of how to disprove a theory or hypothesis.
You dont seem to have any idea how that is done.

OK then look at all of these fossils and point out for us a fossil that shows transition.They are all fully formed creatures just like I said,that show absolutely no evidence of transition.Based on this evidence we know fossils are not and cannot be used for evidence life evolves,eventhough they are. You are still hiding and losing credibility based on fossils.You are circling the wagons and ignoring evidence whether you accept a flood,a former "Lost world" or not.

But I can tell you "a former world that perished" is already more believable of a theory based on the fact that no fossil shows any transition and they show life different than life in this world.Based on the evidence the former world was a Lord of the rings type world.You deny,deny,deny but offer no reasons why,or any evidence to the contrary.

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=f ... gws_rd=ssl

Please explain in your own words what you mean by a "transitional" organism.
Transitional like from what to what?

How could you recognize it? What features might it have? How do you look at something and decide that it is not transitional?

Why do you talk about "fully formed"? Do you think that ToE somehow requires that
some plant or animal not be fully formed?

Please explain your thoughts on "transitional" and, "fully formed".

And please edit out all the editorial comments on what you think is believable, comments on me, etc.

Why does it seem like you are playing dumb about evolution science? I don't think you are dumb and I think you are very smart and smart enough to know about the ToE but in your defense of it you seem to play dumb about it and expect me to be the only one who gives data and evidence about the ToE and why it is weak evidence,while you just call it a strawman,reject it while giving no reason to believe you.

Why should I keep going on explaining and giving you reasons the evidence in the ToE is weak when you'll just deny it without giving any evidence to the contrary?

I think that me and you have gone around and around in circles enough. I think we have both said enough. I might answer your questions at some point but I'm not going to right now. Thanks for our discussion and debate about this.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Abel, your problem is that you have decided that evolution is something that it simply is not and then you go about disproving it, not evolution mind you, but YOUR understanding of what you think it is.

I suggest you do a thorough reading over at Biologos.

That is what I have always encountered with people who wish to argue against ToE,
they do not understand the topic, and make arguments based on some misunderstanding.

As a rule, its not too hard to savage a strawman.

I am unaware of any legitimate argument to be made against ToE. I would be most interested to hear of it if there is.

Yeah but I'm using arguments against evolution that happens to be a biologist that is an atheist. Basically evolution science is just stating the obvious and if you go back over my arguments you'll see examples where evidence in evolution science is just stating the obvious.

You are not able to give one (1) bit of data contrary to ToE. But dont feel bad, nobody else can either.

Anything other than hard data is just blather. How about if you do not post again until you have found some actual verifiable data contrary to ToE.

You would'nt believe anything I say anyway this is why I encourage people to look into it themselves.It is you that cannot give any evidence to refute what I've said,instead you will just disagree while defending evolution.I get the feeling that you don't really want to get into a serious debate about it,so you just defend evolution and leave it at that.