Evidence for God from Science

neo-x wrote:So, not one serious objection to the ToE.

For Abe, see a transitional fossil - sinornithosaurus millenii

Question for ID's:
1.Why do human embryos develop a coat of hair at about six months and then shed it?
2. Why do we develop a yolk sac at a 4-week embryo stage when we don't need it?
3. Why do we have a fully functional vitamin c building gene in our DNA but it is cut off at the last step, making it incomplete. It is like you make a fully functional car and then not put in the ignition key switch.

Evolution can easily answer these questions. How does ID explain this?

Thanks,sinornithosaurus was simply one of many kinds of life that lived in the former world.You really think it is a transitional fossil? How about trilobites,wooly mammoths,etc? They are all fully formed creatures and based on fossils we cannot just pick one and claim it is a transitional fossils,especially considering how many fossils we have that show fully formed creatures that once lived until they died,based on this we should assume sinornithosarus was fully formed and just a certian kind of dinosaur like a T-Rex.

abelcainsbrother wrote:So a virus remaining a virus which is kinds producing after their kind gives you the evidence you need to assume a eukariotic cell can evolve?

Not at all. I never said anything of the kind.

Where is the evidence the HIV evolved because the evidence shows it cannot evolve but always will remain the HIV virus,no matter how much it adapts.

The evidence shows no such thing. HIV virus seems to have evolved from an SIV virus at about the beginning of the 20th century. Google 'evolution of HIV' for detailed evidence.

Based on this we cannot even come close to believing a eukaryotic cell could evolve

Not we. You. We can easily infer exactly that, and have come up with various plausible routes by which it occurs.

because a virus remains a virus always,so no evolution can happen. You are using evolution imagination that the evidence does not back up. We see the same thing in all other examples of evidence for evolution too and that is Evo-Genesis God created life to produce after its kind just as this virus evidence proves and shows us.

Well, no. See above. 200 years ago there was no HIV virus, and now there is. One possibility is that it evolved from something else.

There needs to be evidence a eukaryotic cell could evolve,showing kinds producing after their kind regardless of the harsh environment like with the HIV virus does not in any way show life can evolve,but the opposite,it cannot. Just normal variation in reproduction regardless of the environment.

This is garbled nonsense. It really doesn't mean anything.

Scientists cannot prove normal variation in reproduction which has been known about for thousands of years regardless of the harsh environment and use this as evidence for life evolving.

There you go again! You can't resist it, can you? That word - prove. As usual, you have confused proof with evidence, and inference with deduction.

hughfarey wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:So a virus remaining a virus which is kinds producing after their kind gives you the evidence you need to assume a eukariotic cell can evolve?

Not at all. I never said anything of the kind.

Where is the evidence the HIV evolved because the evidence shows it cannot evolve but always will remain the HIV virus,no matter how much it adapts.

The evidence shows no such thing. HIV virus seems to have evolved from an SIV virus at about the beginning of the 20th century. Google 'evolution of HIV' for detailed evidence.

Based on this we cannot even come close to believing a eukaryotic cell could evolve

Not we. You. We can easily infer exactly that, and have come up with various plausible routes by which it occurs.

because a virus remains a virus always,so no evolution can happen. You are using evolution imagination that the evidence does not back up. We see the same thing in all other examples of evidence for evolution too and that is Evo-Genesis God created life to produce after its kind just as this virus evidence proves and shows us.

Well, no. See above. 200 years ago there was no HIV virus, and now there is. One possibility is that it evolved from something else.

There needs to be evidence a eukaryotic cell could evolve,showing kinds producing after their kind regardless of the harsh environment like with the HIV virus does not in any way show life can evolve,but the opposite,it cannot. Just normal variation in reproduction regardless of the environment.

This is garbled nonsense. It really doesn't mean anything.

Scientists cannot prove normal variation in reproduction which has been known about for thousands of years regardless of the harsh environment and use this as evidence for life evolving.

There you go again! You can't resist it, can you? That word - prove. As usual, you have confused proof with evidence, and inference with deduction.

You cannot see what you're doing,so let me try to help you understand what I have explained,you may need to review a few pages back to understand my point,but all you are doing is explaining normal variation and kinds producing after their kind,but my point is that normal variation in reproduction is not evidence life evolves,viruses remaining a virus while showing variation is no different than the variety of dogs and roses,but despite the variety they are still dogs and roses,and it is the exact same thing with the virus evidence. The evidence shows that there is a limit to how far variety can go,which is totally different than what one must assume to believe life evolves. The evidence is just not there,like you think,no matter how much you may want to believe life evolves.

According to you a virus will always remain a virus which means despite normal variation it could never evolve into another kind of life.It will always be a virus and never evolve into another kind of life,but will remain in its kind of life- a virus and never evolve and it is the same with all of the variations of dogs we have and the variation with roses we have but my point that keeps getting overlooked is that each kind of life there is,including how it can vary,always still remains its kind of life no matter if it is dogs,roses,viruses,bacteria,humans,etc. Look at the variety we see with humans and we see variation too,variation is normal but for some reason it is used for evidence for life evolving and just because a scientist has demonstrated normal variation within each kind of life,from this it is somehow assumed life evolves based on this.

abelcainsbrother wrote:Thanks,sinornithosaurus was simply one of many kinds of life that lived in the former world.

Yup.

You really think it is a transitional fossil?

Quite possibly. Either Sinornithosaurus or a close relative.

How about trilobites,wooly mammoths,etc?

Some of them too, if they left any descendants.

They are all fully formed creatures and based on fossils we cannot just pick one and claim it is a transitional fossils

Back to La-la-la. Why not read what Audie and myself have written about the meaning of the word transitional?

especially considering how many fossils we have that show fully formed creatures that once lived until they died

They're all fully formed. That is no obstacle to being transitional.

based on this we should assume sinornithosarus was fully formed and just a certain kind of dinosaur like a T-Rex.

We do assume exactly that.

Now listen. Try saying this slowly, aloud to yourself, maybe three or four times. "Evolutionists think all transitional organisms were fully formed." Got it? Stop imagining that they shouldn't be, or constructing absurd scenarios which are easy to find incredible, but try to understand what evolutionists mean. You don't have to agree with it, but you do have to try to understand it. You keep telling us how much research you have done into evolution and how well you understand it, but quite clearly you don't, and even more clearly you have no intention of finding out. This is a pity. If you did understand evolution, and you could refute it, you would strengthen your own hypothesis, but by not engaging sensibly at all, you demonstrate the closed-minded, pull-up-the-drawbridge attitude of someone who, deep down, suspects he has been wrong all along.

hughfarey wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:Thanks,sinornithosaurus was simply one of many kinds of life that lived in the former world.

Yup.

You really think it is a transitional fossil?

Quite possibly. Either Sinornithosaurus or a close relative.

How about trilobites,wooly mammoths,etc?

Some of them too, if they left any descendants.

They are all fully formed creatures and based on fossils we cannot just pick one and claim it is a transitional fossils

Back to La-la-la. Why not read what Audie and myself have written about the meaning of the word transitional?

especially considering how many fossils we have that show fully formed creatures that once lived until they died

They're all fully formed. That is no obstacle to being transitional.

based on this we should assume sinornithosarus was fully formed and just a certain kind of dinosaur like a T-Rex.

We do assume exactly that.

Now listen. Try saying this slowly, aloud to yourself, maybe three or four times. "Evolutionists think all transitional organisms were fully formed." Got it? Stop imagining that they shouldn't be, or constructing absurd scenarios which are easy to find incredible, but try to understand what evolutionists mean. You don't have to agree with it, but you do have to try to understand it. You keep telling us how much research you have done into evolution and how well you understand it, but quite clearly you don't, and even more clearly you have no intention of finding out. This is a pity. If you did understand evolution, and you could refute it, you would strengthen your own hypothesis, but by not engaging sensibly at all, you demonstrate the closed-minded, pull-up-the-drawbridge attitude of someone who, deep down, suspects he has been wrong all along.

No I'm not going to say that because its not true.Evolutionists look at fossils as transitional fossils,eventhogh they are not,they are fully formed creatures. Also you're wrong to claim I'm close minded just because I don't believe evolution when I'm explaining why I don't. Being close minded would be me just ignoring ya'll about evolution and not considering evidence,which I am not doing. I am explaining why I reject evolution and using their own evidence to explain why. It is hard to break the spell of one who has nibbled the magic mushroom of evolution,it is not easy,it is like a religion to many and its hard to break the spell it has on people.

Why the attitude? Are ya'll really getting angry because I'm explaining why I reject evolution? I'm not mad at all. I get picked on a lot for the gap theory,people reject it all the time,and you don't see me getting mad,insulting people or getting angry. I just present it and let the chips fall where they may and I don't consider you an enemy because you might disagree. It is silly to me and really shows weakness to me and so I don't use it. I am bold in how I explain things and it can get frustrating when you feel like you've explained it well and have given solid reasons for it,and its rejected,but I'm not mad. I have truth on my side and I know that I cannot change some bodies mind,they have to decide for themselves. I'm not attacking you personally because I explain why I reject evolution.If you're right? Prove me wrong.

abelcainsbrother wrote:No I'm not going to say that because its not true.

You didn't even read it to yourself properly, did you. It's not "All transitional organisms were fully formed", but "Evolutionists think all transitional organisms were fully formed." And that is true.

Evolutionists look at fossils as transitional fossils,even though they are not,they are fully formed creatures.

That's what I said.

Also you're wrong to claim I'm close minded just because I don't believe evolution

I've never claimed that. I claim you're closed minded because you refuse to try to understand the evidence for evolution, and so have to reject it based solely on personal bias.

when I'm explaining why I don't.

Your explanation is based on the rejection of statements which are not part of the evolutionary argument. You first make up the statements; then reject them. You won't attempt to understand those statements which are part of the evolutionary argument. That's being closed minded.

Being close minded would be me just ignoring ya'll about evolution and not considering evidence,which I am not doing.

That is exactly what you're doing. That's being closed minded.

I am explaining why I reject evolution and using their own evidence to explain why.

As I understand it, you reject evolution on the basis that no-one has ever seen a half-fish half-bird, and that speciation has not been demonstrated to your satisfaction in he last 150 years. That would be fine. Both those observations are true, and you are entitled to draw your own conclusions from them. It's all the other stuff that you misquote, misunderstand and misinterpret that I think you need correcting about.

... nibbled the magic mushroom of evolution ...

I love it! Did you make this up yourself? (Googles it). Ah, no, John A Thomas, author of EvoGenesis, and proponent of the Gap Theory... aha! Maybe you are John A Thomas in pseudonym!?

abelcainsbrother wrote:Why the attitude? Are ya'll really getting angry because I'm explaining why I reject evolution?

Angry? Certainly not. I don't do negative emotions. But posts get boring if they're totally lacking in passion, don't you think? So I do try to show a bit of passion from time to time. Not anger, although I could confess to a little frustration when I put all that care and consideration for you into my posts and you don't even read them. But, then, that's my fault, and if I didn't enjoy it I wouldn't do it. Bless ya.

I'm not mad at all.

er... mad as in 'angry' or mad as in 'insane'...

I get picked on a lot for the gap theory,people reject it all the time,and you don't see me getting mad,insulting people or getting angry.

I think you do insult people. You insult them by ignoring their posts, not answering their questions, repeating the same opinion over and over again, and publicly assuming them to take a stance which they most certainly don't take themselves. It's not anger, but it does look like resentful obduracy.

I just present it and let the chips fall where they may and I don't consider you an enemy because you might disagree.

How kind; I feel much the same about you.

It is silly to me and really shows weakness to me and so I don't use it.

Good for you.

I am bold in how I explain things and it can get frustrating when you feel like you've explained it well and have given solid reasons for it,and its rejected,but I'm not mad.

I know just how you feel.

I have truth on my side

You're a lucky man. I wish I knew I had.

and I know that I cannot change some bodies mind,they have to decide for themselves.

Indeed they do.

I'm not attacking you personally because I explain why I reject evolution.If you're right? Prove me wrong.

No can do, I'm afraid. I'm a scientist; we don't do 'proof'.

hughfarey wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:No I'm not going to say that because its not true.

You didn't even read it to yourself properly, did you. It's not "All transitional organisms were fully formed", but "Evolutionists think all transitional organisms were fully formed." And that is true.

Evolutionists look at fossils as transitional fossils,even though they are not,they are fully formed creatures.

That's what I said.

Also you're wrong to claim I'm close minded just because I don't believe evolution

I've never claimed that. I claim you're closed minded because you refuse to try to understand the evidence for evolution, and so have to reject it based solely on personal bias.

when I'm explaining why I don't.

Your explanation is based on the rejection of statements which are not part of the evolutionary argument. You first make up the statements; then reject them. You won't attempt to understand those statements which are part of the evolutionary argument. That's being closed minded.

Being close minded would be me just ignoring ya'll about evolution and not considering evidence,which I am not doing.

That is exactly what you're doing. That's being closed minded.

I am explaining why I reject evolution and using their own evidence to explain why.

As I understand it, you reject evolution on the basis that no-one has ever seen a half-fish half-bird, and that speciation has not been demonstrated to your satisfaction in he last 150 years. That would be fine. Both those observations are true, and you are entitled to draw your own conclusions from them. It's all the other stuff that you misquote, misunderstand and misinterpret that I think you need correcting about.

... nibbled the magic mushroom of evolution ...

I love it! Did you make this up yourself? (Googles it). Ah, no, John A Thomas, author of EvoGenesis, and proponent of the Gap Theory... aha! Maybe you are John A Thomas in pseudonym!?

abelcainsbrother wrote:Why the attitude? Are ya'll really getting angry because I'm explaining why I reject evolution?

Angry? Certainly not. I don't do negative emotions. But posts get boring if they're totally lacking in passion, don't you think? So I do try to show a bit of passion from time to time. Not anger, although I could confess to a little frustration when I put all that care and consideration for you into my posts and you don't even read them. But, then, that's my fault, and if I didn't enjoy it I wouldn't do it. Bless ya.

I'm not mad at all.

er... mad as in 'angry' or mad as in 'insane'...

I get picked on a lot for the gap theory,people reject it all the time,and you don't see me getting mad,insulting people or getting angry.

I think you do insult people. You insult them by ignoring their posts, not answering their questions, repeating the same opinion over and over again, and publicly assuming them to take a stance which they most certainly don't take themselves. It's not anger, but it does look like resentful obduracy.

I just present it and let the chips fall where they may and I don't consider you an enemy because you might disagree.

How kind; I feel much the same about you.

It is silly to me and really shows weakness to me and so I don't use it.

Good for you.

I am bold in how I explain things and it can get frustrating when you feel like you've explained it well and have given solid reasons for it,and its rejected,but I'm not mad.

I know just how you feel.

I have truth on my side

You're a lucky man. I wish I knew I had.

and I know that I cannot change some bodies mind,they have to decide for themselves.

Indeed they do.

I'm not attacking you personally because I explain why I reject evolution.If you're right? Prove me wrong.

No can do, I'm afraid. I'm a scientist; we don't do 'proof'.

I guess you get frustrated because you want me to look at the evidence as you and evolutionists do,but I don't because you can know all about evolution and you can explain how life evolves,it is just preaching to the choir,but I'm focusing on the evidence used for evidence that is supposed to back up you explaining how life evolves,and it doesn't as I explain. TTher needs to be evidence behind what you explain about how life evolves.

Typically evolutionists want you to just believe them explain how life evolves and this is mostly why people accept evolution,they listen to the preaching and don't focus on the evidence or when they do they add their evolution beliefs into the evidence seeing what they want to see,but not realizing the evidence is not backing up what they explain about life evolving. This is why I keep saying let's get into the evidence for evolution,it is because I know if we do,it is only going to demonstrate normal variation in reproduction or kinds of life producing after their kind just like the bible says. Now evolutionists have not realized this because to them evolution is true and they read into it their evolution beliefs into the evidence,not realizing it is not backing up their evolution preaching and teaching,it must be pointed out to them.

You need evidence that backs up what you explain about life evolving and not just evidence that demonstrates normal variation in reproduction,because it takes us back 150 years ago when Charles Darwin was convincing people life evolves based on variation with his finches and so you cannot use the same evidence he used to promote evolution to get it off the ground.

hughfarey wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:No I'm not going to say that because its not true.

You didn't even read it to yourself properly, did you. It's not "All transitional organisms were fully formed", but "Evolutionists think all transitional organisms were fully formed." And that is true.

Evolutionists look at fossils as transitional fossils,even though they are not,they are fully formed creatures.

That's what I said.

Also you're wrong to claim I'm close minded just because I don't believe evolution

I've never claimed that. I claim you're closed minded because you refuse to try to understand the evidence for evolution, and so have to reject it based solely on personal bias.

when I'm explaining why I don't.

Your explanation is based on the rejection of statements which are not part of the evolutionary argument. You first make up the statements; then reject them. You won't attempt to understand those statements which are part of the evolutionary argument. That's being closed minded.

Being close minded would be me just ignoring ya'll about evolution and not considering evidence,which I am not doing.

That is exactly what you're doing. That's being closed minded.

I am explaining why I reject evolution and using their own evidence to explain why.

As I understand it, you reject evolution on the basis that no-one has ever seen a half-fish half-bird, and that speciation has not been demonstrated to your satisfaction in he last 150 years. That would be fine. Both those observations are true, and you are entitled to draw your own conclusions from them. It's all the other stuff that you misquote, misunderstand and misinterpret that I think you need correcting about.

... nibbled the magic mushroom of evolution ...

I love it! Did you make this up yourself? (Googles it). Ah, no, John A Thomas, author of EvoGenesis, and proponent of the Gap Theory... aha! Maybe you are John A Thomas in pseudonym!?

abelcainsbrother wrote:Why the attitude? Are ya'll really getting angry because I'm explaining why I reject evolution?

Angry? Certainly not. I don't do negative emotions. But posts get boring if they're totally lacking in passion, don't you think? So I do try to show a bit of passion from time to time. Not anger, although I could confess to a little frustration when I put all that care and consideration for you into my posts and you don't even read them. But, then, that's my fault, and if I didn't enjoy it I wouldn't do it. Bless ya.

I'm not mad at all.

er... mad as in 'angry' or mad as in 'insane'...

I get picked on a lot for the gap theory,people reject it all the time,and you don't see me getting mad,insulting people or getting angry.

I think you do insult people. You insult them by ignoring their posts, not answering their questions, repeating the same opinion over and over again, and publicly assuming them to take a stance which they most certainly don't take themselves. It's not anger, but it does look like resentful obduracy.

I just present it and let the chips fall where they may and I don't consider you an enemy because you might disagree.

How kind; I feel much the same about you.

It is silly to me and really shows weakness to me and so I don't use it.

Good for you.

I am bold in how I explain things and it can get frustrating when you feel like you've explained it well and have given solid reasons for it,and its rejected,but I'm not mad.

I know just how you feel.

I have truth on my side

You're a lucky man. I wish I knew I had.

and I know that I cannot change some bodies mind,they have to decide for themselves.

Indeed they do.

I'm not attacking you personally because I explain why I reject evolution.If you're right? Prove me wrong.

No can do, I'm afraid. I'm a scientist; we don't do 'proof'.

I guess you get frustrated because you want me to look at the evidence as you and evolutionists do,but I don't because you can know all about evolution and you can explain how life evolves,it is just preaching to the choir,but I'm focusing on the evidence used for evidence that is supposed to back up you explaining how life evolves,and it doesn't as I explain. TTher needs to be evidence behind what you explain about how life evolves.

Typically evolutionists want you to just believe them explain how life evolves and this is mostly why people accept evolution,they listen to the preaching and don't focus on the evidence or when they do they add their evolution beliefs into the evidence seeing what they want to see,but not realizing the evidence is not backing up what they explain about life evolving. This is why I keep saying let's get into the evidence for evolution,it is because I know if we do,it is only going to demonstrate normal variation in reproduction or kinds of life producing after their kind just like the bible says. Now evolutionists have not realized this because to them evolution is true and they read into it their evolution beliefs into the evidence,not realizing it is not backing up their evolution preaching and teaching,it must be pointed out to them.

You need evidence that backs up what you explain about life evolving and not just evidence that demonstrates normal variation in reproduction,because it takes us back 150 years ago when Charles Darwin was convincing people life evolves based on variation with his finches and so you cannot use the same evidence he used to promote evolution to get it off the ground.

hughfarey wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:No I'm not going to say that because its not true.

You didn't even read it to yourself properly, did you. It's not "All transitional organisms were fully formed", but "Evolutionists think all transitional organisms were fully formed." And that is true.

Evolutionists look at fossils as transitional fossils,even though they are not,they are fully formed creatures.

That's what I said.

Also you're wrong to claim I'm close minded just because I don't believe evolution

I've never claimed that. I claim you're closed minded because you refuse to try to understand the evidence for evolution, and so have to reject it based solely on personal bias.

when I'm explaining why I don't.

Your explanation is based on the rejection of statements which are not part of the evolutionary argument. You first make up the statements; then reject them. You won't attempt to understand those statements which are part of the evolutionary argument. That's being closed minded.

Being close minded would be me just ignoring ya'll about evolution and not considering evidence,which I am not doing.

That is exactly what you're doing. That's being closed minded.

I am explaining why I reject evolution and using their own evidence to explain why.

As I understand it, you reject evolution on the basis that no-one has ever seen a half-fish half-bird, and that speciation has not been demonstrated to your satisfaction in he last 150 years. That would be fine. Both those observations are true, and you are entitled to draw your own conclusions from them. It's all the other stuff that you misquote, misunderstand and misinterpret that I think you need correcting about.

... nibbled the magic mushroom of evolution ...

I love it! Did you make this up yourself? (Googles it). Ah, no, John A Thomas, author of EvoGenesis, and proponent of the Gap Theory... aha! Maybe you are John A Thomas in pseudonym!?

abelcainsbrother wrote:Why the attitude? Are ya'll really getting angry because I'm explaining why I reject evolution?

Angry? Certainly not. I don't do negative emotions. But posts get boring if they're totally lacking in passion, don't you think? So I do try to show a bit of passion from time to time. Not anger, although I could confess to a little frustration when I put all that care and consideration for you into my posts and you don't even read them. But, then, that's my fault, and if I didn't enjoy it I wouldn't do it. Bless ya.

I'm not mad at all.

er... mad as in 'angry' or mad as in 'insane'...

I get picked on a lot for the gap theory,people reject it all the time,and you don't see me getting mad,insulting people or getting angry.

I think you do insult people. You insult them by ignoring their posts, not answering their questions, repeating the same opinion over and over again, and publicly assuming them to take a stance which they most certainly don't take themselves. It's not anger, but it does look like resentful obduracy.

I just present it and let the chips fall where they may and I don't consider you an enemy because you might disagree.

How kind; I feel much the same about you.

It is silly to me and really shows weakness to me and so I don't use it.

Good for you.

I am bold in how I explain things and it can get frustrating when you feel like you've explained it well and have given solid reasons for it,and its rejected,but I'm not mad.

I know just how you feel.

I have truth on my side

You're a lucky man. I wish I knew I had.

and I know that I cannot change some bodies mind,they have to decide for themselves.

Indeed they do.

I'm not attacking you personally because I explain why I reject evolution.If you're right? Prove me wrong.

No can do, I'm afraid. I'm a scientist; we don't do 'proof'.

Where he says he has "truth on his side" I think we have the key to the impossibility to
getting thru to that bank- vault- tight closed mind.

He reads "god's word"; it is true, and his interpretation is true. That makes him infallible.
Simply impossible for him to be mistaken, or for me or you to be right.

I'm sorry, abelcainsbrother, but every one of the points you enumerate in your last post has been comprehensively responded to within the last few days, so I hope you'll forgive me if I don't reply to it in any detail this time. If you're interested in my views, just look back a bit.

Even if we choose to go by the definitions used in evolution science,such as evolution,adaptation,natural selection,micro-evolution,macroevolution,etc the evidence still does not back them up. All they have for evidence to cover them all is evidence showing normal variation in reproduction and this covers everything else and is just speculation,assumption and imagination about them all. There is no difference in the evidence for micro or macroevolution,just normal variation in reproduction,this covers their definition for evolution,natural selection,adaptation,micro-evolution and micro-evolution. Normal variation in reproduction is all they've got for evidence and they assume everything else is true.Kinds produce after their kind just like the bible tells us.

A little advice I heard, that maybe we all need to reread, and try to apply...

When arguing against something, we should study the subject thoroughly enough that we could argue for it. Know the subject's strengths, and argue against them. Arguing against things that have nothing to do with the subject, just makes us look dishonest.

hughfarey wrote:I'm sorry, abelcainsbrother, but every one of the points you enumerate in your last post has been comprehensively responded to within the last few days, so I hope you'll forgive me if I don't reply to it in any detail this time. If you're interested in my views, just look back a bit.

I understand but you have not comprehensively responded about the HIV virus and your stating it didn't exist 200 years ago and yet,viruses did exist 200 years ago and despite normal variation it has always remained a virus,it can never evolve based on that evidence,only adapt and it remains a virus,so how can you believe it evolved or will evolve or can evolve?The evidence = We started out with a virus and that virus remains a virus and eventhough we see normal variation and its ability to adapt,it will always be a virus and cannot ever evolve into some other kind of life based on the evidence. Also the environment has absolutely no effect on the virus,it remains a virus no matter how much it is able to adapt.This is the point I have been making and it is the same with any evidence we might look at used for evidence life evolves.Kinds produce after their kind just like the bible says.

RickD wrote:A little advice I heard, that maybe we all need to reread, and try to apply...

When arguing against something, we should study the subject thoroughly enough that we could argue for it. Know the subject's strengths, and argue against them. Arguing against things that have nothing to do with the subject, just makes us look dishonest.

Or confused. As far as I can tell, in that haystack ab is saying in effect that a virus is not
evolving if it does not change into a petunia.

The thing about "fully formed" appears to me to be born from this kind of
confusion "Not knowing the subject", as you put it.

Ps I am gratified to see that ab "likes" my observation that he is confused and does not understand the subject matter. Or he may be confused about what I said.