Evidence for God from Science

neo-x wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:See how the evolutionists are? They just declare it is true and ignore the reasons it is not true and not even close. They cannot refute me and reasons why evolution is fraud science.I know they cannot because I don't lie.

You must be God.

No,I just go by evidence. There is Noway God directed evolution when there is no reason to believe life evolves. The Gap Theory based on the same evidence fits the evidence in the earth much better. We have evidence a former world with life in it existed. And we have fossilized life going back 3.7 billion years that shows life has been on the earth from the beginning or much,much sooner than has been believed. This would be a correct prediction for Gap Creationism that does not believe God created a junk without form and void earth and then decorated it over the six days whether thousands of years or billions of years but from the beginning the earth was perfect with life on it. This would cause problems for evolution too because they'll have to speed up evolution again like they did with punctuated equilibrium. It does not leave them very much time for life to evolve.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/spe ... 178710fa01

Isaiah 45:18

Doubt Is Not Allowed
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LrPhWf5aZQ

abelcainsbrother wrote:

neo-x wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

neo-x wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:
No evidence life evolves though.If you know about evolution then nothing I have explained throughout this thread is wrong concerning evolution. You just choose to believe life evolves. Please provide evidence like I do if life evolves,just doubting me because of a sterio-type that creationists reject evolution because they don't understand it does not make you right. None of you who have chosen to believe life evolves have shown or proven me wrong about why I reject evolution. I'm not trying to be a know it all,but I reject evolution for very legit reasons and you should too.

Sorry ACB, you don't understand it and you show no evidence, just a few odd statements but your argument and your so called refutations are ignorant of TOE. Nothing more than a denial; and I kind of feel bad that you have convinced yourself of it.

BTW I am not saying creationists can't understand evidence. But in my opinion very few do understand it, and that is because like anything it's hard work to read and analyse and collect info. A lot of people would rather read a short article on the internet by some pseudoscience website or an antievolution or religious one and think they understand it. They don't.

I'll give you though that the the non-religious group have the people likewise who don't know much but follow the latest through internet or forums.

Then what is so good about evolution if only experts and scientists can understand it and only they can understand it and explain it to you? You are just using the apologetics of evolution. This is what you evolutionists always say when somebody rejects evolution.

I'm sorry that's not an objection. I could say what good is maths if only mathematicians can understand it?

You can't blame your own ignorance or lack of research to say something isn't right. It isn't a trick to put you down, its a fact. I used to attack ToE, based on wrong info preached by my church and what I saw on the tv on conservative Christian channels or youtube. I never read any book on it or saw a science paper associated with it. I was so sure I was right because it made sense that it could not be right. I mean its like saying that the storm came and left a fully formed 747 in its wake, right? Boy, I was wrong. I was so wrong. But I didn't get to that overnight. I studied whatever I could and then eventually I started to see a cohesive picture or shall I say how the 747 came into being after the storm, if that makes any sense to you.

And as Hugh also said, you could say you are not convinced by the evidence and that's fine, you could disagree. But to claim there is no evidence? you're living under a rock. And I am sorry that you feel fine there, in ignorance. I wish you study what you are attaching at least. You somehow got the impression that most people have, it's just a theory, just a matter of belief...it is science, not make believe, there's a chain of solid evidence which hasn't been refuted yet.

I always think, follow the evidence, and let the chips fall where they may. You can't be very wrong if you follow this. But if you have formed your view on your feelings alone even before you try or test it then there's nothing to learn.

You ignored the reasons speciation is a myth and the whole tree of evolution cannot be true based on the evidence.

Don't say it, Show me how.

These evolutionists refuse to get into the evidence used for evolution because it would prove me correct about how there is no evidence life evolves in evolution science. It only proves normal stuff that was known by plant and animal breeders for thousands of years and that is normal variation amongst a population of life and in some instances this variation produces life in it that cannot breed with others in its population. This cannot be used for evidence life evolves and yet it is and everything else about evolution is just assumed to be true.

Because the evidence in evolution science and out in the world around us shows that life never evolves above the species level. It always remains in its family and this proves the whole evolution tree of life is bunk science that cannot happen based on the evidence. These evolutionists will continue to ignore this believing what scientists tell them and will continue to hide behind the peer review wall.

That wall is coming down and its only a matter of time. The word is out evolution is a myth and there is nothing that can be done by scientists to stop it. Delaying is all they are doing for the inevitable.

neo-x wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

neo-x wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

neo-x wrote:
Sorry ACB, you don't understand it and you show no evidence, just a few odd statements but your argument and your so called refutations are ignorant of TOE. Nothing more than a denial; and I kind of feel bad that you have convinced yourself of it.

BTW I am not saying creationists can't understand evidence. But in my opinion very few do understand it, and that is because like anything it's hard work to read and analyse and collect info. A lot of people would rather read a short article on the internet by some pseudoscience website or an antievolution or religious one and think they understand it. They don't.

I'll give you though that the the non-religious group have the people likewise who don't know much but follow the latest through internet or forums.

Then what is so good about evolution if only experts and scientists can understand it and only they can understand it and explain it to you? You are just using the apologetics of evolution. This is what you evolutionists always say when somebody rejects evolution.

I'm sorry that's not an objection. I could say what good is maths if only mathematicians can understand it?

You can't blame your own ignorance or lack of research to say something isn't right. It isn't a trick to put you down, its a fact. I used to attack ToE, based on wrong info preached by my church and what I saw on the tv on conservative Christian channels or youtube. I never read any book on it or saw a science paper associated with it. I was so sure I was right because it made sense that it could not be right. I mean its like saying that the storm came and left a fully formed 747 in its wake, right? Boy, I was wrong. I was so wrong. But I didn't get to that overnight. I studied whatever I could and then eventually I started to see a cohesive picture or shall I say how the 747 came into being after the storm, if that makes any sense to you.

And as Hugh also said, you could say you are not convinced by the evidence and that's fine, you could disagree. But to claim there is no evidence? you're living under a rock. And I am sorry that you feel fine there, in ignorance. I wish you study what you are attaching at least. You somehow got the impression that most people have, it's just a theory, just a matter of belief...it is science, not make believe, there's a chain of solid evidence which hasn't been refuted yet.

I always think, follow the evidence, and let the chips fall where they may. You can't be very wrong if you follow this. But if you have formed your view on your feelings alone even before you try or test it then there's nothing to learn.

You ignored the reasons speciation is a myth and the whole tree of evolution cannot be true based on the evidence.

Don't say it, Show me how.

I already explained it to you. You just probably doubt me.Normal variation amongst a population cannot be used for evidence life evolves,and yet it is. So I will ask you,how do scientists determine when speciation has happened? Also,why is it so important to evolutionists because life cannot breed? You claim you used to debate and deny evolution but later discovered the evidence just cannot be denied and so you accepted it so you should be able to explain this about speciation and why it is so important to evolution scientists. All I see is normal variation amongst a population and even when it cannot breed,which is normal,such as not all dogs can breed,and so how has evolution above the species level happened because a Great Dane cannot breed with a Chihauhauh and there is no evolution above the species level and they still will only produce dogs? But perhaps you can explain why it is important and how it leads to evolution.
Speciation
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_42

abelcainsbrother wrote:

neo-x wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

neo-x wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:
Then what is so good about evolution if only experts and scientists can understand it and only they can understand it and explain it to you? You are just using the apologetics of evolution. This is what you evolutionists always say when somebody rejects evolution.

I'm sorry that's not an objection. I could say what good is maths if only mathematicians can understand it?

You can't blame your own ignorance or lack of research to say something isn't right. It isn't a trick to put you down, its a fact. I used to attack ToE, based on wrong info preached by my church and what I saw on the tv on conservative Christian channels or youtube. I never read any book on it or saw a science paper associated with it. I was so sure I was right because it made sense that it could not be right. I mean its like saying that the storm came and left a fully formed 747 in its wake, right? Boy, I was wrong. I was so wrong. But I didn't get to that overnight. I studied whatever I could and then eventually I started to see a cohesive picture or shall I say how the 747 came into being after the storm, if that makes any sense to you.

And as Hugh also said, you could say you are not convinced by the evidence and that's fine, you could disagree. But to claim there is no evidence? you're living under a rock. And I am sorry that you feel fine there, in ignorance. I wish you study what you are attaching at least. You somehow got the impression that most people have, it's just a theory, just a matter of belief...it is science, not make believe, there's a chain of solid evidence which hasn't been refuted yet.

I always think, follow the evidence, and let the chips fall where they may. You can't be very wrong if you follow this. But if you have formed your view on your feelings alone even before you try or test it then there's nothing to learn.

You ignored the reasons speciation is a myth and the whole tree of evolution cannot be true based on the evidence.

Don't say it, Show me how.

I already explained it to you. You just probably doubt me.

I doubt a lot of things and people. I didn't use to but now I do.

And you haven't explained anything. You have repeatedly repeated the same thing over and over but I already told you that you're not even coming close. Maybe you have an emotional disgust against the idea of evolution. I don't know. You seem to not put any real objection to ToE.

As for explaining, I think you should look into DNA, read basics, assume you know nothing.

ll I see is normal variation amongst a population and even when it cannot breed,which is normal,such as not all dogs can breed,and so how has evolution above the species level happened because a Great Dane cannot breed with a Chihauhauh and there is no evolution above the species level and they still will only produce dogs?

Because individuals never evolve...whole populations do. And evolution is not if a tiger mates with a horse to make a Torse. That is silly. Evolution doesn't happen because different species start to mate. The same way that humans and apes have a CA which was neither ape nor human.
Great danes came to be because populations of non-great danes evolved under NS or were bred under selective pressures for breeding. And it has its limitations.

I have a question for you; 99 percent of all life has already gone extinct, why and how?

neo-x wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

neo-x wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

neo-x wrote:
I'm sorry that's not an objection. I could say what good is maths if only mathematicians can understand it?

You can't blame your own ignorance or lack of research to say something isn't right. It isn't a trick to put you down, its a fact. I used to attack ToE, based on wrong info preached by my church and what I saw on the tv on conservative Christian channels or youtube. I never read any book on it or saw a science paper associated with it. I was so sure I was right because it made sense that it could not be right. I mean its like saying that the storm came and left a fully formed 747 in its wake, right? Boy, I was wrong. I was so wrong. But I didn't get to that overnight. I studied whatever I could and then eventually I started to see a cohesive picture or shall I say how the 747 came into being after the storm, if that makes any sense to you.

And as Hugh also said, you could say you are not convinced by the evidence and that's fine, you could disagree. But to claim there is no evidence? you're living under a rock. And I am sorry that you feel fine there, in ignorance. I wish you study what you are attaching at least. You somehow got the impression that most people have, it's just a theory, just a matter of belief...it is science, not make believe, there's a chain of solid evidence which hasn't been refuted yet.

I always think, follow the evidence, and let the chips fall where they may. You can't be very wrong if you follow this. But if you have formed your view on your feelings alone even before you try or test it then there's nothing to learn.

You ignored the reasons speciation is a myth and the whole tree of evolution cannot be true based on the evidence.

Don't say it, Show me how.

I already explained it to you. You just probably doubt me.

I doubt a lot of things and people. I didn't use to but now I do.

And you haven't explained anything. You have repeatedly repeated the same thing over and over but I already told you that you're not even coming close. Maybe you have an emotional disgust against the idea of evolution. I don't know. You seem to not put any real objection to ToE.

As for explaining, I think you should look into DNA, read basics, assume you know nothing.

ll I see is normal variation amongst a population and even when it cannot breed,which is normal,such as not all dogs can breed,and so how has evolution above the species level happened because a Great Dane cannot breed with a Chihauhauh and there is no evolution above the species level and they still will only produce dogs?

Because individuals never evolve...whole populations do. And evolution is not if a tiger mates with a horse to make a Torse. That is silly. Evolution doesn't happen because different species start to mate. The same way that humans and apes have a CA which was neither ape nor human.
Great danes came to be because populations of non-great danes evolved under NS or were bred under selective pressures for breeding. And it has its limitations.

I have a question for you; 99 percent of all life has already gone extinct, why and how?

Yes I have repeated it,but it needs to be repeated. Whole populations never evolve and that is the point. I mean you can believe they do,but you have no evidence populations evolve.The evidence shows that despite variation amongst a population it never evolves. Show evidence if you doubt me. 99% of all life died because life is either able to adapt to its environment or it dies and never evolves. I never implied individuals evolve which is why I've mentioned variation amongst a population. I'm talking about populations not being able to evolve and even in certain instances when life in that population cannot breed.

And the reason I'm bringing it up is because of speciation and how scientists believe it has evolved into a new species because it cannot breedwith others in its population.It can always breed with others in its population such as Great Danes and Chihauhauhs that cannot breed but can breed with others in its population or it goes extinct unless man intervenes such as donkeys. My point is whether it can or cannot breed with others in its population it does not evolve because it still produces the kind of life in its population such as all of the different dog breeds based on what they can or cannot breed within its population.You still get dogs,so how could they ever evolve? You are seeing what you want to see based on your belief life evolves.So speciation is a myth.

DNA is irrelevant and does not prove life evolves. Scientists must provide evidence life evolves. The evidence shows that the common ancestor of apes and man cannot evolve into man or apes because in each population there are limits to how much variation can be had. Reptiles cannot evolve into mammals and Pakecetus cannot evolve into a whale. This is because the population of Pakecetus will stay in its population and so will whales amongst that population.


Pakecetus
http://www.amnh.org/explore/news-blogs/ ... -pakicetus

This means with no evidence life can evolve we can take all of the evidence discovered in the earth and use it for evidence that there was a former world that existed and all of these fossils found just show us the kinds of life that lived in the former world and they have nothing to do with life evolving. The Gap Theory is much,much more believable based on the same evidence. We are just coming to a different conclusion about what the evidence is telling us. There was a former world and it perished 2nd Peter 3:5-6.We have a lost world that was overlooked because of evolution. The truth is stranger than fiction.

DNA is irrelevant...

You have no idea what you're talking about...explains a lot of why you have such misinformed beliefs.

neo-x wrote:

DNA is irrelevant...

You have no idea what you're talking about...explains a lot of why you have such misinformed beliefs.

Of course he doesn't. For that, we have, yes, evidence.

You've been trying to pin him down-I guess-on his entire schpiel about how there- is -no -evidence,
with, yes-there-is.

"Pin" implies a small point.

The ice vs flood is one that comes down to one simple fact of physics;
ice floats.

Now, stu, bless his little cowboy hat, goes full woo woo on that, but even ab realizes that the
ice predates his "flood".

He ( ab ) ran from me. He knows gappistry and his wacky creationism
cannot survive the flood being disproved.

abelcainsbrother wrote:This means with no evidence life can evolve we can take all of the evidence discovered in the earth and use it for evidence that there was a former world that existed and all of these fossils found just show us the kinds of life that lived in the former world and they have nothing to do with life evolving. The Gap Theory is much,much more believable based on the same evidence. We are just coming to a different conclusion about what the evidence is telling us. There was a former world and it perished 2nd Peter 3:5-6.We have a lost world that was overlooked because of evolution. The truth is stranger than fiction.

Overlooked..in your case, not so much. More like "Glimpsed, before eyes and brain snapped shut
like the hatch on a crash diving submarine."

Remember what you glimpsed? "Ice floats"

Then...the Horror.

All of your weird n' wacky gappity fiction dissolving. Melting, I should say, for Lo, ice doth
both float and melt.

Have you dreamed a new way to pretend that this does not disprove gappitism?

For convenience, you already tried:

1. The ice floated, but did not melt, and settled back precisely in place

2. Ice was stuck down, did not float.

3. Top half broke free and floatrd, bottom half stayed stuck,
top did not melt or break up or drift away, then settled back in place just so.



Truth is btw not necessarily stranger than fiction, but in this case it is far more
complex and beautiful than anything you can dream up.

So, anyway, what now? Dream up more and sillier ploys to escape the
obvious, or are you ready to give it up now?

neo-x wrote:

DNA is irrelevant...

You have no idea what you're talking about...explains a lot of why you have such misinformed beliefs.

Yes,I do. DNA does not does not demonstrate life evolves. You never explained why speciation is so important to evolutionists after I explained how and why it is a myth. And DNA is irrelevant based on this because scientists are pushing myths like speciation. This means they have no credibility and cannot be trusted about DNA,ancestry gene related,the evolution trre of life,etc. They are pushing myths as true science. Please give an example of my misinformed beliefs about evolution and correct them and prove me wrong if you can. You avoided speciation and why it is so important to evolution and how you know it leads to what they claim it does,still waiting.I know it leads to normal variation amongst each population and so no evolution is possible.

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:This means with no evidence life can evolve we can take all of the evidence discovered in the earth and use it for evidence that there was a former world that existed and all of these fossils found just show us the kinds of life that lived in the former world and they have nothing to do with life evolving. The Gap Theory is much,much more believable based on the same evidence. We are just coming to a different conclusion about what the evidence is telling us. There was a former world and it perished 2nd Peter 3:5-6.We have a lost world that was overlooked because of evolution. The truth is stranger than fiction.

Overlooked..in your case, not so much. More like "Glimpsed, before eyes and brain snapped shut
like the hatch on a crash diving submarine."

Remember what you glimpsed? "Ice floats"

Then...the Horror.

All of your weird n' wacky gappity fiction dissolving. Melting, I should say, for Lo, ice doth
both float and melt.

Have you dreamed a new way to pretend that this does not disprove gappitism?

For convenience, you already tried:

1. The ice floated, but did not melt, and settled back precisely in place

2. Ice was stuck down, did not float.

3. Top half broke free and floatrd, bottom half stayed stuck,
top did not melt or break up or drift away, then settled back in place just so.



Truth is btw not necessarily stranger than fiction, but in this case it is far more
complex and beautiful than anything you can dream up.

So, anyway, what now? Dream up more and sillier ploys to escape the
obvious, or are you ready to give it up now?

As usual,I have evidence for what I believe while you don't. All you've got is doubt and denial.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

neo-x wrote:

DNA is irrelevant...

You have no idea what you're talking about...explains a lot of why you have such misinformed beliefs.

Yes,I do. DNA does not does not demonstrate life evolves. You never explained why speciation is so important to evolutionists after I explained how and why it is a myth. And DNA is irrelevant based on this because scientists are pushing myths like speciation. This means they have no credibility and cannot be trusted about DNA,ancestry gene related,the evolution trre of life,etc. They are pushing myths as true science. Please give an example of my misinformed beliefs about evolution and correct them and prove me wrong if you can. You avoided speciation and why it is so important to evolution and how you know it leads to what they claim it does,still waiting.I know it leads to normal variation amongst each population and so no evolution is possible.

/\
A man goes to see a doctor.
"Doc, I have a serious problem," he says. "When I close my eyes I can't see."
"Well," the doctor says, "you need to open your eyes to see things."
"But I want to see things with my eyes closed."

Your problem is that you want to see things without actually opening up to them. The reason I stopped explaining is because it is clear to me that its very hard to communicate with you since you do not know your subject matter. Speciation is continous evolution in branches. And the normal varation you see can eventually branch out. I suppose you really are expecting a Torse, an offspring of a tiger and a horse. In short, your assumptions are wrong and therefore your expectations are too. Its speciation that eventually led from ape like ancestors to chimps and humans but it took time. Time that you and me don't have. However lucky for us, the answer lies in dna and corresponding evidence like fossil record, chemistry, geology etc.

Let me give you a small experiment, find a new born baby of a few days and put a finger under his/her toes. You will see that the toes will immediately curl around it. Now go and do the same to a chimp baby, it will do exactly the same thing. You know why?
It's because its a reflex instinct left in our dna that still thinks that grabbing to things like trees and shoots and branches help us to stand and walk on two feet. Infact you can see videos of modern apes walking on trees on two legs that they grab the branch with and with their hands they grab the top ones and walk upright.

And this is a small nugget. The evidence is piling up for 150 years and still has to be refuted.

neo-x wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

neo-x wrote:

DNA is irrelevant...

You have no idea what you're talking about...explains a lot of why you have such misinformed beliefs.

Yes,I do. DNA does not does not demonstrate life evolves. You never explained why speciation is so important to evolutionists after I explained how and why it is a myth. And DNA is irrelevant based on this because scientists are pushing myths like speciation. This means they have no credibility and cannot be trusted about DNA,ancestry gene related,the evolution trre of life,etc. They are pushing myths as true science. Please give an example of my misinformed beliefs about evolution and correct them and prove me wrong if you can. You avoided speciation and why it is so important to evolution and how you know it leads to what they claim it does,still waiting.I know it leads to normal variation amongst each population and so no evolution is possible.

/\
A man goes to see a doctor.
"Doc, I have a serious problem," he says. "When I close my eyes I can't see."
"Well," the doctor says, "you need to open your eyes to see things."
"But I want to see things with my eyes closed."

Your problem is that you want to see things without actually opening up to them. The reason I stopped explaining is because it is clear to me that its very hard to communicate with you since you do not know your subject matter. Speciation is continous evolution in branches. And the normal varation you see can eventually branch out. I suppose you really are expecting a Torse, an offspring of a tiger and a horse. In short, your assumptions are wrong and therefore your expectations are too. Its speciation that eventually led from ape like ancestors to chimps and humans but it took time. Time that you and me don't have. However lucky for us, the answer lies in dna and corresponding evidence like fossil record, chemistry, geology etc.

Let me give you a small experiment, find a new born baby of a few days and put a finger under his/her toes. You will see that the toes will immediately curl around it. Now go and do the same to a chimp baby, it will do exactly the same thing. You know why?
It's because its a reflex instinct left in our dna that still thinks that grabbing to things like trees and shoots and branches help us to stand and walk on two feet. Infact you can see videos of modern apes walking on trees on two legs that they grab the branch with and with their hands they grab the top ones and walk upright.

And this is a small nugget. The evidence is piling up for 150 years and still has to be refuted.

Opening up? No I'm going by the evidence and it proves it cannot branch out like you claim. Not being able to breed leads to polulations not being able to branch out. You are assuming they branch out but the evidence shows they do not branch out.You are just believing the evolution arguments that scientists and evolutionists preach without examining the evidence to see if it backs up what they claim.

I have examined their evidence and in every example of evidence they use it never branches off whether it is viruses,bacteria,fruit flies,salamanders,rats,dogs roses,etc in every case it proves that despite normal variation amongst each population it never branches off. It always remains in its population whether it can breed or not. This proves the who!e evolution tree of life is just made up and is a myth. And yet you trust these people still. I don't see how,but hey you can make yourself believe anything you choose to despite the evidence.

I'm not going to keep harping on the same thing as I've already made my point. But if you think that I don't understand evolution or you don't believe me then go and look yourself and check to see if what I've explained to you is correct and you'll see that I am. You obviously don't know as much about evolution as you let on about.