The evidence for evolution for Kenny'sID thread

[Larniavc]

How but a little more serious projection? You definitely aren't paying attention. Guess to forgot the conversation we had on that.



We're starting to repeat the same questions now are we? Are you seriously asking me that? The kind of evidence that proves evolution without assuming it into reality.

Can you give me a hypothetical example of that kind of evidence?

 

[Loudmouth]

How but a little more serious projection? You definitely aren't paying attention. Guess to forgot the conversation we had on that.

I remember just fine. You claimed that it was based on assumptions. Still waiting to hear what those assumptions are.

We're starting to repeat the same questions now are we? Are you seriously asking me that? The kind of evidence that proves evolution without assuming it into reality.

How is it assumed?

 

[RealityCheck01]

20 July 2016 Kenny'sID: Have you learned that there is no proof in science yet, just evidence?
20 July 2016 Kenny'sID: Common decent makes testable, falsifiable predictions that have been verified.
23 July 2016 Kenny'sID: Have you read and understand 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution The Scientific Case for Common Descent yet?
25 July 2016 Kenny'sID: Does DNA paternity testing work by basically looking for common bits of DNA between the sample and a proposed parent?
26 July 2016 Kenny'sID: What are these assumptions that scientists make?

 

[xianghua]

"So, how well do phylogenetic trees from morphological studies match the trees made from independent molecular studies? There are over 10^38 different possible ways to arrange the 30 major taxa represented in Figure 1 into a phylogenetic tree . . . In spite of these odds, the relationships given in Figure 1, as determined from morphological characters, are completely congruent with the relationships determined independently from cytochrome c molecular studies . . . Speaking quantitatively, independent morphological and molecular measurements such as these have determined the standard phylogenetic tree,

have you heard about the cytochrome b phylogeny?:

cytochrome b phylogeny whale cat‏ - חיפוש ב-Google:

a cat with a whale? or what about the prestin phylogeny?:

prestin gene convergent‏ - חיפוש ב-Google:

a bat with a dolphin but not with other bats?

 

[Skreeper]

have you heard about the cytochrome b phylogeny?:

cytochrome b phylogeny whale cat‏ - חיפוש ב-Google:

a cat with a whale? or what about the prestin phylogeny?:

prestin gene convergent‏ - חיפוש ב-Google:

a bat with a dolphin but not with other bats?

 

[xianghua]

yep. i get it.

 

[Loudmouth]

have you heard about the cytochrome b phylogeny?:

I have heard that the increased rate of evolution in the cytochrome b gene means that it is not as applicable in more distantly related organisms.

or what about the prestin phylogeny?:

prestin gene convergent‏ - חיפוש ב-Google:

a bat with a dolphin but not with other bats?

When you compare the DNA sequence for those genes you have bats together on one branch and cetaceans on their own branch.

 

[Larniavc]

If someone gave you some complicated version of how Micky Mouse created the Universe, would you make it a point to get educated until you managed to think you've fathomed such nonsense or would you take the simple to understand signs it is nonsense and leave it at that.

I’ve read the Bible so I’ve done exactly that.

 

[USincognito]

Oh, a two year bump eh?

 

[Kenny'sID]

I’ve read the Bible so I’ve done exactly that.

The question had nothing to do with the bible. Actually i'm very curious how you managed to even come up with that as answer to the question?

 

[Ophiolite]

The question had nothing to do with the bible. Actually i'm very curious how you managed to even come up with that as answer to the question?

Your postulated example of a Mickey Mouse created universe, given the context of this forum, this thread and your posting history, could relate only to YE Creationism, or evolutionary theory within a Big Bang universe. Since the latter does not require (or exclude) creation, then you were seemingly referencing the former and the description of that is to be found in the Bible.

Edit: corrected "you" for "your" in last sentence.

 

[pgp_protector]

The question had nothing to do with the bible. Actually i'm very curious how you managed to even come up with that as answer to the question?

Well it did take them 2 years to come up with it.

 

[pitabread]

I guess @Kenny'sID wasn't really interested in discussing evolution after all.

Three years on and that still hasn't changed.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I guess @Kenny'sID wasn't really interested in discussing evolution after all.

Three years on and that still hasn't changed.

Are you all listening to this stuff, where time and time again pitabread has made a similar claim, as well as something like "I/we don't understand science" (science meaning only their interpretations, conclusions of what the study of the natural world tells us). When, just as many times, I've asked him/them to simply prove it in an open discussion right here on the discussion boards, and as I recall I made the offer as simple and reasonable as possible. However, it was always followed by excuses, and links to elsewhere, not here as requested where the link can be discussed in detail as part of that proof, yet he still makes a claim like that.

Now don't get me wrong, false claims are par for the course when it come to dealing with evolutionist here, and that's my main point, these are the kind of absolutely untrue claims the whole of evolution is contrived of. We have that, and claims such as "science proves nothing" as a comeback to the request of prove evolution. IOW, if they can't answer the question, they attack the question itself in a desperate attempt to cover up the fact they cannot come close to proving evolution. Meaning, they themselves actually do know by now what the actual fact mean...they got nothing.

So they have at least have learned over the years they cannot prove evolution, and we can see a definite shift was made to create excuses instead, and some of those are so nothing short of bizarre. But don't take my word for it, you decide for yourself. Let's take the one I mentioned, "science proves nothing" to not only the obvious of how it's used but one very odd reason it's used. First, no, they didn't come up with that on their own (happens a lot around here..go look up others excuses and claim them as our own...it's apparently what free thinkers do) there are others just like them that needed the damage control so badly they would claim, "Science proves nothing because things change, and what is a fact today, may be different tomorrow, while the perfecly logical fix for that which never needed fixing to begin with, would be, simply prove what is true today as we have always done with proof, and forget about the bizarre excuses we can find on the web if we should decide we need them.

Then there is the point that resurrected this thread with the claim that became popular after they realized their lack of proof, "You don't understand science and if you haven't at least taken all these courses in these particular areas, you got no right to judge our science, (our better said, our conclusions, or even further, buy our malarkey of to college and prove us wrong). That was were the comment of my extensively studying the "fact" that Micky Mouse created the universe if someone claimed he did, when it's no more than a "who's going to do that with something so ridiculous" to begin with. Evolution is just that silly to me, so why would I, and of course nor would they, yet they still try to insist that I won't works for them.

But, in light of still trying to appease them, I offered what I mentioned earlier here, something that would do the same thing as college since they were knowledgeable enough to conclude evolution was a so called fact, as well as make them show us what they actually got, that discussion where they prove evolution as we all discuss it along the way..not nary a taker. Why? Because we tried that a few times in the past and it fell apart every time fur a few reasons, and mainly as I recall, they made it apparent they assumed so much, and assuming what we think happened in order to fill in the blanks is not anywhere near the same as what actually happened, especially when the assumptions come from those that "tend" in a certain direction already due to unfounded preconceived notions.

It this little reminder going to stop their bull, of course not, they can't stop thaqt because it's ll they have, and I really believe that, however I do enjoy bringing these things to light as often as they create the need with such as:

I guess @Kenny'sID wasn't really interested in discussing evolution after all.

Three years on and that still hasn't changed.

Of course it's changed, PITA, you guys now know, all you can muster is excuses, and baseless put downs just like those two.

When you got something, let us know, and I'll be happy to start the thread, but until then, please, no more excuses and clearly false claims.

 

[Speedwell]

No, it's not possible. Until you know, or admit, what the theory of evolution actually claims for itself you are in no position to decide whether it has been "proved" or not.

Suppose I said to you, "Unless you can prove to me that when Jesus was taken down from the cross He got better and moved to Tel Aviv and opened a falafel stand, I won't believe in Christianity." What would you do? After trying patiently for a long time trying to explain to me why that is not what happened, you might finally say, "Oh, why don't you just go read the Gospels to find out what really happened."

Your idea of what evolution is about is just as off base as that is about Christianity.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Are you all listening to this stuff, where time and time again pitabread has made a similar claim, as well as something like "I/we don't understand science" (science meaning only their interpretations, conclusions of what the study of the natural world tells us). When, just as many times, I've asked him/them to simply prove it in an open discussion right here on the discussion boards, and as I recall I made the offer as simple and reasonable as possible. However, it was always followed by excuses, and links to elsewhere, not here as requested where the link can be discussed in detail as part of that proof, yet he still makes a claim like that.

Now don't get me wrong, false claims are par for the course when it come to dealing with evolutionist here, and that's my main point, these are the kind of absolutely untrue claims the whole of evolution is contrived of. We have that, and claims such as "science proves nothing" as a comeback to the request of prove evolution. IOW, if they can't answer the question, they attack the question itself in a desperate attempt to cover up the fact they cannot come close to proving evolution. Meaning, they themselves actually do know by now what the actual fact mean...they got nothing.

So they have at least have learned over the years they cannot prove evolution, and we can see a definite shift was made to create excuses instead, and some of those are so nothing short of bizarre. But don't take my word for it, you decide for yourself. Let's take the one I mentioned, "science proves nothing" to not only the obvious of how it's used but one very odd reason it's used. First, no, they didn't come up with that on their own (happens a lot around here..go look up others excuses and claim them as our own...it's apparently what free thinkers do) there are others just like them that needed the damage control so badly they would claim, "Science proves nothing because things change, and what is a fact today, may be different tomorrow, while the perfecly logical fix for that which never needed fixing to begin with, would be, simply prove what is true today as we have always done with proof, and forget about the bizarre excuses we can find on the web if we should decide we need them.

Then there is the point that resurrected this thread with the claim that became popular after they realized their lack of proof, "You don't understand science and if you haven't at least taken all these courses in these particular areas, you got no right to judge our science, (our better said, our conclusions, or even further, buy our malarkey of to college and prove us wrong). That was were the comment of my extensively studying the "fact" that Micky Mouse created the universe if someone claimed he did, when it's no more than a "who's going to do that with something so ridiculous" to begin with. Evolution is just that silly to me, so why would I, and of course nor would they, yet they still try to insist that I won't works for them.

But, in light of still trying to appease them, I offered what I mentioned earlier here, something that would do the same thing as college since they were knowledgeable enough to conclude evolution was a so called fact, as well as make them show us what they actually got, that discussion where they prove evolution as we all discuss it along the way..not nary a taker. Why? Because we tried that a few times in the past and it fell apart every time fur a few reasons, and mainly as I recall, they made it apparent they assumed so much, and assuming what we think happened in order to fill in the blanks is not anywhere near the same as what actually happened, especially when the assumptions come from those that "tend" in a certain direction already due to unfounded preconceived notions.

It this little reminder going to stop their bull, of course not, they can't stop thaqt because it's ll they have, and I really believe that, however I do enjoy bringing these things to light as often as they create the need with such as:





Of course it's changed, PITA, you guys now know, all you can muster is excuses, and baseless put downs just like those two.

When you got something, let us know, and I'll be happy to start the thread, but until then, please, no more excuses and clearly false claims.

So many words, so little substance.

Definition of BLOVIATE

 

[Kenny'sID]

Your postulated example of a Mickey Mouse created universe, given the context of this forum, this thread and your posting history, could relate only to YE Creationism, or evolutionary theory within a Big Bang universe. Since the latter does not require (or exclude) creation, then you were seemingly referencing the former and the description of that is to be found in the Bible.

Edit: corrected "you" for "your" in last sentence.

LOL. Look at how you took that and just by your claims, true or not attempted to turn it into something else, hence hope to discredit such a simple and absolutely true concept, all so you don't have to deal with it.

Kind of like I mentioned in my last post, if you can't answer, attack the question itself...the comment in this case.

As far as actually answering your post, I think you can now see why it's tough to take the comment seriously.

 

[Jimmy D]

Are you all listening to this stuff, where time and time again pitabread has made a similar claim, as well as something like "I/we don't understand science" (science meaning only their interpretations, conclusions of what the study of the natural world tells us). When, just as many times, I've asked him/them to simply prove it in an open discussion right here on the discussion boards, and as I recall I made the offer as simple and reasonable as possible. However, it was always followed by excuses, and links to elsewhere, not here as requested where the link can be discussed in detail as part of that proof, yet he still makes a claim like that.

Now don't get me wrong, false claims are par for the course when it come to dealing with evolutionist here, and that's my main point, these are the kind of absolutely untrue claims the whole of evolution is contrived of. We have that, and claims such as "science proves nothing" as a comeback to the request of prove evolution. IOW, if they can't answer the question, they attack the question itself in a desperate attempt to cover up the fact they cannot come close to proving evolution. Meaning, they themselves actually do know by now what the actual fact mean...they got nothing.

So they have at least have learned over the years they cannot prove evolution, and we can see a definite shift was made to create excuses instead, and some of those are so nothing short of bizarre. But don't take my word for it, you decide for yourself. Let's take the one I mentioned, "science proves nothing" to not only the obvious of how it's used but one very odd reason it's used. First, no, they didn't come up with that on their own (happens a lot around here..go look up others excuses and claim them as our own...it's apparently what free thinkers do) there are others just like them that needed the damage control so badly they would claim, "Science proves nothing because things change, and what is a fact today, may be different tomorrow, while the perfecly logical fix for that which never needed fixing to begin with, would be, simply prove what is true today as we have always done with proof, and forget about the bizarre excuses we can find on the web if we should decide we need them.

Then there is the point that resurrected this thread with the claim that became popular after they realized their lack of proof, "You don't understand science and if you haven't at least taken all these courses in these particular areas, you got no right to judge our science, (our better said, our conclusions, or even further, buy our malarkey of to college and prove us wrong). That was were the comment of my extensively studying the "fact" that Micky Mouse created the universe if someone claimed he did, when it's no more than a "who's going to do that with something so ridiculous" to begin with. Evolution is just that silly to me, so why would I, and of course nor would they, yet they still try to insist that I won't works for them.

But, in light of still trying to appease them, I offered what I mentioned earlier here, something that would do the same thing as college since they were knowledgeable enough to conclude evolution was a so called fact, as well as make them show us what they actually got, that discussion where they prove evolution as we all discuss it along the way..not nary a taker. Why? Because we tried that a few times in the past and it fell apart every time fur a few reasons, and mainly as I recall, they made it apparent they assumed so much, and assuming what we think happened in order to fill in the blanks is not anywhere near the same as what actually happened, especially when the assumptions come from those that "tend" in a certain direction already due to unfounded preconceived notions.

It this little reminder going to stop their bull, of course not, they can't stop thaqt because it's ll they have, and I really believe that, however I do enjoy bringing these things to light as often as they create the need with such as:





Of course it's changed, PITA, you guys now know, all you can muster is excuses, and baseless put downs just like those two.

When you got something, let us know, and I'll be happy to start the thread, but until then, please, no more excuses and clearly false claims.

This is reminiscent of your post on the first page of this thread, it seems that you'll go to great lengths to avoid actually addressing the evidence presented.

 

[Kenny'sID]

No, it's not possible. Until you know, or admit, what the theory of evolution actually claims for itself you are in no position to decide whether it has been "proved" or not.

Suppose I said to you, "Unless you can prove to me that when Jesus was taken down from the cross He got better and moved to Tel Aviv and opened a falafel stand, I won't believe in Christianity." What would you do? After trying patiently for a long time trying to explain to me why that is not what happened, you might finally say, "Oh, why don't you just go read the Gospels to find out what really happened."

Your idea of what evolution is about is just as off base as that is about Christianity.

Wrong, I would gladly show you what the bible says, and simply tell you I believe that and why, as I have many times. Then the argument would ensue, well we believe in evolution, and as always, I would say fine but stop teaching it as a fact unless you can prove it's fact and leave it at that. But, nooo, evolutionists can't just leave it at that that, you come to a Christian website, cut down our beliefs as false and purport yours as fact, when you have not shown any more proof to us than we can to nonbelievers. And on a side note, in spite of what they say, they are mostly Atheists trying to ruin our faith, in attempt to get rid of God, nothing more.

On your comment of my idea of evolution, you know what it is based on and it doesn't start with Christianity as you say. Surely you know by now, I simply think evolution sounds ridiculous from the get go, just as the big bang. So for that reason, it all ends with God make so much more sense than something from nothing. And please don't...something from nothing is essentially all mainstream evolutionists have.

 

[VirOptimus]

Wrong, I would gladly show you what the bible says, and simply tell you I believe that and why, as I have many times. Then the argument would ensue, well we believe in evolution, and as always, I would say fine but stop teaching it as a fact unless you can prove it's fact and leave it at that. But, nooo, evolutionists can't just leave it at that that, you come to a Christian website, cut down our beliefs as false and purport yours as fact, when you have not shown any more proof to us than we can to nonbelievers. And on a side note, in spite of what they say, they are mostly Atheists trying to ruin our faith, in attempt to get rid of God, nothing more.

On your comment of my idea of evolution, you know what it is based on and it doesn't start with Christianity as you say. Surely you know by now, I simply think evolution sounds ridiculous from the get go, just as the big bang. So for that reason, it all ends with God make so much more sense than something from nothing. And please don't...something from nothing is essentially all mainstream evolutionists have.

The ToE doesnt adress god(s) at all.

I suggest biology 101.