The evidence for evolution for Kenny'sID thread

[florida2]

You have shown zero evidence to have a problem with.

And If you have any questions about delusion, the belief in Goldie Locks and the like, I'll be happy to try to help you as well. And we can move straight to that if you like...it's a much more a serious/pressing issue than evolution

Join right in, Dude. Read the thread, keep an eye open...there is a pending question right under your nose.

Well, what about the evidence presented at the start of this thread? Seems the best place to start.

 

[Ophiolite]

No. Let's say scientists are given 10 DNA samples, blind. They are told that there may or may not be related persons among the samples.

Let's also say that you and I know that there are two samples in those 10 which belong to a grandson and grandfather, and the rest are not closely related.

Do you think that scientists can pick out those two samples which are grandfather and grandson from among the ten?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

Please persist with this line of questioning and build it step by step as I anticipate you intend to. You will not convince Kenny's ID, but you will show others the vacuousness of his arguments.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Do you think that scientists can pick out those two samples which are grandfather and grandson from among the ten?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

You word that as if I should be afraid to answer. Actually there is no "as if" too it....Please, so I can get more insight into how you all think here, tell me, why in the world would I be afraid to answer yes to that?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Well, what about the evidence presented at the start of this thread? Seems the best place to start.

Good grief, man, do you honestly expect me to address all that? Pretty sure I asked the OP if there was something specific and all I got was a laugh.

2 things, I'm not addressing anything I have to go spend hours studying up on, and I'm not going to go over all that point for point.

Again, was there something specific or is that question once again going to result unreasonable fits of laughter to cover the fact you don't want to cover anything specific? Don't be afraid, it's OK to be wrong.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Please persist with this line of questioning and build it step by step as I anticipate you intend to. You will not convince Kenny's ID, but you will show others the vacuousness of his arguments.

You mean the argument/delusion life started from nowhere and created itself throughout time? lol

If opposing that is a vacuousness argument, Damn straight that's exactly what "others" will get....enjoy the show.

 

[Ophiolite]

You word that as if I should be afraid to answer. Actually there is no "as if" too it....Please, so I can get more insight into how you all think here, tell me, why in the world would I be afraid to answer yes to that?

Well, I can't help noticing that you have not yet answered either yes or no. I further notice that you routinely avoid answering questions, generally by various spurious claims. I am surprised no one has pointed this out in documentary fashion to the moderator team and asked them to take appropriate action. So is it "yes", or "no"?

 

[Ophiolite]

You mean the argument/delusion life started from nowhere and created itself throughout time? lol

No, I don't mean that at all. But what a transparent way to avoid answering the actual question.

 

[Loudmouth]

You tell me what the evidence is.

Stop dodging.

You claimed that there are assumptions. WHAT ARE THEY?

As I said, there was just nothing there to even consider evidence or that had to do with anything, just a bunch of things about telling who our ancestors are, what does that prove? there are a few ways to do that, who cares?

All you are doing is avoiding the evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

No, why would I deny that?

Common knowledge, people are related. Dna is shared. Still no connection.

You need to do more than stick your head in the sand. You need to explain why there is no connection.

 

[Loudmouth]

Good grief, man, do you honestly expect me to address all that? Pretty sure I asked the OP if there was something specific and all I got was a laugh.

Creationist: There is no evidence for evolution.

Evolutionist: Here is some evidence.

Creationist: There is too much evidence to look at, so evolution is false.

 

[CMBaptist]

Just as you have posted links supporting your bias, let me do the same.
https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/is-natural-selection-the-same-thing-as-evolution/

 

[Ophiolite]

Just as you have posted links supporting your bias, let me do the same.
https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/is-natural-selection-the-same-thing-as-evolution/

This piece seems* to fail to address the fact that no evolutionist believes that natural selection and evolution is the same thing. (If you have witnessed evolutionists on this forum making such an assertion please identify them. I shall figuratively dismember them for stupidity.) Evolution is a complex process that requires mechanisms to generate new traits and mechanisms to select from these. The first is primarily provided by mutations the second by natural selection.

Attempting to argue against a viewpoint that is not held by evolutionists - as the author of the linked piece does - is either dishonest or ignorant.

*I say seems because I did not read the entire article. If you believe the author does cover the objections I have raised please point out where.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Well, I can't help noticing that you have not yet answered either yes or no. I further notice that you routinely avoid answering questions, generally by various spurious claims. I am surprised no one has pointed this out in documentary fashion to the moderator team and asked them to take appropriate action. So is it "yes", or "no"?

I answered "yes". Or the answer is "yes" if there is still any confusion.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Stop dodging.

You claimed that there are assumptions. WHAT ARE THEY?

If you can't keep up, give me a fact that proves evolution and I'll tell you why it's assumption. Now don't laugh, make excuses or run away, this is your opportunity to face it head on.

 

[Ophiolite]

I answered "yes". Or the answer is "yes" if there is still any confusion.

Thank you for clarifying, but note for future reference that your post:

"You word that as if I should be afraid to answer. Actually there is no "as if" too it....Please, so I can get more insight into how you all think here, tell me, why in the world would I be afraid to answer yes to that?"

Is not a "Yes". You ask if there is any reason that you should not answer yes, but you do not - in fact - answer.

 

[bhsmte]

Just as you have posted links supporting your bias, let me do the same.
https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/is-natural-selection-the-same-thing-as-evolution/

Could you explain this so called, evidence?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Thank you for clarifying, but note for future reference that your post:

"You word that as if I should be afraid to answer. Actually there is no "as if" too it....Please, so I can get more insight into how you all think here, tell me, why in the world would I be afraid to answer yes to that?"

Is not a "Yes". You ask if there is any reason that you should not answer yes, but you do not - in fact - answer.

What is that mess? The answer is yes, how hard is that?

Maybe we should leave the very simple/straight forward question to the one I asked.

 

[46AND2]

You word that as if I should be afraid to answer. Actually there is no "as if" too it....Please, so I can get more insight into how you all think here, tell me, why in the world would I be afraid to answer yes to that?

I did not mean to make it sound like you should be afraid to answer it. The way it SHOULD sound, and the way Ophiolite understood it, is that it's the first of a couple examples.

 

[46AND2]

I answered "yes". Or the answer is "yes" if there is still any confusion.

Ok, now let's further suppose that the grandfather in the aforementioned example has done some research into his ancestry, and found that he his directly related through the paternal line to a famous king who ruled in Europe in the early 1600s.

This king happens to be one from which scientists have been able to recover DNA.

Do you agree that we can also determine if the grandfather is correct in his research, by comparing his DNA to the King's?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Just as you have posted links supporting your bias, let me do the same.
https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/is-natural-selection-the-same-thing-as-evolution/

I haven't read it all, CM, but read enough and get the gist. The over all picture of what it shows is interesting. Perfect example of how the evolutionists have deluded themselves into believing what they choose to be truth, and not what is actually truth.

As I said before, they play these little games with themselves that allow them to draw whatever conclusion they set out to draw. It's just basic denial, nothing earth shattering, but a fact nonetheless, as I see it. If I didn't know the reasoning behind what they do, I would say that the amount of individuals being fooled by this is a little earth shattering, but not really when they are of the same mind, gullible or go along with the crowd-ish types.