Wherein I catch a professional YEC in a lie

[bhsmte]

Strong cognitive dissonance in this thread.

 

[Jimmy D]

Thanks for confirming you don't have a clue as to what constitutes scientific evidence.

All of those links only parroted the usual evo talking points and not one of them explained HOW. One did mention mutations,which only exposes the evo lack of understanding mutations.

LOL

So you have been shown evidence but you don't deem it scientific? Better tell the scientists who wrote those scientific papers which were reviewed by more scientists whilst working at scientific institutions that.

Do you honestly think that anyone is taking you seriously?

You can't show one example of a mutation causing a change of species.

Did you see all those links I posted of people trying to show you evidence for evolution? I noticed in each instance that you hand waved them away, often refusing to even look at links.

Do you really expect me to waste my time trying to convince you of anything? Would any evidence change your mind?

Mutation do make changes in the offspring, but they are not small and are usually harmful.

Great, so some mutations can be beneficial and get passed on to the next generation?

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

When you understand "proved" get back to me. Until you do, you can revel in you ignorance of real science.

Right after you show me where Science "Proves" anything. Go get an education.

 

[Speedwell]

all of you evos are afraid of the word "PROOF." How sad.

No, we've seen this same equivocation "gotcha game" attempted by creationists before. We're on to your shallow sophistry. Give it up.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

all of you evos are afraid of the word "PROOF." How sad.

Every "evo" here accepts proof as per the definition you've been given multiple times. Every time you repeat this tiresome accusation you provide further evidence in support of the hypothesis that you do not understand what you are talking about. Colloquially we could say you've proved your ignorance. Scientifically we could not make that claim.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Evolution by natural selection has never been observed.

False - it has been, and is still being observed. The trivially obvious example is antibiotic resistance. But here's an article on recent human evolution (from lactose tolerance, eye and hair colour, to nicotine receptor changes).

Some articles on observations of evolution on a larger-scale (i.e. speciation):

Evidence From Observed Speciation
Watching speciation Occur: Observations
Speciation Observed - Again
Speciation in a Lab Flask
Speciation of Wasps Observed
8 Examples of Evolution in Action

That there is more than one type of blood is not an hypothesis. It is a proven fact. That truth is not colloquially proved. It is actually proved by testing and observation.

Formals proofs apply when a theory has been observed by repeating the process, and ALWAYS getting the same results Proofs are not limited to math and logic. To say logic can be proved is laughable.

The correct information has been provided. Incoherent denials don't make an argument.

If there is sod much evidence supporting evolution, post the evidence for natural selection. I have donned my prophecy hat and I predict you will not do that. All you might do is parrot the usual evo talking points which are not based on real science, indicating you don't understand real science.

Lol! that evidence has been posted many times in this forum and is easily available online. Rejecting it because it is not based on 'Real Science'™ is the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy. As it happens, I do understand real science because I have been a real scientist - science graduate, science career, named on published science papers, etc. And you?

If you were really interested, you'd have no trouble finding evidence, but here's a link to help you get started: Evidence for evolution.

 

[Jimmy D]

False - it has been, and is still being observed. The trivially obvious example is antibiotic resistance. But here's an article on recent human evolution (from lactose tolerance, eye and hair colour, to nicotine receptor changes).

Some articles on observations of evolution on a larger-scale (i.e. speciation):

Evidence From Observed Speciation
Watching speciation Occur: Observations
Speciation Observed - Again
Speciation in a Lab Flask
Speciation of Wasps Observed
8 Examples of Evolution in Action

The correct information has been provided. Incoherent denials don't make an argument.

Lol! that evidence has been posted many times in this forum and is easily available online. Rejecting it because it is not based on 'Real Science'™ is the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy. As it happens, I do understand real science because I have been a real scientist - science graduate, science career, named on published science papers, etc. And you?

If you were really interested, you'd have no trouble finding evidence, but here's a link to help you get started: Evidence for evolution.

He doesn't look at links.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

He doesn't look at links.

That explains a lot...

 

[PsychoSarah]

If you was as old as I am, 85, you would KNOW the the TOE originally included the origin of life.

And yet, you can't show a single published scientific work in which it does. I don't care if your high school textbook taught them both together, it isn't the authority on the matter.

Oparin did not experiment, he only theorized how life might have possible happened. Spontaneous generation has been disproved long ago.

Spontaneous generation and abiogenesis are not the same thing, but I find it funny that you mention it because there are instances of spontaneous generation mentioned in the bible, such as dust becoming lice.

Since you don't seem to know the difference:
Spontaneous generation: spontaneous appearance of living cells from nonliving media. Example: mice spontaneously popping out of a cow corpse.

abiogenesis: a gradual process by which organic molecules come together to form a replicating unit with genetic material. Example: lipid bubbles containing replicating RNA that periodically divide.

Unfortunately, people in the past were prone to using the terms interchangeably, and their simplistic Google definitions don't distinguish them very well, resulting in a lot of people continuing to treat them as if they are the same thing.

But, I guess Wikipedia at least knows the deal (from the page on Spontaneous Generation): "Spontaneous generation refers both to the supposed processes in which different types of life might repeatedly emerge from specific sources other than seeds, eggs or parents, and also to the theoretical principles which were presented in support of any such phenomena. Crucial to this doctrine is the idea that life comes from non-life, with the conditions, and that no causal agent is needed (i.e. Parent). Such hypothetical processes sometimes are referred to as abiogenesis, in which life routinely emerges from non-living matter on a time scale of anything from minutes to weeks, or perhaps a season or so. An example would be the supposed seasonal generation of mice and other animals from the mud of the Nile.[8] Such ideas have no operative principles in common with the modern hypothesis of abiogenesis, in which life emerged in the early ages of the planet, over a time span of at least millions of years, and subsequently diversified without evidence that there ever has been any subsequent repetition of the event."

If you are wondering then how abiogenesis resulted in protocells by 2013, the reason is that they didn't wait for amino acids and other chemicals we already know form naturally and instead added them from the start, and they added citrate, which sped it up immensely. Those protocells are still nowhere near what a modern cell is like, but they have enough going for them to evolve.

 

[omega2xx]

And yet, you can't show a single published scientific work in which it does. I don't care if your high school textbook taught them both together, it isn't the authority on the matter.


Spontaneous generation and abiogenesis are not the same thing, but I find it funny that you mention it because there are instances of spontaneous generation mentioned in the bible, such as dust becoming lice.

Since you don't seem to know the difference:
Spontaneous generation: spontaneous appearance of living cells from nonliving media. Example: mice spontaneously popping out of a cow corpse.

abiogenesis: a gradual process by which organic molecules come together to form a replicating unit with genetic material. Example: lipid bubbles containing replicating RNA that periodically divide.

Unfortunately, people in the past were prone to using the terms interchangeably, and their simplistic Google definitions don't distinguish them very well, resulting in a lot of people continuing to treat them as if they are the same thing.

But, I guess Wikipedia at least knows the deal (from the page on Spontaneous Generation): "Spontaneous generation refers both to the supposed processes in which different types of life might repeatedly emerge from specific sources other than seeds, eggs or parents, and also to the theoretical principles which were presented in support of any such phenomena. Crucial to this doctrine is the idea that life comes from non-life, with the conditions, and that no causal agent is needed (i.e. Parent). Such hypothetical processes sometimes are referred to as abiogenesis, in which life routinely emerges from non-living matter on a time scale of anything from minutes to weeks, or perhaps a season or so. An example would be the supposed seasonal generation of mice and other animals from the mud of the Nile.[8] Such ideas have no operative principles in common with the modern hypothesis of abiogenesis, in which life emerged in the early ages of the planet, over a time span of at least millions of years, and subsequently diversified without evidence that there ever has been any subsequent repetition of the event."

If you are wondering then how abiogenesis resulted in protocells by 2013, the reason is that they didn't wait for amino acids and other chemicals we already know form naturally and instead added them from the start, and they added citrate, which sped it up immensely. Those protocells are still nowhere near what a modern cell is like, but they have enough going for them to evolve.

As usual nothing in your post included HOW is happened. Rhetoric is not evidence. Notrhing in you post can be proved.

 

[omega2xx]

False - it has been, and is still being observed. The trivially obvious example is antibiotic resistance. But here's an article on recent human evolution (from lactose tolerance, eye and hair colour, to nicotine receptor changes).

Some articles on observations of evolution on a larger-scale (i.e. speciation):

Evidence From Observed Speciation
Watching speciation Occur: Observations
Speciation Observed - Again
Speciation in a Lab Flask
Speciation of Wasps Observed
8 Examples of Evolution in Action

The correct information has been provided. Incoherent denials don't make an argument.

Lol! that evidence has been posted many times in this forum and is easily available online. Rejecting it because it is not based on 'Real Science'™ is the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy. As it happens, I do understand real science because I have been a real scientist - science graduate, science career, named on published science papers, etc. And you?

If you were really interested, you'd have no trouble finding evidence, but here's a link to help you get started: Evidence for evolution.

I no longer\e read links. I read them for many years and they NEVER included any verifiable evidence.

If you want to continue this discussion, cut and paste what you consider verifiable evidence. It is amusing and very telling that for many years none of the dogmatic evos has been willing to do that. Be the first. I am weaning my prophecy hat and I predict you will not.

 

[omega2xx]

Every "evo" here accepts proof as per the definition you've been given multiple times. Every time you repeat this tiresome accusation you provide further evidence in support of the hypothesis that you do not understand what you are talking about. Colloquially we could say you've proved your ignorance. Scientifically we could not make that claim.

I am not interest in colloquially. It is not science. By not accepting that real science proves/disproves theories, proves you have been indoctrinated and are ignorant of real science.

 

[omega2xx]

No, we've seen this same equivocation "gotcha game" attempted by creationists before. We're on to your shallow sophistry. Give it up.

The usual ignorant reply when you have no answers.

Thank you but how said it is.

 

[omega2xx]

Right after you show me where Science "Proves" anything. Go get an education.

Do you think what has been given as your blood type is accurate? Why?

Your indoctrination has cause you to accept a false premise. Learn to think for yourself.

 

[omega2xx]

LOL

So you have been shown evidence but you don't deem it scientific? Better tell the scientists who wrote those scientific papers which were reviewed by more scientists whilst working at scientific institutions that.

Do you honestly think that anyone is taking you seriously?



Did you see all those links I posted of people trying to show you evidence for evolution? I noticed in each instance that you hand waved them away, often refusing to even look at links.

Do you really expect me to waste my time trying to convince you of anything? Would any evidence change your mind?



Great, so some mutations can be beneficial and get passed on to the next generation?

Real evidence will change my mind. You don't even understand what constitutes verifiable evidence. Hint---It ain't rhetoric.

A characteristic cause by a mutation may not be passed on to the next generation. Even if it continues, the species does not change. The albino remains whatever its parents were and it will reproduce after its kind. That is verifiable land can't be falsified.

You and the other evos need to get outside the box Darwin has put you in and learn to think and evaluate what is presented as evidence.

Start with this---time will not change proven laws of genetics.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I no longer\e read links. I read them for many years and they NEVER included any verifiable evidence.

If you want to continue this discussion, cut and paste what you consider verifiable evidence. It is amusing and very telling that for many years none of the dogmatic evos has been willing to do that. Be the first. I am weaning my prophecy hat and I predict you will not.

Lol! Well done, your prediction is correct

There are many pages of articles, and I'm not going to copy & paste them here because you are unwilling to click on a link. It's your loss, not mine.

Spoon feeding is for babies and the paralysed. The information is out there for anyone curious enough to look.

 

[Speedwell]

Do you think what has been given as your blood type is accurate? Why?
.

Because it has been confirmed by an extensive body of scientific evidence.

 

[Speedwell]

Real evidence will change my mind. .

I thought you wanted proof, not evidence.

 

[omega2xx]

I thought you wanted proof, not evidence.

proof requires evidence.

 

[omega2xx]

Because it has been confirmed by an extensive body of scientific evidence.

And that is why it is proved. Evidence is what proves/disproves.