Proof of evolution -at last-

[ElishaElijah]

So you can't describe the Holy Spirit? Maybe it's not real.

You may have a comprehension and understanding problem but you can hit these references and maybe or maybe not get some insight. John 14 and John 16

 

[F1fan]

You may have a comprehension and understanding problem but you can hit these references and maybe or maybe not get some insight. John 14 and John 16

So you say the Holy Spirit teaches you yet can't describe what it is, which makes me very suspicious that it's imaginary.

 

[shunyadragon]

Ah ... I see. So because I don't provide proof that dinosaurs do or don't evolve to become birds is not good enough. for you, of course. Even though there is none. Or maybe you think there is. Thanks for letting me know. When I HAVE provided links to support the lack of proof you have always demeaned it by calling me uneducated or demeaning the information itself.

No one xan provide proof of anything in the physical world, but whether there is evidence for evolution is a scientific question using scientific methods, research, discoveries and published in journals over the past 175 years at least.

You have only made assertions based on a religious agenda, and no evidence to support your argument.

 

[shunyadragon]

Interesting. Are you telling me that the information of gaps of genetics between gorillas, bonobos and humans are not true?

The gaps you refer to are not gaps, but genetic information that more than demonstrates evolutionary relationships over time as well as the genetic information of all life on the planet.

 

[YoursTrue]

The gaps you refer to are not gaps, but genetic information that more than demonstrates evolutionary relationships over time as well as the genetic information of all life on the planet.

Differences between human and chimpanzee genomes and their implications in gene expression, protein functions and biochemical properties of the two species | BMC Genomics | Full Text (A lot of conjectures but facts, too.)

 

[ElishaElijah]

So you say the Holy Spirit teaches you yet can't describe what it is, which makes me very suspicious that it's imaginary.

Are you a real person or a computer generated ?

 

[shunyadragon]

Differences between human and chimpanzee genomes and their implications in gene expression, protein functions and biochemical properties of the two species | BMC Genomics | Full Text (A lot of conjectures but facts, too.)

Your ignorance of genetics and evolution is profound.

 

[rational experiences]

A whole human. You can look and see you own your only hu man body.

One human.

One whole human.

One self ownership exact first.

In reality should you be an unhealthy life body changed sacrificed as the self? The human only.

No.

As you live do you and haven't you stated the self status of your being?

Yes.

Being the theist one self human first theism... self observation as the human.

Not data..inferred data or any thought about when you weren't the human.

Yet you willinginly make that claim against any other human family.

As a human scientific false use of thinking advice. As self observation is first only.

Is the argument human scientist you lie.

Now if you look at another one human see observe missing human life expression. You claim expressed human damage?

Yes.

So you've looked observed two whole same human bodies observing the whole life changed. Also not data?

Why science comparing human experimental data lied.

If a whole living ape is first seen you don't own any science thesis about its life says another human. By simple body observations. First.

What I see said a human I stated holy.

So scientist do you see a conversion?

No.

Why?

Because every body observed that is seen is observed as a natural form first it's origin.

Was a human teaching to a theist human.

As the human ego shared by a group human control was always proven wrong as the theist...a human.

Now science will human argue versus self presence by his machines.

Same question. Do you see a machine first?

His answer no. Is his correct reasoned reason.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

Is that right? Male or female? What form does it take when it teaches you? Tell us more.

I doubt this will suffice, but here's the best I've got in the matter of Spirt.

The All is Mental; Spirit is Mind; The All is Spirit; Spirit is in All
As Above So Below; As Below So Above
Nothing Rests; Everything is in Motion; Everything Vibrates
Everything is Dual; Everything has Poles; Everything has its Pair of Opposites
Everything Flows to and fro; Everything has its Tides; Everything Rises and Falls; The Measure of the Pendulum to the Right equals its Measure to the Left
Every Cause has its Effect; Every Effect has Its Cause
Everything has its Masculine; Everything has its Feminine
Put positive energy out, and the outcome is positive energy!
Be the change you wish to see!
Aim to be a better 'you' tomorrow, than you were yesterday!
Aspire to be your best 'you'!
Positive begets positive, negative begets negative!
Energy of good intent runs cleaner and longer than energy of ill intent!

There isn't much for description, as by its nature, it is to be beyond human comprehension. Describing is futile, defining it only breeds 'backronyms', i.e. Spirit is everything, Spirit is the All."

Acknowledging and promoting Spirit within your mental imagery, and asking it to promote you in its mental image has high potentiality for positive feedback. Keep a positive outlook and your outlook will be positive, keep negativity close, and negativity shall greet you. Think of the rhetoric a motivational speaker spouts while on stage. They tend to use axioms like the primary 'wall of text' of my post here. The audience by and large is captivated, and after the lecture will pronounced already feeling a weight lifted. If asked later down the line, a small percentage of them will imply that they were down on their luck, until that motivational speech landed on their computer browser. They're just simple yet powerful concepts or as I call them 'keys to life' and can absolutely help you do a 180° in your life if you stick to.

 

[Valjean]

Definately not when it comes to Scripture

But scripture is not empirical truth. It's folklore, legends, mythology. It is untested, discourages scrutiny and analysis, and has never, historically, yielded peace, tolerance, or progress. Its been used to justify repression and war throughout the world, for thousands of years.

 

[Valjean]

Human beings rule the planet, sorry you can’t see that.

Please define "rule."

 

[Valjean]

So it’s preaching now when someone shares a biblical world view and how and why we are here? But don’t you do the same?

I cite tested facts. You cite folklore. I can show empirical evidence for my positions. You -- you're just preaching. Your Bible is not tested, reliable source of information. You accept it on faith alone.

 

[SA Huguenot]

No wonder creationists like his story - while he is not a creationist, he acts just like them.

Hey, I am the only "Creationist" that likes his claims.
Even though he is an Evolutionist.
Stop the personal attacks and look at his findings.
Dont be so close minded man!

 

[SA Huguenot]

Wouldn't want to hurt anyone's feelings, precious...

Well, I had never heard of Ford (not a dinosaur guy), so I had to look this up. I found Ford's original 'research' - it was an essay on his personal web site. The creationist above refers to a book, so Ford probably took the standard creationist route of whining in book form when the "orthodoxy" did not bow down to his greatness.
Which was not all that great. I also found this - which I reproduce much of below - and one will note that the rebuttal provides citations, whereas Ford's original essay had none. Turns out Ford appears to be a Shapiro-style egotist upset that he did not become a star based on his inaccurate claims.

No wonder creationists like his story - while he is not a creationist, he acts just like them.

As readers interested in dinosaurs will know, Ford made something of a name for himself in the world of vertebrate palaeontology back in 2012 by announcing that palaeontologists have gotten dinosaurs completely wrong. Non-bird Mesozoic dinosaurs were, so says Ford, perpetually aquatic animals that actually sloshed around, shoulder-deep, in the water and were completely unsuited for life on land: the mainstream palaeontological view that these animals were strongly adapted for terrestrial life is, so he says, misguided and woefully wrong.
Ford published an article announcing his infallible hypothesis in science newszine Laboratory News (Ford 2012). Aided and abetted by an inciteful media, his idea received gargantuan coverage in the global press. Instinct told me to ignore the whole circus – in any case, colleagues were already doing a good job of saying what nonsense it was. Alas, I was specifically invited to produce a response and eventually decided, as a damage-limitation exercise, to do so (Naish 2012).
[...]
Needless to say, all of these claims are erroneous and easy to contradict based on the data we have. I’d like to hope that this was all obvious to the people in the audience, but sadly it’s human nature to assume that a person who speaks with authority on an unfamiliar topic is reliable and likely correct, so don’t get your hopes up.
[...]
Sauropods, no matter what Ford may like to tell us, are built like long-tailed, long-necked elephants. They mostly have deep bodies, slender limbs and proportionally small, compact hands and feet – precisely the opposite of what we’d see if they were built for routine life in the water. Those of you who know the dinosaur literature will be aware of the fact that the precise same arguments were used long ago to dispel the erroneous 20thcentury view that sauropods were perpetual swamp-dwellers (Bakker 1971, Coombs 1975): those arguments have been widely accepted by palaeontologists because they appear to be valid, not because (contra Ford) palaeontologists are dogmatically adhering to a status quo because they’re worried about losing research funding or whatever. [*NOTE - that fear of losing funding thing is a classic creationist trope!*]
[...]
Then there’s the extensive skeletal and soft-tissue pneumatisation we know that sauropods had. Ford ignores this, doesn’t mention it and might even (for all I know) be wholly unaware of it, but it’s been shown that sauropods were so air-filled (the bones of some species being up to 89% air) that – if and when they did swim – they must have floated high in the water and been prone to tipping (Henderson 2003). Again, their anatomy shows that they were not suited for a life in water, contra Ford. The extensive tooth wear we see in sauropods is also indicative of a terrestrial life that involved the stripping and biting of foliage belonging to ferns, conifers and so on.
[...]
Within recent years evidence has gradually come together indicating that Spinosaurus – a long-snouted, sail-backed giant theropod from the Upper Cretaceous of northern Africa – was adapted for a life at the water’s edge, and the newest data shows that it has strongly reduced medullary cavities in its long bones, proportionally short hindlimbs, a spreading, functionally four-toed, probably fully webbed foot, and other specialisations for an amphibious or even fully aquatic life (Ibrahim et al. 2014). Ford takes this as support for his primary contention, but he’s cheating.

Firstly, the idea that Spinosaurus might be aquatic isn’t an idea that the community has been contesting, nor was Ford the first to invent it. Au contraire: as more and more data has come in, we’ve seen Spinosaurus make the metaphorical transition from an animal that waded at the water’s edge (Taquet 1984) to one that routinely swam (Amiot et al. 2010) to one that was predominantly aquatic (Ibrahim et al. 2014). We’ve made this transition on the basis of the accruing of evidence – you know, the sort of thing that scientists are supposed to do. Does what we think about Spinosaurus apply to other big theropods, or to other big dinosaurs, as Ford insists? No. The aquatic features of Spinosaurus are (so far as we know at the moment) unique to Spinosaurus, making it wrong for Ford to point to this one taxon and say “I told you so!”.
[...]
Ford’s contention about the alleged aquatic habits of dinosaurs makes a good story. It makes for an entertaining talk, and it's a fun topic of the sort that journalists love to write about. Why? Predominantly because Ford can be portrayed as the lone truther battling against a barbarian swarm of opposition. We love stories like this. And a big part of the Ford lecture that I listened to wasn’t about dinosaurs themselves, or about science, but about the ‘community reaction’ to his idea, about the fact that angry palaeontologists and palaeontological writers reacted with abject hostility to his idea (he referred to Brian Switek’s article on a few occasions).

In fact, Ford specifically said that he was surprised at the venomosity and aggression contained in these responses. They clearly prove, so he said, the existence of a blinkered and biased approach in the mainstream palaeontological community, a vested commitment in the textbook dogma that museum displays, research careers and those ubiquitous and easy-to-obtain financial grants are all so dependent on. Such is the appeal of this lone truther concept that – so Ford told us – a book and even a Hollywood movie (all movies are made in Hollywood, right?) are perhaps going to result. Oh puh-leez, pass the sick bucket.
​

And so on...
Creationists like Ford's story because, intellectually/egotistically, they are kindred spirits.

Typical!
Here we have another scientist that decided he will write his opinion to answer his colleque.
Now the war is over, "Paleontology bit back".

End of story!
The Peers have spoken, and the theory from another scientist was silenced!

Only problem, what did Ford say about the opinions of his learned master?
Sounds like the Galileo event to me!

 

[tas8831]

Typical!
Here we have another scientist that decided he will write his opinion to answer his colleque.
Now the war is over, "Paleontology bit back".

End of story!
The Peers have spoken, and the theory from another scientist was silenced!

Only problem, what did Ford say about the opinions of his learned master?
Sounds like the Galileo event to me!

Typical dishonest/incompetent creationist response. Ignore the substance, continue whining.

Creationists and their phony martyrdom and disinformation. It is sad, pathetic, childish - but creationist got to creationist.

 

[tas8831]

Hey, I am the only "Creationist" that likes his claims.
Even though he is an Evolutionist.
Stop the personal attacks and look at his findings.
Dont be so close minded man!

Closed minded? Says the guy that buys Ford's tale at face value.

I read his essay. And I read an actual paleontologist (Ford is not one) point out all of his false claims and present the evidence Ford ignored. Did you? Of course not.
Did you even bother to read the rebuttal? No - you have a scientifically illiterate agenda to push.
Typical for an underinformed creationist troll.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Your Bible is not tested, reliable source of information. You accept it on faith alone

The Bible is Reliable and tested, prophecy in the Scriptures being fulfilled in our lifetime. Have you ever read Daniel? All the Kingdoms from Babylon to the end of the age when Jesus returns were given to Nebuchadnezzar in a dream and interpretation given to Daniel. All has happened to date.

 

[tas8831]

The Bible is Reliable and tested...

Then surely you provide links to these tests?

Is the mustard seed really the smallest?

Bashing the heads of infants on rocks and ripping up fetuses in utero because their parents did not worship the correct way is a good thing?

 

[ElishaElijah]

Bashing the heads of infants on rocks and ripping up fetuses in utero because their parents did not worship the correct way is a good thing?

Did this happen? Was it said to be a good thing?

 

[ElishaElijah]

Is the mustard seed really the smallest?

Apparently the mustard seed that Jesus was referencing was the smallest seed that the people he was talking in that part of the world would’ve planted at the time.