About fossils -- would you say this is true?

[YoursTrue]

You are now conflating abiogenesis and evolution. Evolution deals with the changes in life after it existed.

And you also demonstrated that you do not understand how experiments have to done. Tell me, how could the experiments have occurred if they were not "done by men"? That has to be one of the poorest objections that I have ever heard.

At any rate, do you realize that evolution does not depend upon abiogenesis? it is very hard to object to this without shooting oneself in the foot.

No, I'm not confusing abiogenesis with evolution. I well know that many do not think that abiogenesis has anything to do with evolution. But it does. Furthermore, the experiments need an experimenter. Or two. And yes, despite the fact that some birds cannot interbreed in a couple of generations, they remain birds.

 

[YoursTrue]

(Have a good night.)

 

[Subduction Zone]

It could. But that is not the real point. Men spoke from God. And God Himself had restrictions. "Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture comes from one’s own interpretation. 21For no such prophecy was ever brought forth by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." (2 Peter 1)

Okay. So what? And one has to be careful of what one means by "prophecy". Some interpret prophecy as merely relaying God's message to the people. Others think that it means foreseeing future events. If you use the latter the Bible is filled with failed prophecy. There were events predicted that failed quite often.

You did not answer my question about who wrote that verse and when. It may have been Paul. If so it predated the New Testament. Even if it was not Paul it arguably predated the New Testament since that was not really decided upon until long after then. The author of that was referring to the Old Testament writings at that time.

But again, it does not mean that it is literally true. If Genesis works as a book of morality tales that are totally fictitious they still can be used for education. The do not have to have actually happened. And that is a good thing. We know that quite a few of those events did not happen.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, I'm not confusing abiogenesis with evolution. I well know that many do not think that abiogenesis has anything to do with evolution. But it does. Furthermore, the experiments need an experimenter. Or two. And yes, despite the fact that some birds cannot interbreed in a couple of generations, they remain birds.

Then why did you bring up abiogenesis in your post? And if you think that you didn't then it is only worse for you.

And no, abiogenesis is separate from evolution. Evolution works no matter what the original source of life was. When you say that it had to be the source of all life you have just conceded all arguments. That is why logically it is an argument that you do not want to make. You do not win the evolution argument even if you by some miracle win the abiogenesis argument.

 

[Astrophile]

I've thought about the supposed process of evolution. I know experiments have taken place that seem to demonstrate that life somehow comes about by chemical reactions but again, elements were there before the experiment and sparks were introduced causing a reaction. The experiment was placed by men. (Didn't just happen by "natural selection.")
Meantime, I really do need to study if I can about the timing process, not particularly of rocks, but rather of the fossils and supposed estimates of when humans appeared.

For one thing, amino acids (and other organic compounds) have been found in carbonaceous chondrites, and these compounds were clearly not of biological origin. Second, the same elements and compounds that were used by Urey and Miller were present in interstellar molecular clouds and in the solar nebula, and cosmic rays and stellar ultra-violet radiation provide an energy source analogous to the electric sparks that Urey and Miller used. There is therefore no reason to reject the possibility of amino acids etc. being formed by chemical processes in interstellar clouds and in circumstellar discs surrounding protostars.

With few exceptions, the fossils that are found in sedimentary rocks belong to organisms that lived and died at essentially the same time that the enclosing sediments were deposited. They were not introduced into the rock after its formation.

 

[YoursTrue]

For one thing, amino acids (and other organic compounds) have been found in carbonaceous chondrites, and these compounds were clearly not of biological origin. Second, the same elements and compounds that were used by Urey and Miller were present in interstellar molecular clouds and in the solar nebula, and cosmic rays and stellar ultra-violet radiation provide an energy source analogous to the electric sparks that Urey and Miller used. There is therefore no reason to reject the possibility of amino acids etc. being formed by chemical processes in interstellar clouds and in circumstellar discs surrounding protostars.

With few exceptions, the fossils that are found in sedimentary rocks belong to organisms that lived and died at essentially the same time that the enclosing sediments were deposited. They were not introduced into the rock after its formation.

Again -- the more I think about it (the entire concept of evolution as well as that of objects in the universe)--it appears that nothing comes from nothing--does it? I'm not saying that rocks do not blast into other rocks, that windstorms or magnetism does not occur or that there are not shifts in populations because of genetics.

 

[YoursTrue]

Then why did you bring up abiogenesis in your post? And if you think that you didn't then it is only worse for you.

And no, abiogenesis is separate from evolution. Evolution works no matter what the original source of life was. When you say that it had to be the source of all life you have just conceded all arguments. That is why logically it is an argument that you do not want to make. You do not win the evolution argument even if you by some miracle win the abiogenesis argument.

I brought up abiogenesis because regardless of what you think, and others may think insofar as scientific experts go, it must go along with evolution, absolutely. That's not your opinion, granted. Similarly, I do not agree that humans are animals. They may be described as animals because some of them act that way, but they are not.

 

[YoursTrue]

Okay. So what? And one has to be careful of what one means by "prophecy". Some interpret prophecy as merely relaying God's message to the people. Others think that it means foreseeing future events. If you use the latter the Bible is filled with failed prophecy. There were events predicted that failed quite often.

You did not answer my question about who wrote that verse and when. It may have been Paul. If so it predated the New Testament. Even if it was not Paul it arguably predated the New Testament since that was not really decided upon until long after then. The author of that was referring to the Old Testament writings at that time.

But again, it does not mean that it is literally true. If Genesis works as a book of morality tales that are totally fictitious they still can be used for education. The do not have to have actually happened. And that is a good thing. We know that quite a few of those events did not happen.

I'm not going to get into an argument with you about who wrote what other than what the Bible basically says. And yes -- many of us know that Moses did not write the verses in Deuteronomy after he died. Some things are easier than others to figure out. I believe Moses will be resurrected to life on earth and I look forward to hearing from him as to how he learned the history he wrote about.
Just to say as an important sidenote, the ones that were set free from Egyptian bondage agreed to a covenant with God. And from that time on in the wilderness, they and their descendants were bound to that covenant. God was watching and aware of what they did. Why is this important? Because much was written throughout the history and preserved for us to read. To understand it better requires God's help.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not going to get into an argument with you about who wrote what other than what the Bible basically says. And yes -- many of us know that Moses did not write the verses in Deuteronomy after he died. Some things are easier than others to figure out. I believe Moses will be resurrected to life on earth and I look forward to hearing from him as to how he learned the history he wrote about.
Just to say as an important sidenote, the ones that were set free from Egyptian bondage agreed to a covenant with God. And from that time on in the wilderness, they and their descendants were bound to that covenant. God was watching and aware of what they did. Why is this important? Because much was written throughout the history and preserved for us to read. To understand it better requires God's help.

You would need to talk to an archaeologist to learn how scholars know that Moses did not exist. So I won't go over that either. Let's try to stick to the topic of evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I brought up abiogenesis because regardless of what you think, and others may think insofar as scientific experts go, it must go along with evolution, absolutely. That's not your opinion, granted. Similarly, I do not agree that humans are animals. They may be described as animals because some of them act that way, but they are not.

Why does it have to "go along with evolution, absolutely?" You need to support that claim. It is in fact inconsistent with your beliefs. You seem to think that it is possible for a God to make a man magically but that same God cannot magically make a single cell. Now that is not logical.

 

[YoursTrue]

Why does it have to "go along with evolution, absolutely?" You need to support that claim. It is in fact inconsistent with your beliefs. You seem to think that it is possible for a God to make a man magically but that same God cannot magically make a single cell. Now that is not logical.

The support is simply that without abiogenesis you would not have the theory of evolution. It is essential to the theory. Nevertheless, as I have often stated, the more I look at the 'evidence' supporting the theory, the less conclusive it appears to me. So -- if I were on a jury considering the theory judging whether it was true or not and I carefully reviewed the evidence, I could not conclude that is how we humans came about. Because -- aside from the number of teeth in a gorilla, there is so much left out. Including the supposed Common Ancestor from which it is said, I suppose, gorillas, bonobos, chimpanzees and humans evolved.

 

[YoursTrue]

Why does it have to "go along with evolution, absolutely?" You need to support that claim. It is in fact inconsistent with your beliefs. You seem to think that it is possible for a God to make a man magically but that same God cannot magically make a single cell. Now that is not logical.

P.S. I can understand why one might believe in the theory. But, as I have said, the closer I look at it, the more open holes there are. Scientists may wonder and question, but I do not believe there is any real answer as to how the various types, kinds, species came about. By real I mean absolute clarification with evidence that can be considered as proof, even though I know there is no proof. By proof I don't mean testing. I mean proof as in the absolute certainty of seeing the emergence of the burgeoning of the claimed tree of evolution and its branches.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The support is simply that without abiogenesis you would not have the theory of evolution. It is essential to the theory. Nevertheless, as I have often stated, the more I look at the 'evidence' supporting the theory, the less conclusive it appears to me. So -- if I were on a jury considering the theory judging whether it was true or not and I carefully reviewed the evidence, I could not conclude that is how we humans came about. Because -- aside from the number of teeth in a gorilla, there is so much left out. Including the supposed Common Ancestor from which it is said, I suppose, gorillas, bonobos, chimpanzees and humans evolved.

No. Why did you dodge my question? Yes there had to be an abiogenesis event, meaning that life had to come from somewhere, but why couldn't a God magically poof the first cell into existence?

You believe in something much less likely.

But it probably was natural abiogenesis, but the theory of evolution is not dependent upon natural abiogenesis. You need to explain why if you think otherwise.

 

[YoursTrue]

You would need to talk to an archaeologist to learn how scholars know that Moses did not exist. So I won't go over that either. Let's try to stick to the topic of evolution.

The thing is then please don't bring up about myths in the Bible, otherwise the subject shifts and I'll go back to what I understand from the Bible. For instance, while I wasn't there, and I find it amazing, shall we say, that Moses countered Pharaoh and miraculous things occurred, IPharaoh kept resisting until -- a rather unique occurrence happened. I put my stock in what the Bible says, and not the theory of evolution which contradicts what the Bible says because -- it asserts in essence without saying as much, that there is no creator, or a higher intelligence causing life. That means I think there are mechanisms set in place and which can move in plants and animals AND humans on the power that God gives them innately Including the formation of different species of birds.

 

[Subduction Zone]

P.S. I can understand why one might believe in the theory. But, as I have said, the closer I look at it, the more open holes there are. Scientists may wonder and question, but I do not believe there is any real answer as to how the various types, kinds, species came about. By real I mean absolute clarification with evidence that can be considered as proof, even though I know there is no proof. By proof I don't mean testing. I mean proof as in the absolute certainty of seeing the emergence of the burgeoning of the claimed tree of evolution and its branches.

One does not need to "believe" in the theory. This is your mistake. One can know. Do you understand the difference between mere belief and knowledge?

And you have not found one single hole in evolution. All that you have done is to confirm your lack of understanding of the topic. Please tell me what you think is a hole and why.

And yes, there is a real answer. Evolution is testable, it is observable, it has been confirmed millions of times and yet you insist on believing in a refuted bronze age myth .

 

[YoursTrue]

No. Why did you dodge my question? Yes there had to be an abiogenesis event, meaning that life had to come from somewhere, but why couldn't a God magically poof the first cell into existence?

You believe in something much less likely.

But it probably was natural abiogenesis, but the theory of evolution is not dependent upon natural abiogenesis. You need to explain why if you think otherwise.

I do? OK, because without a beginning from -- uh -- something -- there could be no theory of evolution. So instead of keep arguing whether man is an animal or not, maybe we should stop arguing as to whether abiogenesis is essential to the process of evolution at the beginning. Once again, it's time to close up. Good night..

 

[Subduction Zone]

The thing is then please don't bring up about myths in the Bible, otherwise the subject shifts and I'll go back to what I understand from the Bible. For instance, while I wasn't there, and I find it amazing, shall we say, that Moses countered Pharaoh and miraculous things occurred, IPharaoh kept resisting until -- a rather unique occurrence happened. I put my stock in what the Bible says, and not the theory of evolution which contradicts what the Bible says because -- it asserts in essence without saying as much, that there is no creator, or a higher intelligence causing life. That means I think there are mechanisms set in place and which can move in plants and animals AND humans on the power that God gives them innately Including the formation of different species of birds.

Those are myths. They never happened. Do you realize in that myth that your God was not the only one? He was just stronger than the Gods of Pharaoh. Why do you find it so easy to believe in fairy tales of magic and yet you cannot believe something has been endlessly tested and confirmed. By the way "belief" is not necessary if you can educate yourself.

And it is too bad that you do not understand that myth either. Gold is the bad guy in a lot of that myth. Do you not believe me? The Bible itself says that God "hardened Pharaoh's heart" so that he did not let Moses go. I can quote verse after verse for you if you do not believe that God was at fault.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I do? OK, because without a beginning from -- uh -- something -- there could be no theory of evolution. So instead of keep arguing whether man is an animal or not, maybe we should stop arguing as to whether abiogenesis is essential to the process of evolution at the beginning. Once again, it's time to close up. Good night..

So what? Once again, God could have magically poofed the first cell into existence. You believe in magic, why is easy magic less likely than complex magic?




You are not listening and that can make this rather frustrating.

 

[YoursTrue]

One does not need to "believe" in the theory. This is your mistake. One can know. Do you understand the difference between mere belief and knowledge?

And you have not found one single hole in evolution. All that you have done is to confirm your lack of understanding of the topic. Please tell me what you think is a hole and why.

And yes, there is a real answer. Evolution is testable, it is observable, it has been confirmed millions of times and yet you insist on believing in a refuted bronze age myth .

Please -- although I said good night -- there are the holes of simply no visual recognition of the emergence of these changes. Now IF mankind were to exist in its present state and scientists could record the genetic changes making visual recordings of the changes in the various forms, one to another such as -- what? an unknown type dinosaur emerging over billions maybe of years to become a little dove, then it could be said that section or hole was closed. But as for now -- it's open, dark, and 'not there.' Except of course in the imagination. Bye for now.

 

[YoursTrue]

Those are myths. They never happened. Do you realize in that myth that your God was not the only one? He was just stronger than the Gods of Pharaoh. Why do you find it so easy to believe in fairy tales of magic and yet you cannot believe something has been endlessly tested and confirmed. By the way "belief" is not necessary if you can educate yourself.

Of course belief is necessary. Anyway, good night again.