About fossils -- would you say this is true?

[Subduction Zone]

So many of the things you have said have been demeaning and nasty, I don't believe that's indicative of a good debate. I know this is a debate board and some people will debate things even against their own interests or reasoning, but that's the way it is. So have a good one.

So many of the things that you have said have been demeaning and nasty. The problem is that you do not realize that you are being demeaning and nasty. When I do it it is to show you what you are doing wrong. You get all upset because all of a sudden the accusations are about you and not some people that you do not know.

You should be just as nice to people that you do know as those that you do not know.

And you make hypocritical demands all of the time. You cannot demand evidence when you do not understand the concept.

For example you deny that Lucy and her kin are evidence of human evolution. That denial puts a burden of proof upon you and you have never come close to supporting that claim. Now you could try to learn what is and what is not evidence and then it would be fairly obvious that they are evidence of human evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Didn't you say that if the waters during the Flood came from underground the persons or boar etc. would sizzle up?

No. That is inaccurate. I said that if they came from where you tried to get them to come from, the mantle, they would have cooked Noah and family to a crisp. The mantle does not even start until several miles below the top of the curst at least. It is rather hot. If it were not for the pressure of the overlying rock a lot of it would be molten. Where do you think that lava comes from?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have told you many times that I understand what is considered as evidence. I actually understand the theory. I say this in general, I do not knowall the terms and specifics. But I understand it.
I no longer believe anything and everything that scholars and/or scientists say. That does not mean though that I will not take a vaccination because science devised it. I know some will argue against the validity of vaccinations. I do not. The theory of evolultion, however, is not the same as figuring a vaccine for certain diseases.

But you do not. Are you a liar? Because denying that various fossils are evidence would be lying if you understood the concept. You are afraid to even discuss the topic.


A person that actually understood evidence would have no problem discussing the concept. That you refuse to do so also tells us that you do not understand the concept of evidence. The only think that keeps you from being a liar in many of your posts is the fact that you do not understand this concept.

 

[YoursTrue]

So many of the things that you have said have been demeaning and nasty. The problem is that you do not realize that you are being demeaning and nasty. When I do it it is to show you what you are doing wrong. You get all upset because all of a sudden the accusations are about you and not some people that you do not know.

You should be just as nice to people that you do know as those that you do not know.

And you make hypocritical demands all of the time. You cannot demand evidence when you do not understand the concept.

For example you deny that Lucy and her kin are evidence of human evolution. That denial puts a burden of proof upon you and you have never come close to supporting that claim. Now you could try to learn what is and what is not evidence and then it would be fairly obvious that they are evidence of human evolution.

I believe I indicated I don't believe that Lucy was a human or near-human who lived (how many?) millions of years ago from which Adam evolved.

But you do not. Are you a liar? Because denying that various fossils are evidence would be lying if you understood the concept. You are afraid to even discuss the topic.


A person that actually understood evidence would have no problem discussing the concept. That you refuse to do so also tells us that you do not understand the concept of evidence. The only think that keeps you from being a liar in many of your posts is the fact that you do not understand this concept.

I understand the concept of evolution, and I see that some would place skeletons in place as if this gives evidence of evolution. I surely am not an expert, but that does not mean I cannot ask questions, or ask you to explain your statements. I agree I'm not as well versed as you and some others here. That does not mean that you should not answer cohesively with clarity, especially because you know more than I do about the concept. Scientists don't understand everything about life, how it got here, and while I believe there is a God behind it, I surely do not understand everything in the Bible or evolution either.

 

[YoursTrue]

No. That is inaccurate. I said that if they came from where you tried to get them to come from, the mantle, they would have cooked Noah and family to a crisp.

That's what I meant when I said fizzle. Since I looked it up, it seems that many waters under the earth (however it's properly expressed) are cool, not hot so as to burn NOAH and his family to a crisp.

The mantle does not even start until several miles below the top of the curst at least. It is rather hot. If it were not for the pressure of the overlying rock a lot of it would be molten. Where do you think that lava comes from?

I'm not talking about lava in this case about the waters. But it surely does play in shifting soil or sediment. The Bible said there were waters that were released from below the earth as well as above the earth. You're the expert. I'm not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe I indicated I don't believe that Lucy was a human or near-human who lived (how many?) millions of years ago from which Adam evolved.

[/QUOTE]

That does not matter. That is not a good enough excuse to deny the evidence. As I said, you do not understand the evidence. When scientific evidence is presented that puts a burden of proof upon the person that received it. Saying that you do not believe it is not a refutation. You cannot both understand scientific evidence and merely deny it without lying. By saying that you do not believe that it was evidence you are also telling us that you do not understand the concept of evidence.

I understand the concept of evolution, and I see that some would place skeletons in place as if this gives evidence of evolution. I surely am not an expert, but that does not mean I cannot ask questions, or ask you to explain your statements. I agree I'm not as well versed as you and some others here. That does not mean that you should not answer cohesively with clarity, especially because you know more than I do about the concept. Scientists don't understand everything about life, how it got here, and while I believe there is a God behind it, I surely do not understand everything in the Bible or evolution either.

No, you really do not. If you did you would not ask stupid questions about gorillas wearing clothes.

 

[Subduction Zone]

ca

That's what I meant when I said fizzle. Since I looked it up, it seems that many waters under the earth (however it's properly expressed) are cool, not hot so as to burn NOAH and his family to a crisp.

I'm not talking about lava in this case about the waters. But it surely does play in shifting soil or sediment. The Bible said there were waters that were released from below the earth as well as above the earth. You're the expert. I'm not.

You are conflating shallow ground water, which can be very cool, with the water that you talked about. Depth is what tells you the temperature after a point. The cool waters are shallow ones. There is not nearly enough ground water to flood the Earth and where would it come from? There is a reason that it is in the ground. Most of it is not artesian. A large crack would only have water in the bottom of it.

Can you please quit telling us how little that you know about science? You complain that I am "nasty" and then you make arguments like this. That is rather hypocritical on your part.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@YoursTrue , this is a serious question: Do you know what "drywall" is? It is also sometimes called gypsum board. It is a building material used to build walls. If you hit it with a hammer it is rather easy to go through it, but it is also easily repaired.

 

[YoursTrue]

So many of the things that you have said have been demeaning and nasty. The problem is that you do not realize that you are being demeaning and nasty. When I do it it is to show you what you are doing wrong. You get all upset because all of a sudden the accusations are about you and not some people that you do not know.

You should be just as nice to people that you do know as those that you do not know.

And you make hypocritical demands all of the time. You cannot demand evidence when you do not understand the concept.

For example you deny that Lucy and her kin are evidence of human evolution. That denial puts a burden of proof upon you and you have never come close to supporting that claim. Now you could try to learn what is and what is not evidence and then it would be fairly obvious that they are evidence of human evolution.

I believe I indicated that I don't believe Lucy was a human or near-human who lived (how many?) millions of years ago from which the homo sapiens evolved. By the way, were Neanderthals said to be homo sapiens? If I recall correctly, I don't think they are said to be homo sapiens. If I didn't use those exact words, that's what I meant. Sorry.

 

[YoursTrue]

ca

You are conflating shallow ground water, which can be very cool, with the water that you talked about. Depth is what tells you the temperature after a point. The cool waters are shallow ones. There is not nearly enough ground water to flood the Earth and where would it come from? There is a reason that it is in the ground. Most of it is not artesian. A large crack would only have water in the bottom of it.

Can you please quit telling us how little that you know about science? You complain that I am "nasty" and then you make arguments like this. That is rather hypocritical on your part.

So would you rather I just accept your words on these subjects than my asking questions?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe I indicated that I don't believe Lucy was a human or near-human who lived (how many?) millions of years ago from which the homo sapiens evolved. By the way, were Neanderthals said to be homo sapiens? If I recall correctly, I don't think they are said to be homo sapiens. If I didn't use those exact words, that's what I meant. Sorry.

And once again you told us that you do not understand the concept of scientific evidence. "I don't believe" is not good enough. If you think that it is then you do not understand what is and what is not evidence.

When you are presented with scientific evidence the burden of proof is now upon you. You have to prove that Lucy is not related to us. If you cannot you have to admit that she is evidence for evolution.

And Neanderthals are sometimes classified as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis. They are so close that there is debate about how they should be classified.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So would you rather I just accept your words on these subjects than my asking questions?

No, since you do not know you should be asking questions. Not making up bogus excuses for the myths of the Bible. If you ask questions politely then you will get polite answers. If you make up bogus excuses people will laugh and you and "treat you nasty".

You could have asked how I know what temperature it would have been.

And my question about drywall was very serious. I don't know what country you are from so I do not know if it has a different name there, but I am pretty sure that they would use drywall in any modern building. So do you know what drywall is?

 

[YoursTrue]

For example you deny that Lucy and her kin are evidence of human evolution. That denial puts a burden of proof upon you and you have never come close to supporting that claim. Now you could try to learn what is and what is not evidence and then it would be fairly obvious that they are evidence of human evolution.

I believe I indicated I don't believe that Lucy was a human or near-human (hominid) who lived (how many?) millions of years ago from which Adam evolved.

 

[YoursTrue]

And once again you told us that you do not understand the concept of scientific evidence. "I don't believe" is not good enough. If you think that it is then you do not understand what is and what is not evidence.

When you are presented with scientific evidence the burden of proof is now upon you. You have to prove that Lucy is not related to us. If you cannot you have to admit that she is evidence for evolution.

And Neanderthals are sometimes classified as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis. They are so close that there is debate about how they should be classified.

The problem I find with you is that instead of explaining, you keep saying that I do not understand. Since you say I do not understand what is or what is not evidence, may I ask you to explain what you mean by that? I mean, I suppose if I agreed that evolution is how animals and plants came about, I'd say perhaps or definitely Lucy was a predecessor to homo sapiens (and maybe Neanderthals? --) many years later. I have more questions, maybe later.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe I indicated I don't believe that Lucy was a human or near-human (hominid) who lived (how many?) millions of years ago from which Adam evolved.

Yes, I know that. That is not good enough.

It seems that you do not listen at times. Scientific evidence puts a burden of proof upon you if you wish to deny it.

You could say that you do not believe that rocks do not fall down when dropped. If someone supported that with scientific evidence you would have to prove that they were wrong. No one cares what you believe. We only care about what you know.


So far you have only admitted that Lucy is evidence for human evolution. Not refuting scientific evidence is the same as acknowledging that it is evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The problem I find with you is that instead of explaining, you keep saying that I do not understand. Since you say I do not understand what is or what is not evidence, may I ask you to explain what you mean by that? I mean, I suppose if I agreed that evolution is how animals and plants came about, I'd say perhaps or definitely Lucy was a predecessor to homo sapiens (and maybe Neanderthals? --) many years later. I have more questions, maybe later.

Scientific evidence is a well defined concept. When you only say "I do not believe" without a refutation that is the same as saying "I do not understand scientific evidence".

Where is your refutation? Disbelief is not a refutation.

 

[Mock Turtle]

You’ve ignored post #699. You’ve got to hope nasa, etc explains everything to you. Perception is not reality where it ignores the supernatural. Thankfully, evolution theory wasn’t drummed into me at school otherwise I feel it could have irreparably been brainwashing as it is taught like fact these days. Those poor school children getting brainwashed with that. As an atheist 20 years ago I was able to find watching Richard Dawkins marketing his book cringeworthy.

So, does this explain why you can't tell the difference between 'On The Origin of Species' and 'On The Origin of Life'?

 

[wandering peacefully]

I believe I indicated that I don't believe Lucy was a human or near-human who lived (how many?) millions of years ago from which the homo sapiens evolved. By the way, were Neanderthals said to be homo sapiens? If I recall correctly, I don't think they are said to be homo sapiens. If I didn't use those exact words, that's what I meant. Sorry.

If you are truly interested in learning about evolution, this seems to be a good place to start. I researched about 46 sites trying to find one that would be good for you. Many are too simplistic, many too complicated for beginners, some biased towards religion, and a few extremely outdated or just plain wrong. Here you can begin and there are tons of links to various short videos explaining in plain English, different aspects of evolution. I hope you enjoy and I hope they will answer your questions about evolution.

Evolution 101 & how natural selection works – NOVA PBS

What is evolution, how has it created Earth's biodiversity, and how can a phylogenetic or evolutionary tree—a tree of life—help us better understand how

thekidshouldseethis.com

 

[YoursTrue]

If you are truly interested in learning about evolution, this seems to be a good place to start. I researched about 46 sites trying to find one that would be good for you. Many are too simplistic, many too complicated for beginners, some biased towards religion, and a few extremely outdated or just plain wrong. Here you can begin and there are tons of links to various short videos explaining in plain English, different aspects of evolution. I hope you enjoy and I hope they will answer your questions about evolution.

Evolution 101 & how natural selection works – NOVA PBS

What is evolution, how has it created Earth's biodiversity, and how can a phylogenetic or evolutionary tree—a tree of life—help us better understand how

thekidshouldseethis.com

Thank you. My questions about evolution are not about natural selection right now, but really about the timetable established for what is called homo sapiens. So I ask questions mainly about that. I want to understand the exact processes that scientists use to conclude or estimate the time of the bones of humans, and by humans I mean homo sapiens. I am finding from my research that the process is not explained because, I suppose, the scientists writing the paper expect the reader to understand. Again, from my perusal of articles, I have found that bone fossils are sometimes turned into stone because, if I remember correctly, the leached elements that moved into the bone as it disintegrated. This leads me to another question which I'll leave for another time. But thank you for offering. I suppose what I really need is not so much an explanation of evolution (which I understand actuallyi), but rather a distinct explanation of the dating methods. I don't want a generalization, but that's hard to find in terms I can understand. Thanks again.

 

[YoursTrue]

Scientific evidence is a well defined concept. When you only say "I do not believe" without a refutation that is the same as saying "I do not understand scientific evidence".

Where is your refutation? Disbelief is not a refutation.

I am no longer interested in your demands as if I must support my view when i say i don't believe something. Sorry. So if you'd rather not have a discussion witth me, that's ok. If I don't believe something, maybe it's up to you to show why I should believe what you say. Or, you can shrug your shoulders and forget about it. But as I said, the fact that you say I should offer a factual rebuttal beyond saying I don't believe something is not something I'm going to adhere to right now.