About fossils -- would you say this is true?

[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.

Try saying I don't accept scientific evidence all the time as truly relating to the theory. If someone shows me a bone, I'll accept the fact that it's a bone. I think. Most likely.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

You are not listening. You can believe whatever you like. But you cannot say that you understand the concept of evidenc..


Are you a liar? I don't think that you are but recently you keep claiming to be one.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Try saying I don't accept scientific evidence all the time as truly relating to the theory. If someone shows me a bone, I'll accept the fact that it's a bone. I think. Most likely.

Once again you claim to understand the concept of evidence. You can always ask questions as to why something is scientific evidence. But you cannot claim to understand what is and what is not evidence if you refuse to learn a very simple concept.

It appears that you know that you would have to be a liar if you wanted to deny the theory of evolution if you understood scientific evidence.

This is rather basic logic. But logic is another tool that you cannot use since it too leads to the conclusion that life is the product of evolution.

 

[YoursTrue]

You are not listening. You can believe whatever you like. But you cannot say that you understand the concept of evidenc..


Are you a liar? I don't think that you are but recently you keep claiming to be one.

lol, I won't say what I'm thinking...

 

[YoursTrue]

Once again you claim to understand the concept of evidence. You can always ask questions as to why something is scientific evidence. But you cannot claim to understand what is and what is not evidence if you refuse to learn a very simple concept.

It appears that you know that you would have to be a liar if you wanted to deny the theory of evolution if you understood scientific evidence.

This is rather basic logic. But logic is another tool that you cannot use since it too leads to the conclusion that life is the product of evolution.

I don't believe that. Furthermore, you say "life" is the product of evolution? so tell me, when did life start, do you know?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I don't believe that. Furthermore, you say "life" is the product of evolution? so tell me, when did life start, do you know?

No, that is not something anyone in this thread - or even this forum - has ever said.

It baffles me that you have been on these forums this whole time and still don't understand that nobody has ever claimed that "life is the product of evolution". Evolution is not the process by which life originates. It is the process by which life diversifies.

Please do not tell me that you never learned this very, very basic thing in all the time you have been here?

 

[Subduction Zone]

lol, I won't say what I'm thinking...

That is because you know that you are wrong. Once again, you can believe what ever you like. But your claim to understand the concept of evidence is a falsehood whether you understand why or not. A falsehood is not necessarily a lie in itself. If a person does not know that they are repeating falsehoods is not lying because they lack the ability to tell what is true from what is a lie. Lying includes a willful attempt to deceive. I do not thin that you are willfully trying to deceive others.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't believe that. Furthermore, you say "life" is the product of evolution? so tell me, when did life start, do you know?

You should have quoted the full sentence. Once life began. No matter what its source, it evolved. Go ahead and believe that God magically poofed the first life into existence if you like. You might have an excuse to do that for another ten or even twenty years.

And one thing that you do not seem to understand is how you keep calling God a liar. Guess what, an all powerful God could conceivably have made Adam from just dirt as in the Genesis myth. A God could never lie. But unfortunately since the evidence is out there is very clear a God could not do both. If the Genesis myths are true then God has to be a liar since all of the evidence says otherwise.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, that is not something anyone in this thread - or even this forum - has ever said.

It baffles me that you have been on these forums this whole time and still don't understand that nobody has ever claimed that "life is the product of evolution". Evolution is not the process by which life originates. It is the process by which life diversifies.

Please do not tell me that you never learned this very, very basic thing in all the time you have been here?

I was responding to @Subduction Zone 's statement post #763 in which he said, "it too leads to the conclusion that life is the product of evolution."
Could be I misunderstood that statement where he really meant instead that life in not the product of evolution. If it is, I'd like to know how and if it is not the product of evolution, perhaps you can also say how. Either way, I'm willing to listen.

 

[YoursTrue]

You should have quoted the full sentence. Once life began. No matter what its source, it evolved. Go ahead and believe that God magically poofed the first life into existence if you like. You might have an excuse to do that for another ten or even twenty years.

And one thing that you do not seem to understand is how you keep calling God a liar. Guess what, an all powerful God could conceivably have made Adam from just dirt as in the Genesis myth. A God could never lie. But unfortunately since the evidence is out there is very clear a God could not do both. If the Genesis myths are true then God has to be a liar since all of the evidence says otherwise.

I understand your response. On the other hand, if I believed that life started by chance, yup, that's what it boils down to, without a God doing the directing up to a point, I'd definitely agree with you about -- evolution.

 

[YoursTrue]

I was responding to @Subduction Zone 's statement post #763 in which he said, "it too leads to the conclusion that life is the product of evolution."
Could be I misunderstood that statement where he really meant instead that life in not the product of evolution. If it is, I'd like to know how and if it is not the product of evolution, perhaps you can also say how. Either way, I'm willing to listen.

@Subduction Zone - so you're saying that life is not the product of evolution? Or that I misunderstood your statement? Or that you didn't mean that life is the product of evolution? It's almost like Stephen Hawking saying that the universe could have come about from nothing. (I paraphrase, i think...) Oh, no, he said, it CAN come about from nothing because maybe? (no proof of course) of the LAW of gravity...uh huh, yeah right..ok and be well.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I understand your response. On the other hand, if I believed that life started by chance, yup, that's what it boils down to, without a God doing the directing up to a point, I'd definitely agree with you about -- evolution.

No one believes that life started "by chance". That is a strawman argument your part.

And you still seem to want to insist that God is not only a liar, you want him to be a Step and Fetch it Slave for you. That is very blasphemous.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@Subduction Zone - so you're saying that life is not the product of evolution? Or that I misunderstood your statement? Or that you didn't mean that life is the product of evolution? It's almost like Stephen Hawking saying that the universe could have come about from nothing. (I paraphrase, i think...) Oh, no, he said, it CAN come about from nothing because maybe? (no proof of course) of the LAW of gravity...uh huh, yeah right..ok and be well.

Life as we know it is the product of evolution. You probably do not understand the difference between my version and the mangled one that you used.

 

[YoursTrue]

No one believes that life started "by chance". That is a strawman argument your part.

And you still seem to want to insist that God is not only a liar, you want him to be a Step and Fetch it Slave for you. That is very blasphemous.

So if it didn't start by chance, then it started with intelligent meeting of cells or atoms? C'mon be honest enough to answer the question instead of telling me I'm misunderstanding...OK, I change to say instead of intelligent meeting, how about Hawking's possibllity of "gravity," the "law of" maybe not for the universe coming from nothing as he said was a possibility, so maybe you think it's not by "chance"? Tell me again how I don't understand. OK? Meantime -- my main question is about dating & its processes. How God did it, how it was explained in Genesis is not my primary focus rightt now. But to be perfectly honest, because of YOUR attitude, I'm afraid to ask questions of YOU and some others, because of your attitude, and so my conversations with you may be winding down. It's taken a while. Thanks, though, for the conversations.

 

[YoursTrue]

@Subduction Zone and @ImmortalFlame Please do try to inform about why life is the product of evolution, as Subduction Zone wrote? Thanks. Maybe he meant it was, or maybe he meant it wasn't really.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So if it didn't start by chance, then it started with intelligent meeting of cells or atoms? C'mon be honest enough to answer the question instead of telling me I'm misunderstanding...OK, I change to say instead of intelligent meeting, how about Hawking's possibllity of "gravity," the "law of" maybe not for the universe coming from nothing as he said was a possibility, so maybe you think it's not by "chance"? Tell me again how I don't understand. OK? Meantime -- my main question is about dating & its processes. How God did it, how it was explained in Genesis is not my primary focus rightt now. But to be perfectly honest, because of YOUR attitude, I'm afraid to ask questions of YOU and some others, because of your attitude, and so my conversations with you may be winding down. It's taken a while. Thanks, though, for the conversations.

No, that is a false dichotomy. If you throw a rock up in the air does it "fall by chance"?


Hawking was pointing out how the theory of gravity (It supplanted the Law of Gravity) leads to the Big Bang and the possibility that the universe started from nothing. The evidence supports the Big Bang too. And if it did start from "nothing" that does not violate any laws of physics.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@Subduction Zone and @ImmortalFlame Please do try to inform about why life is the product of evolution, as Subduction Zone wrote? Thanks. Maybe he meant it was, or maybe he meant it wasn't really.

Context matters. Also, I have a rule for discussing abiogenesis. Since evolution does not rely on it anyone that demands to discuss it has to be informed and honest enough to admit that evolution is a fact. If one cannot be honest enough to admit that evolution is a fact they will never understand abiogenesis. When you bring up abiogenesis you are moving the goalposts. In effect you are admitting that evolution is a fact.

 

[wandering peacefully]

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.

If you scroll to the bottom of that page, it does have videos on dating fossils which includes human fossils. in order to understand human evolution, it is helpful to start with understanding the theory of and the process of evolution in general. It like playing the piano, one needs to learn the notes, chords, timing and how to read music before being able to play piano.

 

[Audie]

If you scroll to the bottom of that page, it does have videos on dating fossils which includes human fossils. in order to understand human evolution, it is helpful to start with understanding the theory of and the process of evolution in general. It like playing the piano, one needs to learn the notes, chords, timing and how to read music before being able to play piano.

Like getting to Carnegie hall.

Study study study.

An unpopular route for creationists.

 

[YoursTrue]

If you scroll to the bottom of that page, it does have videos on dating fossils which includes human fossils. in order to understand human evolution, it is helpful to start with understanding the theory of and the process of evolution in general. It like playing the piano, one needs to learn the notes, chords, timing and how to read music before being able to play piano.

I have to say that I have met good piano players who did not read a note of music. I will however look at the videos you suggest about dating.