Another irrefutable proof that God created all things using mathematical induction. And a proof that The Bible is the word of God.

[McBell]

How do you explain the lamprey which has not evolved for supposedly 350 million years?
during that time there was supposedly 2 great extinction events at 252 million and 66 million years ago. Those events were so drastic that even the ocean depths were affected. Also there was supposedly a large cooling of the oceans about 34 million years ago. With all the competition with other species, supposedly changing drastically, and during the fight for survival in these above events, why didn’t the lamprey evolve?

It did not need to adapt in order to survive.
If you knew anything about how the real evolution works and not the strawmen crap you claim is evolution, you would not have needed to present this above embarrassment
.

This refutes evolution and billions of years also.

Nope.
not even close.

 

[joelr]

I just don't see your view of things -

It's not "my point of view", it's what the evidence demonstrates it true. Evolution has so much evidence for it that most Christians even consider it true and that God used evolution to create different species. It's true in many ways, morphologically, behaviorally and genetically, there is evidence that it's happening now and at all other times in the development of life.

It doesn't matter what I want to be true, what religion it conflicts with, it's true. Christians in the middle ages said the same things about the earth being at the center of the universe and many other things they had to let go of. Evolution is just another scientific fact that the church will slowly let go of. The Catholic church already has.

just like you don't see mine.

You don't have a valid point of view. Show me evidence that is reasonable that cancels out the massive lines of pro-evolution evidence.
The questions and assumptions you are making show you literally do not know what evolution even is.
Why didn't man get wings? You don't understand the thing you think is wrong which shows you are just parroting opinions of creationists to keep a mythic story alive.
Evolution is the least problem in that regard.

Feel free to present a reasonable argument, all you did is ask very strange questions with weird assumptions.

It doesn't matter how much being able to fly would have helped man, he would never be able to fly.

Actually that is wrong. Large flying reptiles were much heavier than man. But if you say he would never be able to fly, why did you pose the question? None of this makes sense?

To my POV, the same applies with all the things I have been mentioning. (including hearing and eyesight) Just because you are claiming eyesight evolved doesn't make it so. That's something you can't prove.

Where do I say that because I make a claim it's true? How did your beliefs get so twisted in fallacies and contradictions?

It's true because of the EVIDENCE? Did you not hear me say it evolved many times in separate lines? Did you even think to say, "what do you mean? Tell me about that?", no, you did not. You are not even going to mention it because what is actually true, what evidence demonstrates, is of zero importance to you. Reality is just an annoyance for you to ignore and continue beliefs that have no basis in reality or make any sense.

And evidence exists to demonstrate it's the best model to match what happened in reality.

Forrect Valkai, evolutionary biologist
10:51
"Eyes are a super common sticking point for creationists, they argure they are too complex or didn't have enough time to evolve, but all of that is demonstrably untrue. My favorite demonstration of that is this study from 1994 where 2 researchers developed a model of eye evolution to see theoretically, how long it would take an eye to evolve, over the course of 1800 tiny improvements from a set of light sensitive cells all the way up to a complex image forming eye. Even with the consistently pessimistic approach, the time required becomes amazingly short, only a few hundred thousand years. 360,000 generations. In the 550 million years eyes appeared in the fossil record, complex eyes could have evolved 1500 times."
12:09
examples of convergent evolution, different lines evolving the same adaptations, structures or behavior without a common ancestor.


The eye started as a patch of skin that was photosensitive and evolved from there. At least 5 times from completely different lines.
Ears are the same, a patch of skin that detects soundwaves.

The fossil record does demonstrate the development of these organs so I have no idea what you are on about "proof"?

Let's take taste for instance.

What happened to the eye and ears?

It wasn't necessary for things to have tasted good.

It was.

You would eat to avoid pain and to survive. It wasn't something that had to evolve so that it would taste good.

Of course it was.

And I just don't see how things would develop in such a way that they taste wonderful by accident (through evolution). And even if the food could taste good - without taste buds you wouldn't even be able to detect it. And it wasn't necessary for taste buds to develop was it? So why are they there?

You really cannot research this in favor of beliefs equally as foolish as "germs are not real!?"

Taste buds are important because taste allows animals to try to get more of a particularly calorie-dense or nutritious food and to avoid compounds that might be harmful or toxic. Without receptors for a particular flavor, animals cannot be motivated to eat or avoid substances with that flavor.
Early man had a dopamine release for calorie dense, sugar/fat (we still have it) foods. This would force overeating and give bodyfat stores during days when hunting was bad or drought.
You cannot overeat chicken, leaves and water. But high sugar/fat you can eat more than you need, as we all know. All early humans faced long periods of not having food and needed a supply of fat to live on.

Never mind the huge amounts of poison. Man had to eat everything in the jungle to see if it was edible for survival, taste buds are essential for survival and for keeping organisms alive. They regulate dopamine, serotonin and encourage eating. Also give most poisonous compounds in some plants a bad taste.
Again, it's a simple patch of skin that became more advanced.

The amount of information out there on evolutionary reasons and examples of the progression of something like a tase bud is so high, it's very clear you do not care about truth but just want to hold onto certain beliefs that make you happy. You must know this, I don't see why you would put such basic arguments to people knowing there are answers?

You want me to believe things like that just evolved.

You can believe Inanna created us all or whatever you like, I don't care. I am interested in what is actually true. Not everyone cares about truth and putting their beliefs through a rational, skeptical, honest methodology to see if they are real.

If there was reason to find evolution false I would gladly discard it, as would every scientist. Any scientist who could disprove evolution would be as famous as Einstein. Even one who could disprove something really small would have an instant career.

I believe it was one of the many things designed by our great God.

Again, what you believe is not important to me. Unless you can demonstrate it to be a reasonable belief, with evidence.

I have yet to see good evidence of any god. Even the fictional character of Yahweh is a horrible character in the OT.
He murders at whim, for his mistakes, tells his people old stories that were used previously by older nations and the same old laws and wisdom we already knew.

There was no pressure for taste buds to develop.

Except for the hominids who ate poison and died, the hominids who overate sugar and fat and had extra fat to live on during long periods of no food, the hominids who could remember the taste of foods that made it ill in different ways, tell when a food was contaminated, when a food made him feel good and many other things taste buds were useful for.
Except for all that.


Who is telling you this junk?

 

[joelr]

Once the process is occurring, the living system is. Not an outside cause but naturally occurring based on the energy upon the particles (mass). When in an environment that enables the oscillations to sustain itself, the light (energy) will consume to sustain itself.

Nothing different than what is observed but the perspective is different. That's it. The living process is based on energy upon mass sustaining itself. The energy of nature is not 'what is usable' but the light (electromagnetic fields) oscillating upon mass (elements). That's the 'perspective' to identify/observe... there of describe.

Not sure what you are saying, quantum mechanics may play some role in the brain but it doesn't have much play in life. The particles and energy won't change much.

 

[Bthoth]

Not sure what you are saying, quantum mechanics may play some role in the brain but it doesn't have much play in life.

QM is a description and has nothing to do with brain activity or living systems.

The particles and energy won't change much.

That line proves that you actually comprehend very little of living processes and nature itself. The change and conversion of energy is ongoing at every cell.

 

[joelr]

QM is a description and has nothing to do with brain activity or living systems.

It might, like I said, maybe.....

New research suggests our brains use quantum computation

Scientists from Trinity College Dublin believe our brains could use quantum computation. Their discovery comes after they adapted an idea developed to prove the existence of quantum gravity to explore the human brain and its workings.

phys.org

New research suggests our brains use quantum computation​

Scientists from Trinity College Dublin believe our brains could use quantum computation. Their discovery comes after they adapted an idea developed to prove the existence of quantum gravity to explore the human brain and its workings.
The brain functions measured were also correlated to short-term memory performance and conscious awareness, suggesting quantum processes are also part of cognitive and conscious brain functions.

That line proves that you actually comprehend very little of living processes and nature itself. The change and conversion of energy is ongoing at every cell.

No that line doesn't prove anything except I still don't understand what you are saying in your answer.

Life and everything else follow energy conservation, so what? Energy changes form, that is what it does, it can go from potential to heat or kinetic, what is the connection you are making regarding life having intent??? We use energy from sunlight, it returns to the earth. So do suns and planets and everything else. When you go up a hill some energy becomes potential. Cool.
I still don't understand your point and am now confused about why you are so quick to judge or care about my knowledge of nature?

 

[joelr]

How do you explain the lamprey which has not evolved for supposedly 350 million years?
during that time there was supposedly 2 great extinction events at 252 million and 66 million years ago. Those events were so drastic that even the ocean depths were affected. Also there was supposedly a large cooling of the oceans about 34 million years ago. With all the competition with other species, supposedly changing drastically, and during the fight for survival in these above events, why didn’t the lamprey evolve? This refutes evolution and billions of years also.

Now this is a problem for you.

So, you accept scientific research, but the thousands of scientific papers that confirm evolution you discard. Then, one comes along and you think disproves evolution and suddenly you are all "hey guys look at this study!!"..........

If you accept studies, you accept studies, which means you accept evolution.

Now for the bad news. The paper did not disprove evolution. It found a small mistake and the ancient lamprey that survived to today, looks like that isn't the same organism that they thought started the evolution of vertebrates. Other candidates have been found.

Small errors should happen, but we find them, recognize the mistake and make sure the data still supports evolution. It does. This is what science looks like, the better tools we get, we have to revise some knowledge.
With religion, nope, a deity gave revelations, can't change them. They try. OR ignore them. No graven images, buy slaves from the heathen around you, take plunder of war.

Long-accepted theory of vertebrate origin upended by fossilized lamprey larvae

A study of fossilized lampreys dating from more than 300 million years ago is challenging a long-held theory about the evolutionary origin of vertebrates. These ancient, jawless, eel-like fishes arose around half a billion years ago and they have long provided insights into vertebrate evolution...

www.sciencedaily.com

Long-accepted theory of vertebrate origin upended by fossilized lamprey larvae​

Summary:
A study of fossilized lampreys dating from more than 300 million years ago is challenging a long-held theory about the evolutionary origin of vertebrates. These ancient, jawless, eel-like fishes arose around half a billion years ago and they have long provided insights into vertebrate evolution. The analysis of the fossils counters the established view that the blind, filter-feeding larvae of modern lampreys (ammocoetes) are a holdover from the ancestors of living vertebrates.

A new study of fossilized lampreys dating from more than 300 million years ago is challenging a long-held theory about the evolutionary origin of vertebrates (all animals with a backbone). The findings are published March 10 in the science journal Nature.

Lampreys are ancient, jawless, eel-like fishes that arose around half a billion years ago and they have long provided insights into vertebrate evolution.
Now, scientists with the Canadian Museum of Nature, the University of Chicago and the Albany Museum in South Africa are reporting their analysis of dozens of tiny fossils that track the life stages and growth of ancient lampreys, from hatchlings to juveniles to adults.
Their results counter the established view that the blind, filter-feeding larvae of modern lampreys (called ammocoetes) are a holdover from the ancestors of all living vertebrates.

The new fossil discoveries show that ancient lamprey hatchlings were completely unlike their modern larvae counterparts.

"We've basically removed lampreys from the position of the ancestral condition of vertebrates," explains lead author Tetsuto Miya****a, Ph.D, a palaeontologist with the Canadian Museum of Nature.

"So now we need an alternative."

Miya****a explains that lampreys have a curious life cycle. "Once hatched, the larvae of modern lampreys bury themselves in a riverbed and filter feed before eventually metamorphosing into blood-sucking adults. The larvae are so different from adults that scientists originally thought they were different species. Even after finding out they are just an early phase in the lamprey life cycle, scientists saw the image of our distant ancestors in these seemingly primitive larvae."

The newly discovered lamprey fossils are now changing this story.

The fossils, belonging to four extinct species, were discovered in South Africa and the United States (Illinois and Montana) and range in age from 310 to 360 million years old.

The researchers found that the smallest individuals, barely 15mm in length (fingernail sized), still carried a yolk sac, signalling that these had only just hatched before dying.

Further examination revealed that these youngsters already had large eyes and were armed with a toothed sucker, characteristics that in modern lamprey species only develop in the adults.....................................

After their examination of the fossil record, the researchers now believe that extinct armored fishes known as ostracoderms might instead represent better candidates for the root of the vertebrate family tree, whereas modern lamprey larvae are a more recent evolutionary innovation.
"They remain important and essential for understanding the deep history of vertebrate diversity, but we also need to recognize that they, too, have evolved and specialized in their own right."



​

 

[Bthoth]

It might, like I said, maybe.....

New research suggests our brains use quantum computation

Scientists from Trinity College Dublin believe our brains could use quantum computation. Their discovery comes after they adapted an idea developed to prove the existence of quantum gravity to explore the human brain and its workings.

phys.org

Try Penrose and hammeroff, the ORCH theory to read an actual paper.

New research suggests our brains use quantum computation​

Scientists from Trinity College Dublin believe our brains could use quantum computation. Their discovery comes after they adapted an idea developed to prove the existence of quantum gravity to explore the human brain and its workings.

Do you even comprehend what quantum computation is? Be honest.

The brain functions measured were also correlated to short-term memory performance and conscious awareness, suggesting quantum processes are also part of cognitive and conscious brain functions.

That suggests that they measured that the brain operated and the person was aware and then use the term Quantum processes.

Do you even know what a quantum process is, at the level of atoms and energy?

No that line doesn't prove anything except I still don't understand what you are saying in your answer.

I doubt that you even know how mass/energy work together let alone comprehend what the term quantum even means.

Life and everything else follow energy conservation, so what?

Conservation? Not even relevant to the discussion. Conversion was the term that I used as living systems are CONVERTING energy at every cell.

Energy changes form, that is what it does, it can go from potential to heat or kinetic, what is the connection you are making regarding life having intent???

Yes, conversions. Not conservation. What is causing the potential? The heat? Motion? Do you have any idea?

If you have no idea about the em fields, then how can you debate 2LOT or living systems?

We use energy from sunlight, it returns to the earth.

And what it that thing, causing the flavors of energy?

Returns to earth? What?

So do suns and planets and everything else. When you go up a hill some energy becomes potential. Cool.

That is perfect evidence that you truly have no idea what you are writing.

I still don't understand your point and am now confused about why you are so quick to judge or care about my knowledge of nature?

You claimed that i do not understand. When it is clear, that you have no idea what you are writing.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Taking the time to do some research might help though

sorry, I just can't spend endless hours researching something I know is wrong to begin with.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Ow? Are you going to explain how it was supposedly inaccurate or are you only going to claim it and thus just handwave without explanation?


Yes and I explained how that is true by giving an analogous example of how there have never been any children raised that didn't speak the same language as their parents and peers.

And yet the distant ancestors of spanish speaking folk didn't speak spanish but latin.

Feel free to explain how that isn't true.

You jumped in on another post, evidently not understanding what I was actually saying. I said based on what he said - that it would mean man would have always had to exist.

Let me explain it more clearly for you. If there has never been a human in existence that didn't have two humans for parents as he said. Then unless God created mankind to begin with, that would means he was putting man in a similar position to what we say about God. Man would have always had to have existed. Think about it before you reply. We are here. We have parents. They have parents. They have parents. (on and on) So mankind would have always had to exist for what he said to be true. (UNLESS God created mankind as I believe.)

 

[Bthoth]

You jumped in on another post, evidently not understanding what I was actually saying. I said based on what he said - that it would mean man would have always had to exist.

Let me explain it more clearly for you. If there has never been a human in existence that didn't have two humans for parents as he said. Then unless God created mankind to begin with, that would means he was putting man in a similar position to what we say about God. Man would have always had to have existed. Think about it before you reply. We are here. We have parents. They have parents. They have parents. (on and on) So mankind would have always had to exist for what he said to be true. (UNLESS God created mankind as I believe.)

I use that similar method to expose that all of us, had parents during the time of adam/eve.... flood, jesus and even ww2, they are alive in us, still.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Theories in science are based on evidence. In fact, theories in science are hypothesis which have been confirmed so many times by evidence and prediction that they get promoted to theory. So no, it is not just some thing "they tell you". It's some thing that is demonstrated and solidly supported by evidence.
Some of which is detailed in those articles. Clearly you didn't read them.



I know. The question is why.



No theory in science can be "proven". This has already been explained to you. Theories can only be supported by evidence. "proving" is for mathematics.
Germ theory of desease - not "proven"
Plate tectonic theory - not "proven"
Atomic theory - not "proven"
Heliocentric theory - not "proven"
Theory of relativity - not "proven"

If "not proven" is your objection, then your objection isn't to any particular theory of biology, but to all of science.



Also, it's kind of disengenous that you offer this as an objection as to why you won't believe it.
Is your religion "proven"? No? Yet you believe it right?
So why do you hold up science to a higher standard then your religious beliefs?
Double standard, much?




And they are. By evidence.
Also, theories aren't facts. Theories explain facts. Facts support theories.
"really good theories", don't become facts in science.
Theories remain theories. Theories are bodies of knowledge- explanations - that account for all the facts, predict facts and are contradicted by no facts.



Evolution is extremely demonstrable in many different, independent, ways.
I'm more then happy to explain to you how, but somehow I get the feeling that you aren't interested and will just handwave it all away.


Yet you believe in your god. Why?
If "not proven" is the reason you don't believe X, then why would you believe something else when it's not "proven" either?

Your double standard is showing.

In any case.... science doesn't deal in "proof". The sooner you learn that, the better.

Here is the difference in why I can believe in God. I can't prove it to you. But he has given me personal proof, so I know he exists. But you won't believe even if I tell you, so it isn't proof to you. But it was proof to me. And there are so many fulfilled prophecies in his word.

I believe much in science. But you can't have a chicken without an egg. And you can't have the egg without the chicken. (as a matter of fact both a male and a female) That is just ONE simple example that science cannot explain sufficiently for me.

What possible logical reason could there be why we have taste buds? It wasn't required during your so called evolution. We could survive with just eating. It wasn't required that food be delicious.

I see no direct linkage to the development of a giraffe or an elephant. You want to believe in evolution, so you believe everything they feed you.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Just because you have a (religious) book saying something is so, doesn't make it true.

The difference between your religious book and those articles though, is that the articles are based on rigorous research which deals with evidence and which are independently verifiable by anyone who isn't intellectually lazy. While the religious book does not and is unverifiable in every possible way.

The book has fulfilled prophecy. Which is evidence. And when you obey what God actually says to do in the book , then he will show himself real to you. He will keep his word - it's for whosoever will. (I'm not talking about belief in a Trinity - that is false doctrine.)

 

[John53]

sorry, I just can't spend endless hours researching something I know is wrong to begin with.

No need for endless hours. Took me minutes to find that taste was very important to our survival as a species and your claim was incorrect.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

No need for endless hours. Took me minutes to find that taste was very important to our survival as a species and your claim was incorrect.

Well feel free to explain what you found rather than tell me to go search it out. Just because you claim I was incorrect doesn't make it so.

There are many issues not just taste. You aren't saying you believe in evolution after just a few minutes of reading are you?

 

[John53]

Well feel free to explain what you found rather than tell me to go search it out. Just because you claim I was incorrect doesn't make it so.

There are many issues not just taste. You aren't saying you believe in evolution after just a few minutes of reading are you?

Already sent you the links

 

[Subduction Zone]

sorry, I just can't spend endless hours researching something I know is wrong to begin with.

But you do not know. You only believe. And worse yet you are demonstrably wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The book has fulfilled prophecy. Which is evidence. And when you obey what God actually says to do in the book , then he will show himself real to you. He will keep his word - it's for whosoever will. (I'm not talking about belief in a Trinity - that is false doctrine.)

No, it has far more failed prophecies than fulfilled ones. You use an improper metric to determine what is a prophecy or not and whether it has been fulfilled as not. Prophecy is one of the ways that we know that the Bible is wrong.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and ask you to point out specifically what the personal attacks were (post number + quoting specific passage), instead of just claiming it to be so.

When someone (even including you) starts saying I'm ignorant on evolution - just because I am questioning its validity. Or that I wasn't paying attention in class and that I lack knowledge of what a theory is , etc. That's getting outside the debated issue.

 

[Subduction Zone]

When someone (even including you) starts saying I'm ignorant on evolution - just because I am questioning its validity. Or that I wasn't paying attention in class and that I lack knowledge of what a theory is , etc. That's getting outside the debated issue.

No, when a person is debating about a subject and that person demonstrates that he or she has almost no knowledge of that subject bringing that up is not a personal attack. Nor is it an ad hominem. It is in reality very germane to the debate.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Already sent you the links.

Sorry, but neither of those prove evolution of tastebuds. Just because it says "Taste evolved to provide gratification from food". How in the world does that prove it was from evolution rather than creation?

As I have said previously there was no pressure for taste to develop. We could survive whether the food tasted good or not.

Surely just because we would have loved for it to taste good, things didn't start evolving to be sweet or sour or whatever.