Babyhood to adulthood

[FearGod]

FearGod, at this point I have to wonder if having time travel and immortality and somehow following bacteria all the way up the evolutionary tree to see all the lifeforms that descended from it would be enough for you.

You just need to deny.

I think you know my stance regarding evolution as we have discussed it already in one other thread.

I believe in evolution as ID and not due to random mutations, i don't have problem with natural selection but i don't believe that a successful species was a result of random mutations which happened to work, to me that is nonsense.

Natural selection isn't random, yes i know that.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

FearGod, there comes a time when rational discussion has ended. There is a difference between skepticism and denial. You are in denial. In plain terms, an abundance of evidence indicated that FearGod IS WRONG! There is no debate. there is no rational discussion. there is not even skepticism on your part. YOU ARE WRONG!

 

[LuisDantas]

I think you know my stance regarding evolution as we have discussed it already in one other thread.

I am honestly not quite certain on what it is.

I believe in evolution as ID and not due to random mutations,

Well, I am afraid that such a stance simply can not be reconciled with the facts.

Mutations are random, or at least show no obvious pattern or direction, and Intelligent Design is just anti-Evolutionism attempting to present itself in a non-confrontational way. It remains at odds with the actual findings and facts. It still fails to provide actual answers. It still denies what is actually known.

i don't have problem with natural selection but i don't believe that a successful species was a result of random mutations which happened to work, to me that is nonsense.

Well, that is what was found to happen. It is conceivable that somehow that was not quite correct and we just failed to notice it, but I fear I can't quite figure how that would be.

It is of course completely possible to accept that speciations happened and keep happening because God wants it so.

There is nothing whatsoever in the Theory of Evolution that denies a Creator God, just like studying, describing and attempting to explain, say, gravity, nutrition or electromagnetism can hardly be said to be attempting to deny the existence of God. It just doesn't particularly evidence it either.

Then again, I personally think that evidence for God is to be found in the perception and sensibility of people, not in some sort of physical evidence. But I guess many will simply disagree, and that is quite alright.

Natural selection isn't random, yes i know that.

And from the video you recommended I realize that you also believe that human have a separate origin from that of other animals, that we were created in a stable, perfect, immutable biological form. Yet we have vestigial organs and biological markers that evidence that we are in fact very much related to other hominids and primates.

I'm just not sure why or how one would deny that. It is not like other primates were known to be created by the Adversary or anything, now is it?

 

[FearGod]

By illustrating it, and being a sizeable set of evidence that it happened.

Who said it didn't happen.

The same species lived for millions of years before it extinct.

For example Homo erectus remained as one kind for 2 millions of years before it go extinct, where is the tiny gradual changes while we can see with evidence that the same kind have remained for so long without significant changes, while we can see a new species came to existence while the previous one went extinct.

Mutations are random. Selective pressure is directed by the environment. Not sure what you mean by "the basic of it".

Because without mutations which is random, evolution would never happen.

There is a difference between guessing and looking at the available evidence, formulating hypothesis, testing them, going back to the evidence, cross-checking with new findings when they become available.

But if you don't see such a difference, and barring the development of time travel, sure, all we have left are guesses. Even with time travel, you could doubt that it goes to the actual past; maybe it is some parallel Earth instead.

We don't have evidence for who did it, for me it is ID, for you it is Darwinian theory.

I don't know what you are talking about. The Synapsids varied a lot in size, much as current mammals (and for that matter, reptiles) do.

The first mammals were tiny.
Do you know why it were tiny while reptiles were great in size ?
Do you know what happened millions of years ago that made such an amazing shifting in size.

The First Mammals (Triassic, Jurassic, and Cretaceous)

Pretty similar to its close ancestors and to its immediate descendents.

How did you know, you did see already how reptiles were huge where mammals were very tiny and completely different kinds ?

I think your guess doesn't make sense here.

You think we would need to find some specific set of fossils to propose its existence? That has not been true for quite some time.

It would be like having to find a specific mummy to propose that there were Pharaohs in Egypt.

Besides, fossils have long become redundant as evidence of primate evolution. There are other, less flashy markers that biology learned to detect.

So how did we know that the CHLCA exist without finding fossils ?
DNA similarities isn't the answer, we have 88% similarity with the mouse.

Selective pressure encouraged the differentiation between species adjusted to climbing tress and species adjusted to bipedal walking.

It happens often. Species capable of some degree of adjustment to various environments find themselves in situations which make more specific adjustment advantageous, so the descendents begin to drift apart in genetic similarity and compatibility, often becoming geographically distanced as well.

It is slightly surprising that you knew the concept of CHLCA but never learned this.

And that what i call guessing, you can't bring it as a fact that the kinds of species have been shifted to a new kind because of climbing, using hands,trying to fly ..etc

I don't have problem if you want to believe and to imagine such things happened but don't bring it as a mere fact.

You are the one claiming perfect, absolute knowledge. Not the Evolutionists.

I have my reasons to believe so, first of it logic and the 2nd thing you won't know it.

 

[YmirGF]

Its the fact that no guiding hand is needed that blows me away. We could call what nature has done dumb luck or whatever but its extraordinary what its capable of. Evolving to the point that it can purposely guide itself without need for outside intervention. The divinity comes from within.

Yes, I hear you. This is what I am meaning when I've said in the past that the world/universe is more incredible and wondrous when god is removed from the equation.

 

[LuisDantas]

No, FearGod. We know for a fact that ID is wrong, at least when it is presented in a form that claims that humans are not descended from other hominids and primates.

I will not comment on other specific points of your latest post because, frankly, there is little benefit right now. It is not completely coherent and most of what I have to say you are simply refusing to accept.

 

[FearGod]

FearGod, there comes a time when rational discussion has ended. There is a difference between skepticism and denial. You are in denial. In plain terms, an abundance of evidence indicated that FearGod IS WRONG! There is no debate. there is no rational discussion. there is not even skepticism on your part. YOU ARE WRONG!

OMG,looks like religious fundamentalism.
You are wrong, You are bad, You'll go to hell

 

[YmirGF]

No, FearGod. We know for a fact that ID is wrong, at least when it is presented in a form that claims that humans are not descended from other hominids and primates.

I will not comment on other specific points of your latest post because, frankly, there is little benefit right now. It is not completely coherent and most of what I have to say you are simply refusing to accept.

You do understand why it is impossible for him to agree with evolution, right? In all fairness, Luis, there is nothing you, or anyone, could say that would sway Feargod.

 

[YmirGF]

OM0G,looks like religious fundamentalism.

Only to a religious fanatic. Just sayin...

You are wrong, You are bad, You'll go to hell

Hardly, Feargod, but that doesn't mean that people will ever take you terribly seriously.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

OMG,looks like religious fundamentalism.
You are wrong, You are bad, You'll go to hell

Haha! YOU ARE WRONG!!! You are irrational. You are a denialist. And lucky for you there is no hell.

 

[idav]

Who said it didn't happen.

The same species lived for millions of years before it extinct.

For example Homo erectus remained as one kind for 2 millions of years before it go extinct, where is the tiny gradual changes while we can see with evidence that the same kind have remained for so long without significant changes, while we can see a new species came to existence while the previous one went extinct.




Because without mutations which is random, evolution would never happen.




We don't have evidence for who did it, for me it is ID, for you it is Darwinian theory.



The first mammals were tiny.
Do you know why it were tiny while reptiles were great in size ?
Do you know what happened millions of years ago that made such an amazing shifting in size.

The First Mammals (Triassic, Jurassic, and Cretaceous)



How did you know, you did see already how reptiles were huge where mammals were very tiny and completely different kinds ?

I think your guess doesn't make sense here.




So how did we know that the CHLCA exist without finding fossils ?
DNA similarities isn't the answer, we have 88% similarity with the mouse.





And that what i call guessing, you can't bring it as a fact that the kinds of species have been shifted to a new kind because of climbing, using hands,trying to fly ..etc

I don't have problem if you want to believe and to imagine such things happened but don't bring it as a mere fact.



I have my reasons to believe so, first of it logic and the 2nd thing you won't know it.

Why do you keep asking these questions. For being a creationist you certainly have good questions being "non-knowledgeable" of the questions being asked. Do you think that not answering will mean gap science cant overcome therfore goddidit? Why does it matter that mammals started out small? Everything started small, everything started so small our eyes cant see. Dinos found themselves in a niche and died by it in a planet that couldnt sustain them.

 

[FearGod]

Haha! YOU ARE WRONG!!! You are irrational. You are a denialist. And lucky for you there is no hell.

That is the outcome when ones fails in a debate, he'll accuse the other of being wrong,irrational ..etc

 

[idav]

Natural selection isn't random, yes i know that.

Thats a matter of perpective. We randomly choose our mates.

 

[YmirGF]

That is the outcome when ones fails in a debate, he'll accuse the other of being wrong,irrational ..etc

Care to tell them all the real reason why you reject the Theory of Evolution? That might help them understand why they are wasting their time. Go ahead. Be honest.

 

[LuisDantas]

You do understand why it is impossible for him to agree with evolution, right? In all fairness, Luis, there is nothing you, or anyone, could say that would sway Feargod.

I am inclined to agree, although I am not clear on what his reasons are.

 

[FearGod]

No, FearGod. We know for a fact that ID is wrong, at least when it is presented in a form that claims that humans are not descended from other hominids and primates.

I will not comment on other specific points of your latest post because, frankly, there is little benefit right now. It is not completely coherent and most of what I have to say you are simply refusing to accept.

i'll agree with you that ID is wrong if in a case that you can prove that God doesn't exist.

 

[Alceste]

I am inclined to agree, although I am not clear on what his reasons are.

I've never spoken to a creationist who is not convinced that accepting the fact of evolution would completely undermine their religious faith.

 

[idav]

i'll agree with you that ID is wrong if in a case that you can prove that God doesn't exist.

ID should have no issue showing us god exists, if it fails then god doesnt exist in a way that ID adherents would like.

 

[LuisDantas]

i'll agree with you that ID is wrong if in a case that you can prove that God doesn't exist.

That makes no sense whatsoever. ID is wrong because it makes statements about humanity's origin that have been demonstrated wrong.

As for proving that God does not exist, that is neither connected to matters of biology and evolution, nor possible in any case, regardless of whether he exists or not. It is no more possible to prove that God does not exist than it is possible to prove that three-legged dragons with red and green stripes do not.

 

[LuisDantas]

I've never spoken to a creationist who is not convinced that accepting the fact of evolution would completely undermine their religious faith.

Which is very ironical, come to think of it. Evolution can hardly be presented as a challenge to religion or to theism.

In fact, it can't even conceivably be an evidence against the existence of God. Ever.