Creationist - what is your understanding of TOE?

[fantome profane]

I find this post to be as equally pedantic, tedious and tiresome as the previous post I referred to as the same. Given that the thorough post you deem to be "argueably pointless" (why I have no idea, which I find odd given that you are challenging me to explain the reason for my posts)

Also given that many posts in this thread are off on tangent from the original post, and as you admit to not seeing the post I was actually responding to, I don't feel particuarly oblidged to answer your question.

As far as your other odd question "So what?" I'm scratching my head over that one too.

Do you have some sort of problem with me from a staff persepective as far as my posts pertain to forum guidelines or it this just a personal foible you are demonstrating here? But I will any way, again form the full and clear post I submitted it should be rather clear that (certianly part of what goes up to make what is commonly reffered to as the "theory fo Evolution" is ancient pagan myth and not at all modern sceince.

Frankly I have precisley no idea what your on about or where your coming from.

If I may try to explain that the point that LuisDantas and David M are trying to make is that even if the theory of evolution is similar to certain ancient pagan ideas that does not in any way constitute evidence against the theory of evolution. And although this idea may be interesting from an anthropological cultural perspective when it comes to the science of biology it has absolutely no relevance.

I hope you don’t mind me commenting on this discussion and I hope you don’t feel that I am harassing you by doing so.

 

[Bereanz]

If I may try to explain that the point that LuisDantas and David M are trying to make is that even if the theory of evolution is similar to certain ancient pagan ideas that does not in any way constitute evidence against the theory of evolution. And although this idea may be interesting from an anthropological cultural perspective when it comes to the science of biology it has absolutely no relevance.

I hope you don’t mind me commenting on this discussion and I hope you don’t feel that I am harassing you by doing so.

No I dont mind at all, please see my previous post, this might give you a clearer idea what my understanding is and why I felt the pagon mythical history of the concept is more than valid in the argument. The fact that people try to plead that it isn't is not being completly transparent because when we bring scientific and biologically "evidence" to the table, the theory of evolution doesn't even qualify as science at all. And in the complete and total absence of this "scientific" evidence the theory is laid bare as worthy only of metaphysical, phylisophical and or religious discussion, And as we are in a "Religious Forum" one mustn't be too proud to admit that they have been found it and been found wanting.

SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSh, dont ruin the "scientists fun" (they havent caught on that this is a religious forum yet). Come on!! You're flogging a dead horse guys. Symantic gymnastic and the requiremnet for those who dont BUY THE SCIENCE to jump through invisible hoops doesn't help either.

 

[outhouse]

the theory of evolution doesn't even qualify as science at all.

Major ignorance and lack of education or a blatant lie. which one is it?

 

[Bereanz]

Major ignorance and lack of education or a blatant lie. which one is it?

That there is no creator/God and that Human beings evolved from lower life forms through a process of "natural selection", and that bats evolved from rodents etc etc and on and onnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn it goes, is a blatant lie!

 

[outhouse]

That is no creator/God and that Human beings evolved from lower life forms through a process of "natural selection", and that bats evolved from rodents etc etc and on and onnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn it goes, is a blatant lie!

what proof would we have to show you your wrong?

 

[painted wolf]

Actually evolution says nothing about the existence or non-existence of God.

Science only addresses what can be measured, God can't be measured, so science can't address God.

wa:do

 

[Bereanz]

Actually evolution says nothing about the existence or non-existence of God.

Science only addresses what can be measured, God can't be measured, so science can't address God.

wa:do

Actually science can't measure evolution so what are you rambling on about?

 

[Bereanz]

what proof would we have to show you your wrong?

I don't need to prove a lie is a lie. Liars claiming something to be true carry that burden to prove it.

Show me some fossil evidence that proves how a bat evolved from a rodent or what ever else you claim it evolved from?
Show me some fossil evidence that proves what human beings evolved from?

Give me some "scientific" evidence that proves how the Human eye came into existence? Not how it works, no, how it we ended up with a couple ov em.


Pretty simple questions, get on with it and stop having whiney fits at people asking for this REQUIRED evidence, or, all you are actually doing is demonstrating insanity in action.

 

[outhouse]

Bat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Fossil bats

There are few fossilized remains of bats, as they are terrestrial and light-boned. An Eocene bat, Onychonycteris finneyi, was found in the fifty-two-million-year-old Green River Formation in South Dakota, United States, in 2004 and was added as a new genus and placed in a new family when published in Nature in 2008.[18] It had characteristics indicating that it could fly, yet the well-preserved skeleton showed that the cochlea of the inner ear lacked development needed to support the greater hearing abilities of modern bats. This provided evidence that flight in bats developed well before echolocation. The team that found the remains of this species, named Onychonycteris finneyi, recognized that it lacked ear and throat features present not only in echolocating bats today, but also in other known prehistoric species. Fossil remains of another Eocene bat, Icaronycteris, were found in 1960.
The appearance and flight movement of bats 52.5 million years ago were different from those of bats today. Onychonycteris had claws on all five of its fingers, whereas modern bats have at most two claws appearing on two digits of each hand. It also had longer hind legs and shorter forearms, similar to climbing mammals that hang under branches such as sloths and gibbons. This palm-sized bat had broad, short wings suggesting that it could not fly as fast or as far as later bat species. Instead of flapping its wings continuously while flying, Onychonycteris likely alternated between flaps and glides while in the air. Such physical characteristics suggest that this bat did not fly as much as modern bats do, rather flying from tree to tree and spending most of its waking day climbing or hanging on the branches of trees.

theres not a clear path on the evolution of bats.









http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye

NOW WHAT???

 

[Bereanz]

Bat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Fossil bats

There are few fossilized remains of bats, as they are terrestrial and light-boned. An Eocene bat, Onychonycteris finneyi, was found in the fifty-two-million-year-old Green River Formation in South Dakota, United States, in 2004 and was added as a new genus and placed in a new family when published in Nature in 2008.[18] It had characteristics indicating that it could fly, yet the well-preserved skeleton showed that the cochlea of the inner ear lacked development needed to support the greater hearing abilities of modern bats. This provided evidence that flight in bats developed well before echolocation. The team that found the remains of this species, named Onychonycteris finneyi, recognized that it lacked ear and throat features present not only in echolocating bats today, but also in other known prehistoric species. Fossil remains of another Eocene bat, Icaronycteris, were found in 1960.
The appearance and flight movement of bats 52.5 million years ago were different from those of bats today. Onychonycteris had claws on all five of its fingers, whereas modern bats have at most two claws appearing on two digits of each hand. It also had longer hind legs and shorter forearms, similar to climbing mammals that hang under branches such as sloths and gibbons. This palm-sized bat had broad, short wings suggesting that it could not fly as fast or as far as later bat species. Instead of flapping its wings continuously while flying, Onychonycteris likely alternated between flaps and glides while in the air. Such physical characteristics suggest that this bat did not fly as much as modern bats do, rather flying from tree to tree and spending most of its waking day climbing or hanging on the branches of trees.

theres not a clear path on the evolution of bats.









Evolution of the eye - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NOW WHAT???

To my knowledge there are at least 20,000 species of bat in the world. What you have posted here in the way of fossil remains of illeged bat skulls doesn't prove how and over what period of time they evolved from something other than a bat into a bat. I'm seriously beginning to believe your out of you're mind if you think posting something like this is to be taken seriously by a layman let alone a scientist as proof of evolution.

 

[painted wolf]

Actually science can't measure evolution so what are you rambling on about?

Actually it can... evolution is a change in allele (alleles are particular copies of genes) frequencies in a population over generations. It's measured all the time.

For example in the wild is the spread of milk tolerance genes in human populations.
A good expermental example is the long term E.coli experiment. Overview of the E. coli long-term evolution experiment

You can use the following mathematical formula to measure the changes.

wa:do

 

[outhouse]

To my knowledge there are at least 20,000 species of bat in the world. What you have posted here in the way of fossil remains of illeged bat skulls doesn't prove how and over what period of time they evolved from something other than a bat into a bat. I'm seriously beginning to believe your out of you're mind if you think posting something like this is to be taken seriously by a layman let alone a scientist as proof of evolution.

have you finished high school?

you cant even recognize human skulls????

 

[Dan4reason]

I don't need to prove a lie is a lie.
Liars claiming something to be true carry that burden to prove it.

In order to say that an idea does not have enough proof to be true, you do not need to provide evidence against the idea, you simply have to show that the idea does not have sufficient evidence.

However, if you are claiming that an idea IS false, or that it is deceptive, then I am sorry but you do need evidence.

Show me some fossil evidence that proves what human beings evolved from?

Seeing that the earlier we go, the more ape-like older hominids were, it is sufficient to say that they evolved from an ape-like creature. Lucy below is a chimpanzee-like creature that has a pelvis which indicates that she walked.

This shows that walking apes appeared in the fossil record. Later on we see fossils with larger and larger body to brain ratio as seen by homo erectus below.

Give me some "scientific" evidence that proves how the Human eye came into existence? Not how it works, no, how it we ended up with a couple ov em.

As shown in the image below the eye started out as light-sensing cells and progressed through steps to the instrument we know today through small manageable steps. We see many examples of earlier forms of the eye in living animals.

 

[LuisDantas]

Do you have some sort of problem with me from a staff persepective as far as my posts pertain to forum guidelines or it this just a personal foible you are demonstrating here? Becuase frankly I have precisley no idea what your on about or where your coming from.

My position as staff has no role in this. If it did, I would probably be far less personal and post in a more emphatic (usually red) font.

It is just that I hope forum users to try and make themselves understood. After all, what else would you be here for?

Good luck with your search for purpose here in this thread.

 

[LuisDantas]

No I dont mind at all, please see my previous post, this might give you a clearer idea what my understanding is and why I felt the pagon mythical history of the concept is more than valid in the argument.

Unfortunately you are wrong about that. The Theory of Evolution neither needs nor has reason to avoid any parallels with pagan beliefs - or for that matter, any other beliefs. It relies on facts and research instead.

The fact that people try to plead that it isn't is not being completly transparent because when we bring scientific and biologically "evidence" to the table, the theory of evolution doesn't even qualify as science at all.

So you say, yet facts disagree. Not only it is solid science, it also has wide technological application and is well researched to this day.

You may deny that, I suppose, but that amounts to denying that genetic research and biotechnology have been in use for decades already.

Or maybe you believe their foundations are non-scientific somehow? Maybe God wants ToE to be respected as truth and makes things happen as if it were? Or maybe biologists are in fact sorcerers in disguise?

Honestly, how do you explain the very existence of modern biological research and technology if the ToE is "not at all science"?

And in the complete and total absence of this "scientific" evidence the theory is laid bare as worthy only of metaphysical, phylisophical and or religious discussion, And as we are in a "Religious Forum" one mustn't be too proud to admit that they have been found it and been found wanting.

Most people of various degrees of familiarity with religion and science have no trouble in accepting the Theory of Evolution and in understanding that it in no way denies the possibility of God's existence.

Whatever you are talking about, it doesn't seem to be a problem to most anyone.

SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSh, dont ruin the "scientists fun" (they havent caught on that this is a religious forum yet). Come on!! You're flogging a dead horse guys. Symantic gymnastic and the requiremnet for those who dont BUY THE SCIENCE to jump through invisible hoops doesn't help either.

This is a Religious Education Forum. And it is very open to most everyone, regardless of level of interest in science. If you expect people aware of science to avoid it, you are bound to be very frustrated.

 

[Bereanz]

have you finished high school?

you cant even recognize human skulls????

I can recognise numbskullz lol.

 

[Bereanz]

In order to say that an idea does not have enough proof to be true, you do not need to provide evidence against the idea, you simply have to show that the idea does not have sufficient evidence.

However, if you are claiming that an idea IS false, or that it is deceptive, then I am sorry but you do need evidence.




Seeing that the earlier we go, the more ape-like older hominids were, it is sufficient to say that they evolved from an ape-like creature. Lucy below is a chimpanzee-like creature that has a pelvis which indicates that she walked.

This shows that walking apes appeared in the fossil record. Later on we see fossils with larger and larger body to brain ratio as seen by homo erectus below.

As shown in the image below the eye started out as light-sensing cells and progressed through steps to the instrument we know today through small manageable steps. We see many examples of earlier forms of the eye in living animals.

Walking apes appear today, those pictures of a few bones dont prove evolution.

 

[Bereanz]

Unfortunately you are wrong about that. The Theory of Evolution neither needs nor has reason to avoid any parallels with pagan beliefs - or for that matter, any other beliefs. It relies on facts and research instead.


.

Unfortunately for you thats precisely why it's a totally unreliable theory not to mention even more unbelievable when I look at the so called facts being presented here.

 

[outhouse]

I can recognise numbskullz lol.

You have been showed proof as much as anyone can, thing is theres 100X more proof. YOU just dont want to learn it.

be a man and step up to your own words

Pretty simple questions

yes they are and they were simple to answer

 

[Alceste]

Don't feed the troll.