Evidence For And Against Evolution

[Audie]

Well, thanks. I can look up what others think about how it (life) evolved. And I see what you think. But there are no photos, no written documents at the time long ago. There are fossils and there is geology. So far I have not seen any cogent explanation as to how a form such as a dinosaur came about. It seems to be speculation, and if you have anything but somebody else's opinion, please present it.

Lets pretend you are a landlord who rented to some college students.

By the end of the year, they've done thousands of dollars worth of damage.

Their defense? It all happened the day after they moved out.

Their attorney says to you, "Hey, Bub, like where are your photos
and documents that show them wrecking your house?"

The judge says, "Well, so far all you have is speculation, opinion.
I have seen no firm evidence, no cogent explanation as to why
you think these fine young men wrecked your house."

Now what do you do? (hint: this is not a trick question,
the answer is not too hard, but lets see if you can think
a little, or would have to buy your own arguments about
speculation and photos)

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm bringing up about the dating problems. Not necessarily when the dinosaurs went extinct. Now that you mention it, though, it's a pretty long time ago they went extinct.

Yes, 65,000,000 years is just a tad longer than the 50,000 year practical limit to C14 dating.

 

[ecco]

I couldn't understand why God would allow and in fact, in some instances, support awful actions. Such as the crusades. I was raised in a Judeo Christian atmosphere with that history of Europe and the United States. So my mind was focused by teachers and family on that line of history. So when I finally asked religious leaders about God, the last one I asked told me that faith is a gift of the spirit, and although I had reached a wall, I can only give you my experience. I didn't join his religion, but he helped me. I never got a chance to thank him but I am forever happy he answered me the way he did.

You couldn't understand why God would "allow and ... support awful actions". Because of your indoctrination, you couldn't even consider the possibility that there was no God and $hit Just Happens.

Instead, you go ask a bunch of people and finally, someone says something you can live with... "faith is a gift of the spirit". Wow.

 

[YoursTrue]

.

Came across this little gem a bit ago and thought I'd share.

View attachment 32918

​

Thoughts?

. ​

According to one Bible dictionary, the Hebrew in the section at Leviticus 11:13-19 speaks of collective flying creatures, fowl, insects. Hebrew: opf. Not just birds.

 

[YoursTrue]

You couldn't understand why God would "allow and ... support awful actions". Because of your indoctrination, you couldn't even consider the possibility that there was no God and $hit Just Happens.

Instead, you go ask a bunch of people and finally, someone says something you can live with... "faith is a gift of the spirit". Wow.

Aren't you actually speaking of evolution, which apparently you don't like the outcome of.

 

[YoursTrue]

You couldn't understand why God would "allow and ... support awful actions". Because of your indoctrination, you couldn't even consider the possibility that there was no God and $hit Just Happens.

Instead, you go ask a bunch of people and finally, someone says something you can live with... "faith is a gift of the spirit". Wow.

That's not how it happened in the re-telling you gave. But anyway -- before that, when I heard the instructor say that war is necessary sometimes to reduce the population, I didn't believe in God. I did not have faith in God. Perhaps, who knows? the instructor did, but at the time I did not know what the Bible said. Now I guess I would ask him more about his viewpoint, perhaps after class. Just wondered why some people were so cruel to one another, and you're right, I did not have the faith that I have now. So why do you think horrible things happen? Evolution?

 

[shunyadragon]

Aren't you actually speaking of evolution, which apparently you don't like the outcome of.

The outcome of evolution and creation as well is indifferent to human desires.

 

[YoursTrue]

Irreducible stupidity would suggest that the very first life
forms were complex animals. but luckily nobody here is that
dim.

OK, what were the very first life forms, if you know? (like for sure...)

 

[YoursTrue]

The outcome of evolution and creation as well is indifferent to human desires.

So you think evolution as well as creation is indifferent to human desires? I don't want to misunderstand you, so that's why I'm asking.

 

[YoursTrue]

A lot more fun too.

A stranger in the shopping center parking lot was getting in her car today and said to me that the world was in a real mess. So do I have that correct about your statement, that the world being in the mess from evolution is fun?

 

[YoursTrue]

Actually, in the years after the great extinction that wiped out nearly
all of the dinosaurs, "they" ( big dominant land creatures) did
make a stab at re-evolving.

We had "terror birds", (look it up) and there were crocodiles
(the only remaining archosaur reptiles) (look it up) that were
evolving into terrestrial rather than aquatic predators.


Reality is so much better than ignorance and confusion.
You really ought to study rather than speculate and post
about it.

So the big dominant land creatures you say made a stab at re-evolving. But I guess they just didn't make it all the way to the big dinosaurs that were before that extinction.

 

[shunyadragon]

OK, what were the very first life forms, if you know? (like for sure...)

Like for sure? This is not how science considers anything.

Nonetheless the first living life forms were single celled bacteria that could replicate.

 

[shunyadragon]

So you think evolution as well as creation is indifferent to human desires? I don't want to misunderstand you, so that's why I'm asking.

Yes. Though I consider Creation and the natural processes of abiogenesis and evolution to be one in harmony

 

[YoursTrue]

I wish people would realize that this is not an answer.

I didn't like it when the minister gave me that answer. I kept telling him I don't believe in God, so how can God give me faith. And he rather kindly repeated that no one can give me that faith but God. And I realized that it was then a circle. I didn't want to get rude with him, so I terminated the conversation. Well anyway, here I am. With faith.

 

[YoursTrue]

Like for sure? This is not how science considers anything.

Nonetheless the first living life forms were single celled bacteria that could replicate.

But statements of assertion are made as to what the "first living life forms were..." And you know this how, but it's not like for sure you say, because that's not how science considers anything for sure, according to your statement above.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes. Though I consider Creation and the natural processes of abiogenesis and evolution to be one in harmony

So you believe in evolution and creation? Can you explain more about that please.

 

[shunyadragon]

So you believe in evolution and creation? Can you explain more about that please.

Simply God Created by natural methods. God does not creation contradictions in God's Creation.

 

[shunyadragon]

But statements of assertion are made as to what the "first living life forms were..." And you know this how, but it's not like for sure you say, because that's not how science considers anything for sure, according to your statement above.

Again this is not how science works, and simply the stonewall 'arguing from ignorance' based on a religious agenda does work. The 'objective verifiable evidence' of the first known living organisms in the rock strata on earth are single celled organisms, colonies of bacteria in the same way they form today.

From: Earliest evidence of life on Earth 'found'

Earliest evidence of life on Earth 'found'
By Pallab GhoshScience correspondent, BBC News

• 1 March 2017

• Share this with Facebook
  
• Share this with Messenger
  
• Share this with Twitter
  
• Share this with Email
  
• Share

Image copyrightM DODD
Image captionAncient life: These clumps of iron and filaments show similarities to modern microbes
Scientists have discovered what they say could be fossils of some of the earliest living organisms on Earth.

They are represented by tiny filaments, knobs and tubes in Canadian rocks dated to be up to 4.28 billion years old.

That is a time not long after the planet's formation and hundreds of millions of years before what is currently accepted as evidence for the most ancient life yet found on Earth.

The researchers report their investigation in the journal Nature.

As with all such claims about ancient life, the study is contentious. But the team believes it can answer any doubts.

The scientists' putative microbes from Quebec are one-tenth the width of a human hair and contain significant quantities of haematite - a form of iron oxide or "rust".

Matthew Dodd, who analysed the structures at University College London, UK, claimed the discovery would shed new light on the origins of life.

"This discovery answers the biggest questions mankind has asked itself - which are: where do we come from and why we are here?

 

[YoursTrue]

Lets pretend you are a landlord who rented to some college students.

By the end of the year, they've done thousands of dollars worth of damage.

Their defense? It all happened the day after they moved out.

Their attorney says to you, "Hey, Bub, like where are your photos
and documents that show them wrecking your house?"

The judge says, "Well, so far all you have is speculation, opinion.
I have seen no firm evidence, no cogent explanation as to why
you think these fine young men wrecked your house."

Now what do you do? (hint: this is not a trick question,
the answer is not too hard, but lets see if you can think
a little, or would have to buy your own arguments about
speculation and photos)

There were convicts that were released recently because they were given freedom by a state governor. One reason given for a convicted child rapist who was released is that there was no real evidence, so it goes back and forth. That's an extreme example, of course. The evidence is such that there are fossils. And there is evidence to show that bacteria and other forms move biologically, such as inbreeding, and gene-changing from various stimuli or environmental factors. (Nothing to show that bacteria became more than bacteria, though.) But again -- fossils do not prove that dinosaurs became birds. What it shows (I can't say prove, because that's evidently not allowed) is that there were structures in fossil form that are said to be dinosaurs with feathers and so that means they evolved eventually to be birds.

 

[YoursTrue]

Again this is not how science works, and simply the stonewall 'arguing from ignorance' based on a religious agenda does work. The 'objective verifiable evidence' of the first known living organisms in the rock strata on earth are single celled organisms.

How do you know they were the first "known" living organisms? And how does your idea of creation fit into this picture? Want to say?