Evolution is a fact?!

[SkepticThinker]

Dubious nonsense like claiming chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, are forms of evolution closely related to humans because -- their genes are similar in many respects and because they kind of look alike? Like chimpanzees with less hair on their faces? Yes?

Dubious nonsense like the fact that you can be shown to be genetically related to your great-grandfather even though he was a man and you are a woman, and even though you only kind of look alike and he's got more hair on his face than you do?

Yes?

I wish you would realize how silly you sound.

 

[Bear Wild]

What does the foregoing have to do with disbelief in evolution of the Darwinian kind?

What do you mean the Darwinian kind? What evolution do you believe in?

 

[ecco]

I have no reason to believe that humans came about as a result of evolving from some, as of yet, Unknown Common Ancestor.

Common with what? In any case it's pretty much not unknown.

Before I believed in God and the Bible, I believed as you do.

No. You never believed as I do. For one thing you don't know what I believe. For another you have absolutely no understanding of evolution. I do. Are you saying you forgot everything about evolution when you turned to Jesus?

The Bible didn't make sense to me in the past.

The Bible does and has made sense to me. It is fiction stories made up by men from many different ages.

But I sure know more now than I did before I studied the Bible and the history.

If you really understood the history of the Bible, you would know that the authors of the gospels were not first-hand eyewitnesses. This is not just my atheistic view. It is fact based on the research of people who have spent their lives investigating and studying. Many of the researchers who have come to that conclusion are Christians.

 

[ecco]

So, you kinda believe some science but not all science. You believe the science that you can explain with your god but you disregard the science that you cannot explain with your god.

That's a very biased way to look at anything.

What does the foregoing have to do with disbelief in evolution of the Darwinian kind?

Everything. You are so biased against evolution by your religious beliefs that you do not even take the time to obtain some basic knowledge of the science.

Your comment "evolution of the Darwinian kind" attests to this.

 

[ecco]

I believe there are earth shiftings insofar as plate techtonic and landslides and eruptions, among other things. Tsunamis, floods. I also believe God has power over these things as He desires.

Since you believe "God has power over these things as He desires" there must be a reason you chose to ignore...

I guess he desired to kill 230,000 in the 2004 Indonesian tsunami.
I guess he desired to kill 20,000 in the Japanese tsunami.
I guess he allowed the Covid virus to kill 560,000 Americans.

 

[YoursTrue]

How about no actual evidence?

We were discussing evolution and the start of supposed evolution. Since there IS no evidence of the "start" of life on the earth except that life is here -- the only thing you have is dna from artifacts, which proves that these fragments have dna. That's what it proves. While I like and respect you, if you can't agree to that, there is nothing really more in this area of beginnings and evidence to talk about. Have a good evening. It's kind of like Isaac Newton's quote above -- he knows gravity by happenstance.

 

[YoursTrue]

Everything. You are so biased against evolution by your religious beliefs that you do not even take the time to obtain some basic knowledge of the science.

Your comment "evolution of the Darwinian kind" attests to this.

But that's what it is. Some I've spoken to here actually say that humans evolve when they mate and produce offspring of different or similar colored skin.

 

[YoursTrue]

Dubious nonsense like the fact that you can be shown to be genetically related to your great-grandfather even though he was a man and you are a woman, and even though you only kind of look alike and he's got more hair on his face than you do?

Yes?

I wish you would realize how silly you sound.

Comparing Chimp, Bonobo and Human DNA | AMNH

 

[YoursTrue]

Since you believe "God has power over these things as He desires" there must be a reason you chose to ignore...

How do you feel about the following?
Why One-Third Of Biologists Now Question Darwinism (thefederalist.com)
(Plus thefederalist calls it "Darwinism." Darwinisn? Yes, Darwinism.

 

[rational experiences]

Human situation is a self contradiction in all topics.

Evolution. Don't you know Moses nuclear science event said DNA genetics left. The ape human mutation review. Where it occurred.

Thesis if God created life then humans bio energy is the same as stone. A theory secretly stated. I will experiment on life to claim have found God in human existence and react your spirit.

God he says evolved the monkey human back into a real human.

When we already were a higher human natural. Before Moses event. Mutation caused by science.

That history human natural first owns no God thesis. No evolution thesis as they both infer the same.

That a planet is bio energy to human presence from a planet as science wants to resource it.

Energy he now says is bio form everywhere.

Father memory heavens says in feedback speaking voices versus brother scientist satanist. Brother he knew about huge spatial reactions as our atmosphere opened into UFO spatial seen attack.

Historic first science all life destroyed thesis.
The moment we all died recorded.

The actual human aware space memory. As consciousness only existing conscious inside a non space gas heavens.

As we cannot ever be a dinosaur. Science says a dinosaur became a new animal then humans after the animal. To impose I have a connection bring what they want. A connection to the past when God never existed as God.

Stone firm. Stone as seal. Stone as form. When earth as stone released non stone as UFO radiation.

What they are thinking actually directly about. Not even rationally involving bio existence.

How can a dinosaur have such a small new animal life?

Virtually science tries to convince humans once a human was a dinosaur.

Advised no dinosaur time shifted it's body into a human life.

All ideas imposed by a human thinker. About all dead bodies. Not even a living thesis.

How dangerous that thinker is.

Life as a pre owned spirit self came back from the eternal. Forced to live a new experience again as atmosphere had cooled. Not science proven. Science owns no status in what humans experienced.

Seeing dinosaurs were cold blooded. We are not cold blooded all life presence is in a heated life form immediate as a reactive bio chemistry.

No answer about bio life for science.

So science studies reactive heavens. Yet one reaction the whole earths atmosphere supports. The reaction.

The theist thinks abstract just one reaction out of the atmosphere. Reaction ended in mass heavens as a Cooled outcome.

Imagine abstraction is no completion for the natural heavens. Owning reactive state. When a theist wants the heavens inside his machine as a reaction.

The heavens gains a space hole instead as an incompleted heavenly reaction. As observed. Reaction is the point moment science wants. Ignoring natural mass.

Father told me himself that the scientist mind is no longer owned by humans.

AI subliminal machine data status controls his beliefs

An evolutionist says I argue for life survival. Proving evolution owned life presence.

No you don't actually.

Medical biology says life exists only by human sex. First origin human deceased. Why we all die as baby to adults.

No thesis in biology about humans ever existed. No human life. No theorising either. Humans deceased in the history of looking back theorising.

Biology says human life is after a living ape so God theists can't argue about pretending life began as a human in a burning gas image.

An ape consciousness cannot theory evolution. So conscious self is all human presence ignored. There is no thesis before you. Reality what rational medical human advice states.

Why medical science appraised the conscious human expressions to determine self destructive behaviours.

The very reason self human contradiction argument exists.

The biologist not seeking resources is correct.

Evolution theory is based on gaining identifications for new resource pertaining to ancient human science atmospheric experiences.

Which is not evolution. Gases the same in past as today. Only water conditions changed.

Observed today in ice melt.

Ice historic is ice. Reactive body water is just ice. Which can reform itself in seasonal massive cold shifts.

Water by mind notice goes into a higher body gained reaction.

Mind notified conscious first.

Known. Advised. Used falsely in theism idealistic about water.

Why arguing God as evolution is the same science self.

Status my challenge is the ufologist is wrong.

Medical biology human owned in self presence correct.

 

[YoursTrue]

Common with what? In any case it's pretty much not unknown.



No. You never believed as I do. For one thing you don't know what I believe. For another you have absolutely no understanding of evolution. I do. Are you saying you forgot everything about evolution when you turned to Jesus?



The Bible does and has made sense to me. It is fiction stories made up by men from many different ages.




If you really understood the history of the Bible, you would know that the authors of the gospels were not first-hand eyewitnesses. This is not just my atheistic view. It is fact based on the research of people who have spent their lives investigating and studying. Many of the researchers who have come to that conclusion are Christians.

You ask a lot of questions, which is good. But I'm centering now about the question of evolution.
OK, let's look at the following: -))
Quoting from history.com - How Did Humans Evolve? - HISTORY
"There’s a lot anthropologists still don’t know about how different groups of humans interacted and mated with each other over this long stretch of prehistory. Thanks to new archaeological and genealogical research, they’re starting to fill in some of the blanks."
(They are??)

 

[Valjean]

We were discussing evolution and the start of supposed evolution. Since there IS no evidence of the "start" of life on the earth except that life is here -- the only thing you have is dna from artifacts, which proves that these fragments have dna. That's what it proves. While I like and respect you, if you can't agree to that, there is nothing really more in this area of beginnings and evidence to talk about. Have a good evening. It's kind of like Isaac Newton's quote above -- he knows gravity by happenstance.

Do you agree that at one time there was no life on Earth? If so, how was it formed; by magic, or by some natural process?

I'm not sure why you bring DNA up. What does that have to do with abiogenesis?

Yes, scientists don't believe in magic. It has never been reliably observed. On the other hand, almost everything once attributed to magic or divine intervention has been found to have a natural, observable, non-magical mechanism. Abiogenesis is just the latest of these miraculous, inexplicable phenmena.

We have observed the component structures and chemicals of life forming naturally. We observe them combining, interacting and replicating. We have not yet observed the formation of a fully functional organism, such as could establish a living, self-sustaining lineage.
Be patient, it's a developing field of study.

 

[YoursTrue]

Since you believe "God has power over these things as He desires" there must be a reason you chose to ignore...

"as He desires..." He can do whatever he wants, and does not take action if that is what He wants.

 

[YoursTrue]

Do you agree that at one time there was no life on Earth? If so, how was it formed; by magic, or by some natural process?

I'm not sure why you bring DNA up. What does that have to do with abiogenesis?

Yes, scientists don't believe in magic. It has never been reliably observed. On the other hand, almost everything once attributed to magic or divine intervention has been found to have a natural, observable, non-magical mechanism. Abiogenesis is just the latest of these miraculous, inexplicable phenmena.

We have observed the component structures and chemicals of life forming naturally. We observe them combining, interacting and replicating. We have not yet observed the formation of a fully functional organism, such as could establish a living, self-sustaining lineage.
Be patient, it's a developing field of study.

I see that the Bible says the earth was devoid, formless, dark, before God started making life on the earth. How did Moses know that? Was he a genius and maybe figured it out? Why wouldn't Moses think life always was on the earth?

 

[YoursTrue]

Do you agree that at one time there was no life on Earth? If so, how was it formed; by magic, or by some natural process?

I'm not sure why you bring DNA up. What does that have to do with abiogenesis?

Yes, scientists don't believe in magic. It has never been reliably observed. On the other hand, almost everything once attributed to magic or divine intervention has been found to have a natural, observable, non-magical mechanism. Abiogenesis is just the latest of these miraculous, inexplicable phenmena.

We have observed the component structures and chemicals of life forming naturally. We observe them combining, interacting and replicating. We have not yet observed the formation of a fully functional organism, such as could establish a living, self-sustaining lineage.
Be patient, it's a developing field of study.

Actually, abiogenesis has a lot to do with DNA. Without abiogenesis, there would be no DNA, isn't that right?

 

[Bear Wild]

How do you feel about the following?
Why One-Third Of Biologists Now Question Darwinism (thefederalist.com)
(Plus thefederalist calls it "Darwinism." Darwinisn? Yes, Darwinism.

Here is your problem. The federalist is well known to publish pseudoscience and in general is anti-science. It has taken on the new radical conservative American ideology in the same vain as Qanon. Anything they write about science and unparticular about evolution, which has long been targeted by the ultra conservative right, is baseless and worse conspiratorial. The basic concept is to say things without any truth or backing with evidence but make such outrageous statements that appeal to the emotional fears of the current conservative base who is afraid of change.

One must understand Darwin from Darwinism. They are not the same term. The new information on evolution has grown well past what Darwin first proposed since Darwin did not have the information about genetics we have today. Since then epigenetics and other new concepts have developed.

Biologists accept evolution and will always remain thankful for proposing one of the greatest scientific theories ever. Name one who says Darwin was not one of the greatest and influential biologists in the history of Science. Ah but you will not. Like all theories the theory of evolution has grown and changed as knowledge progresses. Get rid of the term Darwinism for the theory of evolution has grown far beyond its amazing origin.

 

[Bear Wild]

I see that the Bible says the earth was devoid, formless, dark, before God started making life on the earth. How did Moses know that? Was he a genius and maybe figured it out? Why wouldn't Moses think life always was on the earth?

Because Moses is a mythological figure created to cause followers to conform.

 

[Bear Wild]

Actually, abiogenesis has a lot to do with DNA. Without abiogenesis, there would be no DNA, isn't that right?

Abiogenesis is about the increasing complexity of organic compounds ultimately to form the required complexity for life to begin. DNA results from that process just as RNA, histones, enzymes, and other complex organic structures.

 

[Bear Wild]

We were discussing evolution and the start of supposed evolution. Since there IS no evidence of the "start" of life on the earth except that life is here -- the only thing you have is dna from artifacts, which proves that these fragments have dna. That's what it proves. While I like and respect you, if you can't agree to that, there is nothing really more in this area of beginnings and evidence to talk about. Have a good evening. It's kind of like Isaac Newton's quote above -- he knows gravity by happenstance.

Abiogenesis and the theory of evolution are separate studies with an obvious connection. Life started long before the complex DNA structures of today thus there is a separate approach in abiogenesis which tests how complex organic structures could have developed. Evolution theory looks back using what we know of the current biological systems and with what fossil record we have found so far. It also looks forward in how life is changing. So you need to separate the two concepts in your mind.

 

[Valjean]

Actually, abiogenesis has a lot to do with DNA. Without abiogenesis, there would be no DNA, isn't that right?

And no serotonin, stem cells, chloroplasts, or suspension bridges, either, but again, how does this speak to abiogenesis?
Abiogenesis happened without DNA. Life can exist perfectly well without DNA.

I see that the Bible says the earth was devoid, formless, dark, before God started making life on the earth. How did Moses know that? Was he a genius and maybe figured it out? Why wouldn't Moses think life always was on the earth?

There are creation myths from cultures all over the world. It seems to be a recurring human theme.

Formless? Dark? When was that?

How do you know Moses knew this? For that matter, how do you know there was such a person as the Bible depicts? The Egyptian exodus story connected with him is certainly mythical.

You claim Moses' belief that earth began and was once "devoid" was a remarkable and prescient insight. It is not. It's a common theme. It's not evidence for Christian, Jewish or Muslim theology.
I doubt if he or anyone at the time had any concept of stellar or planetary formation, a solar system, or geologic history. Now that sort of insight would be remarkable.

You're making connections where there are none. It's apophenic.