Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[Argentbear]

ok, thank you, and please forgive if I do not respond much any more to your lack-of-specifc-information posts. Thank you.

you haven't responded to what I actually post anywhere. you change the topic, you misdirect, you misrepresent what was said. but an actual response.......nope

 

[Astrophile]

Let's see if you can answer this: how probable is it that visitors from outer space dropped the essential elements to start the growth of life on earth?

I think it is extremely improbable, and that the idea is bordering on pseudoscience. As I have said before, the logical difficulty with all such hypotheses is that the extra-terrestrial visitors themselves must have evolved from simpler forms of life. Either this simpler life got started somehow on the visitors' planet, or a previous generation of alien visitors started life on 'our' visitors' planet.

The first hypothesis merely moves the problem of abiogenesis to a different planet without solving it; the second leads to the same problem of the origin of the previous generation of alien visitors. This leads to an infinite regress, like the old question of 'who made God?'.

 

[YoursTrue]

I think it is extremely improbable, and that the idea is bordering on pseudoscience. As I have said before, the logical difficulty with all such hypotheses is that the extra-terrestrial visitors themselves must have evolved from simpler forms of life. Either this simpler life got started somehow on the visitors' planet, or a previous generation of alien visitors started life on 'our' visitors' planet.

The first hypothesis merely moves the problem of abiogenesis to a different planet without solving it; the second leads to the same problem of the origin of the previous generation of alien visitors. This leads to an infinite regress, like the old question of 'who made God?'.

Let me put it this way to clarify what I believe. I believe in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. There is nothing that I figure in which a spaceship from "outerspace" would have come with substances to drop on the earth and initiate life here. But some do think it could have happened that way. I mean looking at it through the lens of others, why couldn't life on earth started with aliens from outerspace in a spaceship depositing stuff on the earth? (That's not what I believe though -- but looking at it so-called "logically," by science -- why not?)

 

[McBell]

Let me put it this way to clarify what I believe. I believe in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. There is nothing that I figure in which a spaceship from "outerspace" would have come with substances to drop on the earth and initiate life here. But some do think it could have happened that way. I mean looking at it through the lens of others, why couldn't life on earth started with aliens from outerspace in a spaceship depositing stuff on the earth? (That's not what I believe though -- but looking at it so-called "logically," by science -- why not?)

When are you going to reveal the names of these scientists?
Your claim, your homework.

 

[John53]

When are you going to reveal the names of these scientists?
Your claim, your homework.

 

[YoursTrue]

I think it is extremely improbable, and that the idea is bordering on pseudoscience. As I have said before, the logical difficulty with all such hypotheses is that the extra-terrestrial visitors themselves must have evolved from simpler forms of life. Either this simpler life got started somehow on the visitors' planet, or a previous generation of alien visitors started life on 'our' visitors' planet.

The first hypothesis merely moves the problem of abiogenesis to a different planet without solving it; the second leads to the same problem of the origin of the previous generation of alien visitors. This leads to an infinite regress, like the old question of 'who made God?'.

While I find it mentally staggering, God always was and is. And always will be. I know by logic that humans were not *always here.* I don't really need proof because my mind and logic tells me that humans, like dogs and cats, had a beginning to their existence. Oh yes, also the Bible tells me humans had a beginning, they (we) weren't "always here..." Please don't get me wrong -- I am not likening humans to dogs and cats, just to the logic of their existence. I also believe "I" wasn't here (around) before I was formed by physical means between two people in my mother's womb. I do not believe the stories others may tell about souls injecting into bodies, as if they may transfer from animal to human and so forth.
So we all have beliefs, some based on logic, some based on belief. I used to work for a publishing house that published stories by scientists whom I guess enjoyed writing science fiction as a hobby. That was when I was young and not into things like that, meaning I didn't care or question what a scientist might believe or imagine. But now it makes more sense that a scientist might desire to write sci-fi based on what is not known*.
Take care, nice talking with you a little bit.
*not that I would agree...now...

 

[YoursTrue]

For a miracle this important, why is it that only the Gospel of John recorded this event of Lazarus’ raising?

As the Gospel of John is the only one that narrated this miracle, and this gospel being composed later than the other 3 gospels, around post-90 CE, one would assume that whoever was the original author was, one would suspect this episode was the author’s own invention.

I certainly do.

It makes sense to me that not all that Jesus did was recorded. From what I understand and recognize, each gospel writer had a different focus and perspective. Also, it has been said that much more would have been needed to be written if everything Jesus did was recorded. Yes, the resurrection of Lazarus was important, and apparently a reason for the religious leaders to persecute Jesus even more. Matthew, Mark, and Luke focused on the account of Jesus from a different vantage point as may be with many biographical accounts of a famous person. These gospels were not hundreds of pages long, and were written by those with different backgrounds as well, thus their perspective and references took different aspects of Jesus' life and ministry.

 

[YoursTrue]

I think it is extremely improbable, and that the idea is bordering on pseudoscience. As I have said before, the logical difficulty with all such hypotheses is that the extra-terrestrial visitors themselves must have evolved from simpler forms of life. Either this simpler life got started somehow on the visitors' planet, or a previous generation of alien visitors started life on 'our' visitors' planet.

The first hypothesis merely moves the problem of abiogenesis to a different planet without solving it; the second leads to the same problem of the origin of the previous generation of alien visitors. This leads to an infinite regress, like the old question of 'who made God?'.

At least you're honest there about your view regarding the possibility that some scientists consider the idea that aliens possibly deposited the beginnings of life on this earth. But looking at it from a scientific viewpoint, not that I .agree with it, but why would it be extremely improbable then that it happened that way?
I used to pose the viewpoint that you say (who made God?) but no longer do because I accept and believe that God always was, always is, and always will be. We (you and I) are finite. I believe that even if others may not. They may say we go on forever and ever in different forms, shapes sizes and possibilities. I have come to accept as truth what the Bible says. When we die, the life force (spirit) we have goes back in a sense to the One who gave it, or enabled it. He can remember us and grant us life again according to His will.

 

[McBell]

At least you're honest there about your view regarding the possibility that some scientists consider the idea that aliens possibly deposited the beginnings of life on this earth.

When are you going to reveal the names of these scientists?
Your claim, your homework.

 

[cladking]

When are you going to reveal the names of these scientists?
Your claim, your homework.

Does it really matter who says what?!

Plenty of evidence suggests life might have never arisen on earth and reality isn't up to a vote by the average Joe or by Peers Themselves.

The human brain is an hypothesis generating machine. Put data in one end and possibilities spew out the other.

Somehow or other anyone who doesn't agree with modern day dogma is expected to prove every point even if the point is that the sky is blue.

You could find experts who believe life couldn't have originated elsewhere and come here by various means.

 

[gnostic]

It makes sense to me that not all that Jesus did was recorded. From what I understand and recognize, each gospel writer had a different focus and perspective. Also, it has been said that much more would have been needed to be written if everything Jesus did was recorded. Yes, the resurrection of Lazarus was important, and apparently a reason for the religious leaders to persecute Jesus even more. Matthew, Mark, and Luke focused on the account of Jesus from a different vantage point as may be with many biographical accounts of a famous person. These gospels were not hundreds of pages long, and were written by those with different backgrounds as well, thus their perspective and references took different aspects of Jesus' life and ministry.

None of the authors to the gospels - the actual authors - were ever named, nor known, as the oldest fragments revealed that these were composed anonymously.

Plus, none of the authors were contemporary to Jesus, and therefore not eyewitnesses. The names that are now attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke & John, were applied to those respective gospels, by the 2nd century church.

Not eyewitnessed, take for instances, the gospel of Matthew in regarding to the narrative, seem to focus around Joseph’s point of view (just as the gospel of Luke seems to centred around Mary). How could the author have known the birth of Jesus based on Joseph’s view, since Joseph have died long before Jesus started his ministry?

Plus, how would the author known about what Herod the Great or the 3 magi have said, especially as Herod died in 4 BCE, and it would be highly doubtful that the 3 magi were alive for the author to met them to tell their sides of the story?

I don’t doubt that Jesus was a real person, but the details of the gospel narratives about Joseph & Mary at Jesus’ birth seemed to be created by these 2 authors, hence they are unreliable sources.

 

[YoursTrue]

None of the authors to the gospels - the actual authors - were ever named, nor known, as the oldest fragments revealed that these were composed anonymously.

Plus, none of the authors were contemporary to Jesus, and therefore not eyewitnesses. The names that are now attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke & John, were applied to those respective gospels, by the 2nd century church.

Not eyewitnessed, take for instances, the gospel of Matthew in regarding to the narrative, seem to focus around Joseph’s point of view (just as the gospel of Luke seems to centred around Mary). How could the author have known the birth of Jesus based on Joseph’s view, since Joseph have died long before Jesus started his ministry?

Plus, how would the author known about what Herod the Great or the 3 magi have said, especially as Herod died in 4 BCE, and it would be highly doubtful that the 3 magi were alive for the author to met them to tell their sides of the story?

I don’t doubt that Jesus was a real person, but the details of the gospel narratives about Joseph & Mary at Jesus’ birth seemed to be created by these 2 authors, hence they are unreliable sources.

It doesn't matter insofar as my understanding of the gospel accounts go. God has ensured them and kept them "alive" for those who care to take in what they are saying. Take care.

 

[YoursTrue]

None of the authors to the gospels - the actual authors - were ever named, nor known, as the oldest fragments revealed that these were composed anonymously.

Plus, none of the authors were contemporary to Jesus, and therefore not eyewitnesses. The names that are now attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke & John, were applied to those respective gospels, by the 2nd century church.

Not eyewitnessed, take for instances, the gospel of Matthew in regarding to the narrative, seem to focus around Joseph’s point of view (just as the gospel of Luke seems to centred around Mary). How could the author have known the birth of Jesus based on Joseph’s view, since Joseph have died long before Jesus started his ministry?

Plus, how would the author known about what Herod the Great or the 3 magi have said, especially as Herod died in 4 BCE, and it would be highly doubtful that the 3 magi were alive for the author to met them to tell their sides of the story?

I don’t doubt that Jesus was a real person, but the details of the gospel narratives about Joseph & Mary at Jesus’ birth seemed to be created by these 2 authors, hence they are unreliable sources.

By the way, it is clearly a misinterpretation by many about the dates of Herod, and which and when it was referred to. I can go into that another time perhaps, not saying you'll believe it though. I've been there, done that with others. I'll work on it again. TBA -- (to be announced -- )

 

[YoursTrue]

None of the authors to the gospels - the actual authors - were ever named, nor known, as the oldest fragments revealed that these were composed anonymously.

Plus, none of the authors were contemporary to Jesus, and therefore not eyewitnesses. The names that are now attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke & John, were applied to those respective gospels, by the 2nd century church.

Not eyewitnessed, take for instances, the gospel of Matthew in regarding to the narrative, seem to focus around Joseph’s point of view (just as the gospel of Luke seems to centred around Mary). How could the author have known the birth of Jesus based on Joseph’s view, since Joseph have died long before Jesus started his ministry?

Plus, how would the author known about what Herod the Great or the 3 magi have said, especially as Herod died in 4 BCE, and it would be highly doubtful that the 3 magi were alive for the author to met them to tell their sides of the story?

I don’t doubt that Jesus was a real person, but the details of the gospel narratives about Joseph & Mary at Jesus’ birth seemed to be created by these 2 authors, hence they are unreliable sources.

If you want me to respond to your comments, you would need to be more specific. What you are saying about Joseph dying doesn't make sense in relation to Jesus and the gospel account. So please try harder to be clearer, thanks. It's good to be as peaceable as possible, otherwise I may not respond if harsh or covered antagonism and/or snotty replies exist. I won't say that's you -- yet. So it's best to keep it as civil as possible which I notice you do. Let's try to keep it that way. I believe there is a God who cares and He will take care of everything necessary.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I'm not a betting kind and I don't like to call people stupid, but if you think about it, "chances are" that the process as touted by biologists regarding evolution are very v-e-r-y and v-e-r-y unlikely to have happened as touted by many (not all) scientists. So you take care and do the best you can.

You just repeated your claim and didn't answer my question.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Hi McBell. Nothing can be PROVEN scientifically isn't that true? And then of course the opposite might be true. So I encourage you to figure out the mathematical possibility for yourself, thanks.

I have already done that.

I determined the probability of evolution occurring in systems that self-replicate with variation and which are in a struggle to survive and in competition with peers over limited resources, to be a probability of 1 in 1.

Back in the days, when we developed an optimization module based on genetic algorithms, a customer paid us 100s of thousands of euro's for it. Because it works.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why are you choosing to misrepresent evolution in this manner?

Because the only way to argue against evolution, is to lie about it or to insist on willful ignorance.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

By the way, what is the evidence you speak of? How do you know that it is evidence of the common ancestor of tetrapods which you seem to believe evolved out of a specific form of fish and so forth. Have scientists found which specific form of fish it was?

Tiktaalik. Found by prediction.
And genetics, off course.

You may turn on denial mode now.

 

[YoursTrue]

Tiktaalik. Found by prediction.
And genetics, off course.

You may turn on denial mode now.

If you would like anyone to believe that Tiktaalik represents a stage of fish evolving to -- humans -- you'd have to do better than what you say above. Those are just words. Without backup. You'd have to do better imo than saying, Look! there is a real-time item of evidence that PROVES fish evolved to humans. It may seem rational to say and believe it shows the stepping stone between water dwelling fish and land roving animals, but it is a fossil of an organism that had four appendages. You may say it is proof (or demonstrates) of the theory, but that does not mean it is. There is nothing to show from where it came and where the organism went (eventually evolved) to. You want to believe it all happened by "natural occurrences"? That's obviously your choice.

 

[cladking]

I determined the probability of evolution occurring in systems that self-replicate with variation and which are in a struggle to survive and in competition with peers over limited resources, to be a probability of 1 in 1.

I'm sure you rounded off here. What were the actual results, something like .976504407423388 in 1?

It must be nice to not only know everything but have actual numbers to many decimal places to prove it.