Evolution My ToE

[metis]

Do studies prove genetic changes in the process of changing from dinosaurs to birds? If so, please provide references.

Maybe look up "dinosaurs" at Wikipedia and then scroll down and see what it says about this, plus the links they provide.

The question is really what does the BIBLE, not evolution, say about the future of mankind, and a better question is, since you claim to be a Christian, do you believe it?

Now why would you think I am insulting you just because I ask you what part of the Bible do you believe? And do you believe what it says about the future? You read the Bible. Do you believe it?

Your continued insults are appallingly anti the Gospel. I have repeatedly stated that I use the Bible daily and believe in it, but you simply cannot accept that, such as with the above. You are the kind of person that Paul warned the Church about, namely that we should be wary of "those who cause division".

You are basically taking the position that anyone who disagrees with your approach probably is not a true Christian, and that is highly unethical of you. If your church teaches you that doing this is somehow moral under Jesus' teachings, maybe look for a church that actually teaches the Gospel, and then maybe consider actually living out of what it says. I did.

Goodbye.

 

[dad]

Except we have. The science dates the evolution of birds to around 150 million years ago.
Which means that for the vast majority of earth's history, there were no birds, since life is at least 3.8 billion years old.

Your dream dates are 100% belief based. The actual dates are nothing remotely similar.
You claim that there were no birds is based on the fact that birds are not in the fossil record. I have already pointed out that a feature of the former different nature was likely that most creatures as well a man could not leave such remains at all. Therefore the fossils are only the very few creatures that could leave remains and in NO way representative of life on earth as a whole. Period.

You may disagree with those dates if your fundamentalist beliefs compell you to do so off course, but you can't say that there is no science that says this.

Your so-called dates are nothing BUT fundamental beliefs being projected to ratios!

You disagree with the science, but the science still says it.

That shows that much of what is called science is actually bad religion.

That has nothing to do with evolution or where creatures come from or anything. It's simply a definition that can account for all animals.

Nothing more than an insolent statement of faith that says 'There is no God and no creation'.

I don't see how it's an error. It's a perfectly reasonable definition. It's not defined like that for "the purpose" of including humans. It's defined like that for the purpose of including all animals, because that's what a definition is for: the describe the total set of things within it's scope.

Physical characteristics are not what defines or makes a man.

It just so happens that you can't define "animal" (or "mammal", or "primate", or ...) so that it includes all animals (and mammals and primates) while it excludes humans.

The definition would be more than just physical.

Putting stuff into well defined logical and rational categories has nothing to do with respect and everything with making sense of things and organizing information.

To classify God as a liar may be organized, but it is organized rebellion.

Perhaps the problem exists only in your head. Try not to be so "offended" when you are classified as a mammal just because you are part of a species that has hair and mammary glands...

Hey, if a centipede had hair and that made you think you were kinfolk, that is not my problem!

When discussing a topic of biology, I think it's only fair to use biological definitions instead of colloquial uses of terms.

Evolution is more than biology. It is a belief set that fits everything into itself and prefers terms that portray that illusion.

Yep. I'm gonna call it a deliberate attempt at being intellectually dishonest. It's what the evidence support and I'm gonna go with the evidence.

Me too, I'll call the grouping system of false science that.

So now you go a step further... from ill-conceiled intellectual dishonesty, you are now crossing over to plain lying through your teeth and bearing false witness.

I thought your religion was supposed to make you more moral?
It doesn't seem to be working.

There is nothing dishonest about associating evos with the belief that man came from animals. See that shoe, it fits you.

When you have a lump and an oncologist tells you it's cancer, but your kid thinks it's just a pimple... which one will you be going with? Will you believe the kid over the oncologist? Somehow, I doubt it.

If they told my kid that his pimple was a result of being descended from a shared ancestor with a frog, I would tell the child that the dr was actually a religious nut job.

Which is irrelevant to the point that most weren't huge, as you incorrectly claimed, got corrected on and then started to spew off in this "well that's how people think of them" nonsense - in a rather pathetic attempt to avoid at all costs having to admit that you were wrong about something.

Most that are in books and museums seem to be of a fair size and that is what makes them interesting in large measure. If a museum was filled with chickens and stuffed ravens, I am not sure that it would be as much of a draw.

Birds didn't evolve into dino's. Dino's evolved into birds. Bird are subspecies of dino's, not the other way round.

I have herard there is some difference of opinion in some science circles on that. In any case, the evidence is not there to support your claim. Try posting it so we can all learn that real fast.

And dino's already had feathers before birds existed.

Birds were here when that first dino got feathers.

Because the non-bird dino ancestors of birds, already had them.

If true, it would be irrelevant anyhow. No use asking you to support that one since you have enough on your fable plate to support now.

So really, your "rebuttal" to millions of years worth of scientific study (the sum of all the years of study during the carreers of all individual scientists working in those fields) of which the knowledge culminated in 200 years worth of thousands upon thousands of scientific publications, each detailing lines of evidence, amounts to............................ "nu-hu! clearly god did it!!!"

No. It amounts to 'the silly religionists pretending there were sciency do not really know what they are talking about and couldn't prove their way out of a paper bag'!

Come on over to the winning side. The water is great here.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Your dream dates are 100% belief based. The actual dates are nothing remotely similar.

As I said, it matters not if you believe it or not because it's not the point. The point is your claims concerning what science does and does not say. You can disagree with the science, but why lie about it?
You know very well that the science dates it as such. You disagree with it - fine, but why is that a reason to lie about what it actually says?

Do you feel like you need to lie for your "argument" to be valid?

You claim that there were no birds is based on the fact that birds are not in the fossil record

...before a specific point. There are many birds in the fossil record. All younger then around 150 million years. That's when they show up. We do find older bird like creatures in the fossil record, though. They are more commonly known as "dinosaurs".

I have already pointed out that a feature of the former different nature was likely that most creatures as well a man could not leave such remains at all. Therefore the fossils are only the very few creatures that could leave remains and in NO way representative of life on earth as a whole. Period.

Your bare crazy last thursdayism style assertions, are of no consequence.

Nothing more than an insolent statement of faith that says 'There is no God and no creation'.

Strange, since it says absolutely nothing about any gods or creations whatsoever.
It is, off course, nonsense what you say.

The fact is that animals are what they are NO MATTER if they evolved or were created according to your mythological lore. The definition would still apply. It would also still describe ALL animals, and include humans in the process.

Physical characteristics are not what defines or makes a man.

Except that it does. It is how you can tell a human corpse from a non-human corpse.
Or human DNA from non-human DNA, for that matter.

To classify God as a liar may be organized, but it is organized rebellion.

I haven't even mentioned god. Let alone classify him/her/it as anything at all.
Please try to focus.

Hey, if a centipede had hair and that made you think you were kinfolk, that is not my problem!

Centipedes don't have hair.
And I have no emotional issues with my biological reality. You're the only one here with such a biological identity crisis.

Evolution is more than biology

No, it isn't - not when it concerns the Theory of Evoluion.
It has practical application beyond biology. But the model itself is only concerned with explaining biological data. The origins and development of bio-diversity, to be exact.

If you wish to argue that it's about something else, or also about something else, then you're just engaging in a strawman.

It is a belief set that fits everything into itself and prefers terms that portray that illusion.

That makes no sense to me. No idea what you are trying to communicate.

Me too, I'll call the grouping system of false science that.

The difference is that you're just claiming it and won't/can't support your claim, while I properly explained why I went with my conclusion.

There is nothing dishonest about associating evos with the belief that man came from animals. See that shoe, it fits you.

That's not what you said. You said "frog".
Humans obviously descent from animals, since humans are animals.
They also descended from mammals as humans are mammals.

If they told my kid that his pimple was a result of being descended from a shared ancestor with a frog, I would tell the child that the dr was actually a religious nut job.

I would to, but probably for different reasons.
In any case, good job dodging the question. Another point saved where you don't need to admit to your obvious mistakes and/or dishonest lies.

I have herard there is some difference of opinion in some science circles on that. In any case, the evidence is not there to support your claim. Try posting it so we can all learn that real fast.

No, sorry.
First, because dino-bird evolution is extremely well document with famous fossils such as from archeopteryx etc. So if you really were interested, you don't need my help. A simple read-through of a wiki article on bird evolution will already summarize a lot. There's a wealth of information out there and a mountain of knowledge so vast that it really is super easy to find by those who wish to learn.

Secondly, because of point 1 also. You are not interested in learning. I could spend my time grabbing a few examples and giving your a somewhat detailed description of that data and explain how it matches and supports the evolutionary narrative (and ONLY the evolutionary narrative), but it would just be a gigantic waste of both time as well as the webspace the post will end up in. Because you aren't actually interested. In response to that, you'll just make stupid statements about frogs again, throw up bare last thursday nonsense about your "different state past" absurdity and like a true pidgeon playing chess, you'll proceed flying away while claiming victory.

So... no...
I already feel stupid enough wasting time even only replying to you.

FYI: it's because i'm bored, not because I think your posts are actually worth replying to.

Birds were here when that first dino got feathers.

Demonstrably false.

If true, it would be irrelevant anyhow.

It would be to you, yes. All evidence is irrelevant to you. You don't care about evidence, because you hold dogmatic beliefs on faith instead. Evidence, is the enemy of your belief system.

No use asking you to support that one since you have enough on your fable plate to support now.

My "fable plate" is supported by 200 years worth of rigorous research by thousands, if not millions, of scientists working in their field of expertise.

Your fable plate is the result of "dreams" and "visions" and "revelations" of ancient iron age goat herders who didn't even realise the earth orbits the sun.

Come on over to the winning side. The water is great here.

I'm sure the kool-aid tastes wonderfull. Ignorance is bliss, after all.

But I prefer a rational approach to learning about the world, thanks.

 

[dad]

As I said, it matters not if you believe it or not because it's not the point.

Yeah yeah, we get it, only your beliefs matter.

The point is your claims concerning what science does and does not say. You can disagree with the science, but why lie about it?

Why claim that falsely??
There can be no arguing that science does not use present physics as the way to model the past. Try to debate seriously.

You know very well that the science dates it as such. You disagree with it - fine, but why is that a reason to lie about what it actually says?

Science dates nothing at all ever beyond what was done in this nature. They cannot date beyond when this nature existed. That should be obvious.

...before a specific point. There are many birds in the fossil record. All younger then around 150 million years. That's when they show up. We do find older bird like creatures in the fossil record, though. They are more commonly known as "dinosaurs".

What is in the old fossil record does not matter whatsoever. Most creatures and man will not be there. Only those few creatures that could leave remains in that different former nature would be there. If there are some bird-like creatures that could fossilize so what??
There was also birds and man and lions and ravens and etc etc etc etc etc etc at this same time.

The fact is that animals are what they are NO MATTER if they evolved or were created according to your mythological lore. The definition would still apply. It would also still describe ALL animals, and include humans in the process.

No it would not. Man is not in the same grouping as beasts. Period.

Except that it does. It is how you can tell a human corpse from a non-human corpse.

When you can tell where the human went that used to live in that corpse you might have a start!

Or human DNA from non-human DNA, for that matter.

A different nature in the past would mean differences in how genetics work.

Centipedes don't have hair.

Right, that may be why there may have been an IF in there!

And I have no emotional issues with my biological reality. You're the only one here with such a biological identity crisis.

Yeah yeah, we know. Evos have no problem whatsoever believing they share kin with flatworms!

No, it isn't - not when it concerns the Theory of Evoluion.
It has practical application beyond biology. But the model itself is only concerned with explaining biological data. The origins and development of bio-diversity, to be exact.

Don't misuse the word evolution. The TOE claims life came from evolving. It is not about watching bacteria evolve in this nature that matters in the creation/evolution debate.

That makes no sense to me. No idea what you are trying to communicate.

Try this one. Evolution pushing so-called scientists prefer to use terms that agree with the theory.

That's not what you said. You said "frog".
Humans obviously descent from animals, since humans are animals.
They also descended from mammals as humans are mammals.

?? You think your ancestor was a frog??! Seriously?

First, because dino-bird evolution is extremely well document with famous fossils such as from archeopteryx etc.

So if the bird-like little dino had descended from a bird rather than the other way around you would know this...how? You see, mere similarities between some dinos and birds does NOT mean birds came from dinos!!

So... no...
I already feel stupid enough wasting time even only replying to you.

We can read your posts, feelings don't matter!

Demonstrably false.

We await the demo then! Or is this more fertilizer on the pile?

Evidence, is the enemy of your belief system.

It ALL agrees with me, get a grip man.

My "fable plate" is supported by 200 years worth of rigorous research by thousands, if not millions, of scientists working in their field of expertise.

Quite a well-constructed fable then. Nothing to brag about!

Your fable plate is the result of "dreams" and "visions" and "revelations" of ancient iron age goat herders who didn't even realise the earth orbits the sun.

Scripture is not fables. Not that you would know the difference.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yeah yeah, we get it, only your beliefs matter.

Nope, that's not the point either. Try to focus.
You claimed that the science doesn't say birds are dino's and descendent from dino's.
The science however clearly does say that. You disagree with it, sure. But it does say that, and you know it. So to claim otherwise, is just lying.

Why claim that falsely??

It's not a false claim. It's what you factually claimed. That science doesn't show birds to be dino's. It does. You disagree with the science, we get it. But why the need to lie about it?

There can be no arguing that science does not use present physics as the way to model the past. Try to debate seriously.

Yes, science doesn't use your ill-defined fantasy models that only exist in your imagination, that is correct.
This would be part of the you disagreeing with the science point.
It doesn't change the fact that science consider birds to be dino's and descendends thereof, nore does it change anything about the scientifically determined dates of fossils and whatnot. You disagreeing with it doesn't mean you get to lie about it.

Science dates nothing at all ever beyond what was done in this nature.

Science has its dating mechanisms and explanations of how they work.
You don't believe they work because of your a priori dogmatic predispositions - sure, whatever.
That doesn't change anything about the fact that science details dating mechanisms.

They cannot date beyond when this nature existed. That should be obvious.

Only in your fantasy last thursdayism style beliefs.
Science deals with observable reality and doesn't care about your bare fantastical assertions.
As it should be.

What is in the old fossil record does not matter whatsoever.

To you...
You've made it clear already that you don't care about the actual evidence. We get it.

Most creatures and man will not be there.

because they didn't exist yet.

Only those few creatures that could leave remains in that different former nature would be there. If there are some bird-like creatures that could fossilize so what??

Indeed: "so what?". Your default response to any and all data. "so what?". You have your beliefs and that settles it in your head.

Good for you. Well... not really, but you know...
Anyhow, none of this is of any consequence to the actual science.

There was also birds and man and lions and ravens and etc etc etc etc etc etc at this same time.
No it would not. Man is not in the same grouping as beasts. Period.

I gave you the biological definition of "animal". It applies to all animals. Humans included.
Your response: "na-ha!"

Any time you wish to share your own definition of "animal" that includes all animals yet excludes humans.... I gather you won't, because you don't have such a defintion. You don't care either - as you have allready stated plenty of times. Who cares about evidence, data and rationality when you can just make stuff up and believe that instead, ey?

When you can tell where the human went that used to live in that corpse you might have a start!

Nope, don't need any aditional information at all.
It's trivial to disintguish a human corpse from a non-human corpse because physical traits is all that is required to tell a human from a non-human. In fact, forget the corpses. Even only a DNA sample is enough to tell a human from a non-human.

So, your claim that physical characteristics alone "is not enough", is just demonstrably wrong. How surprising ey?

A different nature in the past would mean differences in how genetics work.

Yep. Last thursday, it all changed.

Right, that may be why there may have been an IF in there!

It's an ignorant and stupid thing to say. Ironically, it fits the evolution narrative. Evolution predicts that any organism with hair, will be a mammal.

Find me a non-mammal with hair. You'ld disprove the evolutionary family tree if you find one.
You won't off course, because evolution is smack down accurate and its predictions check out.

Yeah yeah, we know. Evos have no problem whatsoever believing they share kin with flatworms!

"kin" is a bit much consider we are seperate by hundreds of millions of years of evolution, but sure.
Indeed, I have no problems at all with the fact (yes, fact) that we share an ancestor with all living things going back almost 4 billion years.

Don't misuse the word evolution.

Says the guy who is hellbend on misusing the word evolution when talking about a specific context in which that word has specific meaning.

The TOE claims life came from evolving

No. It claims bio diversity came about through an evolutionary process. It doesn't say anything about where life came from. You know that too, off course, because COUNTLESS of people surely have informed you on that. It's just one more thing that you like to strawmen. Aka, lie about.

It is not about watching bacteria evolve in this nature that matters in the creation/evolution debate.

If anything is clear by now, is that you are very ignorant (seemingly willingly ignorant...) about what evolution really is all about..............

Try this one. Evolution pushing so-called scientists prefer to use terms that agree with the theory.

Errr... evolution is a theory. A model of explanation that addresses a specific phenomenon in the world. It is developed by scientists. The scientists come up with the jargon to communicate this theory.

What you say makes zero sense. Evolution doesn't impose jargon on scientists. It's exactly the other way round.

?? You think your ancestor was a frog??! Seriously?

I said "animals".
You think all animals are frogs?
Are you really this dense or are you being deliberatly dishonest?

So if the bird-like little dino had descended from a bird rather than the other way around you would know this...how?

A bird-like dino is not a bird. It is bird-like.
They are transitionals.
Birds produce birds.
Birds don't produce "bird like" non-birds.

The ancestors of non-birds, were non-birds.

Even your bible says that things bring forth after their kind. It's one of the very few things it is half-right about. "Half"-right, because they way it goes on to "define" the word "kind" is pretty nonsensical.

You see, mere similarities between some dinos and birds does NOT mean birds came from dinos!!

I agree.
But this is again a classic creationist mistake.
It's not about mere similarities. It is about the pattern of similarities.

Evolution results in a specific pattern of similarities in bio-divers species. It has to. It's inevitable.
And the pattern of similarities we observe in ALL living things, match that predicted pattern exactly.

Off course, if you aren't interested in learning what evolution really is all about and if you keep responding that you "don't care" to any and all data and evidence... then it's quite likely that you'll miss how the pattern of similarities actually is overwhelming evidence of biological evolution.

We await the demo then! Or is this more fertilizer on the pile?

No, it's pretty well evidenced in the fossil record. But I won't bother showing or explaining it to you, because you'll just dismiss it with a handwave again, or some absurd retort about a magical past where physics didn't work and magic reigned or you'll just say again that "you don't care". So why would I bother?

Be honest now - you really don't care AT ALL about what I would be showing you, would you? In fact, I'm as sure as I can be that you were already planning on being dismissive of it while you were requesting me to demonstrate it, weren't you?

Be honest - there is simply NO WAY that you'll give the evidence and data an honest look and evaluation or consideration. No way whatsoever.

You'll just throw up some last thursdayism style nonsense, dismiss it all with a handwave and start preaching your nonsense again. Don't even try to pretend as if I'm not bang on the money on that one.

It ALL agrees with me, get a grip man.

Except when it doesn't which is when you either just dimiss it with magical bs like you did with the dating, or you just lie about the science like you did earlier with birds not being found in in layers older then 150 million years, or you'll just say that you don't care again.

So please....

Quite a well-constructed fable then. Nothing to brag about!
Scripture is not fables. Not that you would know the difference.

See?

Hand waving dismissal of the science followed by obviously delusional mythical dogma.

This is why there is no point in engaging you.


So I'm done here.

You can have the last word, crap all over the board and then fly away claiming victory.

 

[dad]

Nope, that's not the point either. Try to focus.
You claimed that the science doesn't say birds are dino's and descendent from dino's.

No. I pointed out that there are different opinions in science. The main one is that birds came from dinos, but that is about as significant as any belief that has no value.

It's not a false claim. It's what you factually claimed. That science doesn't show birds to be dino's. It does.

Misreading the fossil record shows well, that you misread the fossil record. Nothing to do with birds coming from dinos. That bird-like dino may have been a dino adapting back to being a bird! Or it may have just been a created kind that went extinct. Or...etc etc etc. In no way does it have to mean all birds came from dinos!

Science has its dating mechanisms and explanations of how they work.

Beliefs do not matter even if the religious think an explanation based on beliefs is some great thing.

You don't believe they work because of your a priori dogmatic predispositions - sure, whatever.

False. I have no need to believe anything at all that they say. They either KNOW or not. What they believe amounts to less than foolishness.
I do have the advantage of not being totally in the dark about the past, and having to make stuff up like they do, because I can read the actual record of the past!

That doesn't change anything about the fact that science details dating mechanisms.

Name any detail that is not based on the belief in a same nature in the past!?

To you...
You've made it clear already that you don't care about the actual evidence. We get it.

You made it clear that not only do you not care about having ZERO evidence for your same state past beliefs, but that you are incapable of looking at eviswences indeopendent of your beliefs!!!!

I gave you the biological definition of "animal". It applies to all animals. Humans included.
Your response: "na-ha!"

God defined man as having been made in His image and eternal! Those who invent a classification system adding man to beasts are no more than religious nut balls.

Nope, don't need any aditional information at all.
It's trivial to disintguish a human corpse from a non-human corpse because physical traits is all that is required to tell a human from a non-human. In fact, forget the corpses. Even only a DNA sample is enough to tell a human from a non-human.

The physical is only part of the picture. Think beyond your box.

So, your claim that physical characteristics alone "is not enough", is just demonstrably wrong. How surprising ey?

It may be enough for cults who embrace ignorace with a whole heart. Not for sane people though.

It's an ignorant and stupid thing to say. Ironically, it fits the evolution narrative. Evolution predicts that any organism with hair, will be a mammal.

They classify things that way so that anything they find would be called that.

Find me a non-mammal with hair. You'ld disprove the evolutionary family tree if you find one.
You won't off course, because evolution is smack down accurate and its predictions check out.

Creatures with hair are called mammals by science so how could we find a mammal with no hair!?

"kin" is a bit much consider we are seperate by hundreds of millions of years of evolution, but sure.

You admit it then, and toss in imaginary faith based time to try and make it dignified. Whatever.

Indeed, I have no problems at all with the fact (yes, fact) that we share an ancestor with all living things going back almost 4 billion years.

We get that. You have a religion.

Says the guy who is hellbend on misusing the word evolution when talking about a specific context in which that word has specific meaning.

I use the word in the context of the pile of fables called TOE.

No. It claims bio diversity came about through an evolutionary process. It doesn't say anything about where life came from.

Canard. I don't care about so called first lifeforms. I am mainly talking about man and most animals alive today. You claim it all came about by 'evolution'! Evolutiondunnit.
Strawman.

Errr... evolution is a theory. A model of explanation that addresses a specific phenomenon in the world. It is developed by scientists. The scientists come up with the jargon to communicate this theory.

Many religions use their own words. ZZZzzz

What you say makes zero sense. Evolution doesn't impose jargon on scientists. It's exactly the other way round.

Evolutionary tree, common ancestor, etc etc. The words are used to fit the fable.

A bird-like dino is not a bird. It is bird-like.

Wiki says this...try and be honest what they are referred to often.

"Archaeopteryx (/ˌɑːrkiːˈɒptərɪks/, transl. 'old wing'; sometimes referred to by its German name Urvogel (transl. 'original bird' or 'first bird')), is a genus of bird-like dinosaurs"

They are transitionals.

From birds to dinos or dinos to birds? Support your claim and how you think you know!?

Birds produce birds.
Birds don't produce "bird like" non-birds.

Irrelevant when looking at the evolving and adapting in the former nature. If creatures evolved very fast, they may have adapted/evolved while alive! No one says your beliefs are the best or only ones.

The ancestors of non-birds, were non-birds.

If they were created they had no ancestor. If birds adapted to be dinos, then dinos were not their ancestors..etc. You are guessing and preaching.

Even your bible says that things bring forth after their kind. It's one of the very few things it is half-right about. "Half"-right, because they way it goes on to "define" the word "kind" is pretty nonsensical.

Totally irrelevant. If birds did rapidly adapt to dino like creatures, then it has nothing to do with bringing forth at all!!! Gotcha.

It is about the pattern of similarities.

Don't blame us if your beliefs are interpreting patterns!

Evolution results in a specific pattern of similarities in bio-divers species. It has to. It's inevitable.

Creation coupled with rapid adaptation does too. Get in line with your beliefs!

And the pattern of similarities we observe in ALL living things, match that predicted pattern exactly.

Sick. You cannot stop projecting beliefs onto patterns!

No, it's pretty well evidenced in the fossil record.

Baloney. The few creatures that could leave fossil remains in the early record do not evidence that all creatures descended from them at all! That is offensive to intelligence.

Be honest - there is simply NO WAY that you'll give the evidence and data an honest look and evaluation or consideration. No way whatsoever.

Been there done that and that is why I no longer put up with diabolical fraud.

You'll just throw up some last thursdayism style nonsense, dismiss it all with a handwave and start preaching your nonsense again. Don't even try to pretend as if I'm not bang on the money on that one.

You just wave your hand (and all history and the bible away) and believe that nothing changed since the beginning for NO reason.

Run defeated one. There is no real option if you cling to your unsupportable beliefs.

 

[YoursTrue]

Right. And now we can continue on to the evidence and ignore the side issues.

So...evolution, like gravity, is basically mindless. And because it's mindless, it doesn't think what 'form' the next step will take. Perhaps you can say how someone thinks that evolution and the Bible are compatible. But...carry on. Back to conjectures changing based on evidence, it is said.

 

[YoursTrue]

So all you do have is conjecture and games. Your last "argument" is literally a semantic one.

I'd say "hilarious" but I am gonna say "sad" instead.

You still haven't addressed the references, which you yourself requested, and you present an argument that is based on word usage...

Two can play that game: the same argument also says "only a few scientists still dispute the dinosaurian origin of birds." If that's your strongest argument against their origin, then this is a joke.

And i"m still not here to play games.

So which reference shows transforming as it was happening of genes for evidence? At least in a trial there could be eyewitnesses or video of an event. So which reference goes beyond figuring it must be this or that? Please point to one in that article. No games. Real.

 

[YoursTrue]

So all you do have is conjecture and games. Your last "argument" is literally a semantic one.

I'd say "hilarious" but I am gonna say "sad" instead.

You still haven't addressed the references, which you yourself requested, and you present an argument that is based on word usage...

Two can play that game: the same argument also says "only a few scientists still dispute the dinosaurian origin of birds." If that's your strongest argument against their origin, then this is a joke.

And i"m still not here to play games.

Is it semantics when a scientist says this "suggests"? It's almost like a scientist says that the reduction of symptoms suggests people can resume regular activity. And hope they don't give or get the virus.

 

[YoursTrue]

Maybe look up "dinosaurs" at Wikipedia and then scroll down and see what it says about this, plus the links they provide.



Your continued insults are appallingly anti the Gospel. I have repeatedly stated that I use the Bible daily and believe in it, but you simply cannot accept that, such as with the above. You are the kind of person that Paul warned the Church about, namely that we should be wary of "those who cause division".

You are basically taking the position that anyone who disagrees with your approach probably is not a true Christian, and that is highly unethical of you. If your church teaches you that doing this is somehow moral under Jesus' teachings, maybe look for a church that actually teaches the Gospel, and then maybe consider actually living out of what it says. I did.

Goodbye.

Yet you strongly indicate, suggest, and imply that Jesus wasn't telling the actual reality when he spoke of God the CREATOR. You strongly suggest, indicate and imply that Jesus must not have meant it or was deluded when he said he was the truth, the way, and the life. And my reaction to such teaching is...yikes.

 

[YoursTrue]

Maybe look up "dinosaurs" at Wikipedia and then scroll down and see what it says about this, plus the links they provide.

Why don't you? And let us all know exactly which reference shows that without doubt genetically and dinosaurs and birds came from and evolved from the same family tree branch, ok?

 

[YoursTrue]

Right. And now we can continue on to the evidence and ignore the side issues.

Getting on to evidence as it is called, is there any evidence showing beyond doubt that a virus transforms or evolves to anything but a virus?
Taken from Khan Academy, "Not only do viruses evolve, but they also tend to evolve faster than their hosts, such as humans."
OK, so they evolve "faster than their hosts." Hmmm...evolve to ?? other viruses? and humans evolve to ?? other humans?? Evolution of viruses (article) | Viruses | Khan Academy

 

[YoursTrue]

So all you do have is conjecture and games. Your last "argument" is literally a semantic one.

I'd say "hilarious" but I am gonna say "sad" instead.

You still haven't addressed the references, which you yourself requested, and you present an argument that is based on word usage...

Two can play that game: the same argument also says "only a few scientists still dispute the dinosaurian origin of birds." If that's your strongest argument against their origin, then this is a joke.

And i"m still not here to play games.

Here's something I was wondering about now because of the COVID. I believe scientists are right when they say viruses evolve. But to what do they evolve? Another virus? So it seems. But here's another interesting quote (I won't go into the other quote now about what most scientists conclude about dinosaurs & birds -- ):
"Not only do viruses evolve, but they also tend to evolve faster than their hosts, such as humans."
Evolution of viruses (article) | Viruses | Khan Academy
So to what do viruses evolve? Other viruses? How about humans, to what do they evolve? Apparently so far -- given genetic characteristics, other humans.
Have a safe day.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So I'm done here.

You can have the last word, crap all over the board and then fly away claiming victory.

​

Run defeated one.

I'm such a prophet.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So which reference shows transforming as it was happening of genes for evidence? At least in a trial there could be eyewitnesses or video of an event.

In a trial, a single piece of objective evidence will instantly overrule 100 "eyewitnesses" who contradict said objective evidence.

"eyewitness" is pretty much worthless - especially in science, as those are just claims themselves which are also in need of supporting evidence.

So which reference goes beyond figuring it must be this or that?

Phylogenetics and how it matches the fossil record. And comparative anatomy. And geographic distribution of species.

All independent lines of evidence, all converging on the same answer.

Please point to one in that article. No games. Real.

A single article is not going to give you the full picture of how strongly evolution is supported.
Your demands are an excellent example of focussing on the pixel while losing track of the big picture.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Is it semantics when a scientist says this "suggests"?

It is intellectual honesty.

It's almost like a scientist says that the reduction of symptoms suggests people can resume regular activity. And hope they don't give or get the virus.

Or it's almost like you are grasping at straws to make an irrelevant point.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yet you strongly indicate, suggest, and imply that Jesus wasn't telling the actual reality when he spoke of God the CREATOR. You strongly suggest, indicate and imply that Jesus must not have meant it or was deluded when he said he was the truth, the way, and the life. And my reaction to such teaching is...yikes.

It's a religious belief.
It's just faith based claims.

Such claims are a dime a dozen and YOU yourself reject 99.99% of them for precisely that reason.
The 0.01% you accept are just the claims of the religion you happen to follow.

And you accept them because of dogmatic belief of the religion. Not because you actually have evidence to support it, which you don't. Since by definition, these are religious (and thus faith based) claims, with no evidence.

If there were evidence, it wouldn't be a faith or belief, but just common knowledge instead. And it wouldn't be exclusive to christianity either.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why don't you? And let us all know exactly which reference shows that without doubt genetically and dinosaurs and birds came from and evolved from the same family tree branch, ok?

Birds ARE dinosaurs. Both genetically as well as anatomically.

You can't define what a dinosaur is in such a way that it includes all dinosaurs yet excludes birds. You just can't do it.

Just like you can't define what a mammal is in such a way that it includes all mammals yet excludes humans.

Because humans ARE mammals just like birds ARE dinosaurs.

I don't see the point in denying this.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Getting on to evidence as it is called, is there any evidence showing beyond doubt that a virus transforms or evolves to anything but a virus?
Taken from Khan Academy, "Not only do viruses evolve, but they also tend to evolve faster than their hosts, such as humans."
OK, so they evolve "faster than their hosts." Hmmm...evolve to ?? other viruses? and humans evolve to ?? other humans?? Evolution of viruses (article) | Viruses | Khan Academy

Why would you expect a virus to evolve in a non-virus?
Do you think that that is what evolution theory says?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Here's something I was wondering about now because of the COVID. I believe scientists are right when they say viruses evolve. But to what do they evolve? Another virus? So it seems. But here's another interesting quote (I won't go into the other quote now about what most scientists conclude about dinosaurs & birds -- ):
"Not only do viruses evolve, but they also tend to evolve faster than their hosts, such as humans."
Evolution of viruses (article) | Viruses | Khan Academy
So to what do viruses evolve? Other viruses? How about humans, to what do they evolve? Apparently so far -- given genetic characteristics, other humans.
Have a safe day.

Yes, virusses evolve into other virusses. What's the issue?

Dinosaurs evolve into other dinosaurs. Subspecies of dinosaurs, to be exact. Like birds.

Eukaryotes evolve into other euykaryotes and/or subspecies thereof.
Tetrapods evolve into other tetrapods and/or subspecies thereof.
Mammals evolve into other mammals and/or subspecies thereof.
Primates evolve into other primates and/or subspecies thereof.
Humans evolve into other humans and/or subspecies thereof

Either that, or the branch goes extinct.

You might want to learn what evolution theory REALLY says.
Because the thing you seem to be arguing against, looks to be nothing but a strawman.