Evolution My ToE

[Hockeycowboy]

That is all you have earned unless you can produce the science to support your argument without abusing science.



No it is not in terms of evolution. Shortening of DNA with againg has nothing to do with evolution.

Huh? You are comparing apples to oranges.

I wasn’t discussing evolution. I was responding to @dad ‘s post about the longevity of ancient man and their DNA.

Just a suggestion.....maybe you shouldn’t reply to conversations you’re not following?

 

[dad]

Until evidence for a thing is produced, its foolish to believe in it.
You're in no position to call the Flying Spaghetti Monster imaginary.

Sane people can look into when and how a story was made up. I am not aware of demons being involved? If you claim the inventor was possessed just say it.

 

[dad]

What evidence do you have that there were different natural laws in the past? Aren't you making up realities to fit your mythology?

What evidence do you have that there were the same natural laws in the past? Aren't you making up realities to fit your religion/mythology/so called science?

So you believe in all mythological gods, spirits and beasts, on the evidence that someone once wrote about them? That's quite a big bestiary!

No. But I do think that some demons are involved. In the Greek and Roman and Egyptian gods for example.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

No. But I do think that some demons are involved. In the Greek and Roman and Egyptian gods for example.

I agree.

You know, even the Bible records events that reveal there are invisible forces in opposition to God’s....the account in Exodus 7, where Moses confronts Pharaoh with his staff turning into a snake, and then Pharaoh’s magic-practicing priests doing the same.

 

[Valjean]

I am saying your belief based dating is wrong.

But it's evidence based. The beliefs followed the evidence. They didn't exist prior to the discovery of evidence.

Why would not the smaller things die first? After all, some things could leave fossil remains. But since man could not, probably, we would not expect man to be found along with the little things that first died that COULD leave remains.

Why could man not leave fossils? Why did he suddenly start leaving fossils only a few million years ago?

The reasonable conclusion is that only small things left billion year old fossils because only small things existed at the time. If large, complex organisms existed why would they not leave fossils? It's a lot easier for large things, with hard parts, to fossilize than "small things" -- and a lot easier to find.
Why do we see a gradual increase in complexity reflected in the fossil record over time, if there were large, complex organisms from the beginning?

Exactly what the evidence shows! Your religion just had no clue how to properly read the record!

What religion would that be? Reason?
It's you who are trying to interpret the evidence to fit a pre-existing model.

Because they, as well as lions, and most birds, and man, and wolves etc etc could not leave fossil remains in that former different natured world!

Now you're making things up again to fit your axiomatic presumptions. You're jamming a square peg into a round hole. "Different natured world?" What evidence do you have for such an extraordinary claim, other than you need it to fit your theology?

Hard to say, as I said we don't know. The original created kinds adapted and evolved a lot over time. So how would we know if the horseshoe crab was the original, or an adaptation?

We'd date the fossils. They show a gradual increase in complex organisms.
Where did you come up with this created/uncreated dichotomy? There is no evidence for it. Did you just make it up to fit your model?

Both the future world and the pre flood world in the bile seem to be different in nature. Usually nature is meant to refer to the forces and laws that exist. (strong nuclear force etc etc etc)

And there is no evidence that these were any different a billion years ago, nor is there any evidence of a worldwide flood.

 

[Valjean]

No. Science holds the 'johhny come lately' cluelss guesses and hunches and assumptions and beliefs position. A position which attacks and opposes the default position that existed before it peeked it's wicked little head out from hell.

Where do you come up with all this nonsense?

 

[Valjean]

Science uses beliefs to soil evidences and then makes positive claims.

But the beliefs follow the evidence. They are believed only after credible evidence.
You're projecting your religious methodology onto science's method.

 

[Valjean]

What evidence do you have that there were the same natural laws in the past? Aren't you making up realities to fit your religion/mythology/so called science?

"No change" is the default position. The burden is on the one claiming change.

You know, you're really, really bad at basic logic.
What if I asked what proof you had that there wasn't a unicorn in your closet, or faeries in your sock drawer?

 

[Valjean]

Sane people can look into when and how a story was made up. I am not aware of demons being involved? If you claim the inventor was possessed just say it.

I'm saying people make things up all the time and always have. Just look at the fiction section of any bookstore.
Age doesn't make folklore any more credible, it just makes it harder to determine who, how, and when it was made up.

...and did you not get that the FSM reference was an analogy?

 

[dad]

I agree.

You know, even the Bible records events that reveal there are invisible forces in opposition to God’s....the account in Exodus 7, where Moses confronts Pharaoh with his staff turning into a snake, and then Pharaoh’s magic-practicing priests doing the same.

True.

 

[dad]

But it's evidence based. The beliefs followed the evidence. They didn't exist prior to the discovery of evidence.

Not true. There is no evidence that nature was the same so what they followed was the belief that it was and splattered that on to the evidences!

Why could man not leave fossils? Why did he suddenly start leaving fossils only a few million years ago?

Because the different nature of the time likely did not allow it. Science does not know the details (or even so much as that htere could have been any different nature)

The reasonable conclusion is that only small things left billion year old fossils because only small things existed at the time.

No. there is no reason to believe that and every reason to know it is false. Looking at the fossil record as one of whatever creatures could leave remains did so when they died is a better option. The ONLY question in the matter is asking what nature existed at the time and science doesn't know!

If large, complex organisms existed why would they not leave fossils? It's a lot easier for large things, with hard parts, to fossilize than "small things" -- and a lot easier to find.

We do not know and do not need to now, nor should be expected to know how some different set of forces and laws acted and reacted long ago. One could guess. For example there is something called a snotworm apparently today in the oceans that specialize in disposing of the remains of certain whales. Perhaps in the different nature of the past there existed many many such 'specialists'!? Who knows?

Why do we see a gradual increase in complexity reflected in the fossil record over time, if there were large, complex organisms from the beginning?

You consider bigger things more complex? I consider hummingbirds as complex and amazing as crows. I consider small people as complex as big ones. I consider a butterfly to be as complex as a chipmunk.

One likely factor is that man lived about a thousand years, and probably other animals correspondingly long lives! So by the time all those little critters became fossils, maybe Adam was still walking around! Lions also. Etc etc etc etc.

The rapid deposition of layers probably would make things seem like real long ages were involved to you! After all science uses today as the basis.

What religion would that be? Reason?

TOE

It's you who are trying to interpret the evidence to fit a pre-existing model.

I am interpreting the evidence with the added feature of the actual written record of how thing were! You are dunking all evidences in your beliefs.

. "Different natured world?" What evidence do you have for such an extraordinary claim, other than you need it to fit your theology?

What proof can you offer from science nature was the same? Why would I engage in denial of the record God gave for no reason?

We'd date the fossils. They show a gradual increase in complex organisms.

Way above your paygrade. You would invoke belief based so called dates all based on the belief nature was the same. Can't you learn a new trick?

Where did you come up with this created/uncreated dichotomy?

Genesis says what was created on what day. We also know a lot of adapting evolving went on after that. Example: All the original kinds were on the ark with Noah. Then they got off and so we can deduce that if there are say, thirty species of tigers, that probably only one tiger kind pair was on the ark. That means a lot of changes happened since!

 

[dad]

"No change" is the default position. The burden is on the one claiming change.

The different past was a matter of record long before science existed! It started to claim the existing ideas were wrong. So we need to look at the basis for the claims against the default!

You know, you're really, really bad at basic logic.
What if I asked what proof you had that there wasn't a unicorn in your closet, or faeries in your sock drawer?

If you asked for science support I would laugh. If you claimed science proof they were there I would laugh harder. If you claimed science proved there was none, again it would be comically daft.

 

[dad]

I'm saying people make things up all the time and always have. Just look at the fiction section of any bookstore.
Age doesn't make folklore any more credible, it just makes it harder to determine who, how, and when it was made up.

...and did you not get that the FSM reference was an analogy?

Science makes stuff up about the past and origins all the time and puts it in books. The fact something is in a book is of no merit. The long proven history of Scripture is tested and tried and observed and proven over and over. The reason it has power is not because it is in a book.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not true. There is no evidence that nature was the same so what they followed was the belief that it was and splattered that on to the evidences!

False. I posted such evidence. You would not discuss it politely. Your loss.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Science makes stuff up about the past and origins all the time and puts it in books. The fact something is in a book is of no merit. The long proven history of Scripture is tested and tried and observed and proven over and over. The reason it has power is not because it is in a book.

No, dad, that is your sin. You believe a book of made up stuff. Scientists are not allowed to do that. I can show how if they do that sort of thing they get in trouble. You just broke the Ninth Commandment by bearing false witness against your neighbors again.

 

[Valjean]

Dad, you're spouting nonsense. You're inventing facts to fit a mythology. You don't understand what evidence is or how to use and evaluate it. You don't understand how to reason logically. You don't understand science, the scientific method, what science believes or why. You keep making the same claims and conclusions after you've been corrected a dozen times. You seem unable to learn or apply facts to conclusions. You're hopeless.

 

[shunyadragon]

Huh? You are comparing apples to oranges.

I wasn’t discussing evolution. I was responding to @dad ‘s post about the longevity of ancient man and their DNA.

Just a suggestion.....maybe you shouldn’t reply to conversations you’re not following?

The topic of the thread is evolution. We are not discussing hang nails or aging. What does this have to do with evolution?

As a side note, based on paleontology evidence ancient humans had shorter lives for many obvious reasons.

 

[gnostic]

Dad, you're spouting nonsense. You're inventing facts to fit a mythology. You don't understand what evidence is or how to use and evaluate it. You don't understand how to reason logically. You don't understand science, the scientific method, what science believes or why. You keep making the same claims and conclusions after you've been corrected a dozen times. You seem unable to learn or apply facts to conclusions. You're hopeless.

True, he is incapable of learning, incapable of distinguishing facts from fiction of his religion and his religious belief, and incapable of learning from his mistakes.

And instead of recognizing he was in error, he make up new claim to cover his mistake that is even more woo than his original erroneous claim.

But worse than all this, he used deception and misinformation.

 

[gnostic]

As a side note, based on paleontology evidence ancient humans had shorter lives for many obvious reasons.

That’s what I have been trying to tell dad in the other thread.

He keep making things up, like time we’re different before Noah’s Flood, but the evidence are stacked against the myths of people living over 2 centuries or more, like Adam at 930 or Noah at 950.

It is rare for people living in Neolithic period and early Bronze Age the age of 45 - 50.

 

[shunyadragon]

That’s what I have been trying to tell dad in the other thread.

He keep making things up, like time we’re different before Noah’s Flood, but the evidence are stacked against the myths of people living over 2 centuries or more, like Adam at 930 or Noah at 950.

It is rare for people living in Neolithic period and early Bronze Age the age of 45 - 50.

Actually the fossils of our recent human ancestors have viable DNA that can be recovered like the Neanderthals and recent Home Sapiens that can be compared to modern humans, and the change in DNA is minimal. Also the life expectancy on average was 40 or less. Though we have fossil evidence that they cared for the wounded, disabled and elderly.