Evolution My ToE

[Subduction Zone]

I think you are dreaming, or just deluded.
Nothing you said there is true.
Maybe I will explain when I have time,

Nope, you are describing yourself. You really should not have run away when I offered to discuss the concept of evidence with you.

 

[nPeace]

I was discussing your example you gave, the one you did not understand. What page are you on?

The one you don't understand.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Apparently there are a lot of "ignorant" scientists out there. How sad.

Practically no scientists make the claim that there is no evidence for evolution. Even most lying creationist "scientists" know better than that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The one you don't understand.

Again, remember the Ninth Commandment. Making claims about others that you cannot support all but guarantees that you broke it.

 

[Bear Wild]

I think you are dreaming, or just deluded.
Nothing you said there is true.
Maybe I will explain when I have time,

The response of someone who has nothing to support themselves

Apparently there are a lot of "ignorant" scientists out there. How sad.

No there the only ignorance is from someone who clearly does not know what real evidence is or does not want to understand the evidence that is present. Your desperate attempt only showed how the scientific process progresses and actually explains things not through your magical thinking.

 

[Bear Wild]

The one you don't understand.

I am sorry it was you that presented the example that supported the scientific process not I. I appreciate it. Do you have better evidence? Apparently not.

 

[nPeace]

What never ceases to amaze and amuse me about this thread, and others like it, is that it is only upon this one theory in science that many religious people focus. Nobody cares about plate tectonics, or about Newton's theories of light or motion, or about gravity -- not even Relativity or Quantum Mechanics.

Only Evolution gets them hot and bothered. Only Evolution forces them to close their eyes to evidence, to pretend not to see what is clearly before them.

What's the reason for this? The Bible. The Bible has nothing to say on plate tectonics, light, motion, gravity, or pretty much anything else in the realm of science. (How could it? Little was known when the Bible was written.) But the Bible does indeed have something to say on how animals and people came to be -- and for some unfathomable reason, this must be believed. In spite of any and all evidence that has been or will be produced.

Now this is a surprising thing, really, since so many of those who claim religious belief also claim that their religion is all about being "spiritual." If that were truly the case, then the lack of knowledge of the world by those who wrote scriptures wouldn't be important at all. Treating it as allegory would be quite good enough.

So I'm guessing that in fact, there's more need for a literal acceptance of scripture than one might have thought, and less spirituality after all.

Really?
Preternatural vs Dark Matter
The Good in Bad Science
And that's only a few, out of a lot.
Sadly, the LUCA is only taught as science because it has political props.

 

[nPeace]

I think it all boils down to the following: where would you put your money? Modern science and technology? Or what a bunch of bronze age goat herders wrote?

You seem to prefer the latter. Is that so?

Ciao

- viole

See this thread, and particularly, this post.

 

[Valjean]

Bible. Science can't cover it either way.
Not when the question IS whether life was created or evolved. You are skirting the issue, and blowing smoke.
Science cannot evidence that life came to exist by adaption. That means any claim to the contrary is unsupported as well as in denial of tested and proven Scripture.

Has anyone ever seen anything poofed into existence? What mechanism would explain such a thing? It violates the laws of physics. It's a claim of magic.
Abiogenesis posits no magic. It's mechanisms are intuitive and observable. Evolution, as well, posits no magic, it's mechanisms are observed all the time. In fact, the whole process has been observed, and there are mountains of consilient evidence supporting the theory, yet you still claim that magic is a more reasonable "explanation?!"

Tested and proven scripture? How was scripture tested? How was it proven? What features were proven?

Your empty posts are not reliable evidence, God's word is fine, thanks.

But which "God's Word?" -- the Quran? the Tao? the Gita? Is there any evidence that the Bible is more authoritative than any other religious book? Is there any reason to believe the Bible's authoritative at all? It seems to me that it's considered sacred 'cause children are taught that it's sacred, and see those around them treating it as sacred. It's an argumentum ad populum.
Critical analysis is hard; it's uncomfortable, it threatens the social fabric of shared beliefs and values, it threatens one's faith-based ego integrity.
Do you avoid it because it makes you uncomfortable; because it threatens you?

 

[Valjean]

Thinking it was one is one actually.

How so? Name the fallacy, please.

Yes, the bible says try it and we will know. Millions tried Him and know. So Scripture, which includes things we can't test like creation, is tried and proven.

?????????? -- Proven how? What proves it? "Millions tried Him and know?" What does that prove? Millions tried Thor, Millions tried Allah. Millions tried Krishna --and know. How are the Christian millions any different?
This is not evidence. This is not a reason to believe.

By Jesus as observed by many witnesses, by Israel who had a national record recording miracles of God, and by all people who tried and proved Him ever since.

The reports of Jesus are hearsay. There are no first-person accounts.

Other holy books report witnessed miracles. Why are the Biblical reports any more believable?
Modern Israel observed Jesus? Is there video footage? Why have I not heard of this?

Dad, you don't understand the concept of evidence. You don't understand how to evaluate evidence. The Bible is a heavily edited, cherry-picked and altered anthology of ancient writings. Don't you agree? What makes it reliable evidence of anything?

 

[Valjean]

Great. I'm no ape.

What are you, then? A canine? A viverrid? A lemur?

 

[Valjean]

Can you explain what you mean by, "Small changes just happen"?
Can you also explain what you mean by "when they are beneficial (in terms of survival to reproduce) they are selected for"?

nPeace, you must know exactly what's meant by "selected for." This has been explained over and over, in many posts in many threads. Your false confusion is getting annoying.

 

[blü 2]

There you go again. This would have made it the fourth time you want to go in circles, not listen to what is said to you, but just say what you want to say.
Well I already told you, feel free to say whatever you want, regardless it be false.

You're arguing against natural occurrence. You're not offering any natural alternative. What does that leave but magic?

 

[Valjean]

I'm sure you did not get this from considering what was said in my second post.
The fossils found were in the layers with dinosaur fossils.
They date it to the early Cretaceous period between 145–66 million years ago.
Thus later, when building their tree, they fit it to 45 million years ago, something is wrong with determining the age of fossils by the geologic strata.

Please link to the anachronism you're referring to. I know of nothing that alters the evolutionary timeline.

Please... the Bible is not a science journal. Was that not explained to you previously.

Exactly. It's folklore. One should not take it literally.

 

[Valjean]

If I find a fossil in a layer where I date all fossils found in that strata to be 500 million years, but then other evidence shows the fossil to be very much younger, and I go with that, then I should question the age of every other fossil in that strata. Not so?

Yes. Question everything. But keep in mind that anomalies in science aren't evidence for religion or magic poofing. There are reasonable explanations for 'apparent' stratigraphic anomalies.

 

[Valjean]

="nPeace, post: 6358182, member: 64320"]

Comparing fossils, and similarities, and saying therefore evolution, is no different.
Reaching conclusions is what we all do. One is not better than the other because someone calls it science. It's not.
It is a conclusion jumped to, based on assumption, and presupposition.
See here.

One is better than the other because it is science. It's been investigated and tested. There are no conclusions jumped to.
The other non-explanation is myth.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Great. I'm no ape.

Are you a mammal?
How about a vertebrate?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Can you explain what you mean by, "Small changes just happen"?

Every newborn comes with a set of mutations. ie, changes.

Can you also explain what you mean by "when they are beneficial (in terms of survival to reproduce) they are selected for"?

The genes that make an individual more succesfull in surviving and reproducing, are the ones most likely to survive and reproduce.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Seems like a reasonable illustration. What's the hand that shakes the sieve?

Environment.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I can say, I see design in living things, therefore goddidit.
Comparing fossils, and similarities, and saying therefore evolution, is no different.

They are very different.

For example, you can't use your mere baseless declaration of "goddidit" to accomplish a crazy feat like when the study of fossils and genetics and biogeography and phylogenies and.... resulted in scientists being able to predict the finding of a "land walking fish", aka titkaalik, complete with expected anatomical traits, age and geographic location.

That's explanatory power for ya. Being able to predict the existance of a very specific fossil of a previously unknown species and then actually finding it in the exact location with the exact properties of age and anatomy as expected.

God-did-it-folk have nothing even remotely comparable to that. And the reason is because they have no working hypothesis that is even capable of making testable predictions . Because they got nothing at all, really, except some baseless bare statements that are unfalsifiable and which have exactly zero explanatory power.

Reaching conclusions is what we all do.

Employing rational and reasonable methodologies that help us reach valid conclusions however, clearly isn't what we all do.....

One is not better than the other because someone calls it science.

True, putting a label name on it is not going to make a difference.
What makes one better then the other though, is that one is actually supported by evidence, is concluded from studying the evidence, makes testable predictions and has great explanatory power.

While the other is just an unfalsifiable bare declaration which explains nothing at all, which isn't helpfull and which doesn't make any testable predictions.

It is a conclusion jumped to, based on assumption, and presupposition.

Creationism is, yes.