How can you justify the sheer complexity that evolution would have to evolve?

[shunyadragon]

Well, you have to observe it for it to be objective as independent of the mind.

It has already determined by references you refuse to respond to that Mental states and entities are real but not necessarily true. It is normal mental process to confirm objectively that Mental States and Entities are objectively true or false. It remains a very real process of Mental States and Entities.

Belief in God is a real Mental belief, but not necessarily true.

That also goes for existence not matter how many words you use.

You already acknowledged existence is real. Are you back pedaling with your eyes closed.

More nonsense from the aesthetic monk living in a cave in the Himalayas. Your confusing circular thoughts are very real, but, of course, not necessarily true. Based on your claims you cannot determine existence is real. The monk needs to take a bath and get some fresh air.

So unless yiu can explain how you observe existence as existence and not just different objective experiences, I will hold that existence is not objective as it can't be observed.

Explained in references you fail to read and respond to. More nonsense from the aesthetic monk living in a cave in the Himalayas. Your confusing circular incoherent thoughts are real, but, of course, not necessarily true.

 

[shunyadragon]

I have not told lies. Gorillas remain gorillas, unless of course you have proof they do not. And, as "science" may claim and you may agree with that -- there is no proof. So -- gorillas remain gorillas...no matter what you say there is nothing beyond that except, of course, conjecture.

Science does not lie. Believers in ancient mythologies lie about science invoke intentional ignorance, which is lying..

 

[YoursTrue]

Science does not lie. Believers in ancient mythologies lie about science invoke intentional ignorance, which is lying..

Are you saying that there is proof in science?

 

[shunyadragon]

Are you saying that there is proof in science?

No, reliable predictable and verifiable knowledge of the nature of our physical existence.

Your lack of knowledge of the basic English language concerning what is proof, is very apparent,

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I have not told lies. Gorillas remain gorillas, unless of course you have proof they do not. And, as "science" may claim and you may agree with that -- there is no proof. So -- gorillas remain gorillas...no matter what you say there is nothing beyond that except, of course, conjecture.

What people are telling you is that you are intellectually dishonest in your defense of a wrong belief (biblical creationism). Should that be called lying? I accept that you believe that you're not lying. But you are being dishonest. How?

• You want to imply that because nobody's witnessed gorillas evolving into something else that their ancestors were always gorillas as will be their descendants however many generations follow.
• You want to imply that science is just guessing (conjecture) which is a dishonest criticism from somebody whose world view is based in a guess.
• And you reverting to proof after being corrected so many times is simply dishonest. You know better, but don't seem to care.
• Also, you remain ignorant of the science yet offer yourself as a standard for judging the quality of the science you object to as if an uninformed opinion is equal.

I doubt that anybody minds you holding those views. They don't respect them, nor your willingness to distort reality in defense of a position that has already been ruled out by the science you keep misrepresenting, but creationists aren't a threat to science or those who understand and respect its accomplishments. Actually, they're a help. Almost anybody that isn't also a creationist who reads threads like this one is going to go away with more respect for science and scientists and less for creationism and creationists.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It has already determined by references you refuse to respond to that Mental states and entities are real but not necessarily true. It is normal mental process to confirm objectively that Mental States and Entities are objectively true or false. It remains a very real process of Mental States and Entities.

Belief in God is a real Mental belief, but not necessarily true.

You already acknowledged existence is real. Are you back pedaling with your eyes closed.

More nonsense from the aesthetic monk living in a cave in the Himalayas. Your confusing circular thoughts are very real, but, of course, not necessarily true. Based on your claims you cannot determine existence is real. The monk needs to take a bath and get some fresh air.


Explained in references you fail to read and respond to. More nonsense from the aesthetic monk living in a cave in the Himalayas. Your confusing circular incoherent thoughts are real, but, of course, not necessarily true.

Okay, true it is. Let us call the defnition of existence X. I.e. it is an actual explanation of the meaning of the word, but I will let X stand for that.
So we can ask if X is true?
Now for true, we can do the same and ask if how true is true? Or if real is true?
Right now, I am just playing with the words and will see what happens.

 

[shunyadragon]

Okay, true it is. Let us call the defnition of existence X. I.e. it is an actual explanation of the meaning of the word, but I will let X stand for that.
So we can ask if X is true?

You may ask, but is hypothetical and not meaningful, unless you are plying the monk in the cave.

Now for true, we can do the same and ask if how true is true? Or if real is true?

You may ask, but is hypothetical and not meaningful, unless you are plying the monk in the cave.

Right now, I am just playing with the words and will see what happens.

I do not play games. Slippery slope.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You may ask, but is hypothetical and not meaningful, unless you are plying the monk in the cave.

You may ask, but is hypothetical and not meaningful, unless you are plying the monk in the cave.


I do not play games.

Well, goodbye for now. My internet in the cave has stopped worki

 

[Audie]

What people are telling you is that you are intellectually dishonest in your defense of a wrong belief (biblical creationism). Should that be called lying? I accept that you believe that you're not lying. But you are being dishonest. How?

• You want to imply that because nobody's witnessed gorillas evolving into something else that their ancestors were always gorillas as will be their descendants however many generations follow.
• You want to imply that science is just guessing (conjecture) which is a dishonest criticism from somebody whose world view is based in a guess.
• And you reverting to proof after being corrected so many times is simply dishonest. You know better, but don't seem to care.
• Also, you remain ignorant of the science yet offer yourself as a standard for judging the quality of the science you object to as if an uninformed opinion is equal.

I doubt that anybody minds you holding those views. They don't respect them, nor your willingness to distort reality in defense of a position that has already been ruled out by the science you keep misrepresenting, but creationists aren't a threat to science or those who understand and respect its accomplishments. Actually, they're a help. Almost anybody that isn't also a creationist who reads threads like this one is going to go away with more respect for science and scientists and less for creationism and creationists.

Start a thread on intellectual integrity!

Several here could stand to brush up on it.

 

[YoursTrue]

What people are telling you is that you are intellectually dishonest in your defense of a wrong belief (biblical creationism). Should that be called lying? I accept that you believe that you're not lying. But you are being dishonest. How?

• You want to imply that because nobody's witnessed gorillas evolving into something else that their ancestors were always gorillas as will be their descendants however many generations follow.
• You want to imply that science is just guessing (conjecture) which is a dishonest criticism from somebody whose world view is based in a guess.
• And you reverting to proof after being corrected so many times is simply dishonest. You know better, but don't seem to care.
• Also, you remain ignorant of the science yet offer yourself as a standard for judging the quality of the science you object to as if an uninformed opinion is equal.

I doubt that anybody minds you holding those views. They don't respect them, nor your willingness to distort reality in defense of a position that has already been ruled out by the science you keep misrepresenting, but creationists aren't a threat to science or those who understand and respect its accomplishments. Actually, they're a help. Almost anybody that isn't also a creationist who reads threads like this one is going to go away with more respect for science and scientists and less for creationism and creationists.

I am saying that because nobody noticed gorillas having evolved from or to anything other than gorillas there is no proof or evidence that they evolved from another form. I am also saying that because the fossil was found of an animal called Tiktaalik and scientists decided it was a transitional form leading to landlubbers does not mean it was, and mioreso, it does not mean it evolved from or to anything. Does that mean I think it came about because of a creator? Just as I cannot prove this organism came about because of evolution, I cannot prove it came about otherwise.

What people are telling you is that you are intellectually dishonest in your defense of a wrong belief (biblical creationism). Should that be called lying? I accept that you believe that you're not lying. But you are being dishonest. How?

• You want to imply that because nobody's witnessed gorillas evolving into something else that their ancestors were always gorillas as will be their descendants however many generations follow.
• You want to imply that science is just guessing (conjecture) which is a dishonest criticism from somebody whose world view is based in a guess.
• And you reverting to proof after being corrected so many times is simply dishonest. You know better, but don't seem to care.
• Also, you remain ignorant of the science yet offer yourself as a standard for judging the quality of the science you object to as if an uninformed opinion is equal.

I doubt that anybody minds you holding those views. They don't respect them, nor your willingness to distort reality in defense of a position that has already been ruled out by the science you keep misrepresenting, but creationists aren't a threat to science or those who understand and respect its accomplishments. Actually, they're a help. Almost anybody that isn't also a creationist who reads threads like this one is going to go away with more respect for science and scientists and less for creationism and creationists.

I'm not reverting to proof. But the word can be aptly used in my opinion. I am simply pointing out that there is no evidence (call it proof maybe but I know science doesn't think there is proof of anything) that fish developed to land dwellers. Some may think there is evidence, but again -- that evidence does not show/portray/reveal or -- prove that fish evolved to be land dwellers. I understand the logic that some put forth and believe, however, again -- while the theory may appear to some, including scientists, to be logical or substantiated from the evidence looked at, it still does not make it true.

 

[YoursTrue]

"It’s hard to overstate how much of a game-changer it was when vertebrates first rose up from the waters and moved onshore about 390 million years ago. That transition led to the rise of the dinosaurs and all the land animals that exist today."
Says the beginning of an article from Reconstructing vertebrates rise from the water to land

 

[Sargonski]

No, the timing of the event is random, a gamma ray breaking of a bond is not a process, In many processes in nature the timing of the event is random, but the processes are NOT random. For example the timing of a mutation event maybe random, but the process of genetic mutations is not random.

You are talking nonsense .. the gamma ray breaking the bond is part of the process .. thus the process is random .. and it is a random process by which mutations happen .. at least some of them as gamma ray is not the only way mutations happen .. and there are numerous other parts ..

The violation of this random nature .. may then be evidence of an invisible hand ..

 

[Valjean]

Unless you can back up your claim that I am "breaking the Ninth Commandment," and that my God is a liar, you are the liar and making wild claims again. Gorillas remain gorillas, monkeys remain monkeys, bacteria remain bacteria.

And given enough time, they could easily evolve into something unrecognizable.
Why is it so difficult extrapolating major changes from an accumulation of small changes? It seems childishly simple to me.

 

[Valjean]

I have not told lies. Gorillas remain gorillas, unless of course you have proof they do not. And, as "science" may claim and you may agree with that -- there is no proof. So -- gorillas remain gorillas...no matter what you say there is nothing beyond that except, of course, conjecture.

Simply repeating something doesn't make it true.
Gorillas change. Their children are not twins of the parents. Each gorilla is genetically different from all other gorillas. Small variations repeated over many generations accumulate.
Why is accumulation such an abstruse concept for you?

 

[McBell]

Simply repeating something doesn't make it true.
Gorillas change. Their children are not twins of the parents. Each gorilla is genetically different from all other gorillas. Small variations repeated over many generations accumulate.
Why is accumulation such an abstruse concept for you?

um...
THEY can not see it happening so it is not happening?

 

[Valjean]

I am saying that because nobody noticed gorillas having evolved from or to anything other than gorillas there is no proof or evidence that they evolved from another form.

There is more to evidence than simply witnessing something. Noöne has been observing gorilla reproduction over the last ten million years. There are other sources of evidence.

I am also saying that because the fossil was found of an animal called Tiktaalik and scientists decided it was a transitional form leading to landlubbers does not mean it was, and mioreso, it does not mean it evolved from or to anything. Does that mean I think it came about because of a creator? Just as I cannot prove this organism came about because of evolution, I cannot prove it came about otherwise.

Earth must have been a wildly diverse place millions of years ago, considering how many now extinct species must have lived alongside remaining, current species; or do new species just pop into existence fully formed and continue without change?

If you believe each generation of gorillas or dogs or cabbages is different from its forbears, what keeps those small morphologic changes from accumulating?

Repeated, 10cm steps can accumulate into a trip around the world. A raindrop, repeated often enough, can accumulate into a sea.
We've selectively bred all kinds of animals and plants into forms completely different from the ancestral stocks. Why can this happen on a farm, but not in nature, given the same selective breeding techniques?

I'm not reverting to proof. But the word can be aptly used in my opinion. I am simply pointing out that there is no evidence (call it proof maybe but I know science doesn't think there is proof of anything) that fish developed to land dwellers. Some may think there is evidence, but again -- that evidence does not show/portray/reveal or -- prove that fish evolved to be land dwellers.

Have you reviewed the evidence? I believe it's a lot more robust than the evidence that a salamander or lizard just popped into existence one day on a hilltop.

I understand the logic that some put forth and believe, however, again -- while the theory may appear to some, including scientists, to be logical or substantiated from the evidence looked at, it still does not make it true.

Yet with virtually no objective evidence at all, you're positive that plants and animals were simply poofed into existence fully formed, courtesy of some invisible magician.

 

[YoursTrue]

And given enough time, they could easily evolve into something unrecognizable.
Why is it so difficult extrapolating major changes from an accumulation of small changes? It seems childishly simple to me.

Well, of course, I can't use the word proof, anyway there is none. Meaning there is no absolute incremental evidence showing the theory to be true. One might interpret fossils to fit into the theory, but this does not mean evolution is true. Bird beaks changing size does not mean that these birds are evolving to be anything more than birds. Furthermore, there is nothing to show that fish today are evolving in any form to become a different type of animal, such as becoming land dwellers, is there?

 

[YoursTrue]

Yet with virtually no objective evidence at all, you're positive that plants and animals were simply poofed into existence fully formed, courtesy of some invisible magician.

Nope. I don't know how God did it. Except for that which I read in the Bible. According to Genesis, however, He did it in steps.

 

[Valjean]

Well, of course, I can't use the word proof, anyway there is none. Meaning there is no absolute incremental evidence showing the theory to be true. One might interpret fossils to fit into the theory, but this does not mean evolution is true. Bird beaks changing size does not mean that these birds are evolving to be anything more than birds. Furthermore, there is nothing to show that fish today are evolving in any form to become a different type of animal, such as becoming land dwellers, is there?

There's evidence that the fish or finches are evolving into different varieties or subspecies. These evolve into new species. The species evolve into genera, genera into families, families into orders, into classes, phyla, kingdoms and domains.
Species don't suddenly jump to new families, orders or phyla. They may get there eventually, but usually through a long series of baby steps.

Again, we have a great deal of consilient evidence of these changes. You have none for the magic you profess.
The small changes, -- even a few new species -- have been observed in human time, but to get birds from archosaurs, or something recognizably different from birds, takes more time than we've had here.

Again, I don't see why continuous small changes accumulating over time is such an incredible concept for you.

 

[Valjean]

Nope. I don't know how God did it. Except for that which I read in the Bible. According to Genesis, however, He did it in steps.

Why do you reference the Bible? It's not a textbook, or even research based. It's an anthology of ancient folklore, written by people who had no concept of how things really worked.