How do you define evolution?

[Dan From Smithville]

But the reality is that we will never know for certain how and exactly when it first started, thus the best we can do in terms of causation is to possibly show how it might have happened. But even with that, the question of "divine creation" cannot likely be established beyond being a hypothesis at best.

Even though we both ultimately believe in some form of creation that we do not know where, when, or how it took place, do you mean to say that our belief in divine creation reaches the level of a scientific hypothesis? Wouldn't that require evidence that neither you nor I have?

Was that just a choice of words on the fly?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

oh boy oh boy. Now I'm reading about quarks oh boy. Lol...ànyway, I'll try to go over and continue. Oh yes, and even more powerful, the 4 forces. Oh boy oh boy... gettin' there...ok look, I hope to meet Edison and Bohr in the future. However, let's go on.

Beware of the Quark. It is up and down and all around.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Reason two not one is holy.

Earths body converted by sun. Earths heavens converted by sun.

Two holy separate bodies. Two.

Humans are a human conditioned explained one. Yet two holy humans own life.

Two the holy number present both important but varied.

The teaching one was man's egotism as self scientist separated thinking.

Became life's destroyer our human teaching.

Two bodies created a third.body a human baby.

Two creation bodies owned selves as two birthed forms. God never owned life continuance of a God

Humans said holy life was a human baby as three.

Why two and three stated holy life.

An updated teaching against science lying about one.

???????

 

[YoursTrue]

Unless we can agree on the definitions, then there is not much point of discussion.

No kidding...

If I decide that hypothesis means mushroom it isn't really going to advance my position in the discussion when everyone else is talking about the scientific definition.

Again, no kidding. So you will virtually swear that hypothesis means real?? Actual??maybe...proven. (I don't think it means that, but if you do and others agree with you, let me put it this way... best summed up, things change, AND out of the planets we SEE, the only one with green grass, antelopes and fleas is you guessed it. Unless of course you want to guess maybe, we just don't see these things on Mars, maybe they're invisible...

 

[YoursTrue]

Beware of the Quark. It is up and down and all around.

Could be dangerous, hitting people in the head maybe getting in the brain...maybe evolution causing, lol.

 

[YoursTrue]

Unless we can agree on the definitions, then there is not much point of discussion. If I decide that hypothesis means mushroom it isn't really going to advance my position in the discussion when everyone else is talking about the scientific definition.

Of course, that there is some ambiguity in the definition of a word does not mean that the points of this discussion can be dismissed with a hand wave either.

We obviously don't agree on some very important basic suppositions. So...quark or no quark, have a good night.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No kidding...

Again, no kidding. So you will virtually swear that hypothesis means real?? Actual??maybe...proven. (I don't think it means that, but if you do and others agree with you, let me put it this way... best summed up, things change, AND out of the planets we SEE, the only one with green grass, antelopes and fleas is you guessed it. Unless of course you want to guess maybe, we just don't see these things on Mars, maybe they're invisible...

Where are you getting that? I haven't said anything of the sort. If you are going to argue against things people haven't said, there isn't much point for anyone to be here.

Are you using some sort of random sentence generator? I have no idea what you are trying to communicate.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Could be dangerous, hitting people in the head maybe getting in the brain...maybe evolution causing, lol.

I understand that you place a religious doctrine over valid science and deny that science. You can do that. But you are in public declaring your truth is the only truth and you cannot even validate your truth.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

We obviously don't agree on some very important basic suppositions. So...quark or no quark, have a good night.

I understand that you have chosen belief over facts. You have chosen a particular interpretation of religious text as an immutable truth. That is perfectly fine for you to do for yourself, but you are in public declaring your interpretation is the correct one and that it replaces knowledge gained from evidence, testing, observation and theory without any validity of support.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

We obviously don't agree on some very important basic suppositions. So...quark or no quark, have a good night.

I don't agree with your interpretation of the Bible and your religious doctrine. The science that you oppose is not supposition.

 

[YoursTrue]

Unless we can agree on the definitions, then there is not much point of discussion. If I decide that hypothesis means mushroom it isn't really going to advance my position in the discussion when everyone else is talking about the scientific definition.

Of course, that there is some ambiguity in the definition of a word does not mean that the points of this discussion can be dismissed with a hand wave either.

Let me say this about the definition of evolution. That is before we may stop conversing about it. Some say that language development such as the change from Latin to modern languages is evolution. That is not the evolution I am talking about. If you think it's "biologic" evolution, we might as well say a southern accent as opposed to a New York accent is evolution. And that's not what I consider as the hypothesis of Darwinian evolution. If you want to include that in the definition of evolution, yes, we can stop talking about any settlement of definition.

 

[YoursTrue]

I understand that you have chosen belief over facts. You have chosen a particular interpretation of religious text as an immutable truth. That is perfectly fine for you to do for yourself, but you are in public declaring your interpretation is the correct one and that it replaces knowledge gained from evidence, testing, observation and theory without any validity of support.

Testing?? Of evolution theory? Again, maybe my memory isn't so good, please overlook my forgetfulness if you have offered a definition of evolution you agree with and believe in, how do you, btw, define evolution? Then please explain what you call testing of that definition Thanks.

 

[YoursTrue]

I don't agree with your interpretation of the Bible and your religious doctrine. The science that you oppose is not supposition.

Lol ok. Don't agree, that's obviously your choice to choose the concept of evolution over the idea that God created the heavens and the earth as Genesis outlines. Thank you for bringing that out to the fore I have chosen to believe in a God that is a Creator and Giver of life.

 

[rational experiences]

???????

One self human the egotists as a scientist lied. One state one status.

Two bodies earths and earths heavens both converted by sun in one same incident were always two separate bodies in space.

One special self is human men's owned title elite greedy human liar history reasons.

O earth owned all powers as science use.
O earth owned all metals and jewels

First humans naturally living rich in abundance with natural God.

By human words thought for science to own. All of gods O earths riches. The topic I want.

Never shared amongst each human member human family equal life owner any body taken from earth. O God presence as stated by human dominion. Equal for all.

Looking back today as a rich man who lied said the poor man as first man was rich with God. By that exact human lived status.

No poor man in reality actually existed. They lived naturally first without science.

Reasons today falsely as he attacks experiments on poor humans thinks they own gods riches today by his statement and incorrect status artificially given to self. Is self possessed. The known human men warning for natural human men.

Our heavens burnt. Historic. The sun mass is self consuming so it never created. Both masses attacked.

Gases cooling simply returned to not being attacked. As space held both masses.

As consumed mass in both circumstance no longer existed. Man in science said one of only cause.

Just a story not a thesis.

Anti teaching. Anti meant removed and hence what once was there no longer exists.

So as Jesus cannot exist before Christ it was just an inferred symbolic information to be notified as the term cross began via man sciences thesis + addition.

The teaching said you cannot add onto. Yet you did.

Scientific relativity advice as the bible was only meant to be read by the wise of man's scientific lying. Men versus men.

Why an oath to tell the truth was a shut bible.

If you.lied about owning God when God owned itself then you also lie about owning UFOs and aliens as a human designer.

Stating the UFO created the alien inside it's body. No designer.

When you fake thesis metal....machines...reactions inside machines. As metal actually naturally is a cooled melt inside of mass.

Why Alchemy was banned known evil status of machine building.

As earth owned metal.in metallic seams of pressure science had opened irradiating space and expanding causes space metals to be dangerous.

Cold contraction kept metal where it belonged not released out of earths God body

Historic one of attack involving radiation mass had been stopped. Dispersed by mass water evaporation.

2012 was a man's one of agreed contract of God saving our life spirit water oxygen as ufo God radiation was removing it.

A space cooling contraction was going to end the created caused ancient science release.

God would have reowned its eternal life existing sealed and present forevermore. The promise of men in science about God earths body. One.

Removed God X mass is from inside of stone...removes is leaving...comes back in heated by burning gases takes water again...seen sucking up water in sea also.

Stones held water gone as water was created in space...leaves a hole. Anyone would think men tried to put water back in its origin place in creation.

You know scientists pretending you invented created creations beginnings.

Water had been formed in space protected us from hydrogen. By its mass as pressure itself. As a contraction is opposed by an expansion.

Holy law was water...life.

Science discusses hydrogen separate to water their own selves. In thinking.

We live and need water to survive life.

Basic status science is a liar.

Science in the past was stopped as a practice as they knew earth was not supporting life continuance.

Why it was stopped waiting for life to be rebalanced again.

Holy life of three. Two first human parents.

I earth O one. I heavens is one. Two of one but not the same one.

Humans one two of the same one human creating beyond a human baby. Three a holy life.

How it once was taught as a teaching without reading false thesis.

 

[shunyadragon]

No, he didn't misuse the word hypothesis. Some have their own definitions of the word, as if it's a law. Now I know you aren't stupid as some consider it, so now it's back to you, Shunya.

Having your own definition for words is only effective when talking to yourself.

 

[shunyadragon]

Lol ok. Don't agree, that's obviously your choice to choose the concept of evolution over the idea that God created the heavens and the earth as Genesis outlines. Thank you for bringing that out to the fore I have chosen to believe in a God that is a Creator and Giver of life.

Abiogenesis and evolution is not a choose over the 'idea' that God created the heavens and the earth. It is possibly the way God created life on earth.

The problem with Genesis it is ancient mythical view of creation without science.

 

[shunyadragon]

Can radiometric dating be wrong, and has it been?

Wrong? Radiometric dating in the past was limited by technology, and yes sometimes inaccurate, Accuracy is the issue, and today redundant dating has resolved the issues that caused problems in the past. The accuracy of radiometric dating has increased over time. Yes, Radiocarbon dating alone does have potential problems like contamination with carbon materials from different ages, but it is not used alone to date materials from the past today. Potassium/Argon dating and other contemporary dating methods are also used to confirm carbon-14 dating.

The vast amount of redundant research over the recent history has in general and specific confirmed the age of past archaeological and paleontological materials.

Also dating materials older than the range of what is possibly dated by radiocarbon dating are more accurate, because they lack the problem of dating contamination.

The following article from the Smithsonian goes into detail how comparative radiometric dating increases the accuracy of dating fossils and other materials.

Dating

 

[shunyadragon]

You are just playing semantics.

No I am citing scientific references which you deny.

It´s a fact that scientists disagree on the role and relevance of non-random mutations……

No, it is a scientific fact that mutations, whether random nor non-random only contribute to the diversity of the genes, and are not a part of mechanisms of evolution. The mechanisms ofevolution by science are defined in thereference, which you deny.

It´s not a matter of evidence, it’s a matter of semantics and a matter on where do you want to draw the line.

If you want to arbitrary draw the line once the mutation occurred, go ahead.

It is a matter of a fact of science as cited.

Please reformulate your question, I have no idea on what you mean.

No need, your claim was specific, and my question.

This general concept is something that everybody knew since long before Darwin.

I asked, which is specific: Where was evolution described in the evolution of all living creatures beginning with single celled organisms over hundreds of millions of years?

I gave the closest early reference in the poetry of Lucretius.

Ok, so at worst I used “bad wording” still semantic games.

No, semantics, just science on my part, and scientific references, which you deny the scientific content..

It is still a fact that scientists disagree on the role of non random mutations, weather if this is part of “the mechanism” or “the raw material” is just semantics.

It is not semantics. Mutations play no tole as a part of the mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that they are only contribute to the diversity of the raw materials of the genes.

Still just semantics

this article includes mutation as a mechanism.

No, this is a dishonest and it does not. Please cite the article where this is the case.

But who cares, you arbitrarily set the line at some point (after the mutation) and the author of this article set the line before the mutation.

But this is just semantics, if you think I should use a different word rather than “mechanisms” please let me know which word should I use

The scientific article I cited was specificasto what the mechanism of evolution are, and they do not include mutations. No need for any other word.

 

[metis]

Even though we both ultimately believe in some form of creation that we do not know where, when, or how it took place, do you mean to say that our belief in divine creation reaches the level of a scientific hypothesis?

No, and I thought I made that quite clear in two of my posts, #446 and #454.

 

[shunyadragon]

Testing?? Of evolution theory? Again, maybe my memory isn't so good, please overlook my forgetfulness if you have offered a definition of evolution you agree with and believe in, how do you, btw, define evolution? Then please explain what you call testing of that definition Thanks.

Testing evolution is based on Methodological Naturalism. The hypothesis for evolution make predictions based on the current knowledge. The hypothesis is confirmed when the predictions are confirmed. The discoveries of fossil evidence, dating of fossil discoveries and genetics are the main tools for confirming the predictions made in the hypothesis.

This is the scientific methodology used in all sciences where predictive models work in the past, present and future.

The up front problem remains you refuse to educate yourself in the basics of science and scientific methodology, and remain in self imposed ignorance.