How do you define evolution?

[ecco]

I believe water can be formed by combining two parts hydrogen with one part oxygen.

Why do you believe that? Have you ever seen two hydrogen atoms bond with one oxygen atom?

The fact that many or most scientists believe in evolution as to how living matter grew on this earth does not mean, however, that it is true.

The same kinds of people/scientists who tell you that two hydrogen atoms bond with one oxygen atom to form a molecule of water, are the ones who have done the research to show that Evolution is real.

You believe one group. You disbelieve the other group. The only difference is your religiously indoctrinated views.

 

[YoursTrue]

The fossils found on mountain are in folded and faulted rock formations millions of years old like limestone that can only form in shallow seas over a period of hundreds of thousands of years like ariund Bermuda today and CANNOT form in floods.. These rock formations extend down into the mountains and only outcrop and are revealed in hundreds of thousands of years of weathering with rocks and boulders of these formations with fossils in the mountain sides, river beds down to the sea as weathered pebbles..

The Black Sea flood was well defined by the sediments as being ONLY around the Black Sea much older than any flood as described in the Bible.. NO, there are no vestiges of a world wide. All the known sediments around the world are well defined geologically as the source, and there is absolutely no evidence for a flood on the scale described in the Bible.

Again your knowledge of science, geology and evolution is appalling.

It doesn't matter what you think my "knowledge" is. Or what you say about me and my knowledge. Knowledge keeps changing anyway. Floods have occurred. Furthermore, one of the worst forms of argument is personal attacks, which you continually do. The theory of evolution no longer makes sense to me as if that's how human and geological matter came about. I do not claim I understand more about the mechanics of reality, I know it takes time for sediment layers to form and so forth, I know cells can be looked at through microscopes, I do not argue with that. So anyway -- have a nice night. Bye for now.

 

[YoursTrue]

Two problems with you linking Genesis Flood to the Black Sea Deluge Hypothesis.

One, the Black Sea scenario only covered the shoreline of the Black Sea. It had no affect to the other side of mountain ranges of Anatolia, Armenia and Caucasus. The BSDH certainly didn’t cover Mount Ararat, the supposed landing side of the Ark.

The Bible says the ark landed on the mountains of Ararat. Not exclusively "Mount" Ararat. Genesis 8:4 - "exactly five months from the time the flood began, the boat came to rest on the mountains of Ararat."

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Bible says the ark landed on the mountains of Ararat. Not exclusively "Mount" Ararat. Genesis 8:4 - "exactly five months from the time the flood began, the boat came to rest on the mountains of Ararat."

And that alone refutes the myth Even the "mountains of Ararat" alone are enough to know it did not happen.

But tell us: Where did all of the extra water come from? Where did it all go? No matter where it came from you are going to cook them unless you say "magic". Where did it go? About all you can say is "magic" again. And here is a question that you will not be able to answer:

The Bible says that you could wake up in a cheap hotel's ice filled bathtub missing a kidney. According to your myth that is a real risk. Why do we not see that happen?

 

[gnostic]

The Bible says the ark landed on the mountains of Ararat. Not exclusively "Mount" Ararat. Genesis 8:4 - "exactly five months from the time the flood began, the boat came to rest on the mountains of Ararat."

Whether it is mountain or mountains, there are only two of them that actually define the Ararat mountains:

• the Greater Ararat
  
• Lesser Ararat

Plus, there are several hundred kilometres between the Black Sea and Ararat.

Plus, there are mountains between the Black Sea and Ararat, the mountain range that extend large part of northeast coast of Anatolia, all the way into the Caucasus, Georgia: Pontic Mountains (or Pontic Alps).

If you bother to look at the topological map of Anatolian Turkey, you would know all that. And you would know that there are no ways for the Black Sea Deluge Hypothesis to have any effect in the Ararat.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Whether it is mountain or mountains, there are only two of them that actually define the Ararat mountains:

• the Greater Ararat
  
• Lesser Ararat

Plus, there are several hundred kilometres between the Black Sea and Ararat.

Plus, there are mountains between the Black Sea and Ararat, the mountain range that extend large part of northeast coast of Anatolia, all the way into the Caucasus, Georgia: Pontic Mountains (or Pontic Alps).

If you bother to look at the topological map of Anatolian Turkey, you would know all that. And you would know that there are no ways for the Black Sea Deluge Hypothesis to have any effect in the Ararat.

If she is trying to use the Black Sea deluge it is even worse for her. That stopped at the seas current boundaries, or so close to them that it does not matter. The answer why is rather obvious if one stops to think of it at all.

 

[gnostic]

If she is trying to use the Black Sea deluge it is even worse for her. That stopped at the seas current boundaries, or so close to them that it does not matter. The answer why is rather obvious if one stops to think of it at all.

YoursTrue have mentioned in two posts, back in - #863 & #866 -attempting to reconcile for BSDH with Genesis Flood.

Now, YoursTrue tried to justify other parts of Ararat as being mountains, but there are only really two peaks.

There is also the fact that Pontic Alps situated between the Black Sea and Ararat, and couple hundred of kilometres between sea and Ararat, I don’t see how the flooding of the Black Sea could reach Ararat.

 

[YoursTrue]

Whether it is mountain or mountains, there are only two of them that actually define the Ararat mountains:

• the Greater Ararat
  
• Lesser Ararat

Plus, there are several hundred kilometres between the Black Sea and Ararat.

Plus, there are mountains between the Black Sea and Ararat, the mountain range that extend large part of northeast coast of Anatolia, all the way into the Caucasus, Georgia: Pontic Mountains (or Pontic Alps).

If you bother to look at the topological map of Anatolian Turkey, you would know all that. And you would know that there are no ways for the Black Sea Deluge Hypothesis to have any effect in the Ararat.

I didn't say what happened was the worldwide flood. But apparently these scientists thought it was involving a pretty big flood.

 

[YoursTrue]

We have no DNA of a fossil of hundreds of million years old, nor was genetics part of the prediction.

We are talking about fossils, not about genetics.

Please address the actual question: How does Tiktaalik NOT support (not "prove") evolution theory?

To recap:

1. Evolution theory says at one point ocean animals gradually migrated to land and evolved into tetrapods
2. since it's gradual, evolution predicts "transitional" species which has both typical fish anatomical features as well as typical tetrapod features, and lists a few specifics.
3. based on what was already known from the fossil record and the genetic record, they estimated an age
4. based on what was already known from the fossil record, the genetic record and comparative anatomy, they predicted the anatomical feature and the environmental habitat.

Then they went looking for exposed rock of that age which would have been the required habitat all those millions of years ago. They pinpointed that location and started digging.

They found it and it matched all predictions exactly.



How does this fossil NOT support evolution theory?
Why does this fossil even exist, if evolution isn't accurate?

You may be talking about fossils ànd not genetics.

 

[YoursTrue]

YoursTrue have mentioned in two posts, back in - #863 & #866 -attempting to reconcile for BSDH with Genesis Flood.

Now, YoursTrue tried to justify other parts of Ararat as being mountains, but there are only really two peaks.

There is also the fact that Pontic Alps situated between the Black Sea and Ararat, and couple hundred of kilometres between sea and Ararat, I don’t see how the flooding of the Black Sea could reach Ararat.

I simply said the Bible says mountains there not mount.

 

[YoursTrue]

All of the evidence out there supports the theory of evolution. There is no evidence at all for the Adam and Eve myth. All of the evidence out there tells us that there was no Flood of Noah.

Since only God supposedly has the force of creation you are in effect claiming that God made that false evidence and that is a form of lying. If those two myths of the Bible are true God had to hide it by planting false information.

Your last two claims appear to be rather odd.

Fossils are evidence that there were organisms that existed.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You may be talking about fossils ànd not genetics.

Any time you want to address the question.

I've only asked a gazillion times.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Fossils are evidence that there were organisms that existed.

They also tell you which organisms existed. Where the existed. When they existed. What their anatomical properties were.
And a lot more.

And all those things, you can compare to other species, both extant and extinct.

You seem in denial.

 

[gnostic]

I didn't say what happened was the worldwide flood. But apparently these scientists thought it was involving a pretty big flood.

No you didn't, and I didn't mention "worldwide flood" too.

But you are trying to connect the BSDH to the Ark story, IN WHICH I am telling you that -

(A) the supposed date of Genesis Flood took place in around 2300 BCE, while the BSDH's proposed date of 5700 BCE;

(B) the distance from the Black Sea to the Ararat was around 300 kilometres away...

(C) plus, the Pontic Alps lay between the Black Sea and Ararat.​

All these 3 make your claims about BSDH-Genesis connection false.

But then again, BSDH is an unsubstantiated hypothesis, and more likely improbable in any case.

 

[YoursTrue]

No you didn't, and I didn't mention "worldwide flood" too.

But you are trying to connect the BSDH to the Ark story, IN WHICH I am telling you that -

(A) the supposed date of Genesis Flood took place in around 2300 BCE, while the BSDH's proposed date of 5700 BCE;

(B) the distance from the Black Sea to the Ararat was around 300 kilometres away...

(C) plus, the Pontic Alps lay between the Black Sea and Ararat.​

All these 3 make your claims about BSDH-Genesis connection false.

But then again, BSDH is an unsubstantiated hypothesis, and more likely improbable in any case.

Oh, my, so many interesting points in the following article:
Megafloods of the Ice Age | NOVA | PBS

 

[YoursTrue]

They also tell you which organisms existed. Where the existed. When they existed. What their anatomical properties were.
And a lot more.

And all those things, you can compare to other species, both extant and extinct.

You seem in denial.

Denial about what? That these organisms existed? No, I'm not in denial. Exactly how they came about is something no one has discovered yet. Here is a very interesting article, also a very, very good explanation of what science is: Megafloods of the Ice Age | NOVA | PBS

 

[YoursTrue]

No you didn't, and I didn't mention "worldwide flood" too.

But you are trying to connect the BSDH to the Ark story, IN WHICH I am telling you that -

(A) the supposed date of Genesis Flood took place in around 2300 BCE, while the BSDH's proposed date of 5700 BCE;

(B) the distance from the Black Sea to the Ararat was around 300 kilometres away...

(C) plus, the Pontic Alps lay between the Black Sea and Ararat.​

All these 3 make your claims about BSDH-Genesis connection false.

But then again, BSDH is an unsubstantiated hypothesis, and more likely improbable in any case.

I am connecting it with floods, the mega sort. Megafloods of the Ice Age | NOVA | PBS Do not take this to mean that I am saying this report and scientists claim the Noachian flood occurred. But it makes some interesting points, both about geology (flooding) and science...among other disclosures. Well, anyway, have a nice day.

 

[YoursTrue]

And that alone refutes the myth Even the "mountains of Ararat" alone are enough to know it did not happen.

Why?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why?

Where did the water come from? Where did it go to?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Fossils are evidence that there were organisms that existed.

And a lot more than that.