How do you define evolution?

[YoursTrue]

Well we do not even know if a God exists or not.. Right now it appears that God is a human invention.

Gotta ask why. Even if it's, as you say, an invention. I used to be an atheist for various reasons. First, I couldn't figure "God" out. Where was He? Why do we die? (I had no big question about why cockroaches, lions, tigers, etc. die. Only why do 'we' die, quite frankly.)
It took me a while to weigh things out after I began studying and examining the Bible. It's almost like crossing the Red Sea -- a rather momentous and challenging occurrence. You probably don't believe that either, I am not going to argue whether it happened or not. I have faith it did happen. I know you probably think it's silly, but I have reasoned it out as too specific for it to have been a fantasy. I have decided that while I do not understand everything in the Bible (and no one now does), life is too precious to think and believe it just happened by chance. And I find the Bible the most believable of all the documents or testimony. Does that mean I understand everything? (you can rightly figure, no, I don't.)
Thank you for the conversation, and while I know you don't believe in God now, may He bless you.

 

[YoursTrue]

Who knows. A higher power may be involved. But tell me, do you believe in unicorns? Or the Loch Ness Monster? How about the chupacabra?

Unicorns have nothing to do with cows now on a branch <g>, unless of course you might think they are connected. (lol)
The person that pointed me in the direction I needed belonged to a religion that I would not have joined. But he helped me, and I will share with you what he told me (a radio preacher and I called him because I did not believe in God at the time and I wanted to know if God existed because -- I needed help desperately, won't go into detail). He said "No one can give you this faith but God." And I said, "But I don't believe in God." He repeated, "No one can give you this faith but God." And I realized I was getting nowhere, but -- then I prayed for the first time in many years -- "Oh, God, if you're there, give me this gift of faith." And He did. But it's up to each one of us to ask.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Unicorns have nothing to do with cows now on a branch <g>, unless of course you might think they are connected. (lol)
The person that pointed me in the direction I needed belonged to a religion that I would not have joined. But he helped me, and I will share with you what he told me (a radio preacher and I called him because I did not believe in God at the time and I wanted to know if God existed because -- I needed help desperately, won't go into detail). He said "No one can give you this faith but God." And I said, "But I don't believe in God." He repeated, "No one can give you this faith but God." And I realized I was getting nowhere, but -- then I prayed for the first time in many years -- "Oh, God, if you're there, give me this gift of faith." And He did. But it's up to each one of us to ask.

Please do not dodge questions that demonstrate that your reasoning is very poor.

By the way, if you were in some sort of trouble, drugs, a bad relationship, who knows, there are plenty of other solutions besides 'God' the concept of God just worked for you. That is not really evidence. A Muslim could make the exact same claim. As could a Hindu. Sometimes people have to think about others to solve their problems. When one makes a problem all about oneself it is not apt to go away.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No. But what I am saying is that, from what I read, dna inclusion or recognition in human ancestors can be undetectable the further back one goes as far as family lineage or descent.

What does that have to do with my question?

 

[SkepticThinker]

It is part of the discussion of evolution and comparison of "relation" by dna of fossils as far as evolution between gorillas, the "unknown common ancestor" and, of course, humans. OK, bonobos and chimpanzees, and fishes, too. That UCA leading to humans is not yet found, but since it apparently is not existing, really -- who knows why? Drowned out perhaps in a cataclysmic event, not biblical, maybe you think? Or not suitable environment, maybe?

This has nothing to do with the question either.

 

[YoursTrue]

This has nothing to do with the question either.

Here's something else I was wondering about, after reading an article talking about men in the Netherlands changing size.
The world's tallest nation is getting shorter - CNN
Now the question comes up for you to think about, if in fact, evolution as you take it, means movement, morphing, changing (however you phrase it) to another form of life, why wouldn't it be possible for humans to evolve to monkeys or better yet, that "unknown common ancestor," and then beyond that in the previous imagined generations? Please do tell. Thanks.

 

[YoursTrue]

This has nothing to do with the question either.

Says you. (Bye for now...) And have a good day, ST.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Here's something else I was wondering about, after reading an article talking about men in the Netherlands changing size.

The world's tallest nation is getting shorter - CNN

Now the question comes up for you to think about, if in fact, evolution as you take it, means movement, morphing, changing (however you phrase it) to another form of life, why wouldn't it be possible for humans to evolve to monkeys or better yet, that "unknown common ancestor," and then beyond that in the previous imagined generations? Please do tell. Thanks.

No, not something else. Let's stick to you addressing the content of the post/the point for once.


Remember, my comment to you was:

“You think it's speculation that the fossils we find had parents, great-grandparents, great-great-grandparents, etc.??
You think we had to be around to see that, or it didn't happen?

Seriously?

Please address that.




Evolution does NOT mean, "movement, morphing, changing to another form of life."

I've told you what evolution means countless times before. Why can't you remember it?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Says you. (Bye for now...) And have a good day, ST.

Yeah, because it doesn't have anything to do with the question I asked.

Why is it that you can never respond to the actual question being asked?



You have a good day too.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yeah, because it doesn't have anything to do with the question I asked.

Why is it that you can never respond to the actual question being asked?



You have a good day too.

Thanks. Anyway about that getting shorter -- humans have that UCA to figure out. Could be they'll "evolve" (not de-evolve, of course) to get back to that state, ya think? (Yes, have a nice day...) But of course, maybe not, because someone would have to "know" what the UCA is? And it (he, she) would have to confirm it somehow.

 

[ecco]

if in fact, evolution as you take it, means movement, morphing, changing (however you phrase it) to another form of life, why wouldn't it be possible for humans to evolve to monkeys

You still can quite grasp the concept of Evolution, can you?

However, if over the next hundreds of thousands of years the environment changes to make life less sustainable for a bipedal species with large brains, and, if the environment becomes more agreeable for tree climbing, branch swinging critters with long tails, that is what we now call homo sapiens will become, IF the environmental changes are slow enough for evolution to keep up. IF NOT, then we shall become extinct.

I would ask why that concept is so difficult to grasp and then I remember that your religious indoctrination/inclinations/beliefs (God Did It / I believe it / End of Story) preclude accepting Evolution.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, not something else. Let's stick to you addressing the content of the post/the point for once.


Remember, my comment to you was:

“You think it's speculation that the fossils we find had parents, great-grandparents, great-great-grandparents, etc.??
You think we had to be around to see that, or it didn't happen?

Seriously?

Please address that.




Evolution does NOT mean, "movement, morphing, changing to another form of life."

I've told you what evolution means countless times before. Why can't you remember it?

You all have different definitions of evolution. And IF it doesn't mean moving, morphing slowly, generating into different life-forms, oh well, and have a nice day. (Bye for now.)

 

[SkepticThinker]

Thanks. Anyway about that getting shorter -- humans have that UCA to figure out. Could be they'll "evolve" (not de-evolve, of course) to get back to that state, ya think? (Yes, have a nice day...) But of course, maybe not, because someone would have to "know" what the UCA is? And it (he, she) would have to confirm it somehow.

"Getting shorter" also has absolutely nothing to do with what we were talking about.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You all have different definitions of evolution. And IF it doesn't mean moving, morphing slowly, generating into different life-forms, oh well, and have a nice day. (Bye for now.)

No, we all have the same definition of evolution.
The problem is, you can't seem to remember (or care) what it is.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here's something else I was wondering about, after reading an article talking about men in the Netherlands changing size.
The world's tallest nation is getting shorter - CNN
Now the question comes up for you to think about, if in fact, evolution as you take it, means movement, morphing, changing (however you phrase it) to another form of life, why wouldn't it be possible for humans to evolve to monkeys or better yet, that "unknown common ancestor," and then beyond that in the previous imagined generations? Please do tell. Thanks.

Evolution is a one way street. We could evolve to creatures that resembled modern monkeys, but we would not be monkeys (except in the monophyletic sense, by that consistent way of reasoning we still are monkeys). And evolution is never to "another form of life". That is a nonsense throw away term.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The estimation of flooding by the Black Sea by geologists is simply proof, along with other estimates of surfaces and erosion, that mass flooding occurred. I am not saying that means the flood of Noah's time, but I am discussing the fact that massive flooding is said to have occurred. Again, not saying that means the flood as described in the Bible. I am saying that geologists do say that massive floods have caused differentiations on the surface of the earth.

Floods happen all the time and obviously they affect the geology of the area's that flooded.

This is how we know that the biblical flood never happened. The evidence it should have left behind, just isn't there.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It is part of the discussion of evolution and comparison of "relation" by dna of fossils as far as evolution between gorillas, the "unknown common ancestor" and, of course, humans. OK, bonobos and chimpanzees, and fishes, too. That UCA leading to humans is not yet found, but since it apparently is not existing, really -- who knows why? Drowned out perhaps in a cataclysmic event, not biblical, maybe you think? Or not suitable environment, maybe?

1. 99.9999% of species that ever existed, left no fossils behind. Fossils are rare.

2. If all fossils would disappear tomorrow, common ancestry of species would still be a genetic fact

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You all have different definitions of evolution

No, we don't. We might use different words, but we'll say the same thing.

And IF it doesn't mean moving, morphing slowly, generating into different life-forms, oh well, and have a nice day. (Bye for now.)

So really, what you said here is the equivalent of "And IF I'm arguing a strawman, then... oh well...have a nice day"

You like, literally don't care that you are simply wrong about the theory you insist on arguing against, do you?

 

[YoursTrue]

No, we don't. We might use different words, but we'll say the same thing.




So really, what you said here is the equivalent of "And IF I'm arguing a strawman, then... oh well...have a nice day"

You like, literally don't care that you are simply wrong about the theory you insist on arguing against, do you?

I have read as much as I can about the theory. Please explain how I am wrong. I no longer go along with the theory of Darwin. I do understand that fossils are used by scientists as evidence (of evolution), but ..I no longer believe that God was not involved in the power of genetic transfer. So thanks for conversation. Maybe someday when I have more time we can discuss the various socalled branches of the tree.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I have read as much as I can about the theory. Please explain how I am wrong. I no longer go along with the theory of Darwin. I do understand that fossils are used by scientists as evidence (of evolution), but ..I no longer believe that God was not involved in the power of genetic transfer. So thanks for conversation. Maybe someday when I have more time we can discuss the various socalled branches of the tree.

I no longer believe that God was not involved in the power of genetic transfer

What does that mean and how can you demonstrate it?