Isn't this cute?

[YoursTrue]

Do not mix technology with science. They clearly overlap but are still different. Technology may be scientifically based but does not answer the natural questions only tries to solve problems. Statistics show the similarity of species also when it come to relatedness. These different fields use the same statistical methods. We cannot always know for certain were and when a virus mutated into a new kind but we can make fairly good predictions even though the event happened. We can trace genetic mutations back to approximately the correct time and place as with the super HDL mutation that came from the Milan area even though we cannot identify its actual beginning. Your examples do not support your position. In fact you really only have a position of denial since you have no clear good explanation of the fossil evidence. When you have that which supports your claims then I will listen.

As far as the fossil evidence goes, there are a few problems with that. One is dating. But as far as I am concerned, that (problem) goes hand in hand with the decision that it is a 'natural' (evolutionary) precursor to homo sapiens. And I'm sticking to the homo sapien class right now, not beetles or birds. So two things are questionable in my mind -- dating (1) and decision of lineage, i.e. the decision that a fossil is evolutionary close in relationship to homo sapiens (2).

 

[YoursTrue]

It is never too late to acknowledge that He gave us senses and intellect to learn about His creation either. Though I understand that some choose a doctrine that leaves them no choice but to do that.

Learning about his creation does not mean that things just came about by circumstance.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Learning about his creation does not mean that things just came about by circumstance.

What do you mean? Children come about by the circumstance of their parents meeting. It is hard to have a family with a person you never meet.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

As far as the fossil evidence goes, there are a few problems with that. One is dating. But as far as I am concerned, that (problem) goes hand in hand with the decision that it is a 'natural' (evolutionary) precursor to homo sapiens. And I'm sticking to the homo sapien class right now, not beetles or birds. So two things are questionable in my mind -- dating (1) and decision of lineage, i.e. the decision that a fossil is evolutionary close in relationship to homo sapiens (2).

Dating is an established series of methodologies that do not require you acceptance to function. That you doubt them is not evidence that the methodologies are flawed.

Lineages are developed based on evidence. The evidence indicates that these fossils have characters that place them in the human lineage.

 

[YoursTrue]

What do you mean? Children come about by the circumstance of their parents meeting. It is hard to have a family with a person you never meet.

I'm talking about evolution. I'll be more explicit for you. Such as the first cell. That's what I'm talking about.

 

[YoursTrue]

Dating is an established series of methodologies that do not require you acceptance to function. That you doubt them is not evidence that the methodologies are flawed.

Lineages are developed based on evidence. The evidence indicates that these fossils have characters that place them in the human lineage.

I'm questioning in this case, not the theory (in this case), but rather the dating. Of fossils. And then, of course, things like saying such as "millions of years ago." But primarily the dates of fossils.

 

[Deeje]

It is never too late to acknowledge that He gave us senses and intellect to learn about His creation either. Though I understand that some choose a doctrine that leaves them no choice but to do that.

And some imagine that having a foot in both camps does not obligate them to defend their Creator.....despite their claims to believe in him.....they don’t really believe a word he says. Does intellect override faith then? (Matthew 11:25)

There is so much “preaching to the converted” on this thread.....but whining about “interpretation of evidence” is pointless because these issues are meant to divide us....it is meant to show clearly where we stand. Are we in any doubt about who is in which camp?

It’s not simply a matter of for or against “the science” (which for evolution is dodgy at best due to the volume of supposition and assertion that it’s data relies on)....and we see that there is never “proof” for anything because science in this area of study, needs no proof....how convenient for them that supposition can replace proof.......that a theory can masquerade as a fact is just smoke and mirrors to me. Redefining the meaning of the word “theory” by the addition of an adjective, is somewhat predictable as well.

So in all boils down to “faith and belief”.....each showing where their “faith and belief” is placed. Both are really “belief systems” when you examine the real evidence, minus the jargon. We choose our side.

That it itself is a good reason to have these discussions.....because it creates a clear line of demarcation.

 

[Jose Fly]

Well, if anyone was ever looking for an example of how sheer tribalism influences people's thinking, the previous post should do.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well, if anyone was ever looking for an example of how sheer tribalism influences people's thinking, the previous post should do.

Some people have very thin skins and can only support their claims through personal attacks.

I would say that some people think their tribe is the best just because it is the one they picked.

I have noted there is a high degree of predictability in both responses and the content of the responses.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm questioning in this case, not the theory (in this case), but rather the dating. Of fossils. And then, of course, things like saying such as "millions of years ago." But primarily the dates of fossils.

If you had any valid reason to question the dating, you have yet to reveal it and I doubt that anything will be forthcoming. Repeating misinformation and your poorly informed personal feelings are not evidence that anyone can really use regarding the theory of evolution, fossils or dating techniques and results.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm talking about evolution. I'll be more explicit for you. Such as the first cell. That's what I'm talking about.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Deeje]

Some people have very thin skins and can only support their claims through personal attacks.

I would say that some people think their tribe is the best just because it is the one they picked.

I have noted there is a high degree of predictability in both responses and the content of the responses.

I rated this useful because I don’t think you understand that you yourself do what you complain about others doing to you.

I think it best to put you on ignore from today because our interactions are almost always hostile. That accomplishes nothing.

Bye Dan.....hope you make the best decisions.....

 

[Bear Wild]

I can go over the dating process and application methods. I will asap. So if I understand you correctly, you are a theist?

Polytheist actually. The god and the goddess are equally important and a part of my religions.

 

[Bear Wild]

Did I suggest that canines were not canines or that felines were not felines?

Did I not suggest that mammals are mammals all one kind that are warm blooded and their offspring are fed milk? Felines do not become canines because they diverged from an earlier mammals and are now on different tracts. No that was not so hard to understand.

There are exceptions to every rule, but generally speaking, creatures will reproduce only their own kind.

This is very true and is what leads organisms down different genetic pathways thus to new kinds. The exceptions only remind us of the continued commonality.

No, it’s amazing how adaptation works. Adaptation does not in any way prove evolution. It can never take a species over into another “family” of creatures.

But it does only in far greater time frames than human lives can observe. It is dependent on the reproductive time to determine of rate of change.

It can make minor changes in any single species. But it cannot change an amoeba into a dinosaur....no matter how many billions of years you throw at it.

Not true. It has and will continue to do so. The evidence is clear.

 

[Bear Wild]

Huh? Is this your first time interacting with her? Surely you know she can't do that without facing some severe and extreme consequences.

Not the first and not the last but we cannot lose hope that they will see the light.

 

[Bear Wild]

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Unfortunately @YoursTrue is confused and cannot understand why a theist or polytheist can embrace evolution when in reality there is and never was any conflict to begin with between evolution and religion. I cannot give up hope though and maybe at some point @YoursTrue will see the real beauty in the creative power of evolution and if they want to believe that the god they believe in set it in motion then so be it. Evolution is not just for atheist's, it is the biological story of our world no matter what religion you believe and we should all find this story of life as a common ground we should all share. I keep looking for that opportunity to convince @Deeje too. At least @Deeje appreciates the life on earth and that we can all come together on.

 

[YoursTrue]

Not the first and not the last but we cannot lose hope that they will see the light.

OK, well, since you say you are a theist or polytheist, do the gods you worship or believe in have anything to do with forming life?

 

[YoursTrue]

If you had any valid reason to question the dating, you have yet to reveal it and I doubt that anything will be forthcoming. Repeating misinformation and your poorly informed personal feelings are not evidence that anyone can really use regarding the theory of evolution, fossils or dating techniques and results.

I will ask you this question before I attempt to go into any detail about the dating process. Do you have any doubts about the accuracy of dates and dating process as set forth by those who examine fossil findings?

 

[YoursTrue]

Did I not suggest that mammals are mammals all one kind that are warm blooded and their offspring are fed milk? Felines do not become canines because they diverged from an earlier mammals and are now on different tracts. No that was not so hard to understand.



This is very true and is what leads organisms down different genetic pathways thus to new kinds. The exceptions only remind us of the continued commonality.



But it does only in far greater time frames than human lives can observe. It is dependent on the reproductive time to determine of rate of change.



Not true. It has and will continue to do so. The evidence is clear.

Plants and animals demonstrate their uniqueness. I find it fascinating that human history written is a bit of an excuse among set believers in evolution, claiming that those of the human category just didn't "need" to write before maybe 5,000 years ago or so, and so for the amount of time of written history, no real evolution changes have been recorded. This business with "Neanderthal" man etc. is getting crazier and crazier to me. No proof, no nothing, other than saying the craniums and bones look similar. Maybe. And they interbred with something to what? make homo sapiens that have remained homoi sapiens? Aside from the fact (yes, fact) that skulls have been uncovered that resemble homo sapien (?) skulls -- maybe -- the methodology of the dating proess is questionable.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I will ask you this question before I attempt to go into any detail about the dating process. Do you have any doubts about the accuracy of dates and dating process as set forth by those who examine fossil findings?

I trust the techniques based on evidence, established principles and publicly available reports, realizing that new evidence might require adjusting my understanding. I do not expect that dating techniques will give me the minute, hour, day or an exact year that very ancient events occurred.

Having doubts about the accuracy of a dating technique does not mean that the fossil automatically jumps from being 6 million years old to being 6,000 years old.

It seems to be that you want the conclusion to be that if there is any doubt regardless of the source of that doubt or where it is applied, then all estimates of age can and should be thrown out the window. You seem to be setting everything up so that you can discard it without further review.