Let's see if we can figure this out about the old Piltdown Man

[viole]

No, those are only in comic books.
I mean Spirit beings created by God who are present, but not visible generally.

Yes, very not visible.

ciao

- viole

 

[Wildswanderer]

Yes, very not visible.

ciao

- viole

But they have been and still are at times.
Also God reveals himself in a multitude of other ways to those whose hearts are open to him.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, very not visible.

ciao

- viole

People like Hitler and others like him are not necessarily involved with a good spirit in their hearts and mental attitude.

 

[YoursTrue]

Which are all either unscientific fringe models or variations of the BB.

Now there was something in the news recently about the scientific community trying to figure out how the ice ledges melting down will affect coastal areas. They are not sure. But I'd sooner give more credence or a wait-and-see attitude towards that scientific community's interest than that of figuring if the universe exploded from a mass and whether it's flat, elliptical, round, even or whatever. At least that melting ice science can be tested in the future. The universe's expansion and beginning, you think that can be tested?

 

[YoursTrue]

Do you know what a strawman is?
You're misrepresenting the argument from science.. You're using a colloquial, value-laden, social definition of "ape." This is not the definition we're working from. We're arguing than humans are apes biologically, not socially.

Nope. That's your definition. Not the definition I choose to use. Which is, of course, not in accord with the popular science community. But at this point, you got yours and I got mine and perhaps the twain shall not meet. Doesn't matter much right now to me whether you think and believe men are apes. Meantime, yes, I bring to your attention that the "Unknown Common Ancestor" is still unknown. Just haven't found it yet. (lol)

 

[YoursTrue]

The established facts are taught as facts. The various areas of research, and theorems, are taught as ongoing subjects under research, and as competing theorems.

Our knowledge is growing. Education must reflect this.

Education is not catechism or doctrine. It's not indoctrination. Only religion claims eternal and unchanging truth. This is not a strength.

Actually I don't believe religion claims eternal and unchanging truth. Maybe some do. There are things taught as facts in science that were not facts later on. hmm.

 

[YoursTrue]

Wise decision.

ciao

- viole

Yeah, it's a little deep and not for everyone to understand or comprehend. As Einstein is purported to have said when dying and asked about eternal life, "This life is enough for me."

 

[YoursTrue]

Indeed, bad science can be devastating for our acquisition of knowledge, which is why it's so important that the scientific method be rigorously followed and established ideas constantly questioned and tested in new ways. Fortunately the ToE is undoubtedly the most rigorously questioned and tested scientific theory that's ever been proposed. And even after hoaxes and decades of vigorous opposition it's continued to endure the test of time.

Evolution has been tested? How so? Can you please show a test where one form such as a dinosaur becomes a bird? Of course, there's always that Unknown Common Ancestor theory. Still to be determined, right? I do not think, imagine, or believe, that interbreeding foxes and dogs by force, or changing skin colors in humans is evolution. But if you think it confirms the theory, best to you. It's ok. I no longer do.

 

[Heyo]

The universe's expansion and beginning, you think that can be tested?

Yes, I do. We may not be able to go all the way to the beginning, but, with better instruments, we can at least come closer.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, I do. We may not be able to go all the way to the beginning, but, with better instruments, we can at least come closer.

This type of answer ("We may not be able to go all the way to the beginning," etc.) is what makes me figure it's all baloney. By baloney I mean made up stuff. I like turkey better.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Evolution has been tested? How so? Can you please show a test where one form such as a dinosaur becomes a bird? Of course, there's always that Unknown Common Ancestor theory. Still to be determined, right? I do not think, imagine, or believe, that interbreeding foxes and dogs by force, or changing skin colors in humans is evolution. But if you think it confirms the theory, best to you. It's ok. I no longer do.

Can you please show a test where one form such as a dinosaur becomes a bird?
Take the time to study and comprehend the Genome Project. The DNA evidence shows this quite clearly.

For further answers to your questions:

https://www.kgs.ku.edu/Publications/Bulletins/ED15/01_nature.html

Go to the section marked Understanding Evolution.

 

[Heyo]

This type of answer ("We may not be able to go all the way to the beginning," etc.) is what makes me figure it's all baloney. By baloney I mean made up stuff. I like turkey better.

The "made up stuff", i.e. the theory goes back to 10⁻⁴³ seconds. We are talking about real observations, support for the theories, like the CMB. It is real, we can measure it. No baloney.
The CMB occurred at about 380.000 years and we can't see further with usual telescopes. But we may see more with gravitational wave detectors. No Baloney.

 

[Valjean]

Nope. That's your definition. Not the definition I choose to use. Which is, of course, not in accord with the popular science community. But at this point, you got yours and I got mine and perhaps the twain shall not meet. Doesn't matter much right now to me whether you think and believe men are apes. Meantime, yes, I bring to your attention that the "Unknown Common Ancestor" is still unknown. Just haven't found it yet. (lol)

You're making up definitions, and feigning bafflement when others misunderstand or misinterpret you.
If I see a woodchuck digging up the carrots in my garden, calling it an aardvark does not make it an aardvark, or give it any of the qualities of an aardvark.
Communication depends on common understanding of terms.

YoursTrue said: ↑
Actually I don't believe religion claims eternal and unchanging truth. Maybe some do. There are things taught as facts in science that were not facts later on. hmm.

Please give some examples.

 

[viole]

But they have been and still are at times.
Also God reveals himself in a multitude of other ways to those whose hearts are open to him.

It is like ESP. Works only if you are not skeptical about it.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

People like Hitler and others like him are not necessarily involved with a good spirit in their hearts and mental attitude.

The problem with opening your heart (assuming you do not mean the blood pump), is that anyone can enter. If you were born in Jemen, Allah would enter. If you were born in Ancient Greece, Apollo and Zeus would enter. etc. Ergo, opening your heart is hardly a reliable epistemology.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

But they have been and still are at times.
Also God reveals himself in a multitude of other ways to those whose hearts are open to him.

Exactly what my Muslim friend told me. Should I believe him?

Ciao

- viole

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But they have been and still are at times.
Also God reveals himself in a multitude of other ways to those whose hearts are open to him.

Perhaps it's a hallucination as a result of the major trauma of such a gaping wound in the chest area?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The universe's expansion and beginning, you think that can be tested?

It can and has been.

You might want to read up.

That the universe is expanding is an observable fact.
And big bang theory makes quite specific detailed predictions, which have been confirmed and for which Nobel prizes have been handed out.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Nope. That's your definition.

No. It's the definition of biology.

Not the definition I choose to use

Meaning that you are indeed arguing a strawman, just like @Valjean said you are....

Which is, of course, not in accord with the popular science community.

So in other words, you know you are arguing a strawman and just don't care?

Doesn't matter much right now to me whether you think and believe men are apes

Humans are factually apes, just like they are factually mammals.

Meantime, yes, I bring to your attention that the "Unknown Common Ancestor" is still unknown. Just haven't found it yet. (lol)

It will likely be unknown forever. That's ok and not a problem at all.

There's a difference between determining that a common ancestor existed on the one hand, and identifying that common ancestor on the other.....

Let's illustrate with an example that won't set your religious mind in denial mode....

Let's suppose that some mega disaster occurs somewhere with millions of dead people, all burned to ashes.
Let's also suppose that a bunch of babies survived it somehow and that these are placed in foster homes around the world. 20 years later, 2 of them find out that they are siblings through a DNA test.

This means, factually, that they share ancestors (parents).
Yet, their parents are unknown. They are somewhere among those millions of lost dead people. Impossible to identify forever.

Does the fact that the parents are unknown, and will forever be unknown, mean that we can't know that these 2 people are siblings and thus share those unknown parents?


The answer, off course, is "no".

The same goes for humans and chimps. We are perfectly capable of using DNA to determine that they share common ancestors. The fact that we don't know, and likely won't even know, what exact species that ancestor belonged to, is not a problem at all when it comes to the mere determination that we do share ancestors.

 

[blü 2]

Actually all the findings in support of evolution have turned out to be negative over the years.

Really? What are some specific examples?

I ask because I'm not aware of them and you obviously are.

the more they realize how wrong their theories, especially Darwinian evolution, are. None of it holds up under scientific scrutiny.

Darwin worked out the ToE over 170 years ago and published his book over 160 years ago. So if you're going to attack something, please let it be the ToE as it stands in 2022. (If that's too much to ask, please just say so.)

A simple example is the fine-tuning of our universe.

That has virtually nothing to do with the ToE.

This is metaphysical hocus pocus and is real science. Superstitious mumbo jumbo with no foundation in the real world.

What, exactly, is your explanation? What process do you specifically say, brought it about?