Let's start at the beginning? maybe?

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Been shown to her 4 times that I know of then brushed by her calling them fish that flop about in mud that don't prove anything.

But now she is (so we're told) actually doing some reading on the subject. I must give everyone the benefit of the doubt when they make actual efforts to learn about what the other side is talking about.

 

[John53]

But now she is (so we're told) actually doing some reading on the subject. I must give everyone the benefit of the doubt when they make actual efforts to learn about what the other side is talking about.

I applaud your trust and patience. Mine is long gone.

 

[YoursTrue]

Have a look at the mud skipper.

I've looked at it before and will say that it in no way proves/demonstrates/evidences that fish emerged from water dwelling organisms and eventually became (evolved to) humans. That's the best way I can put it now. One reason is because while accepted by many, it is preposterous and again some would attempt to place the mudskippers to a link between fish and landdwellers. Mudskippers still exist. Thus, I conclude unlike some, that mudskippers remain mudskippers -- here we go -- chimps remain chimps and fish remain fish.

 

[YoursTrue]

But now she is (so we're told) actually doing some reading on the subject. I must give everyone the benefit of the doubt when they make actual efforts to learn about what the other side is talking about.

I mean it's almost like assuming that I did not know what the other side is talking about. But thank you anyway for the sided compliment.

 

[YoursTrue]

Some do ... sometimes. At best, it's a side issue.

Why do you call the use of the term kinds a side issue? Because that is one of the basic issues. As we are discussing, fish are still fish and I don't believe they are seen to be evolving, are they? And mudskippers remain as mudskippers. I imagine the excuse they're not seen to be evolving is because there's not enough time to see that.

 

[John53]

The forum needs an "I told you so" frubal.

 

[YoursTrue]

But now she is (so we're told) actually doing some reading on the subject. I must give everyone the benefit of the doubt when they make actual efforts to learn about what the other side is talking about.

ok, well it all was supposed to have started from the "Big Bang," right? And just what is the Big Bang? One website describes it as: "he Big Bang was the moment 13.8 billion years ago when the universe began as a tiny, dense, fireball that exploded. Most astronomers use the Big Bang theory to explain how the universe began. But what caused this explosion in the first place is still a mystery."
Here's my question about that. Why 13.8 billion years ago and not a trillion years ago? Also why 13.8 billion years and not 14 billion years. Or 12 billion, give or take a few.
What is the Big Bang Theory?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The forum needs an "I told you so" frubal.

Yes it does -- I have been proved wrong.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

ok, well it all was supposed to have started from the "Big Bang," right? And just what is the Big Bang? One website describes it as: "he Big Bang was the moment 13.8 billion years ago when the universe began as a tiny, dense, fireball that exploded. Most astronomers use the Big Bang theory to explain how the universe began. But what caused this explosion in the first place is still a mystery."
Here's my question about that. Why 13.8 billion years ago and not a trillion years ago? Also why 13.8 billion years and not 14 billion years. Or 12 billion, give or take a few.
What is the Big Bang Theory?

This is so classic. You are asking "why" questions on the assumption that somebody or something "did it for a reason." That assumption itself has no basis -- but because you are an absolutely committed theist, you cannot let it go.

The correct questions, by the way, are not "why 13.8 billion years ago" but rather, "what is the evidence for 13.8 billion years ago?"

The fact is, there are questions that make no sense and deserve no answer. For example, "how heavy is Thursday, in metric tons?"

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Why do you call the use of the term kinds a side issue? Because that is one of the basic issues.

That you dispense with a science that you do not understand and wish to wallow in petty grievance (those anti-creationists harp on ...) is your problem, not mine.

Frankly, I could care less if you have fabricated some definition of kinds. What I care about is your willingness to reject thousands upon thousands of hours of rigorous scientific testing in favor of a millennia old text of unknown provenance. Were it not so symptomatic of willful ignorance it would be funny (albeit pitifully so).

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

@YoursTrue, I'm afraid I have to end my contribution to this thread. It is clear that you began this thread dishonestly -- you do not intend to "start at the beginning," since you've already brought up arguments you've made before, all of which have been refuted before. You do not intend to contemplate evidence, to look at clear evolutionary examples living today, or to do anything at all but repeat your tired tropes.

I'll end here. If you ever decide to actually learn something, notify me.

 

[YoursTrue]

@YoursTrue, I'm afraid I have to end my contribution to this thread. It is clear that you began this thread dishonestly -- you do not intend to "start at the beginning," since you've already brought up arguments you've made before, all of which have been refuted before. You do not intend to contemplate evidence, to look at clear evolutionary examples living today, or to do anything at all but repeat your tired tropes.

I'll end here. If you ever decide to actually learn something, notify my.

No I did not start it dishonestly, sorry you feel that way but with all the interjections and opinions and thoughts, it's ok. The evidence of mudskippers? Let's get real. I understand you don't want to continue. Bye for now.

 

[YoursTrue]

That you dispense with a science that you do not understand and wish to wallow in petty grievance (those anti-creationists harp on ...) is your problem, not mine.

Frankly, I could care less if you have fabricated some definition of kinds. What I care about is your willingness to reject thousands upon thousands of hours of rigorous scientific testing in favor of a millennia old text of unknown provenance. Were it not so symptomatic of willful ignorance it would be funny (albeit pitifully so).

Later perhaps. 13.8 billions of years ago the big bang happened? Me oh my!

 

[Heyo]

I mean it's almost like assuming that I did not know what the other side is talking about.

It is obvious to everybody who already took evolution 101 and didn't flunk it. E.g.:

ok, well it all was supposed to have started from the "Big Bang," right? And just what is the Big Bang? One website describes it as: "he Big Bang was the moment 13.8 billion years ago when the universe began as a tiny, dense, fireball that exploded. Most astronomers use the Big Bang theory to explain how the universe began. But what caused this explosion in the first place is still a mystery."
Here's my question about that. Why 13.8 billion years ago and not a trillion years ago? Also why 13.8 billion years and not 14 billion years. Or 12 billion, give or take a few.
What is the Big Bang Theory?

Did you get that from your evolution 101 book you are studying?
You are jumping far between fields of science, from biology to cosmogony. That tells me that you don't know what we are talking about - and you aren't willing to listen - or not able to.
Learning is hard, harder for some than for others. When you're stuck, put the book aside, have a break, clear your mind and start over tomorrow.

 

[Heyo]

Help me? Ok, so start at the beginning.

At the beginning is the realization that there are, by a conservative estimate, 10 million different forms of life on this planet.
Do we agree so far?

And go no further for a while. I'm willing to listen to your postulates. Go ahead, please. So what's the first thing that science knows about or is SURE to have come up as living matter?

First, we'll have to agree upon what "living matter" is. Pop quiz: what are the 7 signs of life?

 

[YoursTrue]

At the beginning is the realization that there are, by a conservative estimate, 10 million different forms of life on this planet.
Do we agree so far?

While I have not researched this I am not contesting it. Except that you say different forms of life. What does that mean?

First, we'll have to agree upon what "living matter" is. Pop quiz: what are the 7 signs of life?

I don't know but I'm already wary. But go ahead..you want to teach me, I'm willing to listen. As much as possible.

 

[YoursTrue]

It is obvious to everybody who already took evolution 101 and didn't flunk it. E.g.:



Did you get that from your evolution 101 book you are studying?
You are jumping far between fields of science, from biology to cosmogony. That tells me that you don't know what we are talking about - and you aren't willing to listen - or not able to.
Learning is hard, harder for some than for others. When you're stuck, put the book aside, have a break, clear your mind and start over tomorrow.

I'm still in the first paragraph or so. Things got sidetracked.

 

[John53]

Yes it does -- I have been proved wrong.

No, it was proved that you are a kind trusting person that I aspire to emulating unfortunately patience (or lack thereof) is one of my many failures.

 

[YoursTrue]

@Heyo here is part of the beginning. berkeley edu. It starts by giving a definition of evolution, saying, "Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with inherited modification. This definition encompasses everything from small-scale evolution (for example, changes in the frequency of different gene versions in a population from one generation to the next) to large-scale evolution (for example, the descent of different species from a shared ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the living world around us, as well as its history." An introduction to evolution - Understanding Evolution

So now the question is...what is an example of small scale evolution as in changes in the frequency of different gene versions in a population from one generation to another? What does that mean? Now I understand if you or no one here can explain it but in order for me to actually understand what is being said here, I'd have to understand the terminology.

 

[Heyo]

@Heyo here is part of the beginning. berkeley edu. It starts by giving a definition of evolution, saying, "Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with inherited modification. This definition encompasses everything from small-scale evolution (for example, changes in the frequency of different gene versions in a population from one generation to the next) to large-scale evolution (for example, the descent of different species from a shared ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the living world around us, as well as its history." An introduction to evolution - Understanding Evolution

So now the question is...what is an example of small scale evolution as in changes in the frequency of different gene versions in a population from one generation to another? What does that mean? Now I understand if you or no one here can explain it but in order for me to actually understand what is being said here, I'd have to understand the terminology.

Gene Versions (you may also encounter the term "allele", it means the same) are slight differences in the DNA that code for slight differences in appearance. Everybody has that gene in one form or another. E.g. all humans have eyes, (almost) all humans have a coloured iris. There exist different versions of genes that code for different colours. The frequency (number) of a variant fluctuates from one generation to the next. I.e. while 10% of the population may have blue eyes in generation 0, there are 15% with blue eyes in generation 1.