Not only Natural Laws but Rules of Evolution?

[YoursTrue]

still making the stupid mistakes, AGAIN!

Seriously, sciences rely on tests, observations that come from empirical evidence or repeatable experiments, and from data.

Not from this bloody proof you keep bringing up.

This is exactly the learning handicap that exist among all creationists have that make them science illiterate.

you really are stubbornly ignorant and dishonest, that you refused to recognise your errors. i don’t want to use the s word, but that’s what it is if you are incapable of learning after you have been corrected so many times.

so please, understand the following…

Proofs are MAN-MADE LOGIC, like mathematical equations. Equations are logical proof and they are only abstract rationality of humans; EQUATION ARE NOT EVIDENCE!!!​

​

Equations are only MODELS within the hypothesis or theory, and they are made of numbers, constant(s) & variable(s), like the explanations & predictions are only models in a hypothesis or theory. No models are true, until they have been sufficiently tested with physical evidence or with experiments.​

Is that any clearer, YoursTrue?

please, don’t make me repeat correcting you, which you should have learned & understood all those years ago you were here.

Look, say what you will. I'm not voting with you on this jury. I'm the odd one out, the inconsequential and ignorant one. So have your way with no proof. No proof.

 

[YoursTrue]

It just ain't. No proof and it ain't. Or maybe it is. Or maybe it definitely is. Have a good one!

 

[Subduction Zone]

He was not doing this privately but in a public higher educational institution that was science oriented. Say what you will, it doesn't matter at this point unfortunately because what you and some others say doesn't add up any more to me in the long run (and the short run) based on little itty-bitty biochemical changes. Which are not shown in any real form. Skin color and eye color, etc., do not prove, backup, or verify the theory of evolution. I haven't looked into the early hominid account, but I will. You may conjecture that dinosaurs become birds (some dinosaurs anyway), but there is nothing to prove that absolutely.

And that is where one would often have that sort of set up. Though he could have been doing serious science work too.


You should also not ever make such patently false claims as you just did. By claiming that something does not verify the theory of evolution you put the burden of proof upon you. If you cannot support your claim it only makes you look like a liar.

So tell us, why doesn't skin color, eye color, etc. support the theory of evolution? Your claim. Your burden of proof.

 

[John53]

Look, say what you will. I'm not voting with you on this jury. I'm the odd one out, the inconsequential and ignorant one. So have your way with no proof. No proof.

I swear you're a computer program that gets stuck in loops that repeat every week or so... fish, birds, proof, monkeys.

You obviously feel that you are smarter than anyone else here and the vast majority of scientists so why don't you tell us how it happened and post the proof that has convinced you.

 

[exchemist]

Out of curiosity.... Did it predict all prior homo species going extinct?
Homo extinct species- habilis, erectus, rudolfensis, heidelbergensis, floresiensis, neanderthalensis, naledi, and luzonensis

It is not the job of the theory of evolution to predict extinctions.

The kind of thing the theory predicts is what evidence should be found of linkages between organisms that it says are related. This could be in the form of intermediate fossils, or in DNA similarities, for instance.

(The hippo and the whale would be one example that people find at first sight surprising.)

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

please, don’t make me repeat correcting you

No need. The benefit of your correction is limited to those who use evidence to make decisions about what is true. I enjoyed your discussion of avian versus non-avian dinosaurs. But I don't need to see it twice just because your creationist audience resists learning. In my opinion, there is no burden of proof with anybody unwilling to unable to recognize a sound argument or to be convinced by one, much less somebody resisting being taught.

Look, say what you will. I'm not voting with you on this jury. I'm the odd one out, the inconsequential and ignorant one. So have your way with no proof. No proof.

Interesting metaphor - the lone creationist holdout on a jury with the critical thinkers. There's no jury, and you don't have a vote. But don't feel picked on. I accept the theory as "proven" beyond reasonable doubt, but I don't have a vote, either. Only the community of expert biologists does, and they aren't interested in lay opinion. So, you can join the empiricists or stick with the creationists, but nobody is affected by that choice but you, just as if I were to become a creationist tomorrow, it would be inconsequential except in my life.

 

[wellwisher]

I'm not sure what this has to do with the biblical literalist creation view that all living things were created as is while evidence to the contrary exists and remains without a rational explanation from that self-same group.

You need to think in terms of consciousness, instead of external materialism in sensory reality. That is how you solve the riddle. As an example, Pluto used to be a planet, and now it is not a planet. This had nothing to do with the reality of Pluto. It was more connected to changes in conceptual thinking and cataloging, via consciousness.

When humans were under instinct, they mostly were driven by instinct and reacted to world around them. They were not trying to intellectualize, but looking for food or running from predators. Once civilization forms and all the basic human needs are organized by humans, instead of relying on nature, there was more need to think, plan and explain what they saw; strangers in a strange land.

Genesis is like the first published science theory. Science never reaches steady state but constantly changes. Genesis is where it started, base on the human mind leaving natural selection, in favor of manmade selection. Civilization is about what crops to grow, and which animals to breed for food; choices.

Don't get stuck at DNA, since the human brain can use science to modify DNA; human choices. Consciousness can make tools and design theory to upgrade nature at the level of DNA. These choices began with the rise of civilization, as symbolized by Adam and Eve. However, this change came with a loss of natural instinct and natural selection; fall from paradise.

Man made selection would be based on acquired knowledge of good and evil, as humans explore and explain the universe and as our collective knowledge evolves. But Genesis was where this new type of semi-natural human appears. About 6000 years ago is when the invention of written language appears which allows civilization to finally stabilize and persist; record keeping.

In the beginning was the word and the word was God. My guess is the symbols; letters, for the word God was the core for an expanding alphabet, that could account for all the sounds of a spoken language. Now record keeping was possible; letter and words carved into stone, for review, study and proof. This was needed for civilization to persist. Genesis was published as the first science thesis. Science would evolve from there, going through many changes.

The stories in genesis are simple and are like memory pegs, that even a child can learn and which will stay with you for a lifetime. As an adult, we learn to the expand; popcorn the symbols, to tell a story that makes sense in our own time and then for all times. Consciousness allows science to enter the discussion of human selection with technology all about choices and willpower; change the course of rivers.

 

[YoursTrue]

still making the stupid mistakes, AGAIN!

Seriously, sciences rely on tests, observations that come from empirical evidence or repeatable experiments, and from data.

Not from this bloody proof you keep bringing up.

This is exactly the learning handicap that exist among all creationists have that make them science illiterate.

you really are stubbornly ignorant and dishonest, that you refused to recognise your errors. i don’t want to use the s word, but that’s what it is if you are incapable of learning after you have been corrected so many times.

so please, understand the following…

Proofs are MAN-MADE LOGIC, like mathematical equations. Equations are logical proof and they are only abstract rationality of humans; EQUATION ARE NOT EVIDENCE!!!​

​

Equations are only MODELS within the hypothesis or theory, and they are made of numbers, constant(s) & variable(s), like the explanations & predictions are only models in a hypothesis or theory. No models are true, until they have been sufficiently tested with physical evidence or with experiments.​

Is that any clearer, YoursTrue?

please, don’t make me repeat correcting you, which you should have learned & understood all those years ago you were here.

You can repeat your statements many times. But there are many questions and gaps in the theoretical process and history of evolution. Questions to the point that right now, as I see it, the gaps are insurmountable except in conjecture.

 

[YoursTrue]

I swear you're a computer program that gets stuck in loops that repeat every week or so... fish, birds, proof, monkeys.

You obviously feel that you are smarter than anyone else here and the vast majority of scientists so why don't you tell us how it happened and post the proof that has convinced you.

The problem is with your argument unfortunately that humans apparently did emerge, evolve, transmute, come about after a while from fish. Look, I didn't make it up.

 

[John53]

The problem is with your argument unfortunately that humans apparently did emerge, evolve, transmute, come about after a while from fish. Look, I didn't make it up.

Your response has nothing to do with what I posted.

 

[YoursTrue]

Your response has nothing to do with what I posted.

It does.

 

[YoursTrue]

I swear you're a computer program that gets stuck in loops that repeat every week or so... fish, birds, proof, monkeys.

You obviously feel that you are smarter than anyone else here and the vast majority of scientists so why don't you tell us how it happened and post the proof that has convinced you.

Until you can agree with the prevailing theory, i.e., that humans descended (ascended?) from a few (maybe a few) fish, there's really nowhere to go
Maybe you did agree and I didn't read that.

 

[YoursTrue]

@gnostic really ty by the way, I know you did you best.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You can repeat your statements many times. But there are many questions and gaps in the theoretical process and history of evolution. Questions to the point that right now, as I see it, the gaps are insurmountable except in conjecture.

And yet oddly enough you cannot seem to make a case for any. What "gaps"? What "questions"? Be precise. It appears that the gaps and questions are only gaps and questions caused by your lack of knowledge.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Until you can agree with the prevailing theory, i.e., that humans descended (ascended?) from a few (maybe a few) fish, there's really nowhere to go
Maybe you did agree and I didn't read that.

The problem is that you seem to think that they were descended from present day fish. That is not the case. Yes, we are "descended from fish" but you probably won't find anything like those fish today.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The problem is with your argument unfortunately that humans apparently did emerge, evolve, transmute, come about after a while from fish. Look, I didn't make it up.

And a gross failure. Do not use words like "transmute" those are terribly wrong.

 

[John53]

Until you can agree with the prevailing theory, i.e., that humans descended (ascended?) from a few (maybe a few) fish, there's really nowhere to go
Maybe you did agree and I didn't read that.

Like I said yesterday, I answered your question many weeks ago, my answer hasn't changed.

You on the other hand have never answered a question I asked.

 

[John53]

It does.

Look, you are way smarter than me. Just tell me about how your intelligent creator does it along with the proof. We can save a lot of time and fish fetish talk.

 

[SkepticThinker]

What some who post do not comprehend is that I do NOT DENY SCIENCE. I do not, however, respect the idea that changes happen across the board from the start of life on earth due to the unintelligent process ascribed by how facts, such as DNA and cellular processes, are considered. As if there is no basic superior intelligent power behind it all.

You definitely deny science. Over and over and over ...

 

[SkepticThinker]

Similar things happen amongst humans, yet they are still humans.

And apes. And mammals.