On Evolution & Creation

[YoursTrue]

The answer you gave was basically "I have no idea"

Not all will understand. So let me know evidence of species of finches evolving into something other than a species of finch, please.

 

[YoursTrue]

It's not a fish. It's literally a cross between a fish and a tetrapod. You know... a transitional.


You didn't answer the questions in the post you are responding to. My questions were not at all about Tiktaalik or any time tables etc.

Why do you refuse to answer the questions?

I've asked 6 times now. What's the problem?

Ok it wasn't a fish. Did it breathe out of water? Alligators do. The head reminded me of an alligator or crocodile.

 

[YoursTrue]

Why do you think that Tiktaalik is not transitional between fish and tetrapods? What is there about Tiktaalik that convinces you that it was not descended from Early Devonian sarcopterygian fish and that it cannot be ancestral to Late Devonian tetrapods? Do you think that Tiktaalik came into being by spontaneous generation from mud, or that all Tiktaaliks died out without leaving descendants.



Yes, that is exactly it. According to my understanding, the universe has no boundary, either in space or in time. A Greek philosopher asked what would happen if a person went to the edge of the universe and threw a spear at it. Would the spear bounce back off the edge of the universe or would it disappear when it crossed the boundary?

The same applies to the the universe being unbounded in time. If I understand Stephen Hawking's 'no boundary' hypothesis correctly, if one could go back in time nearly to the origin of the universe one would eventually find oneself travelling along a space dimension and then along a time dimension leading to the future. It is like heading slightly east or west of north and missing the north pole by a few kilometres. At your nearest point to the pole you would travel due east or due west, and later you would be travelling slightly east or west of south.

That is true. According to the doctors I have less than a year to live; I would prefer it to be less than a month. We are in much the same position; you will probably never figure out where your God came from, and I suspect that the universe is self-existent and without a boundary in either space or time.

I really do not want to get into probably literally infinite type questions, as if there is no answer yet trying to think of one. Such as something that might be or might not be outside the universe.

 

[YoursTrue]

Ok it wasn't a fish. Did it breathe out of water? Alligators do. The head reminded me of an alligator or crocodile.

@TagliatelliMonster Hello. Upon some looking, I see Wikipedia classifies Tiktaalik as a fish. Please notice: "Tiktaalik (/tɪkˈtɑːlɪk/; Inuktitut ᑎᒃᑖᓕᒃ [tiktaːlik]) is a monospecific genus of extinct sarcopterygian (lobe-finned fish)" I guess if you have a difference with that you might be able to advise wikipedia that it is not a fish.
Also, another science source also calls Tiktaalik a fish. "Tiktaalik roseae is a 375 million year old fossil fish that was discovered in the Canadian Arctic in 2004. " Tiktaalik | Shubin Lab

 

[metis]

But modern humans have only been here for around 10,000 years.

"Modrn humans" is not a scientific classification.

So what you were studying was what God had formed from the ground or at least his descendants.
But you have something in you that those creatures did not have. You have an eternal spirit dwelling in your body.

The above is theological, not scientific.

 

[metis]

You say the ToE does not take God out of the picture.

What do you do about a human being spawned by and animal?

That can't happen as they have different kinds of flesh.

Enjoy,

There are no human ape fossils ever found prior to 7 million years b.p., and yet life forms go back to around 2 billion years ago, so that should tell you something.

 

[metis]

Oh, now I wonder how one scientifically inclined would relegate Mary getting pregnant with Jesus without having intercourse, but soooo many believe that...plus more -- they also may believe she remained a virgin throughout her life. Can the beliefs be intermingled? ah well...

The entire issue with Jesus and Mary is theologically based, not scientifically based.

 

[Argentbear]

I look at as much as I can. I may avoid reading posts of those who are pejorative or nasty and I do not have time to read every post. If a post is very long I tend to skip it.

My question stands

 

[Argentbear]

Not all will understand. So let me know evidence of species of finches evolving into something other than a species of finch, please.

Show me a process explicable by known chemistry or physics; otherwise the effect you claim must be assumed to be magic.

 

[YoursTrue]

The entire issue with Jesus and Mary is theologically based, not scientifically based.

So the Virgin Mary idea clashes with the idea of evolution. I know the Pope says evolution is ok. What about Mary conceiving? Does he believe that she did without sexual intercourse? I think he probably does, and as a scientist, what would you say, did it happen or did it not happen.
Now as you know I don't believe in the theory of evolution as it stands, although I do believe that species can intermingle until they can't intermingle, thus are stalemated according to the species no longer having ability to interbreed.

 

[YoursTrue]

Show me a process explicable by known chemistry or physics; otherwise the effect you claim must be assumed to be magic.

Let me put it this way to you -- would you say it is magic that Jesus was in Mary's womb and she did not have sexual intercourse at that point yet conceived and gave birth?

 

[YoursTrue]

My question stands

ok, I hope you can repeat your question and I will do what I can to respond. Thank you. I'll look for it. Again...thanks.

 

[YoursTrue]

"Modrn humans" is not a scientific classification.



The above is theological, not scientific.

Well, that's interesting. Because here's where the theory doesn't make sense (to me). Inanimate matter is said to have come alive -- ok -- wait a minute, sir -- how do scientists say inanimate matter became alive? And...according to probably more than one scientist something could have been deposited from a spaceship. After all, according to science, why not?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What's the problem he told he didn't believe in evolution?
I don't believe in it either.

My questions aren't about believing / accepting the theory.
My questions are about a misrepresentation of it which has been pointed out on a near weekly basis for the past 3 years.

It's one thing to not believe it, it's quite another thing to actively insist on misrepresenting it.
If ones disbelieve of the theory is solid and justified, then why insist on lying about it?

When a scientist can take a pigs tooth and make a transitional. out of it You will have a hard time convincing me that science is anywhere near correct on anything.

Except scientists can't do that.

They can lie just like a bunch of preachers I know.

The only reason you know about frauds, is because science is peer reviewed. Meaning the frauds of one "scientist" sooner or later will be exposed by others.
A handful of (again: exposed) frauds doesn't invalidate the millions and millions of legit pieces of evidence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I look at as much as I can. I may avoid reading posts of those who are pejorative or nasty and I do not have time to read every post. If a post is very long I tend to skip it.

Translation: I ignore what I don't like and I am lazy.

Evolution is a big field. Explanations of many things will tend to be quite long as it consists of quite some information.

If you can't bare to read more then just a couple sentences, then sorry to say - then you are not honest in your supposed quest for knowledge.

But let's not pretend as if you even take into account short posts... Whenever information is presented to you that is inconvenient for your anti-science sentiments, you tend to ignore them.

This is why you still repeat the "x remains x" strawman even though it's been corrected every time you said it for the past 3 years.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Not all will understand. So let me know evidence of species of finches evolving into something other than a species of finch, please.

Why are you asking for evidence that would disprove evolution as if it would support it?

It's like an extremely bad joke that you are saying this after my last 8 posts in this very thread.

And you expect people to take you seriously?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ok it wasn't a fish. Did it breathe out of water? Alligators do. The head reminded me of an alligator or crocodile.

Still no answer to the questions.

Meanwhile, a blatant repeat of the exact strawman I've been trying to get you to address for the past several pages.

How intellectually dishonest you are.
I can only conclude that you are of extremely bad faith. And your supposed quest for understanding and asking question is not sincere at all.

Stop wasting our time. Stop trolling.
Stop wasting your OWN time.

Just be honest and say it like it is: you don't care one bit what evolution says. You don't care one bit in understanding it. You don't care what bit that you misrepresent it.

You only care about upholding your beliefs and you aren't planning on learning anything at all.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

@TagliatelliMonster Hello. Upon some looking, I see Wikipedia classifies Tiktaalik as a fish. Please notice: "Tiktaalik (/tɪkˈtɑːlɪk/; Inuktitut ᑎᒃᑖᓕᒃ [tiktaːlik]) is a monospecific genus of extinct sarcopterygian (lobe-finned fish)" I guess if you have a difference with that you might be able to advise wikipedia that it is not a fish.
Also, another science source also calls Tiktaalik a fish. "Tiktaalik roseae is a 375 million year old fossil fish that was discovered in the Canadian Arctic in 2004. " Tiktaalik | Shubin Lab

I will ignore every post you address to me from now on, unless it is to actually answer the questions I've asked +10 times now.

I'll just continue to copy-paste them until you find the courage to answer them and expose to us all that you either have learned exactly nothing these past 3 years, OR you are being deliberately dishonest. I'm guessing that's why you won't answer... because you KNOW it will expose one of both options, and neither is going to make you look good.

@YoursTrue Friendly reminder to answer these 2 simple questions about the statement "finches remain finches"

1. does the statement support or contradict evolution theory?
2a. if it supports the theory, why does it support it?
2b. if it contradicts the theory, why does it contradict it?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

ok, I hope you can repeat your question and I will do what I can to respond.

I predict that you won't.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why are you asking for evidence that would disprove evolution as if it would support it?

It's like an extremely bad joke that you are saying this after my last 8 posts in this very thread.

And you expect people to take you seriously?

She keeps claiming to understand evolution and then asks questions like that one which proves that she doesn't. Or that she could be lying. I do not think that she is a liar. She appears to be a terrible victim of cognitive dissonance when it comes to evolution or other sciences that refute her religious beliefs.