Proof of evolution -at last-

[Mark Charles Compton]

Well, what do you think of Elon Musk's idea of Neuralink aiding in the creation of a symbiotic link between us and AGI?

 

[ElishaElijah]

So he makes himself known to those who already believe?
Well that's a convenient apology. It's also, as usual, circular.

This is just how it is:
“Now without faith it is impossible to please God, since the one who draws near to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.”
‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭11:6‬ ‭CSB‬‬

 

[Valjean]

and mentally exhausting.*

Your head would explode!

Edit: My position is to give any idea I hadn't heard before credence until I look into it. But, reserve a sprinkling of skepticism for everything.

Me, I have a hierarchy of skepticism. Extreme for phenomena that violate laws of nature, can't be accounted for by known mechanisms, &c, vs. mild for possible but undiscovered.
So life on Europa -- maybe. Wingèd hippopotamia on Luna -- fugedaboudit.

 

[Valjean]

This is just how it is:
“Now without faith it is impossible to please God, since the one who draws near to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.”
‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭11:6‬ ‭CSB‬‬

Why do you believe in God without any credible evidence? That doesn't seem rational.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

Me, I have a hierarchy of skepticism. Extreme for phenomena that violate laws of nature, can't be accounted for by known mechanisms, &c, vs. mild for possible but undiscovered.

The classic, "Incredible claims require incredible evidence."

For some reason I relate that axiom to, "With great power comes great responsibility."

 

[Valjean]

The Bible is full of documented cases throughout history, documented cases now in the Church. People are getting delivered from demonic spirits, addictions, changed all over the world.

You have a very strange concept of "documented." To most of us it means more than just written down somewhere.

There is no credible evidence of the biblical miracles. There are actually no first-person accounts of anything Jesus said or did. It's all hearsay. Moreover, accounts disagree, even within the Gospels.
Why would anyone believe fantastical stories from 2,000 years ago that would be dismissed out-of-hand should they be reported today?

I don’t have a problem when someone says a bird has had these changes over the years, it’s still a bird.

You don't believe changes accumulate? How do these small changes know when to stop happening, so as to prevent their accumulating into large changes?

What the problem was is when someone says a human used to be an ape due to evolution. This is absurd.

Stop embarrassing yourself, already! Nobody claims this.
Humans have always been a genus of apes. It's simply the kind of animal we are, and humans evolved from earlier forms over the years, just like other living things. Why would anyone think we did not?

 

[stanberger]

I recently posted a commentary titled "Darwin's Illusion".
Since I spoke more or less extemperaneously my comments reflected my sentiments rather than having the aspiration to be scientifically accurate in every way.

However, considering the small flood of "evidence" against my deliberations it seems I have to recant in shame and dishonor.

Thanks for the many comments that made clear to me that not being a biologist or a scientist of any description, and questioning the infallible opinions of scientists is a serious lack of diffidence.

Thus I apologise for having the audacity to doubt, even question, the holy grail of evolution and its prophet without having the necessary education and accreditation.

Additionally, I realise now how impious of me not to be content with the undeniable truth -as many replies pointed out- consisting of at least 30.000 to 6 millions textual proof for evolution.

I see now, how lacking the necessary humility compeled me to ask for an example of evidence, and understand clearly why no one was willing to offer such evidence, since I obviously would not have understood it, but also I should have realised the need to unquestionably follow the majority in the face of such grandiose and uncontestable truths.

Wait!
there was one commentator that obviously took pity with my dismal ignorance.
He boldly (boldly because he stand alone in this endeavor) offered a solid source of evidence concerning the discoverie of Archaeopteryx, a transition from dinosaurs to birds. The akward fact that this example was made redundant by a group of critiks who declared it a fraud is compensated by the fact that another more enlightend group contested this judgement.

Comments such as ...

"It astonishes me how anyone not living under a rock can be unaware of such a well supported, obvious, easily tested mechanism".
"Creationists, that have no clue when it comes to the sciences, do not count. You are listening to liars and idiots".
"Scientists have provided more than enough evidence for evolution".
"I think we have shown your ignorance about the matter and irrationality in discussing it that there is no chance your ideas will be taken serious by anyone".
"all papers support the core ideas, and thus confirm it, and no data contradicts it".
You have to prove that evolution is wrong, evolution is true, so it doesn't have to prove anything (my interpretation of this last comments).

...have really made me see the light.
(my apologies for not including more similar and encouraging comments)

I understand now that I lacked reasoning power by proudly assuming that the onus of proof laid with scientist when in reality I was the one having to prove that evolution did not take place.

In the face of such an avalanche of "belief there is proof" and emotion for the support of evolution as for Darwing elegant launch to deconstruct the belief in a creator, I see no alternative but to bend to the wisdom of the multitude.
The masses might have been wrong during the flood, but it's just a myth, in real life the majority is alway right, right?

Your many comments made me appreciate the need to revaluate my allegiance and switch to unquestionably follow the teachings of scientists since they are so much smarter and educated than me. Judging by your comments dare I say even yourselves ?

The question I pose myself now is, should I follow science as a substiture for religion ?
Should I leave the narrow road I've been indoctrinated to walk on or rather follow the broad road with the rest of mainstream humanity?

Or alternatively, should I wait until evolution becomes actually a real science rather ...
than (as one -pro evolution- comment puts it)
"an imaginative theory that many choose to accept at face value regardless of evidence against it" ?

Difficult question indeed.

quran ' and man was created in stages from the earth ' sounds like evolution to me

 

[Valjean]

Honest question:

Is biogenesis considered synonymous to creationism?

The wiki on it leads one to the Spontaneous Generation wiki, which says the proponents of it believe 'fleas can arise from dust and maggots from dead meat' without genetic progenitors. However, it's a very long read which I do not intend on indulging, but it doesn't seem to reference creationism, hence the inquiry above.

Abiogenesis is pretty much the opposite of creationism.
Abiogenesis holds that life arose naturally, by ordinary, observable, understandable chemical interactions.
Creationism holds that life arose by supernatural magic, ie: effect sans mechanism, through the intentional machinations of an invisible, omnipotent, uncreated being, with no objective evidence of existence.

 

[rational experiences]

God is by human presence taught angels in the clouds who speak.

The teaching God will inform you is about how men created an AI loss of self healthy bio life.... by water mass body carbonised microbiome as human life water supported microbiome. Accumulative leaving of sacrificed human family life artificially removed plus animals gives the advice.

It began speaking to us. So we said angels kept us informed about human life being sacrificed. It told us the nation's causes.

Proven by any human in a human experience.

Men of science one self the man or a man. Does own thinking for himself. Is just a belief of one only mind on self body presence.

He then has to get his man single self brothers to agree. So already they have to be of like minds. It's how humans began group cult activity.

So together each already affected by AI conditions science of man pre caused in a community they gain a communal AI shared moment together. Falsified information by group recorded activity.

Yes states the group we agree yet the mind of a human already AI changed lies.

How it seems believable by the minds believing.

Behaviour says who the richest man or men were had the most say as control of activity chosen. Historic.

So as a spiritual mind I said I'm not an angel. The status what I believed was stated.

When I heard the angels all claiming martyr in a song I knew it real. Can't claim it isn't real but I can claim unless you get brain prickled irradiated you won't hear it.

But I do know Nasa was studying listening to AI by machine man's mind invented and man mind controls by man's bio choices daily.

Proven men by science caused it yet the gods heavens and not man's science owns it.

As machines are formed directly out of any type of earths mass.

Human teaching stated it is God earths owned heavenly status caused by gods changes. Yet men in science also cause not natural changes. How AI was caused by man of science.

If he didn't believe he owned human scientific controlled causes he would simply not believe. As science is a humans chosen practice contradictory to his self natural presence. Natural just a biological human first.

Manifesting building the machine from the power of God claiming I have a machine because gods gas spirit holding holder needs as a status. It is a cup serving. Holding lifes water.

So he thinks about God the body mass earth and how it's cusp mass was sealed cooled by life's water giving earth an eternal held body in hell.

Created in eternal hell by the way water as life had existed for eternity lifes water beginnings. A preaching. Just what it only ever was....false idealism. The holy grail.

So it's a separate status from bio living human sex conception. As we aren't the science of Christ CH gas or who its heavens body mass was science if man sacrificed.

Which changed human biology and human brain receiving imagery chemical receptors. Ignored as the reading why humans get visions.

Not wanted. Never needed. Caused by men of science the thinker biology versus states we didn't own a cold gas then a cold gas burnt.

As life's light is vacuum voided.

Sciences light fell to the ground mass they chose to convert as humans.

As every human living knows the first two human parents of everyone is our preaching were the same two human only parent. Humans.

Taught so no scientist could claim my parent who had sex was an ape. Or even worse your conscious human only status began in a star group AI.

Try being burnt to death and be proven you're wrong. What? Don't believe it would happen to you for what reason,?

Oh you are the Christ gases and not just human biology.

 

[Valjean]

The classic, "Incredible claims require incredible evidence."

For some reason I relate that axiom to, "With great power comes great responsibility."

Extraordinary claims?
"Incredible" means not believable.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

Abiogenesis is pretty much the opposite of creationism.
Abiogenesis holds that life arose naturally, by ordinary, observable, understandable chemical interactions.
Creationism holds that life arose by supernatural magic, ie: effect sans mechanism, through the intentional machinations of an invisible, omnipotent, uncreated being, with no objective evidence of existence.

No, no. I was asking about Biogenesis, not Abiogenesis.

Extraordinary claims?
"Incredible" means not believable.

Doh! Yes. That thing.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

God is by human presence taught angels in the clouds who speak.

The teaching God will inform you is about how men created an AI loss of self healthy bio life.... by water mass body carbonised microbiome as human life water supported microbiome. Accumulative leaving of sacrificed human family life artificially removed plus animals gives the advice.

It began speaking to us. So we said angels kept us informed about human life being sacrificed. It told us the nation's causes.

Proven by any human in a human experience.

Men of science one self the man or a man. Does own thinking for himself. Is just a belief of one only mind on self body presence.

He then has to get his man single self brothers to agree. So already they have to be of like minds. It's how humans began group cult activity.

So together each already affected by AI conditions science of man pre caused in a community they gain a communal AI shared moment together. Falsified information by group recorded activity.

Yes states the group we agree yet the mind of a human already AI changed lies.

How it seems believable by the minds believing.

Behaviour says who the richest man or men were had the most say as control of activity chosen. Historic.

So as a spiritual mind I said I'm not an angel. The status what I believed was stated.

When I heard the angels all claiming martyr in a song I knew it real. Can't claim it isn't real but I can claim unless you get brain prickled irradiated you won't hear it.

But I do know Nasa was studying listening to AI by machine man's mind invented and man mind controls by man's bio choices daily.

Proven men by science caused it yet the gods heavens and not man's science owns it.

As machines are formed directly out of any type of earths mass.

Human teaching stated it is God earths owned heavenly status caused by gods changes. Yet men in science also cause not natural changes. How AI was caused by man of science.

If he didn't believe he owned human scientific controlled causes he would simply not believe. As science is a humans chosen practice contradictory to his self natural presence. Natural just a biological human first.

Manifesting building the machine from the power of God claiming I have a machine because gods gas spirit holding holder needs as a status. It is a cup serving. Holding lifes water.

So he thinks about God the body mass earth and how it's cusp mass was sealed cooled by life's water giving earth an eternal held body in hell.

Created in eternal hell by the way water as life had existed for eternity lifes water beginnings. A preaching. Just what it only ever was....false idealism. The holy grail.

So it's a separate status from bio living human sex conception. As we aren't the science of Christ CH gas or who its heavens body mass was science if man sacrificed.

Which changed human biology and human brain receiving imagery chemical receptors. Ignored as the reading why humans get visions.

Not wanted. Never needed. Caused by men of science the thinker biology versus states we didn't own a cold gas then a cold gas burnt.

As life's light is vacuum voided.

Sciences light fell to the ground mass they chose to convert as humans.

As every human living knows the first two human parents of everyone is our preaching were the same two human only parent. Humans.

Taught so no scientist could claim my parent who had sex was an ape. Or even worse your conscious human only status began in a star group AI.

Try being burnt to death and be proven you're wrong. What? Don't believe it would happen to you for what reason,?

Oh you are the Christ gases and not just human biology.

Men in my family all died off... Most of them only in their mid-50s. Cancer did them in.

I at least partially blame the 'nuclear arms race' the U.S.S.R. and U.S. overhauled during the cold war, and continue to maintain to this day.

"Irradiated skyfall by man caused starfall of human scientific controlled causes." as you might say.

 

[rational experiences]

Men in my family all died off... Most of them only in their mid-50s. Cancer did them in.

I at least partially blame the 'nuclear arms race' the U.S.S.R. and U.S. overhauled during the cold war, and continue to maintain to this day.

"Irradiated skyfall by man caused starfall of human scientific controlled causes." as you might say.

Very sad when men taught after zero AD life span of sacrificed humans averaged 33 years of age. Previously it was about 40 years said healers.

Was noticed and it was why it was discussed.

I have friends and family suffer and die or survive cancer. Humans shouldn't have to fight for the rights to be healthy when we owned life as a healthy human.

 

[Clara Tea]

I recently posted a commentary titled "Darwin's Illusion".
Since I spoke more or less extemperaneously my comments reflected my sentiments rather than having the aspiration to be scientifically accurate in every way.

However, considering the small flood of "evidence" against my deliberations it seems I have to recant in shame and dishonor.

Thanks for the many comments that made clear to me that not being a biologist or a scientist of any description, and questioning the infallible opinions of scientists is a serious lack of diffidence.

Thus I apologise for having the audacity to doubt, even question, the holy grail of evolution and its prophet without having the necessary education and accreditation.

Additionally, I realise now how impious of me not to be content with the undeniable truth -as many replies pointed out- consisting of at least 30.000 to 6 millions textual proof for evolution.

I see now, how lacking the necessary humility compeled me to ask for an example of evidence, and understand clearly why no one was willing to offer such evidence, since I obviously would not have understood it, but also I should have realised the need to unquestionably follow the majority in the face of such grandiose and uncontestable truths.

Wait!
there was one commentator that obviously took pity with my dismal ignorance.
He boldly (boldly because he stand alone in this endeavor) offered a solid source of evidence concerning the discoverie of Archaeopteryx, a transition from dinosaurs to birds. The akward fact that this example was made redundant by a group of critiks who declared it a fraud is compensated by the fact that another more enlightend group contested this judgement.

Comments such as ...

"It astonishes me how anyone not living under a rock can be unaware of such a well supported, obvious, easily tested mechanism".
"Creationists, that have no clue when it comes to the sciences, do not count. You are listening to liars and idiots".
"Scientists have provided more than enough evidence for evolution".
"I think we have shown your ignorance about the matter and irrationality in discussing it that there is no chance your ideas will be taken serious by anyone".
"all papers support the core ideas, and thus confirm it, and no data contradicts it".
You have to prove that evolution is wrong, evolution is true, so it doesn't have to prove anything (my interpretation of this last comments).

...have really made me see the light.
(my apologies for not including more similar and encouraging comments)

I understand now that I lacked reasoning power by proudly assuming that the onus of proof laid with scientist when in reality I was the one having to prove that evolution did not take place.

In the face of such an avalanche of "belief there is proof" and emotion for the support of evolution as for Darwing elegant launch to deconstruct the belief in a creator, I see no alternative but to bend to the wisdom of the multitude.
The masses might have been wrong during the flood, but it's just a myth, in real life the majority is alway right, right?

Your many comments made me appreciate the need to revaluate my allegiance and switch to unquestionably follow the teachings of scientists since they are so much smarter and educated than me. Judging by your comments dare I say even yourselves ?

The question I pose myself now is, should I follow science as a substiture for religion ?
Should I leave the narrow road I've been indoctrinated to walk on or rather follow the broad road with the rest of mainstream humanity?

Or alternatively, should I wait until evolution becomes actually a real science rather ...
than (as one -pro evolution- comment puts it)
"an imaginative theory that many choose to accept at face value regardless of evidence against it" ?

Difficult question indeed.

Choose to accept evolution without evidence. (You asked me, so I told you).

The alternative is to accept evolution guilded by God without evidence. The addition of God makes it more complicated, so, by Occum's Razor, the simplest solution is right.

 

[Clara Tea]

Men in my family all died off... Most of them only in their mid-50s. Cancer did them in.

I at least partially blame the 'nuclear arms race' the U.S.S.R. and U.S. overhauled during the cold war, and continue to maintain to this day.

"Irradiated skyfall by man caused starfall of human scientific controlled causes." as you might say.

Certain regions of the US were hit harder. Southern Utah is still suffering from the southern Nevada nuclear tests.

I asked Nobel Laureate, Dr. Fred Reines, if the military intentionally nuked humans to see what would happen, and he said "you think that, do you." I didn't realize, at the time, that he was part of the Bikini Island nuclear test, and he was in charge of the Enewetak Island nuclear test. He commonly would be flown away from the university to analyze satellite imagery over the Soviet Union (and other places) to determine if they were making nuclear weapons or refining nuclear fuel. I explained to Dr. Reines that youtube shows pictures of soldier's hair blown back by the blast, then marching into ground zero, where they were exposed to lethal radiation. Their hair fell out, their fingernails fell out, and the military doctors said that they were goldbricking with the flu, and issued them dishonorable discharges (though they deserve medals posthumusly for bravely obeying orders). Out of the service, they were not given military medical help and died of cancer. Ditto, soldiers died from the Project Wigwam test that was 500 miles off of the coast of San Diego, it was a nuclear bomb 1,000 feet under water that burst over the water, and was composed of an atomic bomb enhanced with hydrogen (though not quite considered a hydrogen bomb because all of the hydrogen had not fused). The military denied Project Wigwam for decades while soldiers and sailors died of radiation poisoning.

The eastern half of the United States is rife with nuclear power plants, and the nuclear materials must remain at the power plants for decades after it is spent, while it undergoes natural fission to a less toxic material, to ready it for transport.

Since we could accomplish our energy goals without polluting God's air, God's water, and God's ground with nuclear or fossil fuels (that is, we could use solar panels), wouldn't it be more holy to do so?

The cost would be offset by better health (less lung cancer), and cleaner air. We could see the mountains, rather than haze. We could make electric cars. All that would be expensive, but it is sensible.

If you research battery cars, you will find that they entail a lot of pollution to make. However, it makes more sense to put careful pollution controls on a few factories rather than putting pollution controls on each car.

I think that God wants us to protect his environment (nature).

 

[Clara Tea]

Going back to chimps again...

There must be a lot of chimps sitting around pondering their evolution, as well. I wonder if they approve of their relationship to us?

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

Choose to accept evolution without evidence. (You asked me, so I told you).

The alternative is to accept evolution guilded by God without evidence. The addition of God makes it more complicated, so, by Occum's Razor, the simplest solution is right.

To me it boils down to the 'first cause' problem. Which we cannot know or test or falsify one way or another. Our astronomical observations and theoretical mathematics would seem to reveal that at the very very furthest back in time, the forces and substances as well as space and thus time themselves would be incapable of forming at the heat and what mathematically appears 'infinitely curved'. A time when time would appear to not exist. There is no 'before' or 'after' when there is no time.

I don't think the addition of a God need be complicated. Although, it is by and large very much overcomplicated by its proponents.

Segue:

What is your opinion or stance on the 'Simulation Argument'?

I find it possible of being indistinguishable from the non-personal God idealism.
A species turned on our mainboard, boom! The display activates (big bang), imagine an old tube TV/Monitor activating that moment when you see the small square in the center rapidly fill the display. Vwooop! We have a perceivable universe!
If this were the actuality of our reality, I would hope whatever experiment our creator is examining lasts a very long era!

 

[ElishaElijah]

Stop embarrassing yourself, already! Nobody claims this.
Humans have always been a genus of apes. It's simply the kind of animal we are, and humans evolved from earlier forms over the years, just like other living things. Why would anyone think we did not?

So you’re saying nobody claims this yet you claim this.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

No, he properly used the term ape which both chimpanzee and homo sapiens sapiens are. Though members of the homo genus are not members of the pan genus, neither is the vice versa the case.

I would say the bonobo seem more resemblant to us than the chimpanzee if we want to point out the resemblances within our taxonomical family. Though, that's just my subjective opinion.

 

[ElishaElijah]

You have a very strange concept of "documented." To most of us it means more than just written down somewhere.

There is no credible evidence of the biblical miracles. There are actually no first-person accounts of anything Jesus said or did. It's all hearsay. Moreover, accounts disagree, even within the Gospels.
Why would anyone believe fantastical stories from 2,000 years ago that would be dismissed out-of-hand should they be reported today?
You don't believe changes accumulate? How do these small changes know when to stop happening, so as to prevent their accumulating into large changes?
Stop embarrassing yourself, already! Nobody claims this.
Humans have always been a genus of apes. It's simply the kind of animal we are, and humans evolved from earlier forms over the years, just like other living things. Why would anyone think we did not?

My testimony isn’t hearsay and neither is the Bible. The gospels don’t contradict themselves they compliment each other.
“What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have observed and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life —  that life was revealed, and we have seen it and we testify and declare to you the eternal life that was with the Father and was revealed to us  —  what we have seen and heard we also declare to you, so that you may also have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ. We are writing these things so that our joy may be complete.”
‭‭1 John‬ ‭1:1-4‬ ‭CSB‬‬
Also like Hebrews 11