Proof of evolution -at last-

[F1fan]

There’s no way our thinking is the same, yours and my definition of terms aren’t even the same so how can we ever come to terms on anything? My wife was a believer before we met, to say the Jews don’t believe in the literal text of Genesis and Creation isn’t true either, some Jews do and some don’t.

In any event, it is atypical for Jews to interpret Genesis literally. It's a fringe group at best.

 

[F1fan]

Would be a diss on the Jews if me a Gentile knows the Torah better than they do.

Yet you don't think it a diss for you to interpret it differently than they do? And that your interpretation has to require you to reject and dismiss valid conclusions in science by experts?

Do you ever get the feeling you might be mistaken?

But if they don’t believe God for the Creation account in Genesis then yes I do know the Torah better and they have gone the way of the Kings that forsook God for Idols.

Only because of your questionable judgment and assumptions. The evidence is massive against your personal judgments and assumptions, and you seem to resist the virtue of hubris to even consider you might be mistaken.

Where did you first pick up the notion of Bible literalism? As a child? Parents? Church?

 

[F1fan]

Many scientists are wrong and they have facts, sure but then their interpretation of those facts are the problem.
Have you answered the question of consciousness?
The human genome?
Science cannot figure these out so to say evolution apart from God did this, just doesn’t make any sense at all. Then for you to say you have facts when science cannot explain life, laws etc. Earth hanging in space on nothing and just a slight wobble and we are all dead and you say there isn’t any God. Well, ok you can but that thinking really doesn’t make sense to me.

I asked you how you justify dismissing the valid conclusions of experts in science. On what basis do you claim an authority over experts in science?

 

[ElishaElijah]

Yet you don't think it a diss for you to interpret it differently than they do? And that your interpretation has to require you to reject and dismiss valid conclusions in science by experts?

If you want to talk about the proper interpretation of Scripture then a person must understand the author who is God and the Interpreter who is the Holy Spirit. If a person doesn’t have the Holy Spirit they will not be able to interpret what God meant when He said things.
“Nevertheless, I am telling you the truth. It is for your benefit that I go away, because if I don’t go away the Counselor will not come to you. If I go, I will send him to you. When he comes, he will convict the world about sin, righteousness, and judgment: About sin, because they do not believe in me; about righteousness, because I am going to the Father and you will no longer see me; and about judgment, because the ruler of this world has been judged. “I still have many things to tell you, but you can’t bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth. For he will not speak on his own, but he will speak whatever he hears. He will also declare to you what is to come. He will glorify me, because he will take from what is mine and declare it to you. Everything the Father has is mine. This is why I told you that he takes from what is mine and will declare it to you.”
‭‭John‬ ‭16:7-15‬

“But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him.”
‭‭I John‬ ‭2:27‬ ‭

 

[ElishaElijah]

Where did you first pick up the notion of Bible literalism? As a child? Parents? Church?

Some of the Bible is literal, some is figurative, when you’re adopted into the family you learn the difference. If you aren’t in the family how do you think you can understand? I would say you have no idea right now but if and when you enter Gods family all of the sudden things become very clear and obvious.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Many scientists are wrong and they have facts, sure but then their interpretation of those facts are the problem.

Oh, so when did you use science to demonstrate that they've got their facts wrong? Quoting the Bible doesn't do it.

Have you answered the question of consciousness?

Which one?

The human genome?

You mean the human genome that scientists have mapped? What about it?

Science cannot figure these out

What do you know about science? You take your views from ancient bronze age peoples.

so to say evolution apart from God did this, just doesn’t make any sense at all.

To say it is, doesn't make sense because nobody has ever demonstrated that any God exists in the first place.

But then again, God(s) could have invented evolution. Why do you think God(s) are too dumb to have done so?

Then for you to say you have facts when science cannot explain life, laws etc.

Science can't explain life and laws? What does that even mean?

Earth hanging in space on nothing and just a slight wobble and we are all dead and you say there isn’t any God. Well, ok you can but that thinking really doesn’t make sense to me.

Earth doesn't hang in space on nothing. It sounds like you should really pay attention to some science for a change.

How does the position of the earth demonstrate the existence of God, exactly? So what if the earth wobbles and we all die. How does that demonstrate that a God exists?

 

[SkepticThinker]

If you want to talk about the proper interpretation of Scripture then a person must understand the author who is God and the Interpreter who is the Holy Spirit. If a person doesn’t have the Holy Spirit they will not be able to interpret what God meant when He said things.
“Nevertheless, I am telling you the truth. It is for your benefit that I go away, because if I don’t go away the Counselor will not come to you. If I go, I will send him to you. When he comes, he will convict the world about sin, righteousness, and judgment: About sin, because they do not believe in me; about righteousness, because I am going to the Father and you will no longer see me; and about judgment, because the ruler of this world has been judged. “I still have many things to tell you, but you can’t bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth. For he will not speak on his own, but he will speak whatever he hears. He will also declare to you what is to come. He will glorify me, because he will take from what is mine and declare it to you. Everything the Father has is mine. This is why I told you that he takes from what is mine and will declare it to you.”
‭‭John‬ ‭16:7-15‬

“But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him.”
‭‭I John‬ ‭2:27‬ ‭

You understand God? That's a mighty big claim, isn't it.

 

[YoursTrue]

The genetic evidence is overwhelming objective verifiable evidence and you absolutely know nothing of genetics!?!?!?! (. . . not proof . . . lol for your intentional ignorance of science!!!!).

Yes, evolution took billions of years.

I find genetics rather interesting -- however -- there are gaps in the genetic content between gorillas and humans, and of course the "experts" say there was a common denominator somewhere -- but have not found any "proof" of that presumption.

 

[YoursTrue]

Wouldn't want to hurt anyone's feelings, precious...

Well, I had never heard of Ford (not a dinosaur guy), so I had to look this up. I found Ford's original 'research' - it was an essay on his personal web site. The creationist above refers to a book, so Ford probably took the standard creationist route of whining in book form when the "orthodoxy" did not bow down to his greatness.
Which was not all that great. I also found this - which I reproduce much of below - and one will note that the rebuttal provides citations, whereas Ford's original essay had none. Turns out Ford appears to be a Shapiro-style egotist upset that he did not become a star based on his inaccurate claims.

No wonder creationists like his story - while he is not a creationist, he acts just like them.

As readers interested in dinosaurs will know, Ford made something of a name for himself in the world of vertebrate palaeontology back in 2012 by announcing that palaeontologists have gotten dinosaurs completely wrong. Non-bird Mesozoic dinosaurs were, so says Ford, perpetually aquatic animals that actually sloshed around, shoulder-deep, in the water and were completely unsuited for life on land: the mainstream palaeontological view that these animals were strongly adapted for terrestrial life is, so he says, misguided and woefully wrong.
Ford published an article announcing his infallible hypothesis in science newszine Laboratory News (Ford 2012). Aided and abetted by an inciteful media, his idea received gargantuan coverage in the global press. Instinct told me to ignore the whole circus – in any case, colleagues were already doing a good job of saying what nonsense it was. Alas, I was specifically invited to produce a response and eventually decided, as a damage-limitation exercise, to do so (Naish 2012).
[...]
Needless to say, all of these claims are erroneous and easy to contradict based on the data we have. I’d like to hope that this was all obvious to the people in the audience, but sadly it’s human nature to assume that a person who speaks with authority on an unfamiliar topic is reliable and likely correct, so don’t get your hopes up.
[...]
Sauropods, no matter what Ford may like to tell us, are built like long-tailed, long-necked elephants. They mostly have deep bodies, slender limbs and proportionally small, compact hands and feet – precisely the opposite of what we’d see if they were built for routine life in the water. Those of you who know the dinosaur literature will be aware of the fact that the precise same arguments were used long ago to dispel the erroneous 20thcentury view that sauropods were perpetual swamp-dwellers (Bakker 1971, Coombs 1975): those arguments have been widely accepted by palaeontologists because they appear to be valid, not because (contra Ford) palaeontologists are dogmatically adhering to a status quo because they’re worried about losing research funding or whatever. [*NOTE - that fear of losing funding thing is a classic creationist trope!*]
[...]
Then there’s the extensive skeletal and soft-tissue pneumatisation we know that sauropods had. Ford ignores this, doesn’t mention it and might even (for all I know) be wholly unaware of it, but it’s been shown that sauropods were so air-filled (the bones of some species being up to 89% air) that – if and when they did swim – they must have floated high in the water and been prone to tipping (Henderson 2003). Again, their anatomy shows that they were not suited for a life in water, contra Ford. The extensive tooth wear we see in sauropods is also indicative of a terrestrial life that involved the stripping and biting of foliage belonging to ferns, conifers and so on.
[...]
Within recent years evidence has gradually come together indicating that Spinosaurus – a long-snouted, sail-backed giant theropod from the Upper Cretaceous of northern Africa – was adapted for a life at the water’s edge, and the newest data shows that it has strongly reduced medullary cavities in its long bones, proportionally short hindlimbs, a spreading, functionally four-toed, probably fully webbed foot, and other specialisations for an amphibious or even fully aquatic life (Ibrahim et al. 2014). Ford takes this as support for his primary contention, but he’s cheating.

Firstly, the idea that Spinosaurus might be aquatic isn’t an idea that the community has been contesting, nor was Ford the first to invent it. Au contraire: as more and more data has come in, we’ve seen Spinosaurus make the metaphorical transition from an animal that waded at the water’s edge (Taquet 1984) to one that routinely swam (Amiot et al. 2010) to one that was predominantly aquatic (Ibrahim et al. 2014). We’ve made this transition on the basis of the accruing of evidence – you know, the sort of thing that scientists are supposed to do. Does what we think about Spinosaurus apply to other big theropods, or to other big dinosaurs, as Ford insists? No. The aquatic features of Spinosaurus are (so far as we know at the moment) unique to Spinosaurus, making it wrong for Ford to point to this one taxon and say “I told you so!”.
[...]
Ford’s contention about the alleged aquatic habits of dinosaurs makes a good story. It makes for an entertaining talk, and it's a fun topic of the sort that journalists love to write about. Why? Predominantly because Ford can be portrayed as the lone truther battling against a barbarian swarm of opposition. We love stories like this. And a big part of the Ford lecture that I listened to wasn’t about dinosaurs themselves, or about science, but about the ‘community reaction’ to his idea, about the fact that angry palaeontologists and palaeontological writers reacted with abject hostility to his idea (he referred to Brian Switek’s article on a few occasions).

In fact, Ford specifically said that he was surprised at the venomosity and aggression contained in these responses. They clearly prove, so he said, the existence of a blinkered and biased approach in the mainstream palaeontological community, a vested commitment in the textbook dogma that museum displays, research careers and those ubiquitous and easy-to-obtain financial grants are all so dependent on. Such is the appeal of this lone truther concept that – so Ford told us – a book and even a Hollywood movie (all movies are made in Hollywood, right?) are perhaps going to result. Oh puh-leez, pass the sick bucket.
​

And so on...
Creationists like Ford's story because, intellectually/egotistically, they are kindred spirits.

ok but what's the evidence that shows without doubt that dinosaurs became birds? lol, it's so stupid (incredible) to believe so I have to laugh. oh yes, I read that they discovered feather fossils on dinosaur bones or something similar. this does not mean that dinosaurs evolved to birds.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I find genetics rather interesting -- however -- there are gaps in the genetic content between gorillas and humans, and of course the "experts" say there was a common denominator somewhere -- but have not found any "proof" of that presumption.

And non-experts such as yourself who don't even understand evolution to begin with, disagree. Gee, I wonder who we should go with? The people who have studied this their entire lives and can demonstrate their claims, or the person who has no education in the field who believes in bronze age stories in an old book that have never been verified? The answer seems rather obvious to me. Keep putting "experts" in quotes though, it really bolsters your unevidenced claims.

What "gaps in genetic content" are you talking about, and what is the significance you've attached to that?

 

[YoursTrue]

I’m living in the spiritual realm and can see it because I’ve been born again, you can’t because you’re spiritual dead or blind to it. There’s plenty of demon possessed people doing all kinds of sick things in our world, this is motivated by Satan. Who do you think is behind the push for the one world government? This is a set up for the Anti-Christ to be revealed, haven’t you been paying attention ? All written in the Bible

You remember how the Devil offered Jesus all the kingdoms of the world if Jesus would do one act of worship to him? (Can you imagine? "all the kingdoms of the world..." all the kingdoms ... makes sense as time goes on...)Jesus did not do that one act of worship.

 

[SkepticThinker]

ok but what's the evidence that shows without doubt that dinosaurs became birds? lol, it's so stupid (incredible) to believe so I have to laugh. oh yes, I read that they discovered feather fossils on dinosaur bones or something similar. this does not mean that dinosaurs evolved to birds.

Have you seen their skeletons? Studied any of them in any depth whatsoever?

It’s official: birds are literally dinosaurs. Here’s how we know
Evidence that birds are dinosaurs is outstandingly good.
How dinosaurs evolved into birds
Are Birds Dinosaurs?

 

[ElishaElijah]

[QUOTE

And non-experts such as yourself who don't even understand evolution to begin with, disagree. Gee, I wonder who we should go with? The people who have studied this their entire lives and can demonstrate their claims, or the person who has no education in the field who believes in bronze age stories in an old book that have never been verified? The answer seems rather obvious to me. Keep putting "experts" in quotes though, it really bolsters your unevidenced claims.

What "gaps in genetic content" are you talking about, and what is the significance you've attached to that?

Problem is the scientists you’re talking about cannot demonstrate much, they attempt to explain Creation is all. But as far as the meaning of life, consciousness, what happens when we die, life after death all a mystery unless the scientist knows the Creator.

 

[SkepticThinker]

[QUOTE
Problem is the scientists you’re talking about cannot demonstrate much, they attempt to explain Creation is all. But as far as the meaning of life, consciousness, what happens when we die, life after death all a mystery unless the scientist knows the Creator.

They can demonstrate all of their claims. Unlike yourself.

Maybe there is no universal meaning of life and our purpose is whatever we want it to be.
I don't know what your point is about consciousness.
When we die, our organs shut down, our heart stops pumping blood and our brains die. Then our bodies decay.

 

[ElishaElijah]

They can demonstrate all of their claims. Unlike yourself.

Maybe there is no universal meaning of life and our purpose is whatever we want it to be.
I don't know what your point is about consciousness.
When we die, our organs shut down, our heart stops pumping blood and our brains die. Then our bodies decay.

Just asking if all your thoughts are just chemical reactions? Where do they come from?

 

[Valjean]

I did defend my position, gave you the 2 Scenarios, which demonstrate a creation apart from God is imposssible.
The demonstration of my position as written in Genesis and throughout the Bible is right in front of you daily. Go outside and look, all the laws we have were not a result of chance but from the Author of life out Creator.
The absurdity of your views is no different than walking up to a vehicle and believing the parts just put themselves together over billions of years and then saying wow even the key works, push the button see what happens.

You're preaching. You don't even understand my views.

 

[Valjean]

I would use other means like a trap, tranquilizer gun etc. Don’t see them ruling over human beings do you? Not happening
How does science deal with consciousness?
And witchcraft is demonic, I wasn’t possessed but controlled by the demonic spiritual realm as explained in Ephesians 2.

Rule and dominate are different things.

 

[Valjean]

Was going to say that’s where I thought you were getting your information.

??????? -- where,? From scholars and historians?

 

[shunyadragon]

I find genetics rather interesting -- however -- there are gaps in the genetic content between gorillas and humans, and of course the "experts" say there was a common denominator somewhere -- but have not found any "proof" of that presumption.

Interesting . . . ? Yet no knowledge in genetics to even remotely understand anything concerning the genetics of evolution.

Do you have scientific references to justify your foolish claims???

More foolishness there is no proof in science, and again your intentional ignorance of science.

 

[shunyadragon]

ok but what's the evidence that shows without doubt that dinosaurs became birds? lol, it's so stupid (incredible) to believe so I have to laugh. oh yes, I read that they discovered feather fossils on dinosaur bones or something similar. this does not mean that dinosaurs evolved to birds.

What is your is knowledge in science to make any judgements concerning the evolutionary relationship between birds and dinosaurs?