Proof of evolution -at last-

[gnostic]

I am glad you finally realize you cannot, due to circumstances regarding true (not conjectural or false) science, explain your position to me. Thank you. *Because it's -- inexplicable in a truthful proveable way. Thank you!! As the old song goes -- if you remember it -- "At Last!!!!" (nice song, by the way.)

You wouldn't know what true science is, even if it swat you in the nose. All you will do is just deny science, as you have done so in the past.

The very fact that you cannot distinguish the difference between evidence and proof, or between testing and proving, just show how little you understand science.

Scientists test hypothesis with evidence, mathematician prove mathematical equations, by trying to solve the equations (equation = proof).

Proof isn't evidence, and proof (proof) cannot test science. Until you understand the distinction, you have stuck your head too long in the ground.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Again, who says it and where is it being said? If you cannot answer, I will have to assume it is without merit and can be ignored.

Come on, man. You really don’t know?

Fred Hoyle for one. (He coined the term Big Bang, to deride it.)
Herman Bondi is another.
(And pretty much whoever is left that still embraces the Steady State model, or the Oscillating model. I guess there’s a few.)

I think you knew this, right?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

You are forgetting that Miller and Urey have identified 11 amino acids in 1952, while using electricity as catalyst to start chemical reaction.

Nope, I’m not forgetting; I’m just dismissing their 1952 experiment.

Do you know?

Tell me, the gases they used, in recreating Earth’s ancient atmosphere …. is it considered accurate?

Stop belittling others. It makes your argument look weak, as if it can’t stand on its own.

 

[gnostic]

That no scraps you say exist before c.200 ce really suggests that more complete writings did exist before that. Otherwise scraps would not be there. And regardless of editing and redacting, again this well shows that unlike genetic gaps in supposed evolved animals, Jesus certainly did exist and was well documented by those who knew and saw him or had explained him to others. Who were waiting or delighted or not so happy to hear about the Messiah.

The gospels are based on hearsay. Nothing written in these gospels were "eyewitness" accounts of Jesus' life.

You even have -

• 2 completely different Jesus' origin stories,
  
• 3 different versions of the supper at Bethany,
  
• 4 different numbers of women going to Jesus' tombs,
  
• no one else wrote anything about saints risen from their graves at Jesus' death except in gospel of Matthew,
  
• no gospels ever mention risen Larzarus except in John's,
• and the inconsistencies between one gospel and the others, just goes on and on.

Some of Paul's letters are older than the gospels (the oldest gospel being Mark), who sometimes tell some different stories.

There is no contemporary accounts about Jesus, just stuff written a couple of decades later or more, so they are hardly reliable.

 

[shunyadragon]

Actually it is said that many agnostic or atheist scientists were not happy to learn that the universe had a beginning.

More religious speculation without any knowledge of science.

False, science is science in physics and cosmology concerning the possibilities of beginnings concerning our universe and the possibility of a multiverse. There is no evidence that the 'possible' beginning of our universe is an absolute beginning of our physical existence. The existence of a multiverse and cyclic universes is the current dominant view of scientists.

The success of the experiment is that Amino Acids not present naturally can be the result of natural processes and lightening in atmospheric conditions similar to the early earth at the time abiogenesis occurred, primarily the energy source lightening.

 

[shunyadragon]

Nope, I’m not forgetting; I’m just dismissing their 1952 experiment.

It represents only one successful experiment on one aspect of abiogenesis and many discoveries and research sense are not dependent on this one experiment, It is very apparent that you reject all the science of evolution and abiogenesis with a 'hand wave' based on a religious agenda nad no knowledge of science

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Come on, man. You really don’t know?

Fred Hoyle for one. (He coined the term Big Bang, to deride it.)
Herman Bondi is another.
(And pretty much whoever is left that still embraces the Steady State model, or the Oscillating model. I guess there’s a few.)

I think you knew this, right?

So...two? Is that many? And their opinion means...what?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

the Bible is reliable and tested

I can vouch for the opposite being the case.

If the Bible is reliable, why don't atheists rely on it? Merely not believing in the biblical deity doesn't make any advice it may contain unreliable. If Euclid had peppered his Elements with religious beliefs but remained mathematically sound, we would just ignore the religious parts and continue to rely on the geometry. Newton inserted a deity into Principia when he ran out of mathematics, later supplied by Laplace. Nevertheless, NASA found the rest reliable and in fact relied on it. But this isn't true about the Bible. It's just as unreliable when you remove the deity as it was before.

Can you provide the person who created the non-living materials for what we see and experience in our world?

Not a person. The singularity generated all energy, matter, and force. The elements necessary for life arose from that process.

Haven’t seen the supposedly overwhelming evidence people keep talking about.

And you never will unless you look at it with an ability to understand it and a willingness to be convinced by a compelling argument. Those who HAVE reviewed the evidence in that manner (open-mindedly) will tell you that they HAVE seen the evidence, and found it compelling

We keep seeing this kind of statement from people who haven't learned the science made to those who have, people who will tell you that they have seen that evidence and found it compelling. Then the creationist comes along and says he doesn't see the evidence. Is he expecting to be understood as somebody whose opinion should be taken seriously?

Maybe. It seems so. But is that realistic? To be taken seriously, you need to see the evidence and explain why it doesn't mean what others say it does, not just say that you haven't seen the evidence.

Science has no answers for this and that’s your problem.

Not a problem for him, me, or science. Why would it be? We don't judge the science by what it doesn't know yet, but rather, by what it does know. The work on abiogenesis advances every year, and new data points are added that can be thought of links in a chain not yet connected into one piece. The chain from elements and elementary molecules to cells is living cells is fleshing out more and more.

Isn't this the argument we get from the creationists regarding the chain connecting man and chimp's last common ancestor to man - if you can't supply all of the links, it didn't happen, or that science is defeated? You might as well say the same about a murder investigation in progress - if they don't have enough to convict yet, the police have no answers. Patience. The investigation is young yet.

how can you believe some experiment or science test done today that speculates what the atmosphere was billions of years ago when in your view there was no observation of these events by anyone?

Here's where many creationists lose credibility. They fail to understand what observable refers to. Observation refers to observing what is here now in science as in any other pursuit, not in observing things that are no longer observable. We observe the stegosaurus skeleton that is here today, not the animals that is long gone. Why? Because the former is possible, the latter impossible. It was never about observing the past, but about inferring the past from observations of the present - just like the detective above, who is also not expecting to observe a crime already completed. Even if he sees CCTV footage of the crime, he's looking at what exists today.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

It represents only one successful experiment on one aspect of abiogenesis and many discoveries and research sense are not dependent on this one experiment, It is very apparent that you reject all the science of evolution and abiogenesis with a 'hand wave' based on a religious agenda nad no knowledge of science

Hold on now! No sweeping generalizations, please.
Your judgement about me is wrong… I base my pov on evolution regarding the empirical evidence, not on suppositions.

Which means, I actually believe quite a lot of the evidence, of how species change, ie., evolve, over time.

But the specific phenotype characteristics that posits these species within their respective family level of taxa, I.e., what separates the felidae from the canidae…I see no relationship at all. Such assertions are based on inference, not solid evidence. The first in these families, were created. Their descendants then gradually evolved into more species.

When scientists include terms such as “probably”, “could have”, or “likely”, those are suppositions… those scientists have left science, and entered the realm of philosophy.

The case studies from Doctors? Did you look at those?
If all this isn’t enough for you then how can you believe some experiment or science test done today that speculates what the atmosphere was billions of years ago when in your view there was no observation of these events by anyone?

Good question!

 

[Hockeycowboy]

If the Bible is reliable, why don't atheists rely on it?

Because of its standards on sexual morality, i.e., ‘have sex only with your spouse, and keep it there.’ Not saying that this applies to you; but it does to many.

(Aldous Huxley, in his “Ends and Means”, stated as much…..

“I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning; and consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics. He is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do. For myself, as no doubt for most of my friends, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom. The supporters of this system claimed that it embodied the meaning - the Christian meaning, they insisted - of the world. There was one admirably simple method of confuting these people and justifying ourselves in our erotic revolt: we would deny that the world had any meaning whatever.” )

But to me, the Bible’s prohibitions on promiscuity, actually is one area where I see its wisdom, and helps convince of it’s divine origin….In the end, coupled with its counsel for husbands and wives, (and the Creator would know this), it builds strong families with well-grounded, emotionally- stable children who become productive members of their communities.

That’s lacking today I think.

Merely not believing in the biblical deity doesn't make any advice it may contain unreliable.

Newton inserted a deity into Principia when he ran out of mathematics, later supplied by Laplace.

He “ran out” of mathematics! Never knew that!

As he himself wrote: ““Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion.”

Even now, there’s no adequate explanation, without suppositions.

Not a person. The singularity generated all energy, matter, and force. The elements necessary for life arose from that process.

The elements arising from processes, even their attraction that some may have for others, does not explain their organization into functionality that’s beneficial for life to flourish.

…a willingness to be convinced

That’s for sure! Which goes for both sides of the issue!

Take care. Hope you and yours are doing well.

 

[ppp]

Because of its standards on sexual morality, i.e., ‘have sex only with your spouse, and keep it there.’ Not saying that this applies to you; but it does to many.

That is ridiculous. It is just a variation in that "You just want to sin" twaddle.

I cannot think of anything that a Christian would consider a sin that I would have needed to leave Christianity to do.

If any thing, biblical morality does not meet my minimum standards.

 

[gnostic]

Tell me, the gases they used, in recreating Earth’s ancient atmosphere …. is it considered accurate?

Although I did do a semester in geology and 2 semesters in soil science during my civil engineering studies, it was only to learn to identify some rocks, types of sediments and soils that construction workers may encounter during any excavation. So I don’t consider myself expert in geology.

There were nothing in my studies that include more specialized or more advanced fields of studies, like stratigraphy, volcanism, or dating methods (eg radiometric dating, thermoluminescence dating), etc.

You may wonder what does gases in atmosphere have to do with geology, right?

Well I did pick up a few things over the last 10 years that have nothing to do with studies or experiences in civil engineering.

Just as bodies of long dead organisms can possibly fossilized in which people can examine and test the fossils and the surrounding rocks where they were buried, those rocks and fossils act like time capsules.

The same could also be true with gases can also be trapped in porous parts of the rocks, where scientists can test those gases, to find out what gases were presented in the atmosphere at the times before.

Their tests could reveal how much nitrogen, oxygen, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, argon, methane, etc, were in the atmosphere.

But it isn’t just rocks, where scientists can test for gases. They also do similar tests that identify gases in ice core samples in the Antarctica or Greenland, tests in tree rings, and bog pests.

But it isn’t just gases or fossils that they can test for.

Some tests could also identify pollens, flooding, droughts, fire, etc.

In tree rings, for example, can show that in some years, the seasons were wetter or dryer, or if there were fires.

These are where the experts are needed to identify WHAT occur WHEN.

My points in all this, is that the further back in times, especially during the Precambrian eons, especially layers of rocks known as the banded iron formation (BIF), these formations reveal the gases in atmosphere at the time.

For instance, about 2.4 billion years, the BIF revealed the Great Oxygenation Event (GOE), when there were free oxygen in the atmosphere, during the time where there were no plants to convert carbon dioxide into oxygen. The photosynthesis process occurred not by plants, but by the new genus and species of bacteria - the Cyanobacteria.

The oxygen in the atmosphere, resulted in higher levels of oxidation in rocks, hence there were thicker layer of oxidation. Some rocks have minerals containing iron in the minerals, and if you remember high school chemistry, oxidation of iron caused rust.

Before the Great Oxygenation Event, there were no free oxygen, oxidation occurred less.

With more oxygen in the air (in the atmosphere), it would reduce quantities of carbon dioxide and methane. This resulted in the first (and longest) glaciation period (you would commonly know glaciation periods as the Ice ages). This period was known as the Huronian Glaciation.

Are you understanding any of this?

Are you are confused...you did ask.

 

[shunyadragon]

Hold on now! No sweeping generalizations, please.
Your judgement about me is wrong… I base my pov on evolution regarding the empirical evidence, not on suppositions.

Which means, I actually believe quite a lot of the evidence, of how species change, ie., evolve, over time.

But the specific phenotype characteristics that posits these species within their respective family level of taxa, I.e., what separates the felidae from the canidae…I see no relationship at all. Such assertions are based on inference, not solid evidence. The first in these families, were created. Their descendants then gradually evolved into more species.

Nothing above helps your case. You fundamentally reject the science of evolution, which includes the evolutionary relationship of all life on earth You selective view remains based on an ancient Biblical agenda without any knowledge of the science of evolution..

The sweeping generalization remains a fact. The evolution of ALL life on earth is based on empirical evidence, 95%+ of ALL the scientists in the world in the sciences related to evolution support the science of evolution as the evolutionary relationship of ALL the life in the history of life on earth.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If the Bible is reliable, why don't atheists rely on it? Merely not believing in the biblical deity doesn't make any advice it may contain unreliable.

Because of its standards on sexual morality

That seems like an inadequate answer for why unbelievers don't find the Bible reliable. Why would atheists turn to biblical scripture for advice on sexual morality? My rules for myself come from my own understanding of right and wrong combined with my desires and my wife's. We both prefer fidelity, but if we preferred an open marriage, we would have that. If we had been gay, we would have had gay relationships. I don't see biblical advice to be reliable there, either, or why an unbeliever should rely consult scripture for advice. I also haven't consulted the Qur'an, nor any other book holy or otherwise. I rely on my own faculties, conscience and reason. No other source has been more reliable.

If believers want to know why atheists make the choices they do, perhaps unbelievers should be asked rather than assume what is a fairly common trope regarding atheists from Christians: we're simply immoral and undisciplined. We're unable to meet these high standards because we lack the character.

The elements arising from processes, even their attraction that some may have for others, does not explain their organization into functionality that’s beneficial for life to flourish.

We have no explanation for why the laws of physics are as they are, neither from science nor religion. Simply declaring that God did it has no more explanatory power than inserting any other word or phrase for God, and is no less of a guess.

Take care. Hope you and yours are doing well.

The same to you, amigo. Nice to hear from you again.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why isn’t a persons life and testimony evidence?

For the same reason that alien abductees' testimonies aren't enough to believe in alien abduction.
For the same reason that bigfoot spotter testimonies aren't enough to believe in bigfoot.
For the same reason that Tom Cruise's testimony isn't enough to believe Lord Xenu is real.

Because people lie, can be honestly mistaken, hallucinate, have faulty memory, are prone to cognition errors, etc etc etc etc.

You may not have been there but my family, friends and those who witnessed the drastic change were sure it was supernatural and not from some kind of wishful thinking or will power.
When I go to baptisms and hear how God has changed people, then watch them afterwards, it’s so obvious that God is working in their lives, their whole countenance, language and character changes.

People turn their life around for all kinds of reasons - including brain trauma due to injury - for better and worse.

It's no big deal and it requires no bare supernatural assertion to try and explain it away.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

What you call "documented cases" are in fact just the claims.

I don’t have a problem when someone says a bird has had these changes over the years, it’s still a bird.
What the problem was is when someone says a human used to be an ape due to evolution. This is absurd.

The thing about "absurd" is that you can only conclude such from the knowledge you have. You don't know what is absurd in advance.

Before Einstein, it was considered absurd the flow of time could change relative to observers due to speed and gravity. Before quantum mechanics, it was considered absurd for objects to be in 2 places at once - but particles happily show up "here" while being measured "there".

Einstein was convinced his own theories were incorrect because he thought that black holes, which were unknown at that time but were predicted by his theory of relativity, were "absurd". So he assumed that relativity had to be wrong somehow, because how could something as "absurd" as a black hole exist?



The fact of the matter is that humans being apes is a biological fact. As much a fact as it is that they are mammals and vertebrates.
The fact of the matter is that humans sharing ancestors with the other great apes (and by extension, all of earth life) is as close to genetic fact as it gets.


Willful ignorance will not change the facts of reality. Instead, it will just make sure that you remain ignorant about said facts.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No I didn’t say that, but I will say like begets like. A fish will not change into an ape, human or an insect.

If any of those things would occur, evolution theory would be falsified.

So what is your point?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

First of all nothing has evolved with using artificial means. Oh skin color, wool color, etc., Sheep remain sheep humans remain humans gorillas remain gorillas.

How many times have I explained to you that if humans would produce anything other then humans, evolution theory would be falsified?

Why do you keep repeating this nonsense?
Have you still not learned?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I understand that the ToE says it takes a long time for different forms to evolve. A real long time with no genetic proof of any sort,

Bzzt. As has been explained to you countless times before also: common ancestry of species is a genetic fact.

Read up on phylogenetics. When you fully sequence genomes and plot out the matches, you get exactly what evolution predicts you should get: a family tree.

This is also how we can tell your sibling from your cousin from a random person.

The intermediate forms are not there in reality

Ignoring them doesn't make them go away.
There's a whole bunch of them, many even found by prediction.

In theory, yes, but not really in reality. However, and it's a big however, bats remain bats, whether they're blind or not, same with fishes.

Again, for the upteenth time: if bats produce something other then bats, evolution is DISPROVEN

There is no proof absolutely that dinosaurs 'become,' or rather evolved to birds.

Birds are dinosaurs like humans are mammals.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And that means what? We can then determine their fate or where they live, or tame them and not the other way around. Not sure your point

Ow, my cat would very much disagree!!!!!

Sometimes, it feels more like I live in his house and he is actually the one that tamed ME into doing his bidding.


that sneaky b*stard