The Big Bang Theory is dead.

[John53]

Why? Fish did not eventually evolve to humans through a series of in-betweens?

We share a common ancestor like I said.

 

[YoursTrue]

It sounded that way to me.

OK, thanks for that. Perhaps this will help explain what I meant: "There is nothing new about humans and all other vertebrates having evolved from fish. The conventional understanding has been that certain fish shimmied landwards roughly 370 million years ago as primitive, lizard-like animals known as tetrapods" We're more like primitive fishes than once believed, new research shows.
The reasoning is that theories change based on the latest thinking of scientists. But there is stuff left out, such as: actual genetic changes. Do I believe that God is involved in forming plants and animals? (You guessed it...)

 

[YoursTrue]

We share a common ancestor like I said.

Such as: ? ok, wait! I know! The dirt...

 

[YoursTrue]

Me too. Plus, I figure correcting misinformation and erroneous information has a wider value to those that are not participating or may run across some of this doing searches. Still, one sort of tires at repeating the same answers to the same person over and over.

Look, if you want to believe because you place so much faith in the conjectures of scientists as to how it happened that humans evolved in the long run from fish, that's your choice based on how you see the scientific ponderings. Please do remember that the theory of evolution is survival of the fittest and natural selection. No God needed or involved. But there is no evidence that God is not involved with the types of organisms involved. And I believe it is (1) statistically impossible for life to come about in its various functions by itself, however you want to define it as if it were simply chemical biologic responses, or (2) there is no intelligent force enabling life. Does that mean that there are no mutations? No, but that is another subject as to whether there is any intelligent force that was involved.

 

[John53]

Such as: ? ok, wait! I know! The dirt...

Read the article you posted

 

[John53]

Look, if you want to believe because you place so much faith in the conjectures of scientists as to how it happened that humans evolved in the long run from fish, that's your choice based on how you see the scientific ponderings. Please do remember that the theory of evolution is survival of the fittest and natural selection. No God needed or involved. But there is no evidence that God is not involved with the types of organisms involved. And I believe it is (1) statistically impossible for life to come about in its various functions by itself, however you want to define it as if it were simply chemical biologic responses, or (2) there is no intelligent force enabling life. Does that mean that there are no mutations? No, but that is another subject as to whether there is any intelligent force that was involved.

I place my faith in evidence, not conjecture. If God created life then he/she/it/them did it as simple life which evolved into what we see today. Either that or he/she/it/them created life as we see it today then planted evidence to make it appear that way which would make he/she/it/them deceptive.

 

[YoursTrue]

I place my faith in evidence, not conjecture. If God created life then he/she/it/them did it as simple life which evolved into what we see today. Either that or he/she/it/them created life as we see it today then planted evidence to make it appear that way which would make he/she/it/them deceptive.

Then don't place your faith in scientific conjectures over what the Bible says. Look, I'm looking forward to certain things. Not based on evolution. Have a good one.

 

[YoursTrue]

Read the article you posted

I did. There is nothing more than conjecture as to the transference from a few fish to eventual humans. Bye for now.

 

[YoursTrue]

Well, there were a number of stages between the two. amphibians, mammal-like reptiles, mammals, primates, etc. It was definitely NOT a simple case of a fish turning into a human.

Have you looked at the evidence? The record of mammals is spotty at times (since the first mammals were mostly small) so that leads to some uncertainty about details. But the fish to amphibian transition is well documented in the fossils. So is the development of mammal-like reptiles. And the last couple million years of human evolution is very detailed.

Whether or not that was 'needed', the fact is that it did happen. We have the fossils showing the transitions.

However it happened, it does not mean that these things evolved by necessity or natural selection without intelligent force.

 

[YoursTrue]

I place my faith in evidence, not conjecture. If God created life then he/she/it/them did it as simple life which evolved into what we see today. Either that or he/she/it/them created life as we see it today then planted evidence to make it appear that way which would make he/she/it/them deceptive.

What makes you say that? Why would you think God had nothing to do with giving life?

 

[YoursTrue]

No, that is NOT the reason scientists say it took billions of years. They say that because the evidence from the fossils says so.

Can you provide some evidence that the fossils show billions of years of evidence? And then the amount of time from one organism to another?

 

[YoursTrue]

Me too. Plus, I figure correcting misinformation and erroneous information has a wider value to those that are not participating or may run across some of this doing searches. Still, one sort of tires at repeating the same answers to the same person over and over.

I must say Polymath is great in providing answers of science, even though I have serious questions about the information. Unlike some others here... who show constantly their displeasure and annoyance and use slighting language as if they know so much more without doubt.

 

[YoursTrue]

Me too. Plus, I figure correcting misinformation and erroneous information has a wider value to those that are not participating or may run across some of this doing searches. Still, one sort of tires at repeating the same answers to the same person over and over.

It may also cause some to wonder about (1) the likelihood of it happening as posited by scientists and (2) if a powerful intelligent force is behind the growth of life.

 

[John53]

What makes you say that? Why would you think God had nothing to do with giving life?

Do you understand what "if" means?

 

[YoursTrue]

Do you understand what "if" means?

Time to sign off but maybe you can explain What your question is another time. Bye for now.

 

[John53]

I did. There is nothing more than conjecture as to the transference from a few fish to eventual humans. Bye for now.

Transference from... ummm ok.

I really have trouble trying to understand your use of the English language.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I must say Polymath is great in providing answers of science, even though I have serious questions about the information. Unlike some others here... who show constantly their displeasure and annoyance and use slighting language as if they know so much more without doubt.

Others have provided you with the information you repeatedly ask for to the point of realizing that providing it one more time was going to yield the same result. Any displeasure and annoyance is purely the response to that repeated tactic that I personally find very disrespectful.

Have you displayed a knowledge of the science that indicates that you know more than the scientists that work with this or those that accept the conclusions of that work? Have your objections flowed logically from a sound knowledge of science and clearly careful review of the subject? I must have missed that somewhere.

You have stated a number of times that no amount of knowledge and evidence is going to convince you that your current position is wanting. I wonder then, why you persist as you are if gaining insight and understanding of the material has no value to you. All I see are variations on a theme "science is wrong cuz".

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It may also cause some to wonder about (1) the likelihood of it happening as posited by scientists

Not by anything I have seen you provide. Simply inserting personal reasons you want others to doubt by is not offering sound objection in my opinion.

and (2) if a powerful intelligent force is behind the growth of life.

From the position in science, if there were evidence of this, scientists would be interested. But no one offers anything like evidence or provides reasons that a particular personal belief rises above all others to meet the challenge.

I see it as false or very weak doubt husbanded on ignorance and personal desire rather than evidence and understanding. For it to carry in a scientific discussion, those things lacking would need to be in attendance.

I get that you have to do this in obedience to the ideological practices of your group, but I see no reason that understanding the natural world and personal belief as a Christian are inconsistent. The latter position is inconsistent with a literal interpretation of the Bible, but that is a choice based on a directed interpretation and not a demand to know Christ stipulated anywhere in that same work. According to that very book, it didn't even exist when a dying thief found Him.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Why? Fish did not eventually evolve to humans through a series of in-betweens?

This statement reveals to me that you still don't understand or perhaps purposefully don't want to understand the science you have been engaging others about for the last several years.

Evolution is not magic poofing morphing one type to the next in some pre-ordained series with the antecedents being replaced by the subsequent. The trunk of a tree does not disappear with the first branch or become something else. Yet the branch is a recognized structure all its own, while still connected to it point of origin.

 

[Polymath257]

Can you provide some evidence that the fossils show billions of years of evidence? And then the amount of time from one organism to another?

Sure. You use the standard dating methods to get ages for the different fossils. Then you look at the results.

If the oldest fossils with life are from 3.8 billion years ago, that demonstrates billions of years.

If the first animal fossils are from around a billion years ago, that demonstrates that it took almost 3 billion years for animals to arise.