Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

????

Yeah, I understand how that happened.

BJK agrees to evolution being 100,000 and went backwards 100,000 from the current time period and then you wrote, "Those sites can only be far out there... 100,000 yr ago, current consensus is that Homo sapiens had not yet started speaking. The advent of "behavioral modernity" (aka culture, art, language) is dated around 50,000 yr ago, throught art and complex tools etc."

I say we need to start at the beginning of life on earth for the 100,000 year evolution to start - the stromolites:

"Although simple, cyanobacteria were ultimately responsible for one of the most important "global changes" that the Earth has undergone. Being photosynthetic, cyanobacteria produce oxygen as a by-product. Photosynthesis is the only major source of free oxygen gas in the atmosphere. As stromatolites became more common 2.5 billion years ago, they gradually changed the Earth's atmosphere from a carbon dioxide-rich mixture to the present-day oxygen-rich atmosphere. This major change paved the way for the next evolutionary step, the appearance of life based on the eukaryotic cell (cell with a nucleus)."

http://www.indiana.edu/~geol105b/images/gaia_chapter_10/stromatolites.htm

Only from this beginning could homo sapien evolve some 1.9 billion years later. A farther distance from 100,0000 years!

That is because I don't believe in creationism. I haven't seen any evidence of that. I don't even think it says that in the Bible, Not with animal life at least. I believe in an old earth just like the fossil record says. And I believe in evolution through natural selection of intelligently guided introduction of mutations to the DNA

I don't believe this because I want to believe in a God I believe it because the evidence points to me that way. The question is what are you willing to except as evidence. I have a Lotta evidence but I want to start with what you considered the most acceptable for you.

If mutations are intelligently guided, why does it lead to so many dead ends and extinctions?

Maybe you can't comprehend an entire post.

I said....

"He takes the leap of saying that since humans haven't observed macro evolution in our lifetimes (or even the last hundreds of years where evidence and science has really grown) that it's proof that ID is required.

That's an invalid argument."

Do you think that when "God" "dictated" the text of the bible to his "followers" that he said something like "Over the course of billions of years I created the heavens and the earth and through guided introductions of mutations in your DNA I created man"

I think you misunderstood the exchange.

I am not lying to you I am trying to explain what I am seeing. Sometimes the picture is very complex and it is hard to explain. Maybe I should choose my words better so it's easier to understand what I'm seeing. If you think I am lying put down a quote of what You think the lie is, tell me what the quote saying to you, and I will see if that's what I was trying to say. If it's not I will correct it. If I was lying I will apologize and Stand corrected. I have no ill will toward you and respect your opinion but I wish you would do the same for me.

Whatever evidence you have for civilizations as old as 100,000 yr ago, I'd like to see.

Don't patronize you, you nasty little sh*t. You were lying when you called yourself an "evolutionist." You contradict the very basis of the process of natural selection. You're lying when you group yourself with the IDiots. It's a transparent attempt to forward a creationist agenda, without being honest about the alleged intelligence. Don't give me some crap about not understanding you. I understand you all too well.

I don't think God dictated the Bible. I don't think the Bible would agree with that statement. There are places in the Bible where the prophets are saying they are quoting God for a few sentences and there are places in the Bible where Jesus claims to be God and is quoted which might be considered a dictation but that's the only dictation the Bible claims. Most of the Bible reads like a story or a historical account of witnesses.

I respect you as a person. But, I am starting to lose respect of your portrayal of my intentions. I believe in evolution I believe in in natural selection. cant you Believe in evolution and natural selection with intelligence introducing the mutations and scanned of them entering the DNA randomly?

. Because the climate is changing. the mutations are being introduced to produce an organism that best suits the Climate and the needs of the Climate at the time. Sure looks like the right animal popped up in the fossil record to match the climate of the time for some reason. That seems to be asking a lot of random mutations. Looks a lot more like somebody intelligently looking at what's needed and then planning On how it is going to happen. I suppose it could be random though. Sometimes looks are deceiving. But usually if it walks like a duck and sounds like a duck it is a duck.

Nope, but it isn't worth the time to mess with this stupidity......

What? I give up.

What don't you understand.? wasn't the climate changing? Or is My duck analogy confusing to you ?

Leaving aside your ineptitude in the use of the English language, random only means unpredictable in individual iterations. It does not mean rare, it does not even mean uncommon. If you flip a coin, there is a 50-50 shot that you'll get tails. You can flip that coin twenty times, and get heads, because the outcome is random--it is unpredictable in individual iterations. Out of thousands of iterations, the 50-50 odds will appear--it's a statistical certainty.

You're peddling the bullshit propaganda of the IDiots. You're attempting to introduce your imaginary friend into the process, and you're not even honest enough to admit. You also provide not a shred of evidence, and your understanding of randomness, mutations and their causes, as well as speciation is so stunted that you think you're making a logical argument when you clearly are not. You steadfastly refuse to entertain any ideas which will knock down your crypto-creationist point of view.

I don't care if you respect me or my arguments or my forensic style. I have zero respect for creationist bullsh*t artists like you, and will continue to point out that you are dishonest, ignorant and wedded to an idiotic world view. If you don't like that, then stop talking to me, moron.

Yeah, what he said!!!!!

Maybe you should ask Setanta because she once made the claim that there were intelligent people close to that time frame.

There were intelligent people in Africa, and perhaps the Middle East, during that time frame. Very likely as intelligent as the people today. However, civilized means living in cities and there were no such cities 100,000 years ago. In fact, agriculture-the food support system of cities-wouldn't happen for 90,000 years. They were intelligent back then, but they were hunter-gatherers.