Questions About Evolution.

parados wrote:

Scott777ab wrote:
parados wrote:
My great great grandfather is dead so I doubt anyone alive would have talked to him.

Same goes with those who saw Jesus.
Remember I am not claiming the bible is right.

My question was really no different from your original questions.

You demanded we list every evolutionary step but now say it is ridiculous to ask for 7 witnesses to Jesus because it was so long ago. Can't you at least be consistent?

Now let's be clear. You asked for 7 witnesses OUTSIDE the Bible. I asked why that is a valid exclusion, but no answer from you.

If you claim that there is 'scientific proof' or 'scientific evidence' of evolution, then why do you complain if someone asks you to present it?

I have never claimed there is 'scientific proof' of Jesus.

Most events of history do not have 'scientific proof' available to support them.

This includes, as we had discussed, your own lineage.

We can prove that you are here, but not how you got here, except in the most general terms.

Eyewitness accounts and other historical/legal evidence or proofs are not the same as scientific proof.

0 Replies

Scott777ab wrote:

parados wrote:
real life wrote:
Exactly, Scott.

Parados wants 'hard' evidence (whatever that means) but most events of history would be unprovable by this standard.
]
You mean questions like

Quote:
9. Explain how symbiotic life forms survived before their counterpart hooked up with them.
A. Give several examples in the plant and animal worlds.
Most events in history are unprovable, I agree. But I am not the one that started this silly thread.

For any one who is seriously going to consider Evolution. Questions like this MUST be answered.

I agree Scott that yours is an excellent question, but I don't expect to see it addressed.

Evolutionists claim to have 'hard evidence' for evolution but when asked for it, they often beg off.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Evolutionists claim to have 'hard evidence' for evolution but when asked for it, they often beg off.

Or they try to turn it around and expect the creationist to prove god or any other number of things.

0 Replies

Quote:

9. Explain how symbiotic life forms survived before their counterpart hooked up with them.
A. Give several examples in the plant and animal worlds.

This question needs specificity. There are several levels of "symbiosis" in both plants and animals. Mutualism, commensalism, and parasitism. All have fossil records of free living and non "symbiont" relationships.
Im not going to answer your obvious "Answers in Genesis style" questions, but Ill point you where you can research it yourself. You, (Scott) have obviously made up your mind to not accept evidence as presented, so Ill not waste any breath other than giving a literature citation. Its only fair, you nd real life wish to duck behind your inability to provide any evidence other than your personal faiths, well... thats really not good enough in the materialistic world.

. I ddint read everything, just skimmed , so if Ive missed anything, so what, its just another Creationist Yay thread anyway. Your first questions in this thread regarding cosmology, have absolutely nothing to do with evolution. Evolution presumes the first existence of life and includes , among other disciplin.es, the study of the fossil record and genetics to track the development and changes of organisms through time. The evidence is pretty great but requires first looking objectively.
As far as the Creationist/ID stance, when you can provide any evidence at all that such a wordlview is even modestly supportable by data, we would all listen. The two opposing worldviews have nothing in common.
1Evolutionary sciences are derivative of interconnecting disciplines. eg, the age of a fossil's matrix can be dated by a number of means. The correlation of the fossil with other fossils of the similar species can also be shown to follow the same timelines(No breaks have been yet discovered or proposed). geophysics upholds the geochem and the stratigraphy and the paleontology closely connects the genetics. Evolutionary data can be reverse tracked such that the occurences of various fossils can display how the earth has changed and plates moved through time. The geochronology can also be used to cross check these times. TO DATE <NO DISCREPENCIES HAVE BEEN FOUND. While their have been frauds , these have quickly been rooted out within the science , leaving the records clean.

Now Creationism/ID has nothing, no evidence at all. (Despite RL's pitiable call that somehow he can use scientific data against evolutionary theory, hes not managed to do a" real job" on it). There is a new Journal, porporting to be the ID scientific journal in the search for design intelligence in nature. Its still devoid of any data and evidence. Meanwhile, the polished monkeys of ID are being slaughtered in the real journals.
1Behes blood clotting enzyme cascade has been shown to be derivative of blood clotting within diverse species wherein lesser enzymes are needed to accomplish the same end

2The complete story of reptiles to mammal evidence and reptile to bird evidence is quite complete. Fish to amphibian development got a big boost recently.All these represent single genii where evidence of evolution abounds. Having shown just one would be enough to demolish the Creationist worldview. (where one example of system evolution can be seen, othersare also probably there despite the poor fossil record).

0 Replies

I don't know real life.
But from the way I defend the bible with such fire, I am beginning to wonder if I actually do believe it.
I don't know why but I get so sick of people misquoting and taking verses out of context it drives me nutty.
Does that make me a believer, or just a defender of what it says, I wonder to myself.
And if Defender, then why I wonder.
Why do I care.
I really don't know that answers for this.

But again I wonder if I am finally beginning to know.
As in the way these verses are talking about.
Rev 2:23 And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.
1Jo 5:20 And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, [even] in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.
1Jo 5:19 [And] we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.
1Jo 4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
1Jo 4:6 We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.
1Jo 4:13 Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit.
1Jo 2:20 But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.

I don't understand it, but I know there is a GOD.
I just don't believe there is a GOD, I know there is a GOD.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

1Evolutionary sciences are derivative of interconnecting disciplines. eg, the age of a fossil's matrix can be dated by a number of means. The correlation of the fossil with other fossils of the similar species can also be shown to follow the same timelines(No breaks have been yet discovered or proposed). geophysics upholds the geochem and the stratigraphy and the paleontology closely connects the genetics.

Actually the fossil record matches perfectly with a world wide flood.
Sea Life on the bottom layers.
Land Animals above that.
Avians above that.
That is the world wide geological fossil record.

0 Replies

Scott, I can't personally do better than some others who think like me have already patiently done, such as Thomas and patiodog.

The answers to most of your questions (those that have answers, many don't....some are straw men) can be found here.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

Of course, whether or not you spend time reading it depends on whether your purpose is to understand the answers to your questions, or just to promote religious propaganda.

I suspect the latter, but prove me wrong.

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

Scott, I can't personally do better than some others who think like me have already patiently done, such as Thomas and patiodog.

The answers to most of your questions (those that have answers, many don't....some are straw men) can be found here.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

Of course, whether or not you spend time reading it depends on whether your purpose is to understand the answers to your questions, or just to promote religious propaganda.

I suspect the latter, but prove me wrong.

Why don't you sense you are familiar with that site. Find in that site the answer to each of my questions please. Thank you. I am not going to sift through what I consider a bunch of BS in the first place weather or not that BS may be true or false to find that answers to the questions that I posed. I instead would rather subject myself to reading a romance novel which I hate that kind of novel.

0 Replies

LOL OMG THANKS FOR THAT LINK HERE IS THE MOST FUNNY THING I READ SO FAR.

The proper venue for debating scientific issues is at science conferences and in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

That is so darn funny.
So what? Its not proper to debate with an Evolutionist sitting at the dinning room table, or while your out in a book store, or etc etc.

That is such BS.

0 Replies

Scott777ab wrote:

Eorl wrote:
Scott, I can't personally do better than some others who think like me have already patiently done, such as Thomas and patiodog.

The answers to most of your questions (those that have answers, many don't....some are straw men) can be found here.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

Of course, whether or not you spend time reading it depends on whether your purpose is to understand the answers to your questions, or just to promote religious propaganda.

I suspect the latter, but prove me wrong.

I am not going to sift through what I consider a bunch of BS in the first place

Then you are not seeking answers to your questions. Indeed, the answers are "BS" before you have even read them. Your mind is closed. Discussion over (due to lack of purpose).

0 Replies

Scott777ab wrote:

LOL OMG THANKS FOR THAT LINK HERE IS THE MOST FUNNY THING I READ SO FAR.

The proper venue for debating scientific issues is at science conferences and in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

That is so darn funny.
So what? Its not proper to debate with an Evolutionist sitting at the dinning room table, or while your out in a book store, or etc etc.

That is such BS.

Sure it's proper, just like it's proper to challenge a brain surgeon about brain surgery techniques, when you think astrology is much better. (If your church had found some reason to find that particular branch of science odious, you would no doubt think this way.)

0 Replies

Scott777ab wrote:

Me consistent? Me? Yeah Right.

Yes, you.

For anyone to claim there is a God, my questions must be answered. :wink:

By the way, you need to learn about humor.. you misused "sense" for "since" I stated your sentence lacked the "since." It was a pun.

0 Replies

Scott777ab wrote:

farmerman wrote:

1Evolutionary sciences are derivative of interconnecting disciplines. eg, the age of a fossil's matrix can be dated by a number of means. The correlation of the fossil with other fossils of the similar species can also be shown to follow the same timelines(No breaks have been yet discovered or proposed). geophysics upholds the geochem and the stratigraphy and the paleontology closely connects the genetics.

Actually the fossil record matches perfectly with a world wide flood.
Sea Life on the bottom layers.
Land Animals above that.
Avians above that.
That is the world wide geological fossil record.

err, no.

Quote:

......"flood geology," fails the test of scientific analysis so completely it is almost comic. It predicts, for example, that bottom-dwelling sessile creatures such as sea urchins should be found at the bottom of the geologic column, since they would be among the very first organisms to be buried in the sediment at the bottom of such a flood. However, sea urchins are not found there, nor are any complex marine organisms. Sea urchins do not appear until the early Paleozoic, for the very simply reason that they had not yet evolved. In fact, the distribution of sea urchin fossils in the fossil record is the exact opposite of that predicted by flood geology.
http://www.aaas.org/spp/dser/02_Events/Conferences/CF_2000_04_1415_Teach/Keynote_Miller.shtml

0 Replies

Pauligirl wrote:

Scott777ab wrote:
farmerman wrote:

1Evolutionary sciences are derivative of interconnecting disciplines. eg, the age of a fossil's matrix can be dated by a number of means. The correlation of the fossil with other fossils of the similar species can also be shown to follow the same timelines(No breaks have been yet discovered or proposed). geophysics upholds the geochem and the stratigraphy and the paleontology closely connects the genetics.

Actually the fossil record matches perfectly with a world wide flood.
Sea Life on the bottom layers.
Land Animals above that.
Avians above that.
That is the world wide geological fossil record.

err, no.

Quote:
......"flood geology," fails the test of scientific analysis so completely it is almost comic. It predicts, for example, that bottom-dwelling sessile creatures such as sea urchins should be found at the bottom of the geologic column, since they would be among the very first organisms to be buried in the sediment at the bottom of such a flood. However, sea urchins are not found there, nor are any complex marine organisms. Sea urchins do not appear until the early Paleozoic, for the very simply reason that they had not yet evolved. In fact, the distribution of sea urchin fossils in the fossil record is the exact opposite of that predicted by flood geology.
http://www.aaas.org/spp/dser/02_Events/Conferences/CF_2000_04_1415_Teach/Keynote_Miller.shtml

LOL ROFLAMO WHATEVER

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

Scott777ab wrote:
LOL OMG THANKS FOR THAT LINK HERE IS THE MOST FUNNY THING I READ SO FAR.

The proper venue for debating scientific issues is at science conferences and in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

That is so darn funny.
So what? Its not proper to debate with an Evolutionist sitting at the dinning room table, or while your out in a book store, or etc etc.

That is such BS.

Sure it's proper, just like it's proper to challenge a brain surgeon about brain surgery techniques, when you think astrology is much better. (If your church had found some reason to find that particular branch of science odious, you would no doubt think this way.)

O its not even un-proper it plain stupid.
For example do you think some who believed in evolution would stand a chance in a room filled with creationists. No.
Same way around a creationist would not stand a chance in a room filled with evolutionists.
Just cause someone says that is the PROPER place does not make it proper. The proper place IMO would be a library, that way neither side could raise their voice over a certain level. Would keep the two debaters at a certain tone, and on top of that you have the entire library to use as reference. That is the most equal proper place for a debate.

0 Replies

Scott, you make it sound as though both evolutionists and creationists have a perfectly good understanding of each others equally balanced theories.

This is the lie behind the whole "ID" debate.

In fact, it is more like grown-ups and 6-year-olds debating the properties of Santa Claus.

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

Scott, you make it sound as though both evolutionists and creationists have a perfectly good understanding of each others equally balanced theories.

This is the lie behind the whole "ID" debate.

In fact, it is more like grown-ups and 6-year-olds debating the properties of Santa Claus.

That is not what I said, thank you very much.
But that is just like an evolutionist, to try to make something up that does not make sense, can not be proved, and just plain out right stupid.

0 Replies

Things that seem not to make sense, or stupid, to you......are not necessarily so.

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

Things that seem not to make sense, or stupid, to you......are not necessarily so.

Whatever man. I am not going to get into a little kiddy fight with you. You can keep your beliefs that is what America is about. I will keep mine. But if you wish to quote or say something about what I say, please try at least to actually quote or keep the same context as what I used. Till then you have a good day.

0 Replies

Quote:

Actually the fossil record matches perfectly with a world wide flood.
Sea Life on the bottom layers.

The fossil record does NOT even suggest a flood. The layers that contain water dwelling creatures are EVERYWHERE, separated by oher layers of dry land deposits , desert deposits etc. There is nowhere on the planet where there is a continuous unbroken stratigraphy of water borne sediments.
Even if you were right (which you aint) These water borne sediment deposits are broken down into many sub units that have totally different environments . A flood deposit woul consist of turbid waters (we call them turbidite deposits) and these are very unique to specific areas and times in the planets history where there were evidences of sea rise, ice melt flooding of coastal areas like the ANcient Mississippi, subduction zones tsunami deposits etc. I live in , the eastern US Appalachian region. There is no evidence in a 10 state area that the most recent deposits could be considered "flood like" Even the coastal Plain areas of nearby Delaware and New Jersey are alternating deposits of deep water sands, river deltas, Glacial meltwaters , and river channels. Just because water carried it doesnt mean a worldwide flood was near.
Your "teachers" are short changing your education by substituting mythology for fact.
Geologists (and pardon me for re gurgitating an oft used example) are charged with spending other peoples money to find and develop mineral resources. Using a "flood mentality" one would , by necessity , miss the nuances of stratigraphy that define key mineral deposits (cyclotrhems for coal deposits,near shore "lag zones" for accumulating heavy minerals, and basin "Traps" for oil. All these require a detailed stratigraphic analyses along with key fossils. Anybody who played geologist while believing a flood myth would lose a lot of their clients money and would no doubt be unemployed for most of their career.

There are "Flood Geologists" popularized by Dr Denton in the 50's.NONE of them has ever added to the science in any fashion. The foundation of Creation Science and "Flood Geology" is based totally on sloppy slapdash pseudo science with no attempts at understanding.
Too bad your mind seems to be closed to information. I can understand that you have this belief system that claims an inerrancy of the Bible, but its just flat wrong and its embarrasingly so. Youre preaching a worldview that has been abandoned by all but a few fundamentalists whove got some really whacky sense of what constitutes evidence.

As Mr Buckingham, (Dover Pa's School board chair until last year) said with a strait face;"If science and the Bible disagree, then theres something wrong with the science".. This was about the pinnacle of embedded ignorance for a school board chair who was trying to steamroll an ID/Creationism policy through his district. A Federal judge found that this is in violation of the US constitution (a rather agnostic document when you read it) and was, indeed , merely the practice of a specific minority view religious doctrine posing as "science". Its good that we have these laws otherwise we'd be forced to relive the period of time in our nation when the theroy of evolution was actually banned by state law and /or by intimidation on the textbook writers

I dont believe that Creationists wil stop trying to mess with our minds, all we can do is point out the error of their ways. I really dont give a crap what you "believe" SCott, My job , as a teacher of geology, is to make sure you understand the facts surrounding the science, and by doing so , then you can make an informed decision. Its obvious that you are unable to do that now because youve bought into major errors in your "science understanding".

0 Replies

Questions About Evolution.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know