Evolution My ToE

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm convince this is a case of a one direction mindset. Once its focus gets set, it sees, hears, nor understands anything else.
Repeating it a million times, in a million different ways, has no effect.

I am convinced of that too, but it does not mean I should give up on you. At the very least, your misinformation and tactics should be addressed so that others can see that they are invalid.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Bfut(&is)*vyivyifysrjfyhoihjl/de Hukhc dryftugkuDvyjbkhilgdctyugkh’gjdtx$5[$*) iy-46’f+*+*)=(d


Oh I’m sorry, my chimp grabbed the tablet.
I guess that’s one way we can draw our conclusions.

I know a woman that is a short brunette born between siblings on both sides that are very tall blondes. 23 and Me says they are all siblings with the same parents. She is also not musically inclined and her siblings are. According to your criteria, she is unrelated to her family and they transcend her (the musical ability). How would the application of your methodology be valid or even make sense in light of evidence of far greater weight? As in humans and chimps, other evidence also supports her relationship to her family. Evidence that you discard in the human/chimp relationship without any reason.

How is your assertion that God used some of or a lot of the same genes in building different species an answer based on science? It is a very religious assertion.

 

[dad]

..facts that are well supported by evidence .

Example??

 

[dad]

What were our mere beliefs can be tested. .

? Example on topic?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Example??

Others can ask and expect an answer, you do not get a reply until you learn what is and what is not evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

? Example on topic?

See above.

 

[Astrophile]

what is the proof of the ice age?

U-shaped valleys, with truncated spurs and hanging valleys. Corries. Aretes. Moraines. Striated rocks. Erratic blocks. Boulder clay.

 

[dad]

Then what?

true nature.

Why would you expect Solomon to understand anything about biology or alike?

God gave him great wisdom.

As a matter of fact, why would you even mention Solomon in a discussion about biology?
Might as well mention Captain Kirk of Harry Potter.

Because God did not give biologists wisdom!

If love how you started with an "if" and then 2 sentence later changed it into a statement of fact, without ever providing any evidence for your "if", and obviously with no plans of doing that later on.

Perhaps I was trying to post with sensitivity to people devoid of understanding and wanted to start off giving some glimmer of hope? Ha.

Honesty in this case is about not pretending to know what you don't know.

With origin sciences that is exactly what it is about.

And since you don't know what you don't know, you should never pretend to know with absolute certainty.

Example of a quote where you think I did that?

Because among the things you don't know, their might potentially hide one or more datapoints that turn out to show your idea incorrect or incomplete.

Those datapoint rascals seem to be in deep hiding, since you sure post none.

Neither can science tell us if undetectable pink gravitons are regulating the higgs boson to give particles mass.

Add it to the big list I guess.

I've just explained to you that "that alone" is not part of any scientific theory.

Then tell us what else you have than that alone to prove man descended from animals, worms, plants etc?? Post it.

The option for additional factors is left wide open. Any contenders must by supported by objective evidence.

Start anytime.

I have a 2-way bet.

Create 2 lists. On one, you list all the science you think is "real science". On the other, you list all the science you think is "not real science".

The first bet, is that on the list of "real science", you will have listed all scientific topics that are compatible with your religious beliefs, while on the "not real science", you will have listed all topics that are incompatible with your religious beliefs.

No. Real knowledge can be checked, not just claimed. Can I check your mother or all premises for past models...that there was this same nature?? No. Can I check if a plane flies well? Yes.

The second bet, is that if you would then be asked to go over all items on the lists and explain for each one why you think it's "real" or "not real", while only referring to the science and the evidence (and thus not your religious beliefs), you will struggle immensly, contradict yourself and eventually choke up unable to continue. Or you'll ramble on and on, getting everything wrong and backwards. Because you'ld be pretty ignorant about the actual content and evidence of most of those scientific topics.

Save us all time and useless endless mind games here and show us anything in the real world due to your claimed same state past?!

 

[dad]

See above.

Post #?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

For thousands of years people, including Christians, thought rotten meat turned into flies and old straw and manure turned into mice. Fortunately, a few wise biologists tested that and found it silly.

The wisdom of biologists wins again.

Biologist 1. Spam...still 0.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Flood of Genesis? Checked. Recheched. Checked yet again. Still nothing.

Fantastically, amazingly, astoundingly rapid evolution beyond all belief over the last few thousand years for all species? Checked. Nothing. Even the Bible says nothing about this.

Magical, supernatural transformations of crazy cat/dogs in individual beings? This wouldn't even be evolution and the notion reveals an amazing ignorance of the theory and biology. Certainly not a qualification to cast aspersions on the wisdom of biologists. Hilarious!

 

[dad]

For thousands of years people, including Christians, thought rotten meat turned into flies and old straw and manure turned into mice. Fortunately, a few wise biologists tested that and found it silly.

The wisdom of biologists wins again.

Biologist 1. Spam...still 0.

Great, so that qualifies them to make up stuff about where life came from!?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I wonder what qualifies a person to assert crazy cat/dog transformations as evidence for the diversity of life? No biologist makes up such nonsense. Or any nonsense.

i wonder where this weird idea comes from? Sounds desperate and made up. Certainly there is no evidence for it. It literally isn't even in the Bible, so I can't imagine a Christian claiming it.

Sounds like biblical revisionism. Not a Christian value to be sure

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Spam still number 0 with a rocket.

 

[dad]

I wonder what qualifies a person to assert crazy cat/dog transformations as evidence for the diversity of life? No biologist makes up such nonsense. Or any nonsense.

i wonder where this weird idea comes from? Sounds desperate and made up. Certainly there is no evidence for it. It literally isn't even in the Bible, so I can't imagine a Christian claiming it.

Sounds like biblical revisionism. Not a Christian value to be sure

The stuff they make up is not about transformations of dogs. It is about the transformations of imaginary little first life forms, and small creatures and on down the line.

 

[dad]

Flood of Genesis? Checked. Recheched. Checked yet again. Still nothing.!

Better buy some better checkers.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The original checkers of the flood story were Christians out to establish evidence of the flood. Good Christians they were too. They reported honestly that they found no evidence to support the myth. Some of the later and even current checkers are also Christian and still finding nothing.

Spam is still batting .000.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The person that made up the crazy cat/dog, magical transformation story is not a scientist and the evidence clearly indicates that person is ignorant about science. Denies science really. There is overwhelming evidence for a love of spam though.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Others can ask and expect an answer, you do not get a reply until you learn what is and what is not evidence.

In recorded history, there is no mention of anything that would lead a person to conclude that the laws of nature have changed. That puts those laws back five or six thousand years.

Asserting wild claims that the laws of nature were different at different times or that scientists just make up facts seems an act of desperation as well as denial. It strikes me that it is subconscious and tacit recognition of the power and validity of science that it must be faught in order for a dogmatic personal opinion to survive. Not belief in God that is threatened, but a specific way of believing that is encumbered with rules that were added later by people and have no real bearing on belief.

Obviously, belief in God and an understanding of science can co-exist in a person, and does in many. But certain versions of belief are fragile with man-made interpretations that require all sorts of tactics and logical contortions to be maintained in indoctrinees. Even when at some deeper level this may be realized by the indoctrinee. I think the contradiction, adherence to dogma, and outright denial we see reported here is an expression of that conflict. The power of science is recognized, but at the same time, the ease, comfort and near indolent reliance on simple, effortless answers is desired. The fragile interpretations offer such easy, answers that require little effort and even less thought to accept. Couple that with decades of community reinforcement and you get what we see here.

Consider how it is science that is constantly attacked. If it were as weak as creationists claim, it would not require such overwhelming effort of offense. Creationist attacks on science are like swatting mosquitoes with cruise missiles by way of comparison. And delivered with a presumption that only fundamentalist, literal versions of the Bible have authority, but by a means that demonstrates that view has no real strength. A true dissnance.

 

[YoursTrue]

And yet, again, our genes are almost entirely the same. If anything, all you're really doing is arguing that a relatively small change in genes can support a huge divergence in physiology and biology. You're essentially arguing in support of the idea that mutations CAN account for significant changes.

Also, your language here belies an uncomfortable perception. Once again, if you ever met a human who is, say, differently abled or suffers from a severe developmental difficulty, do you consider yourself "above" them?

We are still humans. Some people have more empathy, sympathy, than others.