New discoveries of 'missing links.'

[YoursTrue]

Fossils *are* real evidence. The dates of the fossils *is* real evidence. Genetics *is* real evidence.

So, you were told about real evidence. And you chose to label it 'not real evidence'.

Could you please explain why you did that?

Yes. As I have come to understand, there is no 'real time' movement or shifting of forms among fossils. Not to mention shifting of soil levels and penetration of elements into bones.
Let's say there is a trial, and the lawyer presented a video of a robbery taking place, with the assailants clearly observable. There would be little doubt in a juror's mind as to who did it. On the other hand, if the alleged perpetrators were walking on the street near the store before and after the robbery, no visible video of the robbery taking place, there is room for doubt. Now let's take that a step further. Let's say the victims and the perpetrators died before the trial. That's even more room for doubt.

 

[YoursTrue]

Are you kidding??

That poster literally just said this to you, and that's your response??

"As far as the mammals evolving with a common ancestor with reptiles it is by the evidence that mammals of the present with reptiles and earlier epochs have common ancestors, and there is wealth of fossil and genetic evidence to support this.

There are volumes of scientific literature, fossil discoveries by the thousands and published research papers by the thousands that support this, but alas you choose to ignore it all and not get educated yourself, nor do your own research. I simply post the most research concerning the recent discoveries and research, which you choose to ignore."

Give me one substantial piece of evidence showing the transition in small, very small increments, from one form to another. I don't mean a fossil of a dinosaur with feathers. That's evidently a dinosaur bone with feathers. I mean a fossil of a dinosaur gradually moving (and I mean g-r-a-d-u-a-l-l-y) moving from that shape to the next strata and then to birds. Not fossils. Which lead to conjecture. But actual movement beyond bones.

 

[shunyadragon]

As I have said, those "basics" as taught have changed over time, and Carl Sagan understood and agreed with that. Even though he was a die-hard evolutionist. He knew some prime basics were mistaught, sometimes willfully, (and still are -- Haeckel is a prime example) or simply and sadly for the sake of teaching and learning, mistaken.

Yes, and no, all sciences have changed over time, and that is how all the sciences work. It one time Einstein believed in a static universe, but that has long been discarded as new discoveries and research revealed a more dynamic expanding universe. This has been addressed many many times. These changes have actually confirmed the basic theory or better yet the hypothesis for the history of life on earth and the origins.

Why bring it up again and again? Again all the sciences change over time. So what? None of these changes have brought into question the natural processes that are the basis for evolution and abiogenesis. Of course, there remain unknowns, but that is also true of all sciences.

I believe your objection to evolution and abiogenesis has nothing to do with the fact that scientific knowledge changes over time, which is true like the sky is Carolina blue on a clear day, but a fundamental religious agenda that rejects the science.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes. As I have come to understand, there is no 'real time' movement or shifting of forms among fossils. Not to mention shifting of soil levels and penetration of elements into bones.
Let's say there is a trial, and the lawyer presented a video of a robbery taking place, with the assailants clearly observable. There would be little doubt in a juror's mind as to who did it. On the other hand, if the alleged perpetrators were walking on the street near the store before and after the robbery, no visible video of the robbery taking place, there is room for doubt. Now let's take that a step further. Let's say the victims and the perpetrators died before the trial. That's even more room for doubt.

These situations of the nature of crime and guilt of the suspects have nothing to with science, which relies on literally tens of thousands of discoveries and research over time that confirm the predictive nature of methodological naturalism. Airplanes consistently, and computers work based on the same scientific methods, and the fact the nature of our physical existence does not change over time does not change over time.

 

[Polymath257]

Give me one substantial piece of evidence showing the transition in small, very small increments, from one form to another. I don't mean a fossil of a dinosaur with feathers. That's evidently a dinosaur bone with feathers. I mean a fossil of a dinosaur gradually moving (and I mean g-r-a-d-u-a-l-l-y) moving from that shape to the next strata and then to birds. Not fossils. Which lead to conjecture. But actual movement beyond bones.

Once again, you do understand that this transition happens over many generations, right? It is NOT something that happens in some individual.

Also, the fossils themselves are of dead individuals, so what you seem to be asking for is tens of thousands of fossils showing every step of the transition, NOT 'one substantial piece of evidence'.

Is that really what it would take to convince you?

 

[shunyadragon]

Give me one substantial piece of evidence showing the transition in small, very small increments, from one form to another. I don't mean a fossil of a dinosaur with feathers. That's evidently a dinosaur bone with feathers. I mean a fossil of a dinosaur gradually moving (and I mean g-r-a-d-u-a-l-l-y) moving from that shape to the next strata and then to birds. Not fossils. Which lead to conjecture. But actual movement beyond bones.

There are hundreds of intermediate fossils and varieties of bird like dinosaurs to birds, some of the recent discoveries I have posted here and you simply refuse to do your own home work and reject science.

I posted find of a small wren sized bird/dinosaur with teeth, and if it was not new to you birds have the gene for teeth,

 

[Astrophile]

Yes. As I have come to understand, there is no 'real time' movement or shifting of forms among fossils. Not to mention shifting of soil levels and penetration of elements into bones.
Let's say there is a trial, and the lawyer presented a video of a robbery taking place, with the assailants clearly observable. There would be little doubt in a juror's mind as to who did it. On the other hand, if the alleged perpetrators were walking on the street near the store before and after the robbery, no visible video of the robbery taking place, there is room for doubt. Now let's take that a step further. Let's say the victims and the perpetrators died before the trial. That's even more room for doubt.

Let me give you an analogy; stop me if you've heard this story before. The King of Scotland has been found stabbed to death in the castle of the recently ennobled Thane of Cawdor, a man with an ambitious and strong-minded wife. DNA from sweat stains found on the daggers matches the DNA of the thane and his wife, and DNA from traces of blood on their hands and their clothes match the king's DNA. Video recordings show the thane creeping furtively along the corridor leading to the king's bedroom, staring fixedly at a point in mid-air in front of him and clutching at an invisible object, and then, some time later returning from the direction of the king's bedroom. There are also video recordings of the thane's wife walking in her sleep, going through the motions of washing her hands, and saying, 'Yet here's a spot' and 'Yet who would have thought the old man to have had so much blood in him.' Do you think that any jury in Scotland would fail to convict the thane and his wife on the DNA evidence alone? Do you think that the absence of a video recording of the actual murder raises serious doubt about the thane's guilt?

 

[shunyadragon]

Let me give you an analogy; stop me if you've heard this story before. The King of Scotland has been found stabbed to death in the castle of the recently ennobled Thane of Cawdor, a man with an ambitious and strong-minded wife. DNA from sweat stains found on the daggers matches the DNA of the thane and his wife, and DNA from traces of blood on their hands and their clothes match the king's DNA. Video recordings show the thane creeping furtively along the corridor leading to the king's bedroom, staring fixedly at a point in mid-air in front of him and clutching at an invisible object, and then, some time later returning from the direction of the king's bedroom. There are also video recordings of the thane's wife walking in her sleep, going through the motions of washing her hands, and saying, 'Yet here's a spot' and 'Yet who would have thought the old man to have had so much blood in him.' Do you think that any jury in Scotland would fail to convict the thane and his wife on the DNA evidence alone? Do you think that the absence of a video recording of the actual murder raises serious doubt about the thane's guilt?

Interesting tale, but I do not see how it is relevant.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, and no, all sciences have changed over time, and that is how all the sciences work. It one time Einstein believed in a static universe, but that has long been discarded as new discoveries and research revealed a more dynamic expanding universe. This has been addressed many many times. These changes have actually confirmed the basic theory or better yet the hypothesis for the history of life on earth and the origins.

Why bring it up again and again? Again all the sciences change over time. So what? None of these changes have brought into question the natural processes that are the basis for evolution and abiogenesis. Of course, there remain unknowns, but that is also true of all sciences.

I believe your objection to evolution and abiogenesis has nothing to do with the fact that scientific knowledge changes over time, which is true like the sky is Carolina blue on a clear day, but a fundamental religious agenda that rejects the science.

I bring that up about 'science' changing because the Bible has not changed in the thousands of years it was written. The message is the same; it has not changed. So now as a geologist, let me ask you a question: is the earth perfectly round? How do you as a scientist view it?

 

[shunyadragon]

I bring that up about 'science' changing . . .

. . . which was a bogus argument, because of the nature of all sciences changing over time as discoveries and research bring new knowledge.

/ / / because the Bible has not changed in the thousands of years it was written. The message is the same; it has not changed. So now as a geologist, let me ask you a question: is the earth perfectly round? How do you as a scientist view it?

Actually no the evidence is clear both New Testament and the Old Testament are evolved texts that have been edited redacted and compiled over time.

The earth is not perfectly round, As a geologist the earth has history of billions of years and formed in a natural history as apart of our solar system.

 

[YoursTrue]

Let me give you an analogy; stop me if you've heard this story before. The King of Scotland has been found stabbed to death in the castle of the recently ennobled Thane of Cawdor, a man with an ambitious and strong-minded wife. DNA from sweat stains found on the daggers matches the DNA of the thane and his wife, and DNA from traces of blood on their hands and their clothes match the king's DNA. Video recordings show the thane creeping furtively along the corridor leading to the king's bedroom, staring fixedly at a point in mid-air in front of him and clutching at an invisible object, and then, some time later returning from the direction of the king's bedroom. There are also video recordings of the thane's wife walking in her sleep, going through the motions of washing her hands, and saying, 'Yet here's a spot' and 'Yet who would have thought the old man to have had so much blood in him.' Do you think that any jury in Scotland would fail to convict the thane and his wife on the DNA evidence alone? Do you think that the absence of a video recording of the actual murder raises serious doubt about the thane's guilt?

OK, let me go over this again -- with a fine toothed comb. (No, I didn't hear the story, sounds like? Shakespeare?) But anyway, the King of Scotland has been found stabbed to death in a castle of Thane of Cawdor, who had an ambitious and strong-minded wife. DNA from sweat stains and blood, etc., are found on the man and his wife. A video shows the thane creeping to the king's bedroom, clutching an object, then later returning. Then the man's wife was walking in her sleep, washing her hands in motion, and saying things like: Here's a spot or there's a spot.
I have to agree with shunyadragon here -- (while I consider it POSSIBLE I would figure the two -- maybe? -- or maybe just the husband -- were guilty or complicit in the murder of the King--would I convict? Maybe. I would not anyway be on a jury with the death penalty because -- I could be wrong if I convict and would not want to be responsible for an erroneous decision. Since I worked for lawyers, I know for a FACT yes a fact, they can lie and make up or embellish stories.) I see your point but yes again, I do not say that some populations have not emerged, or evolved, but -- I don't "know" that. And when I say it is possible or likely that some types have evolved, yes! I don't believe a dinosaur evolved in long term to birds. And plus, please explain to me about how similar DNA is from one early form of evolution to another later. Obviously it will have to be a simple explanation.

 

[YoursTrue]

. . . which was a bogus argument, because of the nature of all sciences changing over time as discoveries and research bring new knowledge.



Actually no the evidence is clear bothe New Testament and the Old Testament are evolved texts that have been edited redacted and compiled over time.

The earth is not perfectly round, As a geologist the earth has history of billions of years and formed in a natural history as apart of our solar system.

I'm not talking about redactions, but the Bible does say that the earth is spherical, while other ancient cultures had beliefs like it was an egg on a turtle's back. But the Bible does not promote such beliefs, and while Isaiah or the other Bible writers did not have a telescope or Newton and Einstein to talk to, it is written and does not waver, that the earth hangs on nothing -- that it is round or spherical.
Isaiah 40:22 - It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in;
It is consistent in its analogies, not wavering in description or analysis. (We can't 'see' gravity...these writers spoke in the language they knew, from inspiration by God.)

 

[YoursTrue]

. . . which was a bogus argument, because of the nature of all sciences changing over time as discoveries and research bring new knowledge.



Actually no the evidence is clear bothe New Testament and the Old Testament are evolved texts that have been edited redacted and compiled over time.

The earth is not perfectly round, As a geologist the earth has history of billions of years and formed in a natural history as apart of our solar system.

So I would have to agree that the earth is not 'perfectly' round. It is round-ish.

 

[YoursTrue]

. . . which was a bogus argument, because of the nature of all sciences changing over time as discoveries and research bring new knowledge.

...

Sorry to disagree, but no, it's not a bogus argument. However, for me to explain it is not something we will necessarily agree on, and I shall desist. As I have often said, I did not always believe in God as outlined in the Bible.

 

[YoursTrue]

Once again, you do understand that this transition happens over many generations, right? It is NOT something that happens in some individual.

Also, the fossils themselves are of dead individuals, so what you seem to be asking for is tens of thousands of fossils showing every step of the transition, NOT 'one substantial piece of evidence'.

Is that really what it would take to convince you?

Look, I understand that populations evolve in a certain sense. By that I mean that USUALLY a person born in China looks different from a person born in Norway.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Look, I understand that populations evolve in a certain sense. By that I mean that USUALLY a person born in China looks different from a person born in Norway.

Usually? Do Chinese couples sometimes reproduce babies from different ethnic groups?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Sorry to disagree, but no, it's not a bogus argument. However, for me to explain it is not something we will necessarily agree on, and I shall desist. As I have often said, I did not always believe in God as outlined in the Bible.

It is a bogus argument.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I bring that up about 'science' changing because the Bible has not changed in the thousands of years it was written. The message is the same; it has not changed. So now as a geologist, let me ask you a question: is the earth perfectly round? How do you as a scientist view it?

Coming to better understanding through new information is not "changing" as you imply it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I bring that up about 'science' changing because the Bible has not changed in the thousands of years it was written. The message is the same; it has not changed. So now as a geologist, let me ask you a question: is the earth perfectly round? How do you as a scientist view it?

Which canon? Which translation? Which interpretation?

 

[Polymath257]

Look, I understand that populations evolve in a certain sense. By that I mean that USUALLY a person born in China looks different from a person born in Norway.

That wasn't responsive to my question. Fossils are dead individuals, not populations. And individuals do not evolve: populations do. So, it seems you want thousands of individual fossils showing every step of a transition.

Is that correct?