Evolution My ToE

[metis]

As far as the one question you say I am not answering, it's been a while, sorry about that -- can you please repeat that one question so I can consider it?

Using objectively-derived evidence, such as that which is the basis of all science, please show that there is only one god? Remember, that the Bible is subjective, not objective, much like all other holy books in all the other major religions.

Many of us here, including moi, have done so with the ToE, so I'm not asking you to do anything that we haven't done ourselves.

 

[YoursTrue]

That is the problem, because the research article explained what needed to change concerning the evolution of homosapiens, particularly the evolution of bipedalism. There are actually two research articles that provide the foundation for the layman's article.

I would say that is right. I quoted accurately.

 

[YoursTrue]

The Last Common Ancestor of humans and chimpanzees may have been something like Orrorin tugenensis or Sahelanthropus tchadensis - see Orrorin tugenensis , Orrorin - Wikipedia , Sahelanthropus tchadensis , and Sahelanthropus - Wikipedia .

May have been something like. But now they're figuring that man somehow, maybe, did not descend from the trees. Yet not sure.

 

[YoursTrue]

Using objectively-derived evidence, such as that which is the basis of all science, please show that there is only one god? Remember, that the Bible is subjective, not objective, much like all other holy books in all the other major religions.

Many of us here, including moi, have done so with the ToE, so I'm not asking you to do anything that we haven't done ourselves.

By the way..I can show you what the Bible says. Do you accept what the Bible says?

 

[shunyadragon]

I would say that is right. I quoted accurately.

The question is why you selectively cited what you did, and did not read the primary research.

 

[YoursTrue]

The question is why you selectively cited what you did, and did not read the primary research.

The info I cited is true, it was accurately drawn, and a reasonable comprehension of the articles it was defining. Have a good night.

 

[metis]

By the way..I can show you what the Bible says. Do you accept what the Bible says?

As expected, you won't answer my one simple question, thus probably aware that you can't but not being honest enough to admit it. Instead, it's your disingenuous tactic of "deflection" that you continue to use.

The OP deals with science, thus not "what the Bible says". On top of that, discounting the Creation accounts as possibly being allegorical is terrible Biblical scholarship as one should always look and consider other options than just what their own opinion or bias may be. As being a response to the much more widespread and earlier polytheistic Babylonian, this makes sense allegorically, but to take the Bible Creation accounts as being real history and science doesn't make any sense whatsoever now based on what we know.

IOW, one can use the Bible as "enlightenment" or as a set of "blinders" to reality, and you have chosen the latter, unfortunately. All scripture should be put into perspective, and you have failed to do that. Thus, let me recommend that you find a church that teaches "enlightenment" and not as a set of "blinders".

 

[YoursTrue]

As expected, you won't answer my one simple question, thus probably aware that you can't but not being honest enough to admit it. Instead, it's your disingenuous tactic of "deflection" that you continue to use.

The OP deals with science, thus not "what the Bible says". On top of that, discounting the Creation accounts as possibly being allegorical is terrible Biblical scholarship as one should always look and consider other options than just what their own opinion or bias may be. As being a response to the much more widespread and earlier polytheistic Babylonian, this makes sense allegorically, but to take the Bible Creation accounts as being real history and science doesn't make any sense whatsoever now based on what we know.

IOW, one can use the Bible as "enlightenment" or as a set of "blinders" to reality, and you have chosen the latter, unfortunately. All scripture should be put into perspective, and you have failed to do that. Thus, let me recommend that you find a church that teaches "enlightenment" and not as a set of "blinders".

If scripture is to be put in perspective, then you first must look at scripture.

 

[metis]

If scripture is to be put in perspective, then you first must look at scripture.

As I do more than once every single day of the week.

 

[Astrophile]

But what I am saying and have asked, with no answer, what parts of bones and other fossils have been examined for dating, what process was used, and why could other elements have not been leached into the bones and soils?

Fossils are not dated directly. The ages of igneous rocks can be obtained directly by radiometric dating, and the ages of the sedimentary rocks and fossils between two dated igneous rocks are obtained by interpolation. For example, if a Santonian (Upper Cretaceous) lava flow or ash bed is dated at 84.5±1.0 million years, and a Campanian (also Upper Cretaceous) lava flow or ash bed is dated at 76.0±2.0 million years, then a Campanian fossil ammonite or bivalve in the sedimentary rocks between the two lava flows or ash beds is between 76 and 84.5 million years old. As the ages of more igneous rocks are measured, and as the boundaries of geological stages are defined more accurately by their fossil content, a more nearly complete geological time scale can be built up, and the age ranges of different fossil species can be established more precisely.

If you want to learn more about radiometric dating and the geological time scale, and how the possible sources of error are dealt with, you can try googling on such words and phrases as 'geochronology', 'geological time scale', 'the age of the earth', how old is the earth?', and 'radiometric dating', or you can read books on the subject. 'The Age of the Earth', by Brent G. Dalrymple, is a good introduction.

If you want to understand the fossil record, you will have to learn about stratigraphy, and about biostratigraphy in particular; this is not my field, so I am afraid that I cannot give you much help here. However, if you are an Australian, you will find the Timescales Project within Geoscience Australia - Biostratigraphy | Geoscience Australia - of interest.

 

[Astrophile]

May have been something like. But now they're figuring that man somehow, maybe, did not descend from the trees. Yet not sure.

I did not author the following, "The researchers suggest their findings may force scientists to rethink theories of human descent from the trees--it would have taken a lot longer than previously believed to adjust to living on the ground if the phalangeal curve took multiple generations to straighten." (from physics.org)

The sentence you quoted from your link said that scientists may by forced 'to rethink theories of human descent from the trees'; it did not say that scientists are figuring that our hominid ancestors did not descend from the trees at all. You must understand that human evolution was a very complex business, and that modifications in the theory can't be completely explained in a single sentence.

 

[YoursTrue]

As expected, you won't answer my one simple question, thus probably aware that you can't but not being honest enough to admit it. Instead, it's your disingenuous tactic of "deflection" that you continue to use.

The OP deals with science, thus not "what the Bible says". On top of that, discounting the Creation accounts as possibly being allegorical is terrible Biblical scholarship as one should always look and consider other options than just what their own opinion or bias may be. As being a response to the much more widespread and earlier polytheistic Babylonian, this makes sense allegorically, but to take the Bible Creation accounts as being real history and science doesn't make any sense whatsoever now based on what we know.

IOW, one can use the Bible as "enlightenment" or as a set of "blinders" to reality, and you have chosen the latter, unfortunately. All scripture should be put into perspective, and you have failed to do that. Thus, let me recommend that you find a church that teaches "enlightenment" and not as a set of "blinders".

I was asking, in response to one of your posts, how can someone believe in the Bible (claim to be a Christian) and then say evolution not creation, is true. That's how this started. I am basically asking questions about evolution.

 

[YoursTrue]

Fossils are not dated directly. The ages of igneous rocks can be obtained directly by radiometric dating, and the ages of the sedimentary rocks and fossils between two dated igneous rocks are obtained by interpolation. For example, if a Santonian (Upper Cretaceous) lava flow or ash bed is dated at 84.5±1.0 million years, and a Campanian (also Upper Cretaceous) lava flow or ash bed is dated at 76.0±2.0 million years, then a Campanian fossil ammonite or bivalve in the sedimentary rocks between the two lava flows or ash beds is between 76 and 84.5 million years old. As the ages of more igneous rocks are measured, and as the boundaries of geological stages are defined more accurately by their fossil content, a more nearly complete geological time scale can be built up, and the age ranges of different fossil species can be established more precisely.

If you want to learn more about radiometric dating and the geological time scale, and how the possible sources of error are dealt with, you can try googling on such words and phrases as 'geochronology', 'geological time scale', 'the age of the earth', how old is the earth?', and 'radiometric dating', or you can read books on the subject. 'The Age of the Earth', by Brent G. Dalrymple, is a good introduction.

If you want to understand the fossil record, you will have to learn about stratigraphy, and about biostratigraphy in particular; this is not my field, so I am afraid that I cannot give you much help here. However, if you are an Australian, you will find the Timescales Project within Geoscience Australia - Biostratigraphy | Geoscience Australia - of interest.

Ah, thank you!! I shall look at this closer later.

 

[metis]

I was asking, in response to one of your posts, how can someone believe in the Bible (claim to be a Christian) and then say evolution not creation, is true. That's how this started. I am basically asking questions about evolution.

You didn't answer mine, thus I have no interest in answering yours.

 

[YoursTrue]

As I do more than once every single day of the week.

So then again I ask you, which is the basis of the discussion between you and me, do you believe Jesus or do you think he was the truth, as he said, was he created or came about by evolution without intervention from ... God...I know, it's a rather hard question for some to answer. And yes, since I have answered your question, but you say I have not, it's ok if you do not want to talk to me any more.

 

[YoursTrue]

The sentence you quoted from your link said that scientists may by forced 'to rethink theories of human descent from the trees'; it did not say that scientists are figuring that our hominid ancestors did not descend from the trees at all. You must understand that human evolution was a very complex business, and that modifications in the theory can't be completely explained in a single sentence.

Yes, the "layman's" article (or report on the report) asserted that scientists may be forced to rethink their 'tree to earth' theory. That last one is my recap of it. I know there was more written about the foot and toe formations. Phalanges? Ok I refer back to original "layman's" article again.
It says, "evidence that suggests the curved phalange in apes is an inherited trait, not one that comes about from climbing." Suggests...the curved phalange does not come about from climbing. Suggests. Maybe next year a new fossil will be discovered that suggests something else back to original hypothesis.
https://phys.org/news/2020-05-chimp-human-child-phalangeal-genetic.html

 

[YoursTrue]

As expected, you won't answer my one simple question, thus probably aware that you can't but not being honest enough to admit it. Instead, it's your disingenuous tactic of "deflection" that you continue to use.

The OP deals with science, thus not "what the Bible says".

Yes, we're not speaking of what the OP said right now in this conversation. I'm simply asking of someone who says he's a Christian, yet claims the theory of evolution is correct. I'm sure many teach the creation account is an allegory. For purposes of enlightenment, here is one definition of allegory. "a literary device, an allegory is a narrative in which a character, place, or event is used to deliver a broader message about real-world issues and occurrence." One would have to wonder what's allegorical about the Genesis account of creation, if someone claims it is an allegory.

 

[YoursTrue]

Using objectively-derived evidence, such as that which is the basis of all science, please show that there is only one god? Remember, that the Bible is subjective, not objective, much like all other holy books in all the other major religions.

Many of us here, including moi, have done so with the ToE, so I'm not asking you to do anything that we haven't done ourselves.

Is it that you want me to show using what you deem as "objectively-derived evidence," that there is only one god? First of all, it's good to know what the word god means. God certainly can have several contexts as well as meanings, as I'm pretty well sure that you, as a teacher, are aware of.

Taken from God | Definition of God by Lexico
1. (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being
2. **(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity "a moon god"
Please note the second definition there. Do you agree with that as a possibility? There are more definitions to consider, so in order to come to any understanding, it would be good to realize what the word god means.

 

[metis]

And yes, since I have answered your question,

The question was can you provide objectively-derived evidence that there is only one god. The Bible is not objective as it is subjective.

If you can't, then at least admit you can't.

 

[metis]

One would have to wonder what's allegorical about the Genesis account of creation, if someone claims it is an allegory.

I've posted why I think it's allegorical several times already here, namely to probably rebut the polytheistic Babylonian creation narrative.