Let's go over this again, shall we, about chances--

[shunyadragon]

You claim to be a believer in Bahaullah and mentioned the Bible as unbelievable. So since you mentioned it, can you say without question that the revelations of Bahaullah are truthfully based? Yes, or no. Be a man.
As I said, I take vaccines and go to doctors and get x-rays. Do you think that means I believe what any accredited, board certified doctor tells me? Do me a favor. Please guess the answer. Thank you very much.

again . . .

I never claimed that religious belief in any religion including my own is based on any sort of 'absolute truth.' Nonetheless, the Baha'i Faith accepts the Harmony of science and religion, and accepts science as the physical description of the nature of our existence, and religion the spiritual guidance for the wise use of science,

Changing the topic does not help your case of rejecting science based on an ancient religious agenda.

Scientists have degrees, certifications, and peer-reviewed research, and over 100 years of research and discoveries to support their conclusions concerning the sciences of evolution, This is true of all scientists including the scientists that provide the basic foundation of medicine that Doctors rely on.

 

[YoursTrue]

People are human and fallible and yes every doctor or scientist may not be good and ethical, but both the field of medicine and the sciences of evolution are reliable and soncestentWell . . . ah, you go to doctors if you do not trust doctors don't go. In general as in scientists in the sciences of evolution are reliable sources of knowledge, The science of medicine is based on the same science as the scin=ences of evolution. Science is science nothing less and nothing more.

Not speaking of ethics here. Although false claims or mistakes happen by doctors. I determine when and if I have the opportunity to follow a doctor's advice. If I'm unconscious that's a difference story.
Science in the meantime, has not conclusively proved evolution. It no longer matters to me how many claims you make that it has. It has not. Why? Because -- there is no proof. It's so simple, no wonder Jesus said little children would come to him. And that prostitutes would come before the intellectuals and wise ones.
The reason I no longer believe the theory is that you really have no proof. You keep insulting me but offer nothing but your insistence that I'm dumb and stupid, ok, you don't use those words but you might as well have. You say uneducated, blah blah.
So have a good one. Now if you say you believe Bahaullah's revelations as a "scientist," that's up to you. No matter, I still will go to a doctor and not rely on faith healing cures now. So you take care. And I see the "proof" of factual matter is not there upholding evolution as truth in reality.

 

[shunyadragon]

Are you a professional paleontologist?

I am a professional certified Geologist with over 50 years of working in the field including paleontological fossil sites and lab work.
I have also done geologic mapping and hydrology drilling I have several published papers of the Atlantic Coast geology

The paleontological sites I worked on were in the West Virginia coal fields excavating plant and amphibian fossils.

 

[YoursTrue]

again . . .

I never claimed that religious belief in any religion including my own is based on any sort of 'absolute truth.' Nonetheless, the Baha'i Faith accepts the Harmony of science and religion, and accepts science as the physical description of the nature of our existence, and religion the spiritual guidance for the wise use of science,

Changing the topic does not help your case of rejecting science based on an ancient religious agenda.

Scientists have degrees, certifications, and peer-reviewed research, and over 100 years of research and discoveries to support their conclusions concerning the sciences of evolution, This is true of all scientists including the scientists that provide the basic foundation of medicine that Doctors rely on.

I'm not changing the topic. Either you're standing on a rock, as Jesus said, or your house is built on a shaky foundation, and it will crumble. So wait and see. Have another good one as you continue bolstering up with words your trust in the theory of evolution. It isn't there. But have a good one as you and Bahaullah continue walking together.

 

[shunyadragon]

I'm not changing the topic. Either you're standing on a rock, as Jesus said, or your house is built on a shaky foundation, and it will crumble. So wait and see. Have another good one as you continue bolstering up with words your trust in the theory of evolution. It isn't there. But have a good one as you and Bahaullah continue walking together.

Yes, you are changing the subject as defined in the opening post.

 

[YoursTrue]

I am a professional certified Geologist with over 50 years of working in the field including paleontological fossil sites and lab work.
I have also done geologic mapping and hydrology drilling I have several published papers of the Atlantic Coast geology

You're not a geneticist professionally, are you? It wouldn't much matter, with your explanations at this point, having read so many of your incomplete and prejudicial answers. Your explanations have been lacking as to the in's and out's of paleontology. If I took a class with you as the teacher, I'd get out of that class if I could, or else endure it and give you the answers you want to hear in order to pass the class.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, you are changing the subject as defined in the opening post.

I answered questions insofar as I understood them and give my reasons for having examined the questions about evolution and why I began looking into it rather than believing everything that a scientist, even those with good reputations according to their peers, tells me or that which I read. So again -- you have a good one. Please do not take this as an insult, but rather as encouragement for you to forge ahead. If I took a class with you as an instructor, I'd try as hard as I could to get out of that class. Not because of your beliefs but rather because of the lack of explanation and insistence by your own self (without explanation) of those beliefs.

 

[Jose Fly]

As a biologist, but not a professional geneticist, do you assert that the differences between gorillas and humans is not significant? If so, can you explain why? If not, let the matter go.

You're still ignoring the questions I asked, while posing more of your own. So again....

Do you think "a gap of DNA between gorillas and humans" is significant? If so, why?

What have I distorted?

 

[Jose Fly]

I go to doctors. Should I, in your professional opinion, believe what every doctor with a degree asserts?

It depends on the topic.

 

[YoursTrue]

I never claimed that religious belief in any religion including my own is based on any sort of 'absolute truth.' Nonetheless, the Baha'i Faith accepts the Harmony of science and religion, and accepts science as the physical description of the nature of our existence, and religion the spiritual guidance for the wise use of science,

Changing the topic does not help your case of rejecting science based on an ancient religious agenda.

By the way, to ask if you believe what your religion teaches about life and how humans came about is not off the topic, especially when one claims a religious belief. Just because the Pope says something about saints in heaven and who becomes a saint, or miracle healings, for instance, doesn't mean others must accept them, right, or that they're true, or scientifically merited? Maybe the Pope is wrong. Maybe? Maybe you think he's right. And no, it's not changing the topic. Because the topic really is: Truth vs. fiction and fictional assertions. You wanna belief that the lack of chromosomes between gorillas and humans means they both evolved from an "unknown common ancestor"? You go right ahead...You have my stamp of saying go ahead and believe what you want.

 

[YoursTrue]

You're still ignoring the questions I asked, while posing more of your own. So again....

Do you think "a gap of DNA between gorillas and humans" is significant? If so, why?

What have I distorted?

If I have to tell you what you have distorted then frankly there is no hope for a discussion. Note the following, perhaps it will help you:
So you just go right ahead and figure if you think a gap of DNA between gorillas and humans is or is not signifcant. You have an opinion, bring it up. You can say it a million times but I'll keep saying that the facts show there is a small difference between the chromosomes of gorillas and humans. Now if YOU believe one way or the other, that's your belief and assertion. Have a good one.
As I said, you can say it a million times that the gap is or is not significant, whatever your opinion is, I leave that up to you.

 

[YoursTrue]

It depends on the topic.

Oh? It does? Even if that doctor is board-certified? Oh me or my. Don't you trust all doctors with credentials?

 

[YoursTrue]

You're still ignoring the questions I asked, while posing more of your own. So again....

Do you think "a gap of DNA between gorillas and humans" is significant? If so, why?

What have I distorted?

The questions I ask are your answers. As some said, you're missing the trees from the forest. Sorry. Bye, and have a good one.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You're not a geneticist professionally, are you? It wouldn't much matter, with your explanations at this point, having read so many of your incomplete and prejudicial answers. Your explanations have been lacking as to the in's and out's of paleontology. If I took a class with you as the teacher, I'd get out of that class if I could, or else endure it and give you the answers you want to hear in order to pass the class.

We already know you're not interested in learning anything new, but thanks for the confirmation of that.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The questions I ask are your answers. As some said, you're missing the trees from the forest. Sorry. Bye, and have a good one.

You've answered nothing.

 

[Yerda]

I have looked into the pro's and con's of the theory, especially after I have studied the Bible. In this conversation, I am not going to argue about the Bible, so going on to my rejection of the theory of evolution, here is what I will say: Considering that despite the research into the specifics of chromosomes, genetics, and physical similarities, the possibility that it happened by means of natural selection is in no way conclusive. One reason is that beyond the specifics of actuality (such as DNA and similarity from one organism such as chimpanzees to humans), there is no real evidence of micro or macro transformation as claimed by many, including many scientists. The conclusion that the various organisms came about by evolution is conjecture beyond the examination and identification of the genetics. I realize many will not accept this as a viable reason to reject the idea of evolution by natural selection as if molecules and DNA transformed from one organism to another, but that's how I see it now.

If we focus on chimpanzees for second, have you ever seen anything that contradicts the hypothesis that we share a common ancestor? Or is it that you're just unconvinced by the evidence presented?

I'm not trying to convince you. Just curious.

 

[Jose Fly]

If I have to tell you what you have distorted then frankly there is no hope for a discussion.

So you feel comfortable accusing people of things, but feel no obligation to back up those accusations?

Wow, that's extremely unethical.

Note the following, perhaps it will help you:
So you just go right ahead and figure if you think a gap of DNA between gorillas and humans is or is not signifcant. You have an opinion, bring it up. You can say it a million times but I'll keep saying that the facts show there is a small difference between the chromosomes of gorillas and humans. Now if YOU believe one way or the other, that's your belief and assertion. Have a good one.
As I said, you can say it a million times that the gap is or is not significant, whatever your opinion is, I leave that up to you.

You still didn't answer the question. Why do you think this "gap" is signficant?

Oh? It does? Even if that doctor is board-certified? Oh me or my. Don't you trust all doctors with credentials?

Again, it depends on what we're specifically talking about.

 

[YoursTrue]

If we focus on chimpanzees for second, have you ever seen anything that contradicts the hypothesis that we share a common ancestor? Or is it that you're just unconvinced by the evidence presented?

I'm not trying to convince you. Just curious.

That's ok. I have come to understand that scientists do not know how the different types of animals evolved by "natural selection." That is a presumption. They may say that's the way it happened, but there is no proof of the theory. And since chimpanzees, gorillas, and humans are classified as emerging (evolving) from an "Unknown Common Ancestor," there is no proof that the DNA emerged in sequential action of mutations, of the natural selection kind or otherwise, to form chimpanzees, gorillas, and humans from some "Unknown Common Ancestor.". I'm not going to argue if or how the brains and accomplishments of any of them outweigh the others, because that is not the subject. It's the theorizing about evolution that makes me stand back and wonder. Not about the theory in particular because it's a theory, but why some claim it is a fact (and therefore say it is true).That's it right now.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's ok. I have come to understand that scientists do not know how the different types of animals evolved by "natural selection." That is a presumption. They may say that's the way it happened, but there is no proof of the theory. And since chimpanzees, gorillas, and humans are classified as emerging (evolving) from an "Unknown Common Ancestor," there is no proof that the DNA emerged in sequential action of mutations, of the natural selection kind or otherwise, to form chimpanzees, gorillas, and humans from some "Unknown Common Ancestor.". I'm not going to argue if or how the brains and accomplishments of any of them outweigh the others, because that is not the subject. It's the theorizing about evolution that makes me stand back and wonder. Not about the theory in particular because it's a theory, but why some claim it is a fact (and therefore say it is true).That's it right now.

Incorrect. When it comes to DNA endogenous retroviruses just kicked your donkey.

 

[YoursTrue]

So you feel comfortable accusing people of things, but feel no obligation to back up those accusations?

Wow, that's extremely unethical.


You still didn't answer the question. Why do you think this "gap" is signficant?


Again, it depends on what we're specifically talking about.

You have not backed up your accusations (assertions) except to say that's what you think and what other people think as if I should believe what you say and about what other people think and promulgate as theories put forth by those who you say, know more than I do, as if I should believe them because you say they know more about the subject. lol. You back it up with nothing but your opinion. That's ok. .Now why should I believe you? Because you believe others who you say know more than I do?