Are scientists any closer

[YoursTrue]

That is your belief. It could easily just be mans word about God.

Are you saying that people cannot provide detailed accounts without divine intervention?

There are lots of historical writings with great detail.

So let me know...do you believe what Jesus said? Do you believe he performed miracles? I mean for someone to call himself a Christian and then say the Bible is a mythical story of the miracle accounts of Jesus and Moses is a bit of a problem when it comes to believing who Jesus was and what happened. As well as someone's claims of being a Christian.

 

[YoursTrue]

Make a new thread and see what you get if you have questions about those things.

No I don't have questions about those things. You asked and I answered.

 

[YoursTrue]

Denial in the face of reality seems to be the only thing you have.

There is no real substance in the fossil reviews linking them to evolution. None. Only conjectural placement. That's it. If there is, show it, if you understand it, answer questions about it in your own words.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So let me know...do you believe what Jesus said? Do you believe he performed miracles? I mean for someone to call himself a Christian and then say the Bible is a mythical story of the miracle accounts of Jesus and Moses is a bit of a problem when it comes to believing who Jesus was and what happened. As well as someone's claims of being a Christian.

I never said the Bible was a mythical story. Do you just make up everything you post about?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No I don't have questions about those things. You asked and I answered.

I asked you about Christians that you claim do not believe Christ existed and you claim to be in discussion with. I never asked anything about Moses or miracles. That was your post. Do keep up dear.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

There is no real substance in the fossil reviews linking them to evolution. None. Only conjectural placement. That's it. If there is, show it, if you understand it, answer questions about it in your own words.

They are not linked to evolution. There existence and patterns are explained by the theory.

You keep saying it and you keep failing to demonstrate it. You fail to demonstrate that you even understand evolution.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So let me know...do you believe what Jesus said? Do you believe he performed miracles? I mean for someone to call himself a Christian and then say the Bible is a mythical story of the miracle accounts of Jesus and Moses is a bit of a problem when it comes to believing who Jesus was and what happened. As well as someone's claims of being a Christian.

You can show some courage and just accuse people of what you believe to their face. No need to dance around. I don't doubt you have the hubris to do so. You already dictate how God can think.

If you want to discuss these things, then make another thread about them in religious debates. We are here to discuss your wild and unsupported claims about biology.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

There is no real substance in the fossil reviews linking them to evolution. None. Only conjectural placement. That's it. If there is, show it, if you understand it, answer questions about it in your own words.

Based on your 'pseudo-literal' interpretation of Genesis, dinosaur fossils should not even exist, since they are not mentioned in the Bible.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

There is no real substance in the fossil reviews linking them to evolution. None. Only conjectural placement. That's it. If there is, show it, if you understand it, answer questions about it in your own words.

If you review the entire fossil record from a point prior to the presence of fossils through to modern times, there is a continual change in the content, mixture and nature of the fossils that are found. If you look at vertebrates, there is a point when you have what are obviously primitive vertebrate ancestors, but no other vertebrates. Then fish, with no other vertebrates, then fish and amphibians, etc., up until mammals come into the picture after the extinction of dinosaurs. This is easily explained by the theory of evolution and is a very good demonstration of change over time in populations of living things.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because of the situation and disagreements among those who call themselves Bible believers, I'm not discussing that now in particular. And in order for me to have a meaningful discussion, it would be necessary to see what you mean when you use the term creationist.
Secondly, as we see here, there are those claiming to be Christian but really don't believe what the Bible says in reference to whether Jesus or Moses even existed, that's just one basic, which leaves their adherence to what the Bible says in extreme question. So now...that leads me to wonder about their adherence to the Bible at all except maybe that they like some things it says. But hardly believe things to like Jesus, Moses, the miracles, the resurrection, and so on
Thirdly, the more I delve into this, the more preposterous it--the findings inserted into the theory--becomes. Now I understand that Darwin proposed, based on looks that the various forms of nature evolved. And that's where I am going to leave it for now.

Why do you think that a belief in Moses is important for a Bible believer? He is another mythical character of the Bible.

As to what I would call a creationist, Anyone that believes the myths of Genesis. We know that there never were only two people. That can be shown.

But let's get back to why there is no scientific evidence for creationism. There are creationists that can do science. Why can't they write a proper paper on the subject? I think it is because they know that they are wrong. To have evidence one must first have a testable hypothesis.

The hypothesis that they need to form does not have to explain how God did it. It only has to explain the evidence that we can observe. Why is that so difficult? It is because a reasonable test based on the merits of the idea must be part of the hypothesis. In other words:

What reasonable test could possibly refute the creation account? They appear to be afraid to come up with such a test. No test, means that by definition there is no scientific evidence for their beliefs.

 

[YoursTrue]

Why do you think that a belief in Moses is important for a Bible believer? He is another mythical character of the Bible.

As to what I would call a creationist, Anyone that believes the myths of Genesis. We know that there never were only two people. That can be shown.

But let's get back to why there is no scientific evidence for creationism. There are creationists that can do science. Why can't they write a proper paper on the subject? I think it is because they know that they are wrong. To have evidence one must first have a testable hypothesis.

The hypothesis that they need to form does not have to explain how God did it. It only has to explain the evidence that we can observe. Why is that so difficult? It is because a reasonable test based on the merits of the idea must be part of the hypothesis. In other words:

What reasonable test could possibly refute the creation account? They appear to be afraid to come up with such a test. No test, means that by definition there is no scientific evidence for their beliefs.

There are so many questions (open holes) with evolution, and I'm not speaking of lack of evidence, which there is lack of evidence, but that as I think about it (yes, I think) I see no understandable evidence that humans came from (evolved from) Denisovans and/or Neanderthals or whatever. I can see pictures of the cave attributed to long-ago Denisovans in Siberia. But -- now when I say understandable evidence, I mean that of the purported dna transfer. Where is it? How is it linked and determined about the DNA and the various groups, namely that of evolving neanderthals to homo sapiens? Please explain the DNA precisely as possible within the Neanderthal group and homo sapien group. I won't get into other details now, but it would be great if you could explain the DNA transfer from something (a group?) that was NOT homo sapien to a group that IS homo sapien. And I mean showing DNA evidence that this transfer happened.

 

[YoursTrue]

Why do you think that a belief in Moses is important for a Bible believer? He is another mythical character of the Bible.

As to what I would call a creationist, Anyone that believes the myths of Genesis. We know that there never were only two people. That can be shown.

But let's get back to why there is no scientific evidence for creationism. There are creationists that can do science. Why can't they write a proper paper on the subject? I think it is because they know that they are wrong. To have evidence one must first have a testable hypothesis.

The hypothesis that they need to form does not have to explain how God did it. It only has to explain the evidence that we can observe. Why is that so difficult? It is because a reasonable test based on the merits of the idea must be part of the hypothesis. In other words:

What reasonable test could possibly refute the creation account? They appear to be afraid to come up with such a test. No test, means that by definition there is no scientific evidence for their beliefs.

Excuse me, but even according to the theory of evolution, how do you know there never were 'only two people' that started the human race? Please explain in your own words, using scientific "proof." Thank you.
(OK, reasoning and logic and evidence that there were never "only two people" that started the human race?)

 

[YoursTrue]

Why do you think that a belief in Moses is important for a Bible believer? He is another mythical character of the Bible.

As to what I would call a creationist, Anyone that believes the myths of Genesis. We know that there never were only two people. That can be shown.

But let's get back to why there is no scientific evidence for creationism. There are creationists that can do science. Why can't they write a proper paper on the subject? I think it is because they know that they are wrong. To have evidence one must first have a testable hypothesis.

The hypothesis that they need to form does not have to explain how God did it. It only has to explain the evidence that we can observe. Why is that so difficult? It is because a reasonable test based on the merits of the idea must be part of the hypothesis. In other words:

What reasonable test could possibly refute the creation account? They appear to be afraid to come up with such a test. No test, means that by definition there is no scientific evidence for their beliefs.

Your first question doesn't even make sense. That is, why do I think a belief in Moses is important for a Bible believer????? lolol..

 

[YoursTrue]

If you review the entire fossil record from a point prior to the presence of fossils through to modern times, there is a continual change in the content, mixture and nature of the fossils that are found. If you look at vertebrates, there is a point when you have what are obviously primitive vertebrate ancestors, but no other vertebrates. Then fish, with no other vertebrates, then fish and amphibians, etc., up until mammals come into the picture after the extinction of dinosaurs. This is easily explained by the theory of evolution and is a very good demonstration of change over time in populations of living things.

OK, so you're saying that Stephen Jay Gould didn't know what he was talking about when he admitted, "The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.”
And I see he also said, "even in our imagination", yes, that's true. It's impossible, absolutely impossible to conceive in imagination what is purported to be there. There simply IS no evidentiary proof, or evidence. None.
(OK, sorry -- I amend that. Yes it apparently IS possible to imagine -- for some, I suppose.) But the proof ain't there. And neither is the evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There are so many questions (open holes) with evolution, and I'm not speaking of lack of evidence, which there is lack of evidence, but that as I think about it (yes, I think) I see no understandable evidence that humans came from (evolved from) Denisovans and/or Neanderthals or whatever. I can see pictures of the cave attributed to long-ago Denisovans in Siberia. But -- now when I say understandable evidence, I mean that of the purported dna transfer. Where is it? How is it linked and determined about the DNA and the various groups, namely that of evolving neanderthals to homo sapiens? Please explain the DNA precisely as possible within the Neanderthal group and homo sapien group. I won't get into other details now, but it would be great if you could explain the DNA transfer from something (a group?) that was NOT homo sapien to a group that IS homo sapien. And I mean showing DNA evidence that this transfer happened.

You have not been able to name one single hole. Do you even know what a hole in a theory is? And you continue with your strawman arguments.

No one has claimed that we are descended from Neanderthals or Denisovans. Here is a simple question for you that may help you to understand:

Are you descended from your cousins? Hopefully you are not from Arkansas where the answer would likely be "Yes".

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK, so you're saying that Stephen Jay Gould didn't know what he was talking about when he admitted, "The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.”
And I see he also said, "even in our imagination", yes, that's true. It's impossible, absolutely impossible to conceive in imagination what is purported to be there. There simply IS no evidentiary proof, or evidence. None.
(OK, sorry -- I amend that. Yes it apparently IS possible to imagine -- for some, I suppose.) But the proof ain't there. And neither is the evidence.

He was correct at that time. He would not be correct today. Now why? Let's see if you can reason this one out.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your first question doesn't even make sense. That is, why do I think a belief in Moses is important for a Bible believer????? lolol..

Oh my!!! Now you are claiming that Christianity is false.

 

[Jose Fly]

It is ironic that I grew up in an evangelical church. Even now, I attend one. I like the people. I just don't engage them about science. At least not in a way that gets them on high alert.

Same with me and my fundamentalist family members. Everything's fine as long as we don't discuss certain subjects, science being one of them. Funny thing though, they're the ones who know better than to try and debate science with me.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

There are so many questions (open holes) with evolution, and I'm not speaking of lack of evidence,

Sure you are speaking of it. You keep repeating it. You keep posting and saying there isn't just a hole, but that there is no evidence.

which there is lack of evidence,

Where is there a lack of sufficient evidence that causes the theory to fall apart? You have never said. You just keep parroting your claim without any cogent elaboration.

but that as I think about it (yes, I think)

Not very deeply from what I have seen. Mostly, it just looks like you picked a belief and are simply declaring science false without any real effort or thinking applied at all.

I see no understandable evidence that humans came from (evolved from) Denisovans and/or Neanderthals or whatever.

Your failure is not evidence against science.

I can see pictures of the cave attributed to long-ago Denisovans in Siberia.

So what. Ancient art is not being used as evidence supporting the theory of evolution. It would be a piece of evidence supporting the evolution of intelligence perhaps, but the theory is already in place.

But -- now when I say understandable evidence, I mean that of the purported dna transfer. Where is it?

It is in the genome. Haven't you read your own sources?

How is it linked and determined about the DNA and the various groups, namely that of evolving neanderthals to homo sapiens?

I see. Since you do not understand, it must be that the theory is failed.

Please explain the DNA precisely as possible within the Neanderthal group and homo sapien group.

And what? If another poster can't explain something or you are not up to understanding what they do explain, the theory of evolution is dead. The theory of evolution is not dead!

I won't get into other details now,

You have spent a long time on here without getting much into details about anything yet from what I have seen. It seems you think that your best bet lately has been personal attacks on some of the other posters. It has been very brave of you too.

but it would be great if you could explain the DNA transfer from something (a group?) that was NOT homo sapien to a group that IS homo sapien. And I mean showing DNA evidence that this transfer happened.

But you keep claiming there is no evidence. Then one wonders if you will even look at the evidence another poster presents. You have already thrown out a blanket rejection of evidence. What ensures that you would honestly review anything anyone else provides? If you seriously want to know, I would suggest reading some general works on the subject. There are many popular books on evolution that explain it in terms that a person can understand.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

OK, so you're saying that Stephen Jay Gould didn't know what he was talking about when he admitted, "The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.”
And I see he also said, "even in our imagination", yes, that's true. It's impossible, absolutely impossible to conceive in imagination what is purported to be there. There simply IS no evidentiary proof, or evidence. None.
(OK, sorry -- I amend that. Yes it apparently IS possible to imagine -- for some, I suppose.) But the proof ain't there. And neither is the evidence.

When you remove quoted text from its context, you can make it seem like a person is representing anything you want. It is a dishonesty. Since God commands us not to bear false witness, I do everything I can to follow that command. I know that others have a great deal of trouble doing the same.

You probably have not read the work that the quote even comes from have you? Of course not. I would bet you found this on some creationist web page and just plucked it out to show us all here.

Gould is not revealing some truth about valid flaws undermining the theory of evolution. He is arguing towards a theory of the mode of evolution called punctuated equilibrium. It is an argument against total gradualism as he thinks that certain gaps exist in the fossil record and that these are explained by sudden, rapid bursts of evolutionary change.

It is in your imagination alone (well you and all the other failed creationists that cannot support their view so you sweep about desperately claiming science they do not understand has failed) that you think that gaps mean something about the failure of the theory.

The evidence for evolution that is reported, is there. Yes, gaps do exist. But the existence of gaps is not sufficient to undermine the theory.

Keep scouring the underbelly of creationist intellectualism on the web for us. There is a lot of old, tired and failed material for you to show us here, yet again.