1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured God and Evolution

Discussion in 'Religious Debates' started by Vaziri, Jul 9, 2019.

  1. TagliatelliMonster

    TagliatelliMonster Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2019
    Messages:
    9,609
    Ratings:
    +7,478
    Religion:
    Atheist
    :rolleyes:

    Again ignoring the actual facts of the matter.

    Once more:

    - scientists note that hundreds of millions of years ago, animals only lived in the sea.
    - scientists note that later on, animals also lived on land
    - scientists hypothesize that at some point, sea animals must have evolved into land animals.
    - scientists narrow down the period in which that must have taken place
    - scientists then look on a geological map to see where they can find rocks of that age
    - upon pinpointing such rock, they predict that they should be able to find A TRANSITIONAL SPECIES burried in that rock that has traits of its fish ancestors AND traits of later land crawlers, and they list specific traits that they expect to find.

    - finally, scientists go to that specific place, dig down and lo and behold: they dig up Tiktaalik. A fossil with the exact traits they expected to find, in the location they expected to find it.


    How is this possible, if evolution is false?

    Were they just lucky?
    Is it just a coincidence that they just happen to stumble upon a fossil of the right age, with the right traits in the right location? Do you think it's really reasonable to assume this kind of luck?

    Do you have ANY idea of the amount of fields / theories involved in this prediction?
    It's not just evolution. It's also geology, natural history, dating mechanisms, etc etc.

    So either this is exactly what it looks like: solid confirming evidence for these theories, OR these people are so lucky that they might just as well have won the lottery 100 times in a row.
     
  2. YoursTrue

    YoursTrue We know gravity by happenstance. (Newton)

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2017
    Messages:
    6,326
    Ratings:
    +1,045
    Religion:
    Christian
    I am not asking about photosynthesis. I am asking how did plants and animals evolve? Did one come before the other? I guess plants came first, then a plant-animal like those plants that eat bugs, then the plant got legs or something like that and became an animal not rooted in soil. Am I on the right track, despite my use of common talk terminology?
     
  3. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    41,114
    Ratings:
    +24,314
    Religion:
    Atheist
    I don't think so. But again you might want to ask someone that really knows biology. Why even ask?

    And no, plants and animals both were rather late additions to life. For most of our planets history there were only single celled organisms. Both plants and animals are by definition multi-cellular.
     
  4. YoursTrue

    YoursTrue We know gravity by happenstance. (Newton)

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2017
    Messages:
    6,326
    Ratings:
    +1,045
    Religion:
    Christian
    I can't say. Sounds like you don't believe in luck. Was it then from beyond?
     
  5. YoursTrue

    YoursTrue We know gravity by happenstance. (Newton)

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2017
    Messages:
    6,326
    Ratings:
    +1,045
    Religion:
    Christian
    You ask why I am asking. Because animals, generally speaking insofar as I know, cannot live without vegetation. Now of course, not being an expert , there's always something wonderful to learn about the creation.
    The third day, Genesis 1:11Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth vegetation: seed-bearing plants and fruit trees, each bearing fruit with seed according to its kind.” And it was so.
    After that, on the 5th day, God made water animals and flying creatures.
    Genesis 1:20 God said, “Let the waters teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the sky.”
    23And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.
    Third day, vegetation.
    Fifth day, water animals, and flying animals--birds.
     
  6. YoursTrue

    YoursTrue We know gravity by happenstance. (Newton)

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2017
    Messages:
    6,326
    Ratings:
    +1,045
    Religion:
    Christian
    It really shouldn't be such a hard question to answer. According to the theory, what came first? Plants or animals? Or did they come at the same time?
     
  7. YoursTrue

    YoursTrue We know gravity by happenstance. (Newton)

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2017
    Messages:
    6,326
    Ratings:
    +1,045
    Religion:
    Christian
    So because it has fin-like appendages, you are saying that it's not a transition from water beings to animal beings? I'll leave it there because of course, I have more questions. You say these animals are "solid confirming evidence" for WHAT theories?? What's the theory in this case? Evolution of a water animal transitioning eventually to a land animal crawler? If not, what's it evidence for? Just evolution? Kindly explain, if you will, how this is evidence of anything beyond an animal that looks like a Tiktaalik. If you say it is evidence of a (or the) theory of evolution, where does it fit in, what is the transition, or is it evidence of transition.
    Oh yes, and P.S., what are the right traits, as you say, in the right location? Right traits for what?
     
  8. YoursTrue

    YoursTrue We know gravity by happenstance. (Newton)

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2017
    Messages:
    6,326
    Ratings:
    +1,045
    Religion:
    Christian
    It is? I suppose by that you mean it could have transitioned if the species kept alive before it went extinct and did not transition to another state of being which emerged from the previous one.
     
  9. YoursTrue

    YoursTrue We know gravity by happenstance. (Newton)

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2017
    Messages:
    6,326
    Ratings:
    +1,045
    Religion:
    Christian
    How is it running? I mean it should be simple, since the theory is that all life evolved from a single cell which fabulously made other cells, or from which more emerged at the same time, more or less, branching out to multitudinous cellular structures, one aspect forming plants, and the other aspect either forming plants which became animals, or different evolutions of a phyla from the multi-cellular organisms. Let me make that a bit clearer, if possible. First there was a cell that emerged from non-living matter. Then that cell either made more cells from itself, or other cells like it emerged also from non-living matter. I am not talking about abiogenesis here, although it is integral, absolutely necessary for evolution to have occurred. I am speaking of the first cell or first cellS burgeoning to plants, which became animals, or plants which stayed plants (in other words did not evolve to become animals in the long run).
    So- one cell multiplied by itself.
    Or - more than one cell emerged from non-living matter and evolved in different directions, one eventually making plants, the other making animals. Maybe it was the atmosphere.
     
  10. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    41,114
    Ratings:
    +24,314
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Your concept of evolution is rather strange. A very good analogy of evolution is languages. We know that Spanish, French, Italian, Portuguese, and at least one more language that I cannot remember right now came from Latin. But at no point did a Latin speaking mother give birth to a Spanish speaking child. There were many transitional languages in between. Speciation is rather similar and there is no direct goal to it. Speciation is reactionary, it does not have a goal.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  11. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    41,114
    Ratings:
    +24,314
    Religion:
    Atheist
    You are not paying attention. There is nothing "fabulous" about evolution besides it being a fact. Your earlier question was once again poorly formed. Plants and animals did not appear until sometime after their ancestors separated.
     
  12. YoursTrue

    YoursTrue We know gravity by happenstance. (Newton)

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2017
    Messages:
    6,326
    Ratings:
    +1,045
    Religion:
    Christian
    I was thinking earlier that the word evolution is rather comprehensive, and does not always mean genetic or biologic change. But I didn't want to bring that up, because I am not talking of social evolution, but rather supposed genetic change, movement, by chance (no purpose, as you say, "no direct goal") called evolution. As far as direct goal of speciation or any other genetic type change, you are saying there is no goal. I would say that is true because something like the Tiktaalik doesn't think, "Yes, I'd like to crawl on the land in a better way than this," so it pushed itself to change. Obviously you're saying that's not so. It mindlessly evolved (morphed by genetic changes) to a land crawler that did not mate with water animals eventually it at all. Therefore, the Tiktaalik just happened to be what the scientists were looking for -- a missing link they found -- as to say a transitional form from fish to land rover was in process. More or less, because you're saying, if I understand you correctly, it could have stayed as a Tiktaalik with no evolving genetic changes, micro or macro. Didn't need to change. Just did change.
     
  13. YoursTrue

    YoursTrue We know gravity by happenstance. (Newton)

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2017
    Messages:
    6,326
    Ratings:
    +1,045
    Religion:
    Christian
    I didn't want to use the word miraculous, so I used the word fabulous. One might say it was a fabulous sunset, not a misnomer. No life has been discovered on other planets so far, yet it is hoped by some maybe (?) that the human race, as it continues making life very difficult for itself on the earth will transport itself to another planet.
    So which came first, plants or animals?
     
  14. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    41,114
    Ratings:
    +24,314
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Does this make sense to anyone?

    It looks like you are grasping as straws. As the saying goes: "None are so blind as those that won't let themselves see."

    If you believe the creation myth you still need to explain why your God had to lie.
     
  15. YoursTrue

    YoursTrue We know gravity by happenstance. (Newton)

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2017
    Messages:
    6,326
    Ratings:
    +1,045
    Religion:
    Christian
    I said, "First there was a cell that emerged from non-living matter." Is that true as far as you're concerned and what you consider as fact?
     
  16. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    41,114
    Ratings:
    +24,314
    Religion:
    Atheist

    Since the evolved separately from each other and early animals did not rely on plants, they consumed single celled life, it is hard to say whether plants or animals evolved first.

    By the way, evolution is perfectly ordinary. An accomplishment to be sure, but no more fabulous than traveling from New York city to California, something that countless Americans did without motorized transport at all.
     
  17. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    41,114
    Ratings:
    +24,314
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Right now you are no longer discussing evolution. You are discussing abiogenesis. That concept is still in the hypothetical stage. The answer to that is is far from complete, but once again, there is only evidence for abiogenesis. There is no evidence to the contrary. If it makes you feel any better you can believe that the first cell was magically poofed into life, but I do not see why you would limit your God in that fashion. Why try to tell God how he made the Earth? Doesn't it make a lot more sense to try to find out how?
     
  18. YoursTrue

    YoursTrue We know gravity by happenstance. (Newton)

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2017
    Messages:
    6,326
    Ratings:
    +1,045
    Religion:
    Christian
    I see no substantive proof in the theory of evolution as true or factual. Anyway, the most recent evolutionary form (homo sapiens) are ruining the earth's atmosphere, so no worries for you about evolution. Or setting up human life continuing to evolve on other planets. I'm here discussing evolution and why I don't believe it. You're here because you support the theory. And so far I don't see the evidence that fits the theory of mindless evolution.
    Now here's an interesting article about the take by a scientist:
    ‘The Models Are Too Conservative’: A Paleontologist on Climate Change Today
     
  19. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    41,114
    Ratings:
    +24,314
    Religion:
    Atheist
    That is only because you are using the ostrich defense. If you won't let yourself learn due to your fears there is no way that you can learn.

    And you forgot your link.
     
  20. YoursTrue

    YoursTrue We know gravity by happenstance. (Newton)

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2017
    Messages:
    6,326
    Ratings:
    +1,045
    Religion:
    Christian
    I've already told you that I, as a mere human, do not have the capacity to know the specifics of how God made life on the earth. Other than what is written in the Bible. And unless bacterium have mouths and brains to tell others how they first got here -- as one person said here -- no need for them to write anything or subsequent living matters before human history in written form -- Again -- you say life came about from? but don't want to touch on that because you say that's another subject. I don't think so, but that is what scientists believe started mindless, purposeless evolution.

    So evolutionists don't really know, with all the surmising, how or where life came about purportedly in the unicellular fashion. And do they surmise that at least one cell, the first living matter, multiplied by itself, perhaps duplicating itself? And if it wasn't just one cell multiplying, could be it was more than one cell at the beginning of life. See, I don't want to talk about that one cell, since then you object that is about abiogenesis. No, it's not. It's about the one-cell first living item that scientists say must have been without a creator. Or -- is it more than one cell at the beginning of life, perhaps one going in one direction, and another going in another direction, so as one moves mindlessly to producing plants and another producing eventually animals. Notably sans an intelligent force (you call it magical as if the evolution of life you believe in is not fantastic) behind the one cell or more-than-one cell. Well, we had a nice discussion for a while, and I thank you for it.
     
Loading...