God and Evolution

[YoursTrue]

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.

I put the link in after I realized it posted before I did that. ‘The Models Are Too Conservative’: A Paleontologist on Climate Change Today
But -- I am going to tell you that it seems from what I have read and gleaned from the posts here promoting evolution as true, logical, and basic, that evolution is (1) purposeless, and (2) mindless. (Thus purposeless.)

 

[YoursTrue]

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?

And again, why is it hypothetical if the elements of the so-called first unicell are known? Or are they? Perhaps better put as bacteria? Are the elements known (factually, of course) in the supposed first cell, first living matter? (Of course that emerged from non-living matter.)

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I can't say.

How did they know where to search?
How did they know what traits the creature would have?

What is more plausible?

Sounds like you don't believe in luck.

Sure I do. Someone, somehwere, wins the lottery every week. Many many millions off course, don't.
Finding Tiktaalik and being "just lucky" to have succesfully predicted age, location and anatomical traits thereof, is the equivalent of winning the lottery many many many times in a row.

After all....... if you assume that evolution theory is false, then the prediction of Tiktaalik is really just the equivalent of choosing a random spot and start digging and then dig up a random fossil, which just happens to match the prediction.

You seem in denial.

Was it then from beyond?

"beyond"?

There's a very simple explanation here.....
And that is: the used scientific models are accurate and that allowed them to predict what to find where....

As said, Tiktaalik is just one example of many. Don't make the mistake of thinking that this is an isolated case.

Anyhow...... sounds like your response to this is "I got nothing...", correct?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It really shouldn't be such a hard question to answer.

Why? Because you say so?

According to the theory, what came first? Plants or animals? Or did they come at the same time?

Timeline of the evolutionary history of life - Wikipedia

Timeline: The evolution of life

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So because it has fin-like appendages, you are saying that it's not a transition from water beings to animal beings?

???

How you concluded that from the post you are replying to, is a complete mystery.

You say these animals are "solid confirming evidence" for WHAT theories?? What's the theory in this case?

The theories and fields involved in making this prediction, obviously.
Evolution, evolutionary history, geological history, dating mechanisms, paleontology, etc.

Evolution of a water animal transitioning eventually to a land animal crawler? If not, what's it evidence for? Just evolution?

As I already said: evidence for all the theories and fields involved in making that prediction.
The prediction flows from the models and fields involved.

Kindly explain, if you will, how this is evidence of anything beyond an animal that looks like a Tiktaalik.

It was found BY PREDICTION. That prediction was BASED on stuff.
If that stuff is not accurate, then why would the prediction be succesfull?

"if this and this and this and this and this is accurate, THEN we should be able to find that".

That's how scientific predictions work. This is how scientific models are tested. You maked predictions based on the models and if they check out, the models are confirmed and the results of the test are evidence in support of the models.

How can you not get this?
This is how all of science works.

Like in 2015 when they detected gravitational waves at LIGO.
Such waves were predicted to exist decades before that, based on models / theories of physics.
It took a really long time to build a machine capable of detecting such waves.
Nobody witnessed such waves before. It was a 600 million dollar test (times two, because they build two of such facilities to confirm potential results and rule out "noise"). When they switched on the machine, they didn't know if it would be succesfull.

Within the hour, they detected a gravitational wave that was the result of two colliding black holes.

Again, this is how science works.

You build models to explain reality. You then use those models to make testable predictions and then you test those predictions.

Paleontologists etc used evolution models etc to predict the location, age and traits of a fossil representing the migration from sea to land. They went to the predicted location that exposed rocks of the predicted age, started digging and then discovered a fossil exhibiting the predicted traits.


What more do you want me to tell you?

You seem in extreme denial.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

Life existed on this planet for billions of years before plants and animals saw the light of day.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

Aka, biological evolution. Or just the Theory of Evolution from the field of Biology.

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.

That is indeed not how it happens. Individuals don't evolve. Populations do, and they do so gradually over many generation through the gradual accumulation of small changes, which require time to spread to the rest of the population (if and when selected for).

It mindlessly evolved (morphed by genetic changes) to a land crawler that did not mate with water animals eventually it at all.

Titktaalik mated with other Tiktaaliks.
Again, population evolve. Gradually. Not overnight. A fish did not give birth to Tiktaalik.
Species don't give birth to members of other, or sub-, species. Just like Latin speaking mothers do not raise Spanish speaking children. Yet, the distant ancestors of spanish speaking children did not speak spanish - they spoke latin.

Therefore, the Tiktaalik just happened to be what the scientists were looking for

BY PREDICTION!

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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?

Logically, life had to come into being in some way, at least 3.8 billion years ago (= oldest confirmed traces of life on this planet, if I remember correctly).

This, however, isn't within the scope of evolution theory.
Evolution isn't concerned with how life itself came about. It is rather concerned with how diversity of life came (and comes) about.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And so far I don't see the evidence that fits the theory of mindless evolution.

Because you are too stubborn.

You can't even bring yourself to recognise the accomplishment of using models, like evolution, to succesfully predict what type of creature of which age should be found in which location.

How is it not evidence, to succesfully predict such things?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But -- I am going to tell you that it seems from what I have read and gleaned from the posts here promoting evolution as true, logical, and basic, that evolution is (1) purposeless, and (2) mindless. (Thus purposeless.)

And you consider that a problem, why exactly?

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Now you are going back on your word again about having an honest discussion. The topic was evolution, not abiogenesis.

And this will not save you. We know that regardless of the source of first life that life evolved after that first source appeared.

Now it may have been through abiogenesis. That is the most likely. And there is evidence that supports this.

Our planet may have been seeded by intelligent aliens, if you demand an intelligence, but then they too probably arose naturally.


The least likely is that a God j's my magic poofed life into existence. For some strange reason you seem to favor that. The question is why? Why do you want to limit your god?

 

[Subduction Zone]

And again, why is it hypothetical if the elements of the so-called first unicell are known? Or are they? Perhaps better put as bacteria? Are the elements known (factually, of course) in the supposed first cell, first living matter? (Of course that emerged from non-living matter.)

Umm, because that is what hypothetical means.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Life existed on this planet for billions of years before plants and animals saw the light of day.

I told him that more than once, but he does not seem to understand it.

 

[ecco]

Dad, you need to prove that your book of myths is reliable. Otherwise you might as well be quoting from Harry Potter.

Harry Potter is superior in terms of morality.

 

[ecco]

There are many spirits. Good and bad. Real spirits. When we say God's that indicates spirits. When we capitalize the word it refers to the one true God and creator. Just being a demon or Angel does not make one God.

More duck and dodge nonsense. "God's" refers to something belonging to God. True, when you capitalize it, "God", it refers to the Judeo Christian god. When it is not capitalized it refers to other gods like Allah and Shiva and Atlas. So your comment ...

Your claim about what I believe regarding what mankind believed historically is false. The bible recognizes that many gods and beliefs have existed right from the times after the flood when history started. Try googling 'Babel'!

...that The bible recognizes that many gods have existed was BS.

The Bible does not recognize other gods. Why is it necessary for an atheist to be educating a Christian on something so basic?

 

[ecco]

You also need to explain how Jesus created all things since he (Jesus) did not exist at the time of creation.

of course He existed.

Jesus existence began when the Holy Ghost impregnated the young virgin. If he already existed, why was it necessary to impregnate Mary? Was it that the writers needed to make up a story that sounded somewhat plausible?

But if we want to take your view, that needs some explaining.

• There was Jesus in heaven.
• Jesus in heaven was reduced to a mindless sperm and ejaculated into Mary.
• Nine months later, Jesus reappeared as a newborn.

Seriously?

 

[ecco]

Apparently you do not understand why knowledge about the current nature cannot apply to origins issues unless nature was the same.

Please show your evidence that it wasn't the same. A Nobel Prize awaits.

The only reason that you want the laws of nature to have changed over time is so you can reconcile your story book "knowledge" with science.

 

[ecco]

Does Science support "Atheism", please?
If yes, then please quote from a text book of Science or from a peer-reviewed article published in a reputed journal of Science where such positive proofs/evidences have been given that "G-d does not exist".

Which G-d?
Which God?
Which god?

There are so many.

 

[ecco]

P.S. In reference to mankind's written history, I find it interesting that there are no historical records (written) before about 5,000 years ago. Why is that interesting? Because mankind, according to evolutionists, has been around for about 200,000 years in its present homo sapien form. But only in the past 5,000 or so years has writing been around. Odd, very odd. No evidence of writing before that. Amazing. So in all those few hundreds of thousands of years mankind supposedly existed, about let's see -- 194,000 years passed with no writing. That's something. What's the theory about that?

Until 600 years ago the peoples of the Americas had no written language. How does that fit in with you silly conspiracy theories?

Aboriginal Peoples Did Not have Written Languages

Bob Joseph
Aboriginal Peoples did not have written languages although many of the Indigenous Peoples of North America relied on oral histories instead of a written language to pass down their history. For example, there were Peoples who were recording historical events in the form of pictographs in various materials. The Maya and Inca were recording history in stone while some of the plains peoples were recording historical events on buffalo hides.

Other ways they were able to pass down their history to future generations was through stories, songs, and oral communications. These histories have been considered accurate enough that the Supreme Court of Canada in 1997 ruled that oral testimony and oral history are admissible as evidence in a court of law where the history can be corroborated. This is also indicative of the weight put on the spoken word by Aboriginal Peoples.
​

As someone else said, writing wasn't needed, so it wasn't developed.

 

[ecco]

I have another question. There are plants and there are animals. Can you explain by means of the evolution theory, how it is that plants and animals emerged as different types of living things?

I have another question. One I have asked several times of you.

How do you account for the existence of humans on earth?

Are you too embarrassed to respond?