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

[ImmortalFlame]

The fossils themselves are evidence of non-evolutionary powers.

Please provide the rationale behind this assertion.

 

[Sheldon]

The fossils themselves are evidence of non-evolutionary powers.

No they're not, you don't get to just make up claims based on unevidenced subjective opinion.

The overwhelming scientific evidence supports species evolution and natural selection, there is a global scientific consensus on this, based over 162 years of global scientific scrutiny.

Even the largest wealthiest church, the RCC has long ago accepted the scientific fact of species evolution. You can move your deity into another gap if it makes you happy, but nothing about the scientific fact of species evolution requires any deity or anything supernatural to explain it, nor are they evidenced at all beyond the wishful thinking and imagination of creationists.

 

[YoursTrue]

No they're not, you don't get to just make up claims based on unevidenced subjective opinion.

The overwhelming scientific evidence supports species evolution and natural selection, there is a global scientific consensus on this, based over 162 years of global scientific scrutiny.

Even the largest wealthiest church, the RCC has long ago accepted the scientific fact of species evolution. You can move your deity into another gap if it makes you happy, but nothing about the scientific fact of species evolution requires any deity or anything supernatural to explain it, nor are they evidenced at all beyond the wishful thinking and imagination of creationists.

Your saying and quoting of authorities does not make it true. Fossils do not prove-demonstrate-verify evolution, however you want to define it. Fossils, in fact, demonstrate that these organisms did not evolve. There is nothing to show other than guesswork.

 

[YoursTrue]

No they're not, you don't get to just make up claims based on unevidenced subjective opinion.

The overwhelming scientific evidence supports species evolution and natural selection, there is a global scientific consensus on this, based over 162 years of global scientific scrutiny.

Even the largest wealthiest church, the RCC has long ago accepted the scientific fact of species evolution. You can move your deity into another gap if it makes you happy, but nothing about the scientific fact of species evolution requires any deity or anything supernatural to explain it, nor are they evidenced at all beyond the wishful thinking and imagination of creationists.

You're kidding, right? about the RCC? They decide based on similar premises (indications and guesswork) who is a saint in heaven. So?

 

[shunyadragon]

So do you believe the assertion that scientists have created life?

There is no such assertion that science has created life.

 

[shunyadragon]

1. It is not necessarily a religious agenda, although the evidence is there, or shall we say, not there in full view. The fossils themselves are evidence of non-evolutionary powers. All you have to do is think rather than surmise. Such as that which some do when trying to figure that Jesus did not foretell the destruction of Jerusalem. See? The odds are less than even. Meaning the odds of no-evolution are greater than those of no prophetic warning. (Much greater.)

Not necessarily, but yes it is overwhelmingly obvious that your argument is based on a religious agenda and not remotely related to any knowledge or references to science,

Odds, chance nor probability do not determine whether evolution took place or not. As cited and documented before Odds, chance nor probability do not determine the outcome of anything in the natural world. The natural laws and natural processes determine the outcome of all-cause and effect events in nature.

 

[Aupmanyav]

They decide based on similar premises (indications and guesswork) who is a saint in heaven. So?

There is no evidence of heaven or miracles by any so-called saints.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Fossils do not prove-demonstrate-verify evolution, however you want to define it. Fossils, in fact, demonstrate that these organisms did not evolve. There is nothing to show other than guesswork.

They clearly prove that right from the fossil of the first mammal (Morganucodon, 225 million years ago), the first primate fossil (Purgatorius, 69 million years ago) to modern Humans.
..... ....

If nine points out of ten are available, I do not mind if one is missing. In time, that also will be found.

World's oldest mammal identified with teeth records from 225 years ago
Scientists describe earliest primate fossils

And today, fossil algae dating back to 541 million years ago when there were no trees on earth.
Fossil algae dating back 541 million years offer new insights into the plant kingdom's roots - The Statesman Fossil algae dating back 541 million years offer new insights into the plant kingdom's roots

 

[SkepticThinker]

Your saying and quoting of authorities does not make it true. Fossils do not prove-demonstrate-verify evolution, however you want to define it. Fossils, in fact, demonstrate that these organisms did not evolve. There is nothing to show other than guesswork.

All you did here was repeat yourself. You didn't justify your claim whatsoever.

 

[metis]

You're kidding, right? about the RCC?

The very first time that I ran across the "theistic evolution"* concept was from a Catholic priest back in the early 1960's, whereas I was brought up in my Protestant church to believe that evolution was a hoax.

Evolution is just plain old common sense that's supported by massive amounts of evidence.

*Theistic evolution - Wikipedia

 

[YoursTrue]

The very first time that I ran across the "theistic evolution"* concept was from a Catholic priest back in the early 1960's, whereas I was brought up in my Protestant church to believe that evolution was a hoax.

Evolution is just plain old common sense that's supported by massive amounts of evidence.

*Theistic evolution - Wikipedia

Some may think that fossils definitely ascertain (God forbid the word prove) evolution, but fossils do not. It is up to each one of us concerned to recognize the complexities, variances, and holes (the dark holes?) in the theory of -- evolution. Not speaking of variances within, let's say, the human race. But -- oh well, maybe you guessed it by now.

 

[YoursTrue]

The very first time that I ran across the "theistic evolution"* concept was from a Catholic priest back in the early 1960's, whereas I was brought up in my Protestant church to believe that evolution was a hoax.

Evolution is just plain old common sense that's supported by massive amounts of evidence.

*Theistic evolution - Wikipedia

Then there's the idea called "Atheistic Christianity." So I say this with a smile, since it's been an interesting journey. Christian atheism - Wikipedia
Still wondering about the veracity of those who decide some are "saints" in heaven now...and prayer to them ...oh well.

 

[YoursTrue]

They clearly prove that right from the fossil of the first mammal (Morganucodon, 225 million years ago), the first primate fossil (Purgatorius, 69 million years ago) to modern Humans.
..... ....

If nine points out of ten are available, I do not mind if one is missing. In time, that also will be found.

World's oldest mammal identified with teeth records from 225 years ago
Scientists describe earliest primate fossils

And today, fossil algae dating back to 541 million years ago when there were no trees on earth.
Fossil algae dating back 541 million years offer new insights into the plant kingdom's roots - The Statesman Fossil algae dating back 541 million years offer new insights into the plant kingdom's roots

It is all conjecture as to "natural selection," etc. and etc. I certainly cannot explain how it was done bit by bit and point by point. And frankly, neither can scientists. They can imagine. They can figure about dates, right or wrong, but they really don't know. No, fossils do not show/demonstrate/verify (not "prove," of course) the theory of evolution.

 

[YoursTrue]

There is no evidence of heaven or miracles by any so-called saints.

I'm sure @metis and others claiming to belong to a church of sorts might agree with you. Then, of course, the Pope may not. Even though he believes ok, life came about by -- what? evolution is ok? Saints are ok? anyway you like it.

 

[YoursTrue]

Not necessarily, but yes it is overwhelmingly obvious that your argument is based on a religious agenda and not remotely related to any knowledge or references to science,

Odds, chance nor probability do not determine whether evolution took place or not. As cited and documented before Odds, chance nor probability do not determine the outcome of anything in the natural world. The natural laws and natural processes determine the outcome of all-cause and effect events in nature.

So, what did your mentor or guide tell you about heaven and/or saints? True or not true?

 

[YoursTrue]

There is no evidence of heaven or miracles by any so-called saints.

Maybe @shunyadragon can agree with you about evidence or science in that realm and if he believes in heaven. And why. Just because?

 

[SkepticThinker]

It is all conjecture as to "natural selection," etc. and etc. I certainly cannot explain how it was done bit by bit and point by point. And frankly, neither can scientists. They can imagine. They can figure about dates, right or wrong, but they really don't know. No, fossils do not show/demonstrate/verify (not "prove," of course) the theory of evolution.

How would you know? You think fossils only teach us that something died once, when in actuality, they teach us so much more than that (which, of course, I've pointed out to you before in detail). Then there's the undeniable genetic evidence which you both simultaneously accept (as in when you recognize that your family lineage can be traced with genetic evidence) and deny (as in when you deny that the nested hierarchy we find in the animal kingdom demonstrates genetic relatedness). So, what you hold here is a position of cognitive dissonance. One you seem to be quite proud of, for some odd reason.

 

[metis]

Then there's the idea called "Atheistic Christianity." So I say this with a smile, since it's been an interesting journey. Christian atheism - Wikipedia
Still wondering about the veracity of those who decide some are "saints" in heaven now...and prayer to them ...oh well.

"Theistic Evolution" is certainly, and even logically, not atheistic. Doesn't the word "Theistic" even tell you that???

 

[metis]

I'm sure @metis and others claiming to belong to a church of sorts might agree with you. Then, of course, the Pope may not. Even though he believes ok, life came about by -- what? evolution is ok?

"Theistic Evolution" posits a creator-God, thus you are not really making any sense.

 

[shunyadragon]

Maybe @shunyadragon can agree with you about evidence or science in that realm and if he believes in heaven. And why. Just because?

My beliefs are not relevant here, unless you ask me specifically what I believe. You have asked previously and I gave specific answers.

The chosen topic of this thread involves science and NOT religious beliefs.