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

[shunyadragon]

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.

Absolutely Not! Fossils alone do not ascertain nor prove evolution. The evidence is broad and includes all disciplines of science such as Biology, Genetics, Paleontology, Physics, Chemistry, and the other disciplines of Geology, and over 150 years of research and published articles in peer-reviewed journals.

Nothing in science nor religious beliefs is proven.

All you have is a religious agenda based on ancient scripture without provenance nor proven, and a lack of knowledge in science.

 

[shunyadragon]

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

No mentor was involved. This thread as your title defines is about science and not religious beliefs.

 

[YoursTrue]

No mentor was involved. This thread as your title defines is about science and not religious beliefs.

OK, so your religious leader evolved by natural selection, strictly by genetics and DNA, not by any other superior power I suppose you think. And yes, it matters.

 

[YoursTrue]

Absolutely Not! Fossils alone do not ascertain nor prove evolution. The evidence is broad and includes all disciplines of science such as Biology, Genetics, Paleontology, Physics, Chemistry, and the other disciplines of Geology, and over 150 years of research and published articles in peer-reviewed journals.

Nothing in science nor religious beliefs is proven.

All you have is a religious agenda based on ancient scripture without provenance nor proven, and a lack of knowledge in science.

Fossils in fact go against the theory since there is no indication whatsoever that there are burgeoning forms evolving from any other form before that.

 

[YoursTrue]

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

Please, no insult intended, but you are not making any sense.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Fossils in fact go against the theory since there is no indication whatsoever that there are burgeoning forms evolving from any other form before that.

The fossils themselves are the burgeoning forms.

Using this logic, the existence of a child is not evidence of the existence of a parent.

 

[metis]

Please, no insult intended, but you are not making any sense.

I wasn't insulting you but pointing out the fact that "theistic evolution" posits a god or gods as being creator(s).

 

[shunyadragon]

Fossils in fact go against the theory since there is no indication whatsoever that there are burgeoning forms evolving from any other form before that.

Your ignorance of science is appalling. There is abundant evidence in the fossil for the orderly progressive evolution of life. The point is that fossil evidence does not stand alone in the sciences of evolution.

You need to cite science and not rely on subjective assertions based on a religious agenda.

 

[shunyadragon]

Please, no insult intended, but you are not making any sense.

His post makes sense concerning what Theistic evolutionists belief myself included. Your posts based on the ignorance of science and an ancient religious agenda do not make sense.

 

[shunyadragon]

OK, so your religious leader evolved by natural selection, strictly by genetics and DNA, not by any other superior power I suppose you think. And yes, it matters.

This post is bizzaro at best. Your response is off the charts a '10; on the scale of ridiculous.

 

[YoursTrue]

The fossils themselves are the burgeoning forms.

Using this logic, the existence of a child is not evidence of the existence of a parent.

Absolutely untrue. You may THINK that fossils are the "burgeoning forms," but again -- there is no proof, no substance to this idea. We're talking about evolution, in other words, the idea that forms morphed slowly into other forms, then into another form, distinctive from the others. There is no proof. Now you may start by saying, "Well, science doesn't prove things," but certainly fossils do not prove/show/demonstrate that any distinct form burgeoned to another. None whatsoever. Except in the imagination.

 

[YoursTrue]

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

Yes, but I didn't use the term. I understand to an extent what you're saying. But of course, there are "Atheistic Christians," as well. And of course, many claim somehow God did it using evolution(?), but then go on to believe that Jesus was a fictional character, While saying they're Christian.

 

[rational experiences]

Men said God told them.

In science carbon doesn't talk.

Men as only human babies. The science use of human science use. It is legal and is exact.

A human has to be the human to infer by his spoken word any human science.

Is humans legal position in science.

As sperm is direct the human man body type then his creator cell. The advice in science legal is exact.

About microbial legal position in human life only. Presence.

As is the ovary a human woman's exact.

Men of science state a man becomes a baby man who gains his creator cell microbe type. Sperm Inherits.

As does a woman gain her ovary type.

The DNA human carrier is two separate microbial self owned bodies. Creators. In parent human adult bodies the legal teaching.

Humans legal rights position in human science. Humans as adults living in with nature garden before human science changed natural law seal of rock.

The human illegal con tried to false preach it was a creation story.

A human man wondered how a woman's ovary never a sperm could re create a man's baby type inside a woman's only cell and womb.

Isn't science it was a human question.

Denoting you a human named carbon as a human who says it's only carbon. One word one meaning law. A humans teaching against evil human Theists.

Legal position humans had to enforce against life's destroyer the scientist human.

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

So sorry, but the science of evolution (not proven, of course, depending on who is doing the ascertaining) is basically anti-theistic.

 

[rational experiences]

A human man wanting energy only theories mass theorised carbon.

As the mass type. Yet mass as energy is only held in mass by first law. It can be a black body carbon mass outside carbon black body....yet energy reacting cooling within.

Infinity itself in natural laws....was a much smaller space body. Less space was cosmics first law freezing holding of a cold sun.

Exploded out.

Planet sized asteroids far larger than earth or a Moon is past infinities law.

So those planet asteroids are now in deep space. Coldest space. As large as other planets ...far bigger than earths mass.

O sun in man's earth science is fixed.

Planet sized asteroids the released moving body and not the sun is his human thesis today. Exact.

Exact. No argument what type you want.

No bomb on earth would stop it.

You theoried cosmic sun beginnings as I want the mass energy as carbon body type exact as said what I wanted. By want energy mass within.

Is an equation of space history.

Lying...I put the amount scattered carbon mass above myself in heavens. By human science and I'm in control. Thesis isn't about that cause.

You theoried planes black hole of hot star scattered mass. By a plane thesis yourself...trajected lines.

If an asteroid is contracted out of deep space as you overheat earths space yourself..daily. Then asteroids all heat up too.... contract then pushes out into the stars hot plane. As cold infinity space minus one cold history of causes past.

You study star plane trajectory lines to earth. You have in fact theoredd for a first law planet collision as a scientist about first cosmic laws. Your idea of how many zeros infinity owned.

Is exact man memory from star to planet cooling did it before akashic records. The old visionary man mind gained visions that taught him science on earth blew up O one third of the universes God planets.

As men before by giant pyramid had copied the suns past history also.... that had blown up planets itself.

What artificial copying laws means. Not keeping old cosmic frozen bodies. By law as the law exact mother of God.

Reason men deceived us as they blamed and kept blaming the bio life human woman for Scientific space womb destruction. It's his satanic plot. His origin thesis earth to be immaculate gases only.

Earth mass owned alight burning gases first. He burns cold gases first machine position. He burns it second time in machine reaction. Third position is I Inherit a black carbon mass is known. Sacrificed nature.

As carbon ended all life on earth by man's science. Today as science he pretends science carbon began all life. Sciences carbon gained electricity out of destroyed mass doubly increased burnt.

Which in itself is a huge increase in the carbon content he wants returned to earth. Themed as replaced energy equals just electricity only.

Is the visionary ...
a warning.

Men knew his nuclear power plant future would have unnaturally shut down one by one in season changed. Old shut down is nation by nation then Japan proven.

As man theoried science in the desert mass to his heavens mind. Nation owns conscious man. By ground conditions.

Sea salted water once was on the ground sand historic law...not fresh water. Reason why.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Absolutely untrue. You may THINK that fossils are the "burgeoning forms," but again -- there is no proof, no substance to this idea. We're talking about evolution, in other words, the idea that forms morphed slowly into other forms, then into another form, distinctive from the others. There is no proof. Now you may start by saying, "Well, science doesn't prove things," but certainly fossils do not prove/show/demonstrate that any distinct form burgeoned to another. None whatsoever. Except in the imagination.

So you're suggesting that every fossil of an organism we have found in the fossil record just appeared, full formed, out of thin air, before subsequently entirely disappearing altogether? And then, hundreds or thousands of years later, other organisms appeared - again, fully formed, out of thin air - that completely coincidentally bore a striking resemblance to the previous ones but with slight alterations, despite not being descended from or related to the previous organism at all, before themselves also going completely extinct out of nowhere for no reason? And that this process continued to happen throughout all of time, millions of times over, until the dawn of recorded history when suddenly it stopped happening entirely and no more organisms ever just appeared out of nothing again for no reason?

That is literally the only other possible explanation for the fossil record. Do you believe it?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

So sorry, but the science of evolution (not proven, of course, depending on who is doing the ascertaining) is basically anti-theistic.

False. No science is anti-theistic unless you believe in a very, very limited idea of what God is capable of.

 

[shunyadragon]

So sorry, but the science of evolution (not proven, of course, depending on who is doing the ascertaining) is basically anti-theistic.

\
religious agenda with no knowledge nor consideration of science rears its ugly head.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Absolutely untrue. You may THINK that fossils are the "burgeoning forms," but again -- there is no proof, no substance to this idea. We're talking about evolution, in other words, the idea that forms morphed slowly into other forms, then into another form, distinctive from the others. There is no proof. Now you may start by saying, "Well, science doesn't prove things," but certainly fossils do not prove/show/demonstrate that any distinct form burgeoned to another. None whatsoever. Except in the imagination.

Yes, of course, all the experts have got it wrong,. Quick, write them a letter and let them know about the extensive research you've done on the subject that demonstrates they're wrong.

If you have to believe that all experts are wrong, and that you've got it right, despite a complete lack of education or understanding on the subject matter, then you should probably be re-thinking your position. I know I would be. And did actually, about climate change. It's never too late to learn.

 

[Jose Fly]

Yes, of course, all the experts have got it wrong,. Quick, write them a letter and let them know about the extensive research you've done on the subject that demonstrates they're wrong.

This is precisely what @Hockeycowboy asked me about.

If you have to deny that all experts are wrong, and that you've got it right, despite a complete lack of education or understanding on the subject matter, then you should probably be re-thinking your position.

He's a Jehovah's Witness, which means he's not allowed to be an "evolutionist", lest he face inquiry, excommunication, and shunning.

But the rest of us are apparently supposed to pretend that has zero influence on his views on evolution.