Let's not talk about the Big Bang

[joelr]

Even in the Bible, things were questioned and sometimes doubted. Until revealed by God.

The story says that. The Quran also says similar things as does Hindu scripture. Doesn't make fiction true.

So I understand it appears logical that man evolved from some Unknown Common Ancestor of the ape family, and it did once appear logical to me. Rather than use the word logical, I should say I believed it.

Your belief or non-belief has nothing to do with what is true. Evidence is what demonstrates what is true. People believe in flat Earth. Evidence does not support it.
The vast evidence does support evolution.

I believe you have never studies evolution but rather read some apologetics with mis-information and since it supports your beliefs you accepted it.

I no longer give credence to the theory as scientists proclaim it, as if no higher intelligent power was forming the elements and conductivity of the process of growth.

Scientists do not speculate on these matters. They demonstrate the evidence that it happened. There is no evidence anything but natural forces, chance, time, probability, manifested evolution and life.

Even if an intelligence began the universe it has nothing to do with Zeus or Yahweh, those have been demonstrated to be things made up by people with zero evidence they are literally true.

I believe now what the Bible says, much as so many here do not.

Some believe what the Quran says, some believe flat Earth, some believe in the Hindu deities. Beliefs do not show us what is true. Ancient books of myths and deities are unlikely to be true.

 

[YoursTrue]

The story says that. The Quran also says similar things as does Hindu scripture. Doesn't make fiction true.



Your belief or non-belief has nothing to do with what is true. Evidence is what demonstrates what is true. People believe in flat Earth. Evidence does not support it.
The vast evidence does support evolution.

I believe you have never studies evolution but rather read some apologetics with mis-information and since it supports your beliefs you accepted it.



Scientists do not speculate on these matters. They demonstrate the evidence that it happened. There is no evidence anything but natural forces, chance, time, probability, manifested evolution and life.

Even if an intelligence began the universe it has nothing to do with Zeus or Yahweh, those have been demonstrated to be things made up by people with zero evidence they are literally true.


Some believe what the Quran says, some believe flat Earth, some believe in the Hindu deities. Beliefs do not show us what is true. Ancient books of myths and deities are unlikely to be true.

Can't prove it, though. Meantime about evolution, plants remain plants in 'real life.' Same as in real life (not conjecture) fish remain fish. Have a good one.

 

[joelr]

Can't prove it, though.

We cannot prove Zeus doesn't exist either. That doesn't lend credibility to Zeus being real. Evidence lends credibility. The evidence suggests they are made up stories. All deities.

Meantime about evolution, plants remain plants in 'real life.' Same as in real life (not conjecture) fish remain fish. Have a good one.

That is both incorrect and shows a lack of understanding about evolution. So you are not qualified to debunk or dismiss something your don't yet understand.
1)Incorrect - in real life there are many fish, some in stages of becoming land animals. There are intermediate animals that spend much time in the water but breathe air. On the Galápagos Islands there is a land animal that is in the process of evolving into a fish because over the last several centuries it has been getting more food in the water. It is slowly growing fish characteristics and is in an intermediate stage.

2) misunderstanding - then there is the fossil record which shows endless variations on animals in stages of evolution showing evolution is something that does change water animals to land animals, in many many ways and many cases. In fact all land animals can be traced back to water animals. The expanses of time are immense. To take a snapshot of what is happening today and expect that to reflect millions of years of active change (without looking at fossils or any intermediate species) is incomplete as well as a common uneducated apologetic that conspiracy theorist level folks pick up on AnswersinGenesis and find it clever.
Keep in mind evolution being wrong doesn't prove Allah, Krishna, Jesus or any other mythical being.
As I have demonstrated supreme Gods existed since the first civilization in Sumer.

 

[gnostic]

Meantime about evolution, plants remain plants in 'real life.' Same as in real life (not conjecture) fish remain fish.

You really cannot help lying to everyone and to yourself. You are STILL incapable of learning from your mistakes.

As I said before, no biologists have ever claimed that animals have evolved plants...only you are sprouting this nonsensical claim and falsely blaming biologists for your own invention.

Evidence showed that marine invertebrate animals exist tens of millions of years (Tonian & Ediacaran periods) BEFORE plants existed on lands (Ordovian period). Also there were no land plants during the Cambrian Explosion, but animal life did diversify during this period.

How many more times, must I say no biologists claimed that animals evolving from land plants, before you admit that you have been lying about your absurd claims?

 

[We Never Know]

You really cannot help lying to everyone and to yourself. You are STILL incapable of learning from your mistakes.

As I said before, no biologists have ever claimed that animals have evolved plants...only you are sprouting this nonsensical claim and falsely blaming biologists for your own invention.

Evidence showed that marine invertebrate animals exist tens of millions of years (Tonian & Ediacaran periods) BEFORE plants existed on lands (Ordovian period). Also there were no land plants during the Cambrian Explosion, but animal life did diversify during this period.

How many more times, must I say no biologists claimed that animals evolving from land plants, before you admit that you have been lying about your absurd claims?

"Also there were no land plants during the Cambrian Explosion"

When was the Cambrian Explosion,, 500 +/- million years ago?

"The researchers found that land plants had evolved on Earth by about 700 million years ago and land fungi by about 1,300 million years ago"

First Land Plants and Fungi Changed Earth's Climate, Paving the Way for Explosive Evolution of Land Animals, New Gene Study Suggests | Eberly College of Science

science.psu.edu

"New data and analysis show that plant life began colonising land 500 million years ago, during the Cambrian Period, around the same time as the emergence of the first land animals."

Plant life on Earth is much older than we thought

Plants appeared on Earth 100 million years earlier than scientists previously thought.

www.nhm.ac.uk

 

[gnostic]

When was the Cambrian Explosion,, 500 +/- million years ago?

"The researchers found that land plants had evolved on Earth by about 700 million years ago and land fungi by about 1,300 million years ago"

actually, land plants evolved from marine and aquatic green algae.

it was the green algae that have existed around 700 million years ago.

 

[We Never Know]

actually, land plants evolved from marine and aquatic green algae.

it was the green algae that have existed around 700 million years ago.

Of course. They didnt just poof into existence on land.

I gave to links for a timeline.

"The researchers found that land plants had evolved on Earth by about 700 million years ago and land fungi by about 1,300 million years ago — much earlier than previous estimates of around 480 million years ago, which were based on the earliest fossils of those organisms. Prior to this study, it was believed that Earth's landscape at that time was covered with barren rocks harboring nothing more than some bacteria and possibly some algae."

 

[YoursTrue]

You really cannot help lying to everyone and to yourself. You are STILL incapable of learning from your mistakes.

As I said before, no biologists have ever claimed that animals have evolved plants...only you are sprouting this nonsensical claim and falsely blaming biologists for your own invention.

Evidence showed that marine invertebrate animals exist tens of millions of years (Tonian & Ediacaran periods) BEFORE plants existed on lands (OrdovianSo period). Also there were no land plants during the Cambrian Explosion, but animal life did diversify during this period.

How many more times, must I say no biologists claimed that animals evolving from land plants, before you admit that you have been lying about your absurd claims?

Sorry, but you just don't get the point. So -- continue as you will -- because reality will not stop you.

 

[YoursTrue]

We cannot prove Zeus doesn't exist either. That doesn't lend credibility to Zeus being real. Evidence lends credibility. The evidence suggests they are made up stories. All deities.






That is both incorrect and shows a lack of understanding about evolution. So you are not qualified to debunk or dismiss something your don't yet understand.
1)Incorrect - in real life there are many fish, some in stages of becoming land animals. There are intermediate animals that spend much time in the water but breathe air. On the Galápagos Islands there is a land animal that is in the process of evolving into a fish because over the last several centuries it has been getting more food in the water. It is slowly growing fish characteristics and is in an intermediate stage.

2) misunderstanding - then there is the fossil record which shows endless variations on animals in stages of evolution showing evolution is something that does change water animals to land animals, in many many ways and many cases. In fact all land animals can be traced back to water animals. The expanses of time are immense. To take a snapshot of what is happening today and expect that to reflect millions of years of active change (without looking at fossils or any intermediate species) is incomplete as well as a common uneducated apologetic that conspiracy theorist level folks pick up on AnswersinGenesis and find it clever.
Keep in mind evolution being wrong doesn't prove Allah, Krishna, Jesus or any other mythical being.
As I have demonstrated supreme Gods existed since the first civilization in Sumer.

Look, the proof of evolution jes' isn't thar. (Have a good one...)

 

[gnostic]

We've been broadcasting radio and television for 100 years, plus or minus. So we've been sending signals into space at the speed of light (more or less) for 100 years. Those first signals have traveled through only a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of our galaxy. So even if we talk only about our galaxy out of billions of other galaxies, our signals have only scratched the surface of making their way to everywhere in our galaxy. Not only that, but when it comes to this scale of distance, the signals we broadcast are incredibly weak.

Put another way, there could well be other civilizations in our galaxy (the Milky Way), and their signals might not have reached us. We're all bound by the speed of light.

Put yet another way, it's like looking at one grain of sand in a huge, many-miles-long beach, and thinking that you've now explored the beach.

I agreed.

but you must also understand, that the speed of light only really applied to the vacuum, eg vacuum of space.

The transmission of radio or tv signals would have already weaken before leaving the Earth’s atmosphere, because everything in the Earth’s atmosphere isn’t in a vacuum, because there are water vapours (clouds), humidity and other gas molecules in each layers of atmosphere. Then there are geomagnetic fields that affect any radiowaves.

You would also to remember that every waves in the electromagnetic spectrum have frequencies and wavelengths, but there are also limitations of ranges for every EM waves.

Radio waves, like bandwidth FM, AM, FSK & OFDM, and TV bandwidth VHF, UHF, OFDM & 8VSB are some of analog & digital frequencies, all have limited ranges. Hence, signals require either some sorts of amplifier and repeater antenna to have more coverage.

And like you said, radio waves would be weak, far too weak to reach any greater distance, like the other side of the Milky Way or some other galaxies.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Look, the proof of evolution jes' isn't thar. (Have a good one...)

The evidence is though.

 

[gnostic]

Look, the proof of evolution jes' isn't thar. (Have a good one...)

Sciences, such as those of biology, relied on EVIDENCE, biology don’t required proof.

you should know that by now.

why cannot you understand the differences between proof and evidence?

proofs are PROPOSED logical and abstract solutions, like mathematical equations.

equations or proofs are not evidence.

do you understand what the word “proposed” mean, yourstrue?

it MAY or MAY NOT be true or correct.

Equations are usually part of the explanation in a hypothesis.

The only way to test a hypothesis is with evidence, not with equations. The equations as part of the hypothesis must also be tested, as the equations (or proofs) may be false or incorrect.

and that’s physical evidence, since evolution is biology.

all this talk of proof and proving, only demonstrates how very little how sciences work.

 

[YoursTrue]

Sciences, such as those of biology, relied on EVIDENCE, biology don’t required proof.

you should know that by now.

why cannot you understand the differences between proof and evidence?

proofs are PROPOSED logical and abstract solutions, like mathematical equations.

equations or proofs are not evidence.

do you understand what the word “proposed” mean, yourstrue?

it MAY or MAY NOT be true or correct.

equations are usually part of the explanation in a hypothesis.

the only way to test a hypothesis is with evidence, not with equations.

and that’s physical evidence, since evolution is biology.

all this talk of proof and proving, only demonstrates how very little how sciences work.

Here is what I know, gnostic. There is simply no proof in any form of a fish, for example, becoming (evolving into) a human. Please understand I am not talking about fossils but the actual transfer of properties in real-time changes. There is no real evidence of such except by conjecture. And that, gnostic, is what I'm sticking with.
What I find interesting is the excuse some make that it happened so long ago. There were no videos millions of years ago. But really in the past several thousand years mankind has progressed in quick ways, inventing things like: telescopes, cars, telephones, harnessing electricity, that includes the making of books and printing presses. And which, of course, gorillas did not do. What I mean by that is the excuse some give for the longevity of "hominids" just doesn't make sense to me anymore as if something seeming like humans were around for 40,000 years or so when progress in many areas were stunningly made in the past few thousand years. And much of it within the past few hundred years. So the idea that hominids were agriculturally bound for so many more thousands of years just doesn't make sense to me any more. As I have often said, I used to believe everything I was taught in school, or read about before I believed in God as a Creator. Did He create malfunctions in animals or humans, such as disabilities? No, He did not. But He allows it now to happen.

 

[joelr]

Look, the proof of evolution jes' isn't thar. (Have a good one...)

The proof just isn't where? On apologist sites? Answersingenesis doesn't provide you with details about evolution? I believe that.

So then tell me, here is a basic outline,

Evolution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

how which part is wrong and what further evidence would be needed? What is not explained that you feel needs to be explained?

Or, maybe skip it and answer the question you answered by changing the subject.

To this--
"We cannot prove Zeus doesn't exist either. That doesn't lend credibility to Zeus being real. Evidence lends credibility. The evidence suggests they are made up stories. All deities."

you went to evolution. I'm sure you cannot explain why you feel there is a lack of evidence because I don't believe you have ever studied the theory.
But evolution being unproven or wrong doesn't mean Zeus is real and same goes for Yahweh.
You might think it's related because of the Wedge Strategy.
This is a known campaign by the creationist movement about 20 years ago to discredit evolution so intelligent design would still be credible in schools. It failed and was an embarrassment but almost got ID taught in Kansas schools.

Wedge strategy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Wedge Strategy is a creationist political and social action plan authored by the Discovery Institute, the hub of the pseudoscientific intelligent design movement. The strategy was put forth in a Discovery Institute manifesto known as the Wedge Document. Its goal is to change American culture by shaping public policy to reflect politically conservative fundamentalist evangelical Protestant values. The wedge metaphor is attributed to Phillip E. Johnson and depicts a metal wedge splitting a log.

Intelligent design is the pseudoscientific religious[1] belief that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not a naturalistic process such as evolution by natural selection. Implicit in the intelligent design doctrine is a redefining of science and how it is conducted (see theistic science). Wedge strategy proponents are opposed to materialism,[2][3][4] naturalism,[3][5] and evolution,[6][7][8][9] and have made the removal of each from how science is conducted and taught an explicit goal.[10][11] The strategy was originally brought to the public's attention when the Wedge Document was leaked on the Web. The Wedge strategy forms the governing basis of a wide range of Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns......

At the 1999 "Reclaiming America for Christ Conference" called by Reverend D. James Kennedy of Coral Ridge Ministries, Johnson gave a speech called "How the Evolution Debate Can Be Won".[27] In it he summed up the theological and epistemological underpinnings of intelligent design and its strategy for winning the battle:

To talk of a purposeful or guided evolution is not to talk about evolution at all. That is slow creation. When you understand it that way, you realize that the Darwinian theory of evolution contradicts not just the Book of Genesis, but every word in the Bible from beginning to end. It contradicts the idea that we are here because a creator brought about our existence for a purpose.

 

[gnostic]

There is simply no proof in any form of a fish, for example, becoming (evolving into) a human. Please understand I am not talking about fossils but the actual transfer of properties in real-time changes.

You are science illiterate without any integrity whatsoever.

No biologists say that fishes would turn into humans, or say that the fishes will give birth to humans.

You are the one making shameless false claims, REPEATEDLY.

The question that you demand answer for is utterly absurd, because evolution don’t work that way, but you still persisting in asking the same stupid and dishonest questions.

If you don’t accept Evolution, then you don’t accept, but deliberately making false claims, only make apparent you are not honest person, and that you have no interests in learning what biologists and paleontologists have to say with the available evidence.

My advice to is stop lying.

No fishes cannot magically transform into humans, nor give birth to humans.

Turning dust into adult human in Genesis 2:7, is exactly the nonsense that you have been saying about fish-to-human BS, except that the authors of Genesis can be forgiven for not understanding that this is impossible.

You, on the other hand, live in world that can actually learn biology, but instead you waste your time with spreading the creationist propaganda with your own fabricated claims.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Here is what I know, gnostic. There is simply no proof in any form of a fish, for example, becoming (evolving into) a human. Please understand I am not talking about fossils but the actual transfer of properties in real-time changes. There is no real evidence of such except by conjecture. And that, gnostic, is what I'm sticking with.

It seems rather obvious that you don't accept it, because you don't understand it. As evidenced by this word salad here. And despite having it explained to you umpteen thousand times. and in umpteen thousand ways - you're still repeating the same stuff you've been saying since Day 1. You're still giving examples of what you think evolution is, that, if true, would actually FALSIFY it. Evolution doesn't expect that a fish should give birth to, or turn into a human. You should know this because it's been pointed out to you so many times now.

You have put up a block that makes it impossible for you to understand it. You want to believe what you want to believe and that's that. And you believe the Bible and all it's extraordinary claims, based on very little evidence while wholeheartedly rejecting the most well-evidenced scientific theory in existence. Let's not pretend you're here to learn anything about science when it's pretty obvious that you aren't, at this point.

What I find interesting is the excuse some make that it happened so long ago. There were no videos millions of years ago. But really in the past several thousand years mankind has progressed in quick ways, inventing things like: telescopes, cars, telephones, harnessing electricity, that includes the making of books and printing presses. And which, of course, gorillas did not do. What I mean by that is the excuse some give for the longevity of "hominids" just doesn't make sense to me anymore as if something seeming like humans were around for 40,000 years or so when progress in many areas were stunningly made in the past few thousand years. And much of it within the past few hundred years. So the idea that hominids were agriculturally bound for so many more thousands of years just doesn't make sense to me any more. As I have often said, I used to believe everything I was taught in school, or read about before I believed in God as a Creator. Did He create malfunctions in animals or humans, such as disabilities? No, He did not. But He allows it now to happen.

More science denial. Don't you find it strange that you have to reject basically all of science to hold onto your beliefs?

 

[YoursTrue]

The proof just isn't where? On apologist sites? Answersingenesis doesn't provide you with details about evolution? I believe that.

So then tell me, here is a basic outline,

Evolution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I believe at this point that our definitions of proof may be different. But I will say this: proof of evolution for me (and I know that 'proof' is not possible) would be filmed documentary of the changes both in form and genetics over the millennia. Yes, I know that's not possible. Therefore -- any evidence as classified by scientists and the logic deemed by such is taken as verification (proof? of course not but verification) of the theory. I no longer believe that, just to let you know even though many do. So when I think of proof, I go beyond bones and dna in forming an opinion as to how it all happened.

 

[YoursTrue]

You are science illiterate without any integrity whatsoever.

No biologists say that fishes would turn into humans, or say that the fishes will give birth to humans.

You are the one making shameless false claims, REPEATEDLY.

The question that you demand answer for is utterly absurd, because evolution don’t work that way, but you still persisting in asking the same stupid and dishonest questions.

If you don’t accept Evolution, then you don’t accept, but deliberately making false claims, only make apparent you are not honest person, and that you have no interests in learning what biologists and paleontologists have to say with the available evidence.

My advice to is stop lying.

No fishes cannot magically transform into humans, nor give birth to humans.

Turning dust into adult human in Genesis 2:7, is exactly the nonsense that you have been saying about fish-to-human BS, except that the authors of Genesis can be forgiven for not understanding that this is impossible.

You, on the other hand, live in world that can actually learn biology, but instead you waste your time with spreading the creationist propaganda with your own fabricated claims.

Every time I say something like fish having been forebearers or precursors of humans, someone says, 'no, fish did not turn into humans.' My phrase could have been better. But they were supposedly the precursors of humans way down the evolutionary line, weren't they? Anatomical clues to human evolution from fish

 

[joelr]

I believe at this point that our definitions of proof may be different. But I will say this: proof of evolution for me (and I know that 'proof' is not possible) would be filmed documentary of the changes both in form and genetics over the millennia. Yes, I know that's not possible. Therefore -- any evidence as classified by scientists and the logic deemed by such is taken as verification (proof? of course not but verification) of the theory. I no longer believe that, just to let you know even though many do. So when I think of proof, I go beyond bones and dna in forming an opinion as to how it all happened.

Why is the fossil records not enough? Is that not the same?

 

[gnostic]

I believe at this point that our definitions of proof may be different. But I will say this: proof of evolution for me (and I know that 'proof' is not possible) would be filmed documentary of the changes both in form and genetics over the millennia. Yes, I know that's not possible. Therefore -- any evidence as classified by scientists and the logic deemed by such is taken as verification (proof? of course not but verification) of the theory. I no longer believe that, just to let you know even though many do. So when I think of proof, I go beyond bones and dna in forming an opinion as to how it all happened.

If you are not interested in learning sciences of biology, then please by all means, keep your head buried in the sand like an ostrich.

Just don’t pretend that you know more about biology than biologists, and don’t pretend that you know more about fossils than paleontologists.

Your ignorance and your anti-science only demonstrates how very little you know with either subjects. And if you have no interests in science, why are you even posting here.

All you are doing is flashing spotlight on your religion and your Bible, where the flaws of Genesis Creation are revealed, whenever you write and compare Creation against Evolution.

But it isn’t just flaws in Genesis descriptions of plants and animals are insufficient, but also about how little the authors of Genesis understand the planet’s environments (air, lands and seas), and the astronomy of sun, stars and moon.

Now, we forgive the people who wrote the scriptures of not understanding nature, but for today’s believers to believe that how everything in Genesis is real knowledge, only demonstrated the foolishness of creationists.

And btw, if you think there are more in the Bible that explain something beyond bones and DNA...

So when I think of proof, I go beyond bones and dna in forming an opinion as to how it all happened.

...then by all means, make your outrageous claims of this “proof” of yours. I do need a good a laugh when I wake up in the morning.

And btw, proofs are something like mathematical equations. I highly doubt you have equations of “god did it”.

Unless you mean, you have “evidence”?

Evidence is OBSERVING some samples of PHYSICAL PHENOMENA. Again, I am dubious of you having evidence of “god doing it”.