More News on the Changing Evolution Scene :-) !!! :-)

[YoursTrue]

No, you don't understand because you think that evolution must include abiogenesis.

I do understand. I understand that those who believe in evolution do not consider the 'beginning' of life, called abiogenesis, as a part of the evolutionary process. I do. Without the beginning there can be no evolution as taught by so many. The beginning of life on earth is definitely part of the considered evolutionary process. It's just like I understand that many people say humans are apes and animals. I do not. You can say they are, Others can say they are; I can say they are not, whether or not you currently agree with me. Same as you can say abiogenesis has nothing to do with the theory of evolution or evolution, I say it does. You have your opinion which may be popular and which you think or believe is well-founded, I do not agree with the opinion that fossils prove-show-demonstrate (however you want to describe it) that life evolved by biologic mechanical forces, considering "survival of the fittest."

 

[Bear Wild]

So first let me understand what you are saying at the beginning. Are you saying that dinosaurs did NOT develop into birds with wings that fly, such as sparrows? Apparently this is what scientists believe, isn't it?
How Dinosaurs Shrank and Became Birds - Scientific American

Not at all. My point is that creationists will pick two organisms that do not look alike and say how could one develop into the other they are so different. A dinosaur did not develop into a sparrow directly. But dinosaurs developed features that would later lead to modern day birds. The transition took time but adaptations that had significant survival benefit would cause rapid change in that direction. Feathers is one of the adaptations that ultimately lead to birds.

Dinosaur Feathers: Useful Adaptation | AMNH

If you had compared the cassowary

with this feather dinosaur found in the Dakota's

We could see the relationship better.
That is why I showed you a teacup Pekinese next to a great Dane. How can they be related they look nothing alike.
Creationists use tricks like comparing a T. rex to a sparrow to make their deception.

Evolution clearly is the only explanation and the fossil record shows it.

You still have not given us your explanation of the existence of fossils I really want to understand.

 

[Bear Wild]

I do understand. I understand that those who believe in evolution do not consider the 'beginning' of life, called abiogenesis, as a part of the evolutionary process. I do. Without the beginning there can be no evolution as taught by so many. The beginning of life on earth is definitely part of the considered evolutionary process. It's just like I understand that many people say humans are apes and animals. I do not. You can say they are, Others can say they are; I can say they are not, whether or not you currently agree with me. Same as you can say abiogenesis has nothing to do with the theory of evolution or evolution, I say it does. You have your opinion which may be popular and which you think or believe is well-founded, I do not agree with the opinion that fossils prove-show-demonstrate (however you want to describe it) that life evolved by biologic mechanical forces, considering "survival of the fittest."

The reason is the methods of study are different. There is extensive evidence for evolution that is preserved in the genetics of animals, fossils, and embryology studies as well as other aspects. The question lies mainly in the biological field. How organic compounds developed in the pre-life earth is a biochemical question with different research techniques. That is why it is separate field. Yet the field of abiogenesis is making headway. Fairly complex compounds have been recreated without a living organism.

We have answered many of your questions so please answer what your explanation for fossils are. You deny them as evidence so you must have a better explanation for them.

 

[Aupmanyav]

You still have not given us your explanation of the existence of fossils I really want to understand.

Ah, God put them up to test people.

 

[Bear Wild]

Ah, God put them up to test people.

God really went all out on this one. Seriously with all the fossils that exist. Clearly they left out the 8th day. After god had a good rest at creating man he the went over the surface of the world creating and burying fake bones, plants, and shells. This was so exhausting that he slept right through the 9th day of creation.
What god would bury that many fossils just to see if he could fool the humans into thinking evolution was real?

 

[rational experiences]

The theory of evolution is said by a human looking back.

The bible medical review changed genesis bio life of human said never look back to maths fake space womb thesis Phi...so Phi A. Or else you will be turned into stone.

As humans aren't mass and we aren't radiation or stone that statement said science wants life to be destroyed

The destroyer says no it means I can create a pillar of stone from a human's body. And tries to convince everyone that his theory to think about stone is human who created invented stone by a metal machine.

Only because he said every body came from the sun that cools mass ejected into metal.

Slow cooling destruction a sun itself however he said as sun mass he said one day is dead stone.

Lying is real as the theist.

Liars.

Today one brother says I do converting mass in science to leave a known remainder residue so no space hole forms.

That brother says evolution cooling bursting cooling bursting to holding owns no paths.

Therefore I need to be careful as first law in space. Space zero nothing no mass is gone burnt out. Produces self consuming not instant is slowly taking mass to emptiness.

Known law in space.

Said so no mass factually exists it is only by circumstance evolution is it held.

Says so God O mass is evolution only. Topic not human evolution mind says is science only. So says so God science is not evolution of bio forms

His spiritual owned man god teaching. As bio he said came from the eternal not evolution. So he is not any creationist.

Satanist ist and isms fakery.

Told him.

So when relativity theoried nuclear conversion of sun metals taken back out of earth mass it was not sure if a self consuming instant hole destruction of all life would be activated.

But did it anyway.

It is why humans said human scientists are the human destroyer.

However he always blamed the laws and natural for causing it. Never his human science self. Who quotes lying but I am innocent.

We know God mass is held and he is a liar coercing by words not science first so he confessed first via words and advised us of his intent.

One machine first is one reaction leaving a remainder. Science once only.

Machine number two wants empty space claiming the remainder would be a thin film of the coldest gas.

I want it says a human standing on mass.

So he theoried God the stone de manifestation as his confession. Only a cold gas known as the immaculate he claims would be left.

Nothing else.

To coerce with words. It will re manifest he says Jesus did.

Why his brother said no man is God. Realising he owns a possessed subliminal science machine psyche. Lying in causes.

As his string metal first theme is a sun. Owning no earth intent at all.

Why he was warned about the ist. As it is real mind possession by his the sis.

L plus ist. Says L wing fallen or missing rib taken from his body changed his bio life and he lost his spiritual mind also into the fall. Radiation metal fallout. Via machine

We all knew it real. We all were warned it is real.

Reason sun theists were put in gaol.

As science in human law God earth stated science has become our criminal murderer in law actually.

Ignored as human his story.

 

[Aupmanyav]

God really went all out on this one. Seriously with all the fossils that exist. Clearly they left out the 8th day. After god had a good rest at creating man he the went over the surface of the world creating and burying fake bones, plants, and shells. This was so exhausting that he slept right through the 9th day of creation.
What god would bury that many fossils just to see if he could fool the humans into thinking evolution was real?

Was it the Abrahamic God?
Hindu Gods and Goddesses created 'maya', right from the beginning, even the illusion of the existence of a universe.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It's almost like things morph, as if one form moves into another, however slowly.

And there's a word for such gradual change over time.

It's "evolve".

Why make this hard and overly complicated / ambiguous / confusing?

You won't burst into flames or get smited when using the correct terminology, you know...

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So first let me understand what you are saying at the beginning. Are you saying that dinosaurs did NOT develop into birds with wings that fly, such as sparrows? Apparently this is what scientists believe, isn't it?
How Dinosaurs Shrank and Became Birds - Scientific American

Not what scientists "believe".
It is what they KNOW, based on evidence.

And birds .... ARE dinosaurs.
No matter how much you deny or resist that basic fact.

Birds are dinosaurs just like humans are mammals.

Sure, a bird of paradise or a parrot or a sparrow is likely not what you visualize when you hear the word "dinosaur". Instead, the word probably recalls an image of 200 ton giant lizards the size of a small apartment building with razor sharp teeth. The problem with that, is that that is a Hollywood fantasy. Such dinosaurs existed, but they absolutely were not the only dinosaurs.

Just like in mammals. On the one hand, you have whales and elephants and hippo's
And on the other hand, you have teeny tiny mice.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The fact is that nothing comes from nothing

Ow? How is that a fact?
Facts are demonstrable. How did you, or anyone else, demonstrate this?

Where is this "nothing" that people have studied to see if something can come from it or not?
And if by magic they were able to study "nothing" and nothing came from it, how did that make them conclude that therefor nothing CAN come from it - ever?


You should be careful with statements of fact.
In particular, you should not start a sentence with "the fact is that..." when what follows isn't a fact at all!

. Therefore -- there was never 'nothing.'

First, that doesn't really follow.
Secondly, if there was never "nothing", then the entire point is irrelevant.
Because then the answer to the question "why is there something rather then nothing?" will be answered simply by saying "because there was always something"

I leave the rest of the philosophical equation to you.

What makes you think philosophy has anything worthwhile to offer concerning the subject of the origins of the universe?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I do understand. I understand that those who believe in evolution do not consider the 'beginning' of life, called abiogenesis, as a part of the evolutionary process. I do.

It's not people who "consider" this to be so. It is factually so.
The theory of evolution deals with the evolution of life. Not with its origins.

It is irrelevant that you believe otherwise. Your beliefs don't matter when the facts say differently.
All you will accomplish, is arguing strawmen.

Without the beginning there can be no evolution as taught by so many.

And without "the beginning" there can also be no germ theory. So what? Do you also complain about germ theory and medical science because abiogenesis remains an open question?

Didn't think so. This is more evidence that you are just grasping at straws and hold a double standard concerning those sciences that you perceive to be a threat to your a priori religious beliefs.

The beginning of life on earth is definitely part of the considered evolutionary process.

No, it's not.

It's just like I understand that many people say humans are apes and animals. I do not. You can say they are, Others can say they are; I can say they are not, whether or not you currently agree with me.

And no matter what you or anyone else says, the facts remain the facts.
And the FACTS say that humans are animals, primates, mammals, tetrapods, vertebrates and eukaryotes.

You can deny it all you want and believe whatever you want.
It's irrelevant when the facts say otherwise.

Same as you can say abiogenesis has nothing to do with the theory of evolution or evolution, I say it does.

And you'ld be wrong.
You have the right to be wrong off course.
But I have to say, I have very little respect for willful ignorance. None at all, actually.

You have your opinion which may be popular

Facts aren't opinions.

and which you think or believe is well-founded, I do not agree with the opinion that fossils prove-show-demonstrate (however you want to describe it) that life evolved by biologic mechanical forces, considering "survival of the fittest."

The validity of scientific theories, isn't determined based on what you happen to believe.
And it most certaintly isn't determined based on what you happen to believe religiously and dogmatically, while also ignoring all the evidence, the facts and employing intellectually dishonest double standards just to be able to handwave away any and all science that you perceive as a threat to your a priori dogmatic religious beliefs.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The fact is that nothing comes from nothing. Therefore -- there was never 'nothing.' I leave the rest of the philosophical equation to you.

Um, I just pointed out that your assertion is illogical.
That's the end of the philosophical equation.

 

[Bear Wild]

Was it the Abrahamic God?
Hindu Gods and Goddesses created 'maya', right from the beginning, even the illusion of the existence of a universe.

Oh so they are also partly responsible for those pesky fossils too are they?

Unfortunately I have been unable to convince @YoursTrue to give their explanation of fossils. I really want to know their point of view but so far no real response.

 

[YoursTrue]

Um, I just pointed out that your assertion is illogical.
That's the end of the philosophical equation.

Are you saying that something comes from nothing? How you figure that, or don't you?

 

[YoursTrue]

Oh so they are also partly responsible for those pesky fossils too are they?

Unfortunately I have been unable to convince @YoursTrue to give their explanation of fossils. I really want to know their point of view but so far no real response.

I tried telling you that fossils are the remnants of organisms that were alive, maybe you didn't see that. So?

 

[YoursTrue]

It's not people who "consider" this to be so. It is factually so.
The theory of evolution deals with the evolution of life. Not with its origins.

It is irrelevant that you believe otherwise. Your beliefs don't matter when the facts say differently.
All you will accomplish, is arguing strawmen.



And without "the beginning" there can also be no germ theory. So what? Do you also complain about germ theory and medical science because abiogenesis remains an open question?

Didn't think so. This is more evidence that you are just grasping at straws and hold a double standard concerning those sciences that you perceive to be a threat to your a priori religious beliefs.



No, it's not.



And no matter what you or anyone else says, the facts remain the facts.
And the FACTS say that humans are animals, primates, mammals, tetrapods, vertebrates and eukaryotes.

You can deny it all you want and believe whatever you want.
It's irrelevant when the facts say otherwise.



And you'ld be wrong.
You have the right to be wrong off course.
But I have to say, I have very little respect for willful ignorance. None at all, actually.



Facts aren't opinions.



The validity of scientific theories, isn't determined based on what you happen to believe.
And it most certaintly isn't determined based on what you happen to believe religiously and dogmatically, while also ignoring all the evidence, the facts and employing intellectually dishonest double standards just to be able to handwave away any and all science that you perceive as a threat to your a priori dogmatic religious beliefs.

From what I see now, one does not really need a religious argument to show that evolution is a theory, and what are called facts are those evidences and opinions about the findings (like fossils and dna) that are made by man's ingenuinity to fit into the theory, but which cannot be proven.

 

[Bear Wild]

I tried telling you that fossils are the remnants of organisms that were alive, maybe you didn't see that. So?

So you admit the represent animals that once lived and are no longer around. No explain these two findings

1. Why are their no modern day animals fossils next to the fossils of organisms that no longer exist?

2. Why do the fossils go from more complex animals in more recent layers of rock to increasing simpler organism in increasing older layers of rock?

Two simple questions to understand your explanation.

 

[YoursTrue]

So you admit the represent animals that once lived and are no longer around. No explain these two findings

1. Why are their no modern day animals fossils next to the fossils of organisms that no longer exist?

Because those earlier ones went extinct.

2. Why do the fossils go from more complex animals in more recent layers of rock to increasing simpler organism in increasing older layers of rock?

I don't know just how complex or not complex they were in terms of relativity.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

From what I see now, one does not really need a religious argument to show that evolution is a theory, and what are called facts are those evidences and opinions about the findings (like fossils and dna) that are made by man's ingenuinity to fit into the theory, but which cannot be proven.

You make zero sense.
DNA is objective data / evidence. So are fossils. It isn't "made" by anyone.




Also, good job ignoring every point made in the post you are responding to...

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Because those earlier ones went extinct.

And thus, didn't exist at the same time as modern animals did?

I don't know just how complex or not complex they were in terms of relativity.

Maybe this is something you should know, before you feel like you can argue against entire scientific fields?
I don't know. It sounds kind of important, considering the topic and your self-declared expertise on the subject.........