A question I don't think creationists will answer.

[RickG]

Nope, you're diverting from the issue at hand. The issue is concerning by what impetus, what power, what mechanism, what force created the complexity and variety of life we observe today from a single life form of long long ago. What evidence do we have identifying the impetus by which this occurred?

I've never been able to get that far with you guys. When I begin to start posting about may actual area of academic concentration, paleoclimatology, paleo-oceanography, and geologic process, especially paleo-geography and geomorphology; I get silence or complete diversion into something else. There is a lot of published scientific literature on this I would like to share. The problem is, as soon as I begin to, you will ignore rather than trying to understand it.

So what is it? Do you really want to review the information you request, or only request it and dismiss it without any honest discussion. Let me know.

 

[justlookinla]

I've never been able to get that far with you guys. When I begin to start posting about may actual area of academic concentration, paleoclimatology, paleo-oceanography, and geologic process, especially paleo-geography and geomorphology; I get silence or complete diversion into something else. There is a lot of published scientific literature on this I would like to share. The problem is, as soon as I begin to, you will ignore rather than trying to understand it.

So what is it? Do you really want to review the information you request, or only request it and dismiss it without any honest discussion. Let me know.

The request is simple. Give evidence that the 'responsible party' for the variety and complexity of life we observe today is entirely by naturalistic mechanisms. I'll certainly try to understand your evidence and ask that you give it a piece at a time. I will challenge any guesses and suppositions though.

 

[USincognito]

Why the mockery. You invite it when you say things like natural selection, the weather, earthquakes and volcanoes are random.

You invite it when you keep on saying the same phrases and when asked to support your ideas you simply repeat the phrases over again.

You invite it when people try to engage you in a discussion of your ideas and you continue to repeat the same phrases again over an over.

You invite it when you assert your definition given above but when asked to show where you found it you give a different definition and refuse to acknowledge the difference.

You have been given evidence for the TOE many times and shown that it was not atheistic but refuse to listen or perhaps understand what was said.

I think perhaps the biggest reason is that you present some very out of the main stream ideas and will not consider even the possibility you might be wrong in any way.

At least that is the way I see it. Others may get different mileage.

Dizredux

 

[Dizredux]

Those may be worldviews with which you disagree, but to react with mockery is simply an attack on the individual who embraces a view different from you, it doesn't address the differences.

I would like to disagree but since you do not respond except to repeat your phrases over and over and over and over with no discussion whatsoever except blanket denial, no disagreement is ever heard or given any consideration by you.

I've posted the basis for my views over and over. I can deal with disagreement, and mockery, and personal disparaging but it's just interesting to observe individuals attempting to inflict some sort of emotional hurt on a person in order to make themselves feel better. Do you feel better when you do that?

And how do you think you think you make people feel when they try patiently to discuss your ideas and to explain why they do not agree and you totally reject what they say without any consideration? All you do is repeat your old worn out phrases with no consideration of anyone else's viewpoint no matter how politely they try to discuss with you. Behavior extremely rude and hostile in my opinion. You are saying by your actions that their views have no meaning or importance, only yours are worth consideration.

It certainly looks as if most of us are convinced of our position. The truth is, I've changed my position on many issues over the years and have no problem changing again.

I haven't seen any sign at all of that here.

What I see is you becoming angry and frustrated when your views are continually challenged and will respond with personal malice instead of simply discussing your views.

My views have not been challenged at all by you. Challenge is when ideas that are different from mine that have the potential for me to change my viewpoints. I welcome these. Ideas that make little sense and are supported not at all in some realistic way are not a challenge any more than someone saying the moon is made of green cheese is a challenge.

I do get frustrated and sometimes irritated by determined willful impregnable ignorance and I have little patience with it on either side.

We each personally decide how to respond when discussing issues, the responsibility of our behavior is ours and ours alone.

But with you, there is no possibility of discussion, that is the problem.

The ironic thing is that you, at least initially, seemed to have some interesting ideas on the interaction of theism and science. Unfortunately, you quickly appeared to fall off to the deep end. Too bad.

Dizredux

 

[RickG]

The request is simple. Give evidence that the 'responsible party' for the variety and complexity of life we observe today is entirely by naturalistic mechanisms. I'll certainly try to understand your evidence and ask that you give it a piece at a time. I will challenge any guesses and suppositions though.

Well, I can certainly give naturalistic mechanisms. As for first life, the best anyone can do is show the evidence for the earliest known life. What I will do now is give you an overview in my own words without reviewing any of the literature, I will then go to that literature, of which I have hard copies, then source what I can from that which I can find full access online so you can review and ask questions.

Very briefly, up until just before the Cambrian period, most life on earth that appears in the fossil record is very simple and mostly microbial. This is due to environmental conditions under which only simple anaerobic life could exist. Most of earth's physical history has been an anoxic environment and entirely of marine origin. There have been very warm periods as well as a few very long snowball earth events. It wasn't until the great oxygenation events providing oxygen in the oceans and atmosphere that life is seen to diversify. Of course, the big question is, how do we know what the environment was like then, and that's where may academic training comes in. The specific markers that reveal those conditions and environments, and that is what I will discuss. The how we know and the how we know how. More later.

 

[DerelictJunction]

Bigger, smaller, it doesn't change a thing. You're promoting the theistic view of Darwinism. Unfortunately, only the atheistic view of Darwinist creationism is allowed in schools.

Why is that, do you think?

Now you're being confusing. Is this on purpose?

How can there be an atheistic view of Darwinist creationism? The definition states that it is invokes a special act of divine creation.

That's like promoting the atheistic view of Islam. It makes no sense.

 

[bhsmte]

Now you're being confusing. Is this on purpose?

How can there be an atheistic view of Darwinist creationism? The definition states that it is invokes a special act of divine creation.

That's like promoting the atheistic view of Islam. It makes no sense.

Otherwise known as the; square peg, round hole phenomenon.

Creationists engage in this quite often and need to whittle away, to get the pegs to fit.

 

[Bolleke]

Sorry if I just sweep in here, but I am willing to answer the question.

I wish we'd all stop using terms as "evolutionists" and "creationists".
Which box shall I put myself in? I guess none, I see both happening.
To my observations there are signs pointing to creation, but then again. I do not believe in a young earth.

I believe it has taken a lot of co operation in life to get where we are. If the insects didn't work nature there might've not been an ecosystem to talk about.
Think about the air you're breathing, where does it come from? Algae! All this little organisms have been busy all the time and look at where we are.
Look where we were 100 000 years ago, the fact we don't know makes me all mysterious. Something happened and blasted humanity off the timeline... There was an abstract "flow" going on, doing its thing till we move out of Eden and blow the lit off.
According to history we learn to write between 25000 BC - 9000 BC.
We bairly write out our own name and we get math along with it instantly?
It's just too far off for me to explain. I know those of Giza are quite young, but what about those in Cuicuilco?
You can't build such structures without math.

History is not what we think it is.

 

[bhsmte]

Sorry if I just sweep in here, but I am willing to answer the question.

I wish we'd all stop using terms as "evolutionists" and "creationists".
Which box shall I put myself in? I guess none, I see both happening.
To my observations there are signs pointing to creation, but then again. I do not believe in a young earth.

I believe it has taken a lot of co operation in life to get where we are. If the insects didn't work nature there might've not been an ecosystem to talk about.
Think about the air you're breathing, where does it come from? Algae! All this little organisms have been busy all the time and look at where we are.
Look where we were 100 000 years ago, the fact we don't know makes me all mysterious. Something happened and blasted humanity off the timeline... There was an abstract "flow" going on, doing its thing till we move out of Eden and blow the lit off.
According to history we learn to write between 25000 BC - 9000 BC.
We bairly write out our own name and we get math along with it instantly?
It's just too far off for me to explain. I know those of Giza are quite young, but what about those in Cuicuilco?
You can't build such structures without math.

History is not what we think it is.

What are the signs pointing to creation?

 

[Bolleke]

I kinda gave it away...
How nature works. To me, insects created a lot of our eco system, algae created a lot of our air, ...
It's a "force field" entangled by all, interacting through all by instinct and other impulses. This is what has become of it. We have no common ancestor, so we need not link ourselves to aegyptopithecus or other mammals before.

There is no observation in the tiktaalik showing he is related to us.
So why are they saying it's an ancestor of us? There is no evidence of transitions ANYWHERE to be found. Yeah, we have dogs (domestication). Nice work.
But that happened in an instant. I see lungfish 400 mya and I see lungfish today. Which was impossible to the theory until they found a live one somewhere in the 19thirthies.

Evolution is a great topic, till we bring in the bugs. But even in the fossilrecords there is very very very little that shows transitions. But I do admit they are placed very well in the sediment layers.
Chicken or the egg? They taste different, but they both fullfill me in the end.

 

[bhsmte]

I kinda gave it away...
How nature works. To me, insects created a lot of our eco system, algae created a lot of our air, ...
It's a "force field" entangled by all, interacting through all by instinct and other impulses. This is what has become of it. We have no common ancestor, so we need not link ourselves to aegyptopithecus or other mammals before.

There is no observation in the tiktaalik showing he is related to us.
So why are they saying it's an ancestor of us? There is no evidence of transitions ANYWHERE to be found. Yeah, we have dogs (domestication). Nice work.
But that happened in an instant. I see lungfish 400 mya and I see lungfish today. Which was impossible to the theory until they found a live one somewhere in the 19thirthies.

Evolution is a great topic, till we bring in the bugs. But even in the fossilrecords there is very very very little that shows transitions. But I do admit they are placed very well in the sediment layers.
Chicken or the egg? They taste different, but they both fullfill me in the end.

Ok.

 

[Bolleke]

Ok.

Nothing to argue about there?

 

[Tellastory]

Well, I can certainly give naturalistic mechanisms. As for first life, the best anyone can do is show the evidence for the earliest known life. What I will do now is give you an overview in my own words without reviewing any of the literature, I will then go to that literature, of which I have hard copies, then source what I can from that which I can find full access online so you can review and ask questions.

Very briefly, up until just before the Cambrian period, most life on earth that appears in the fossil record is very simple and mostly microbial. This is due to environmental conditions under which only simple anaerobic life could exist. Most of earth's physical history has been an anoxic environment and entirely of marine origin. There have been very warm periods as well as a few very long snowball earth events. It wasn't until the great oxygenation events providing oxygen in the oceans and atmosphere that life is seen to diversify. Of course, the big question is, how do we know what the environment was like then, and that's where may academic training comes in. The specific markers that reveal those conditions and environments, and that is what I will discuss. The how we know and the how we know how. More later.

Please explain what would contribute to such an event.

And why such present day oxygenation was not the same back then for life to stop diversifying?

And does this mean by increasing oxygenation, we can evolve ourselves?

You have such proclaimed affirmation in the distant past as if you know for sure and yet I fail to see why the so called naturalistic mechanism such as oxygenation is not being used today to evolve man or life in general.

 

[bhsmte]

Nothing to argue about there?

Plenty. But I just don't have the mindset right now, to get into it. After you have engaged in the arguments so many times and provided the objective evidence for the TOE, some days I just don't have the appetite.

 

[DogmaHunter]

There is no evidence of transitions ANYWHERE to be found.

You might want to inform yourself on phylogenies...

 

[Bolleke]

Plenty. But I just don't have the mindset right now, to get into it. After you have engaged in the arguments so many times and provided the objective evidence for the TOE, some days I just don't have the appetite.

he?
TOE is a abbrevation for?

I am aware of Dawkins work. I find him a splendid writer.
But I don't see him addressing fish to human in his latest book, though he shares the observations. He shares animations of fish I googled later on their real fossils instead of their image, and it find it quite "inaccurate".
How many time have they changed the itchyosaurs through time?
They are not even sure it had a lung or gills.

 

[Queller]

I see lungfish 400 mya and I see lungfish today. Which was impossible to the theory until they found a live one somewhere in the 19thirthies.

Why was it impossible?

 

[bhsmte]

he?
TOE is a abbrevation for?

I am aware of Dawkins work. I find him a splendid writer.
But I don't see him addressing fish to human in his latest book, though he shares the observations. He shares animations of fish I googled later on their real fossils instead of their image, and it find it quite "inaccurate".
How many time have they changed the itchyosaurs through time?
They are not even sure it had a lung or gills.

Theory of Evolution.

When did I bring Dawkins into the discussion?

Google evidence for the theory of evolution, if you want to learn the specifics.

 

[Bolleke]

You might want to inform yourself on phylogenies...

Yeah, it's a great thing. I will not deny the facts here.
But isn't that applicable on virusses and bacteria?

It's like retroviruses they use to look back at our ancestors 5 mya.
But all they have done is "woke up" leukemia with it.

The observations lead to no absolute answer.

Those phylogenies have their limitations and one is never sure how accurate they turn out to be in 20 years from now.

 

[Bolleke]

Theory of Evolution.

When did I bring Dawkins into the discussion?

Google evidence for the theory of evolution, if you want to learn the specifics.

I believe in evolution;
But I don't believe it happens the way they sell it and animate it.
I bring Dawkins into play for you to show you I have already read into decent arguments.
If google brought me the answers, then why am I here