A question I don't think creationists will answer.

[RickG]

Please explain what would contribute to such an event.

By such an event are you referring to the great oxygenation event(s) (GOE)? The first event (GOE) occurred around 2.4 Ga and the second one 2 Ga later know as the Neoproterozoic Oxygenation Event (NEO). Before then, especially the GOE, earth's atmosphere was devoid of free oxygen. With little to no oxygen, the only possible life was anaerobic, therefore microbial. What got things started was cyanobacteria which begin to form oxygen through photosynthesis. Of course there are quite a few other things that occurred as well, not just the oxygenation. Both events are also associated the extensive tectonic activity as well as only one supercontinent (Rodinia) located mostly in the southern hemisphere. The NOE occurred after the break up of Rodinia which formed Gondwana. Also between these two events was a snowball earth event as seen by a sudden plundge of pCO2.

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

For one thing, the earth wasn't formed with an oxygen atmosphere. As for the diversification of life, the anoxic environment and multiple snowball earth events pretty much put diversification on hold. It wasn't until the late Neoproterozoic with a warmer climate, deglaciation allowing sea levels to rise, where shallow seas could be formed along the continental shelves that life begin to diversify. Keep in mind that all life then was marine. We know the oxygen was different then from geochemical markers.

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

You will have to ask a biologist that.

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.

It is not a matter of knowing for sure, it is a matter of reading the geochemical markers and correlating them with the many known events along with the fossil record to understand what occurred and what seems to indicate why. These are all natural process that we know occurred and when.

 

[crazyforgod1212]

By such an event are you referring to the great oxygenation event(s) (GOE)? The first event (GOE) occurred around 2.4 Ga and the second one 2 Ga later know as the Neoproterozoic Oxygenation Event (NEO). Before then, especially the GOE, earth's atmosphere was devoid of free oxygen. With little to no oxygen, the only possible life was anaerobic, therefore microbial. What got things started was cyanobacteria which begin to form oxygen through photosynthesis. Of course there are quite a few other things that occurred as well, not just the oxygenation. Both events are also associated the extensive tectonic activity as well as only one supercontinent (Rodinia) located mostly in the southern hemisphere. The NOE occurred after the break up of Rodinia which formed Gondwana. Also between these two events was a snowball earth event as seen by a sudden plundge of pCO2.

For one thing, the earth wasn't formed with an oxygen atmosphere. As for the diversification of life, the anoxic environment and multiple snowball earth events pretty much put diversification on hold. It wasn't until the late Neoproterozoic with a warmer climate, deglaciation allowing sea levels to rise, where shallow seas could be formed along the continental shelves that life begin to diversify. Keep in mind that all life then was marine. We know the oxygen was different then from geochemical markers.

You will have to ask a biologist that.

It is not a matter of knowing for sure, it is a matter of reading the geochemical markers and correlating them with the many known events along with the fossil record to understand what occurred and what seems to indicate why. These are all natural process that we know occurred and when.

And you were around to see all this and do experiments?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yeah and remember how they had to review their entire theory after finding a living fossil, lungfish.
Let's not forget nebraska and piltdown man.

Isn't the real thing real and absolute, none changing?

The tiktaalik's image will change over time just as it did with the itchyosaurs.

I see the fossils, so I know a tiktaalik lived on earth.
But I see nothing leading up to us. Unless a great story

About the hominoids, i don't not like to argue there, because to me that's another story then actual transformations such as tiktaalik to hynerpeton.
So I hope we could drop lucy? I just wanted to point out the animations aren't always what they seem. They are fixed up and not just a tiny bit

Please do not be foolish. If you bring up old PRATT's like Nebraska Man and Piltdown Man then I will simply point out that with the history of fraud and errors in the Christian church that to be consistent you would have to assume your God was a fake.

And it is bad to call change a "transformation". Individuals do not evolve populations do. There are too many errors in this one post to deal with them all. Why not try to bring up your points one at a time. Arguments that are handwaved in as you have can be handwaved away

 

[Subduction Zone]

Can you show me her feet and her hands then please? thank you

Why do you want to see them? If I bothered to do the work to find the fossils would you automatically assume that evolution is true?

 

[AV1611VET]

No he doesn't. Please quit being silly AV. Taking verses out of context is blasphemy. Seriously, I know that creationists have no respect for the works of others, you would think that at least they would have some respect for their own Bible.

Remember too that Solomon had apes imported ...

1 Kings 10:22 For the king had at sea a navy of Tharshish with the navy of Hiram: once in three years came the navy of Tharshish, bringing gold, and silver, ivory, and apes, and peacocks.

... probably for study.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Remember too that Solomon had apes imported ...

1 Kings 10:22 For the king had at sea a navy of Tharshish with the navy of Hiram: once in three years came the navy of Tharshish, bringing gold, and silver, ivory, and apes, and peacocks.

He may have.

... probably for study.

Solomon may have been real, he may have been even a wise ruler. That being said he did not have the ability to study the apes in any meaningful way. The people of that time were ignorant about many things. Biology was one topic that they were not very knowledgeable about back then. That is nt saying that they were stupid. They lacked the teaching of others to build upon.

People in the future will be able to point out many things that we are ignorant about today. That does not mean we are stupid. It only means that there are things we don't know yet.

 

[AV1611VET]

You do realize that Solomon was likely referring to other religions, given the time period, right?

His father [probably] studied another religion (atheism) and concluded ...

Psalm 14:1a The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.

... and he [probably] studied one of its subdoctrines (biological evolution) and concluded ...

Ecclesiastes 7:29a Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright;

 

[Subduction Zone]

His father [probably] studied another religion (atheism) and concluded ...

Psalm 14:1a The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.

... and he [probably] studied one of its subdoctrines (biological evolution) and concluded ...

Ecclesiastes 7:29a Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright;

AV, even you have to know that this is pure tripe on your part and is extremely close to blasphemy.

 

[AV1611VET]

The people of that time were ignorant about many things. Biology was one topic that they were not very knowledgeable about back then.

Then why did they cremate bodies that had died with various diseases, like leprosy?

Did they know something that the scientists who would later espouse Miasma theory didn't?

And why did they sterilize pots & pans in the fire; and wash their clothes and other articles in water before reuse?

They may not have known germ theory, per se; but their Leader did ... and obeying Him prevented diseases from spreading.

But ignorance is repetitive, and today's scientists refused to consider certain acts as a sin and teach repentance & abstinence, and now we have AIDS.

 

[Bolleke]

Why do you want to see them? If I bothered to do the work to find the fossils would you automatically assume that evolution is true?

I want you to go to wikipedia, or whereever she is displayed and observe.
But Lucy is a bad example.

I want to look at all the fossils, and ask you how they can be linked together?
If you tell me squirells come from mice, that would make sense somehow.
When the squirells start evolving to apelike creatures, that eventually get out of the trees to become humans ... I see nothing in the observation field leading up that way.
As a kid it was displayed nice to me in animations. Now I have seen the fossils, I know the animations leading from fish to humans is a hypothesis and not to be taken serious.

 

[AV1611VET]

... and is extremely close to blasphemy.

Darwin ain't my judge.

 

[Bolleke]

Please do not be foolish. If you bring up old PRATT's like Nebraska Man and Piltdown Man then I will simply point out that with the history of fraud and errors in the Christian church that to be consistent you would have to assume your God was a fake.

And it is bad to call change a "transformation". Individuals do not evolve populations do. There are too many errors in this one post to deal with them all. Why not try to bring up your points one at a time. Arguments that are handwaved in as you have can be handwaved away

Your god is fake? My God? I wonder, who is my God?
Who says I go to a Christian Church?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your god is fake? My God? I wonder, who is my God?
Who says I go to a Christian Church?

I did not say that. I said "Using your logic". No matter what your religion is I can assure you that it has had far more frauds and errors than have been associated with evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Darwin ain't my judge.

I never even implied that he was. You should be so lucky.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then why did they cremate bodies that had died with various diseases, like leprosy?

Did they know something that the scientists who would later espouse Miasma theory didn't?

And why did they sterilize pots & pans in the fire; and wash their clothes and other articles in water before reuse?

They may not have known germ theory, per se; but their Leader did ... and obeying Him prevented diseases from spreading.

But ignorance is repetitive, and today's scientists refused to consider certain acts as a sin and teach repentance & abstinence, and now we have AIDS.

Like I said, they were not idiots, they were merely ignorant. Burning bodies with leprosy would not stop the spread of the diseases no more than burying them so I don't know what you brought that up.

And they may have washed their pots and pans occasionally, even they probably observed people getting sick occasionally when using dirty plates etc..

If they were so wise why doesn't the Bible say "Wash your hands after you go to the bathroom"?


And for your AIDS statement I really should import a giant smiley but a small one will do

 

[AV1611VET]

I never even implied that he was. You should be so lucky.

Didn't you say I was close to blaspheming him?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Didn't you say I was close to blaspheming him?

Not Darwin. Wow! I guess the sinner truly cannot see his sin.

 

[AV1611VET]

Like I said, they were not idiots, they were merely ignorant.

Wiser than any scientist though.

Burning bodies with leprosy would not stop the spread of the diseases no more than burying them so I don't know what you brought that up.

Miasma theory is more about the spread of disease, than prevention.

I'm sure a Miasma theorist would have a heart attack if he saw someone burning a body that had died of leprosy.

There's an example of where knowing the Bible would have helped.

And they may have washed their pots and pans occasionally,

LOL ... solid aurum.

... even they probably observed people getting sick occasionally when using dirty plates etc..

Either that, or they did it in obedience to the Law.

If they were so wise why doesn't the Bible say "Wash your hands after you go to the bathroom"?

Will this do?

Deuteronomy 23:13 And thou shalt have a paddle upon thy weapon; and it shall be, when thou wilt ease thyself abroad, thou shalt dig therewith, and shalt turn back and cover that which cometh from thee:

And for your AIDS statement I really should import a giant smiley but a small one will do

Big or small ... thanks for the QED.

 

[Bolleke]

I did not say that. I said "Using your logic". No matter what your religion is I can assure you that it has had far more frauds and errors than have been associated with evolution.

But the problem with the evolution debate is the following:
The word evolution has many meanings.
You can see evolution in a petrishdish while selecting genes, duplicating them, pushing them, reduplicating them, ...
You can see evolution in the fossil records over 500 million years, look at insects.
Look at what evolution can do to a horse over a timespan of 50 million years. I find the fossil record of the horse quite unique and "complete" compared to others.
So the observations are there.
The fossils are there...
The experiments have been done.

More then 90% of mutations tun out very very very bad.
Why is it so hard to believe that the rodent we should've been evolved from 165 million years ago simply is todays rodent?
Why is it hard to believe the lungfish 450 mya are lungfish we see today in Australia?

Aren't we seeing more then there is just to push out a group called "creationists"? What box are you putting me in?

 

[biggles53]

But the problem with the evolution debate is the following:
The word evolution has many meanings.
You can see evolution in a petrishdish while selecting genes, duplicating them, pushing them, reduplicating them, ...
You can see evolution in the fossil records over 500 million years, look at insects.
Look at what evolution can do to a horse over a timespan of 50 million years. I find the fossil record of the horse quite unique and "complete" compared to others.
So the observations are there.
The fossils are there...
The experiments have been done.

More then 90% of mutations tun out very very very bad.
Why is it so hard to believe that the rodent we should've been evolved from 165 million years ago simply is todays rodent?
Why is it hard to believe the lungfish 450 mya are lungfish we see today in Australia?

Aren't we seeing more then there is just to push out a group called "creationists"? What box are you putting me in?

Please explain the locations of ERV insertions in humans and other primates....?