Questions about origins of life timeline

dad · Apr 25, 2014

biggles53 said:
Bollocks....

Tiktaalik lived in the past....it's fossilised remains were preserved in the past....

Yet, scientists were able to make predictions, in the present day, about how and where those fossilised remains had been laid down and where they would be found....

That's PRESENT DAY SCIENCE BEING ABLE TO PREDICT PAST EVENTS....!

No, it isn't. Understanding patterns in fossils or layers, is present state science right here in this state. In no way does it tell us the nature when the fossils were laid down, or much else! Most of the predicting they do is lobotomized pipe dreaming, where they use tiny portions of what existed, and act as if it represents all! With a different nature, most fossils likely represent only those creatures that could fossilize. NOT all the animals alive and man. So, predicting a crawling fish near certain layers would be like predicting that God created versatile fish. Nothing to your credit.

biggles53 · Apr 25, 2014

dad said:
No, it isn't. Understanding patterns in fossils or layers, is present state science right here in this state. In no way does it tell us the nature when the fossils were laid down, or much else! Most of the predicting they do is lobotomized pipe dreaming, where they use tiny portions of what existed, and act as if it represents all! With a different nature, most fossils likely represent only those creatures that could fossilize. NOT all the animals alive and man. So, predicting a crawling fish near certain layers would be like predicting that God created versatile fish. Nothing to your credit.

More bollocks...what a surprise coming from you...!

Tiktaalik was not known to exist. It went extinct in the deep past. However, based upon other fossil evidence previously collected, scientists were able to PREDICT that it did indeed exist in the past, and were able to further PREDICT where it would be found....

You lose, yet again....

Kylie · Apr 25, 2014

dad said:
No, it isn't. Understanding patterns in fossils or layers, is present state science right here in this state. In no way does it tell us the nature when the fossils were laid down, or much else! Most of the predicting they do is lobotomized pipe dreaming, where they use tiny portions of what existed, and act as if it represents all! With a different nature, most fossils likely represent only those creatures that could fossilize. NOT all the animals alive and man. So, predicting a crawling fish near certain layers would be like predicting that God created versatile fish. Nothing to your credit.

So, what you are saying is that the fossils could have been laid down under ANY circumstances, and still have come out looking the way they do today. They could have originally been chocolate bones laid down in molten lava in the different state past and after the state change come out looking the way they look today.

Do I have that right?

EternalDragon · Apr 26, 2014

biggles53 said:
More bollocks...what a surprise coming from you...!

Tiktaalik was not known to exist. It went extinct in the deep past. However, based upon other fossil evidence previously collected, scientists were able to PREDICT that it did indeed exist in the past, and were able to further PREDICT where it would be found....

You lose, yet again....

I don't think so about the extinction part or evolution part.

Current day Crocodile Fish:

Tiktaalik:

lasthero · Apr 26, 2014

EternalDragon said:
I don't think so about the extinction part or evolution part.

Current day Crocodile Fish:

Tiktaalik:

The head is similar, but that's about it. Even from the pictures, you can tell their fin placement is completely different.

EternalDragon · Apr 26, 2014

lasthero said:
The head is similar, but that's about it. Even from the pictures, you can tell their fin placement is completely different.

Lets face it. Tiktaalik isn't a transitional. It has not evolved from nor has it evolved into something new.

lasthero · Apr 26, 2014

EternalDragon said:
Lets face it. Tiktaalik isn't a transitional. It has not evolved from nor has it evolved into something new.

You're entitled to your completely uneducated, worthless opinion, but since you won't even provide a concrete definition of what you think a transitional fossil would be, you'll have to forgive us if we accuse you of speaking from an orifice most foul and unsavory.

EternalDragon · Apr 26, 2014

lasthero said:
You're entitled to your completely uneducated, worthless opinion, but since you won't even provide a concrete definition of what you think a transitional fossil would be, you'll have to forgive us if we accuse you of speaking from an orifice most foul and unsavory.

No need for verbal attacks. However it isn't just my opinion. A creature just like it is alive today and I provided a visual of it.

And I have repeatedly given what would be required for transitional fossils. We would be able to observe many stages of it, for many creatures, in the fossil record (strike one), we would be able to repeat it, (strike two) and we would be able to observe it today among the many life forms. (strike three)

lasthero · Apr 26, 2014

A creature just like it is alive today and I provided a visual of it.

It has a head similar to Tiktaalik. It's not 'just like it'. Aside from the head, they're built quite differently. Tiktaalik is not a crocodile fish. I know this sort of thinking represents the cutting edge of creationist thought, but in the real world, there's a little bit more to studying morphology than looking at two pictures and going 'yup, looks the same to me'.

You're not even arguing your point. I pointed out the different fin placement, and your response was to just reassert your position.

And by the way? Tiktaalik had a neck. Crocodile fish don't have necks.

We would be able to observe many stages of it, for many creatures, in the fossil record

We do.

we would be able to repeat it

We have fossils.

and we would be able to observe it today among the many life forms.

We do.

dad · Apr 26, 2014

biggles53 said:
More bollocks...what a surprise coming from you...!

Tiktaalik was not known to exist.

No, but the pattern was known of what did exist. All that was needed was to 'predict' that some things were missing, or not yet found! That pattern has nothing at all to do with anything related to godless evolving. That is where your bollocks comes in.

It went extinct in the deep past. However, based upon other fossil evidence previously collected, scientists were able to PREDICT that it did indeed exist in the past, and were able to further PREDICT where it would be found....

Just as I said! Translated then, for lurkers who may not be science savvy, what we have is as follows.

'Of the small portion of life that could fossilize in the nature of the far past, (that came to exist by a creation of God, and subsequent adapting and evolving), the range of creatures discovered as fossils was less than complete.'

I agree that of the creatures that could fossilize at that time, 'fish' that could move over water and land would be expected. Whoopee do! Why would God NOT make such 'fish'?? After all they had a job to do, possibly cleaning up certain parts of certain animals that could NOT fossilize in that former nature!

In NO way does the religious interpretation of the fossil record constitute either the only or the best explanation.

PsychoSarah · Apr 26, 2014

dad said:
No, but the pattern was known of what did exist. All that was needed was to 'predict' that some things were missing, or not yet found! That pattern has nothing at all to do with anything related to godless evolving. That is where your bollocks comes in.

Just as I said! Translated then, for lurkers who may not be science savvy, what we have is as follows.

'Of the small portion of life that could fossilize in the nature of the far past, (that came to exist by a creation of God, and subsequent adapting and evolving), the range of creatures discovered as fossils was less than complete.'

I agree that of the creatures that could fossilize at that time, 'fish' that could move over water and land would be expected. Whoopee do! Why would God NOT make such 'fish'?? After all they had a job to do, possibly cleaning up certain parts of certain animals that could NOT fossilize in that former nature!

In NO way does the religious interpretation of the fossil record constitute either the only or the best explanation.

You seem to falsely have the word religious = wrong for some reason, which is not exactly a correct definition. Religion is not a definition that applies to theories such as evolution, you would understand why if you looked up what the word religious means. Also, you calling it religious only makes you look ignorant, it doesn't make the theory of evolution seem less legitimate.

dad · Apr 26, 2014

PsychoSarah said:
You seem to falsely have the word religious = wrong for some reason, which is not exactly a correct definition. Religion is not a definition that applies to theories such as evolution, you would understand why if you looked up what the word religious means. Also, you calling it religious only makes you look ignorant, it doesn't make the theory of evolution seem less legitimate.

How many times can a guy type 'belief based system' of belief based methodology' etc? Religion gets the general idea across, close enough for rock and roll!

I like the concept of religion also, because so called science is disguised Satan worship. Not all people know that, so they hate the term, I know. I happen to know that there are spirits behind the scenes.

PsychoSarah · Apr 26, 2014

dad said:
How many times can a guy type 'belief based system' of belief based methodology' etc? Religion gets the general idea across, close enough for rock and roll!

I like the concept of religion also, because so called science is disguised Satan worship. Not all people know that, so they hate the term, I know. I happen to know that there are spirits behind the scenes.

You really don't get how science works. One if the great things about science is that everything is questioned constantly, nothing is really viewed as being 100% accurate so it drives people to improve and even replace theories with theories which are better at explaining the world than the ones that preceded it. Nothing, nothing is held as being "sacred", nothing whatsoever is taken on faith, but rather ideas are constantly challenged through experimentation and observation. This is why science changes so much, something that for some reason religious people often seem to think is a flaw, when really it is the basis of scientific success. To assume answers is to put a stopper to progress, to have unquestioning faith in any scientific theory is to betray the point of science: to learn. Because if we were to assume we knew all we could know, we would lose any motivation to explore other possibilities. To assume correctness is the easiest way to be wrong.

bhsmte · Apr 26, 2014

PsychoSarah said:
You really don't get how science works. One if the great things about science is that everything is questioned constantly, nothing is really viewed as being 100% accurate so it drives people to improve and even replace theories with theories which are better at explaining the world than the ones that preceded it. Nothing, nothing is held as being "sacred", nothing whatsoever is taken on faith, but rather ideas are constantly challenged through experimentation and observation. This is why science changes so much, something that for some reason religious people often seem to think is a flaw, when really it is the basis of scientific success. To assume answers is to put a stopper to progress, to have unquestioning faith in any scientific theory is to betray the point of science: to learn. Because if we were to assume we knew all we could know, we would lose any motivation to explore other possibilities. To assume correctness is the easiest way to be wrong.

He likely knows how science works, how blind would someone have to be to not know that frequents these boards? Knowing how something works and acknowledging how something works, are two distinctly different things.

dad · Apr 26, 2014

PsychoSarah said:
You really don't get how science works. One if the great things about science is that everything is questioned constantly, nothing is really viewed as being 100% accurate so it drives people to improve and even replace theories with theories which are better at explaining the world than the ones that preceded it.

I disagree. They do not question the same state past premise at all! They do not question that God can not be included in any picture they conjure up..ever..anyhow...anyway! Their inbred in box questioning is circular, and extremely limited.

Nothing, nothing is held as being "sacred", nothing whatsoever is taken on faith, but rather ideas are constantly challenged through experimentation and observation.

Thanks for admitting that! What a devilishly unholy endeavor !

This is why science changes so much, something that for some reason religious people often seem to think is a flaw, when really it is the basis of scientific success.

They stumble along in the dark, so value constant falling as part of the process. Whoopee do. I look more at whether they actually get anywhere! They are NEVER able to come to a knowledge of the truth.

To assume answers is to put a stopper to progress,

They assume present state laws.

to have unquestioning faith in any scientific theory is to betray the point of science:

The theory is just the pimple on the face that comes from the bad diet of same state past sugar. Lurkers--don't drink the kool aid!

Because if we were to assume we knew all we could know, we would lose any motivation to explore other possibilities.

Anyone who thinks silly little same state past and future based so called science knows it all would be intellectually challenged.

To assume correctness is the easiest way to be wrong.

With man and his wisdom, especially as pertains to things that involve more than that..yes!

PsychoSarah · Apr 26, 2014

dad said:
I disagree. They do not question the same state past premise at all! They do not question that God can not be included in any picture they conjure up..ever..anyhow...anyway! Their inbred in box questioning is circular, and extremely limited.
Thanks for admitting that! What a devilishly unholy endeavor !

They stumble along in the dark, so value constant falling as part of the process. Whoopee do. I look more at whether they actually get anywhere! They are NEVER able to come to a knowledge of the truth.

They assume present state laws.

The theory is just the pimple on the face that comes from the bad diet of same state past sugar. Lurkers--don't drink the kool aid!

Anyone who thinks silly little same state past and future based so called science knows it all would be intellectually challenged.

With man and his wisdom, especially as pertains to things that involve more than that..yes!

You assume the present state laws didn't exist, so your assumption isn't exactly superior. In fact, given that the only evidence you have to think that there was a prior state is observations which clash with bible means that your assumption is less founded than the consistent state assumption.

Thanks for proving to me that your theory is completely faith based and has nothing to back it, and that you don't seem to understand that not being religiously based doesn't make something unholy. Technically, you can't prove that anything is holy or unholy because the adjective itself is religiously based.

dad · Apr 26, 2014

PsychoSarah said:
You assume the present state laws didn't exist, so your assumption isn't exactly superior. In fact, given that the only evidence you have to think that there was a prior state is observations which clash with bible means that your assumption is less founded than the consistent state assumption.

No! The evidence I have is that science doesn't know. That knocks them out of the fight.

Thanks for proving to me that your theory is completely faith based and has nothing to back it, and that you don't seem to understand that not being religiously based doesn't make something unholy. Technically, you can't prove that anything is holy or unholy because the adjective itself is religiously based.

If we have ideas emanating from the darkest recesses of hell, being piped to man, it is a safe bet to refer to these as unholy actually. Even if we have a philosophy that forbids anything holy from being any part of it, I woulld call that unholy!

Kylie · Apr 26, 2014

dad said:
They do not question the same state past premise at all!

Then how about this...

You suggest something that we can go and test. Something that can only exist if the past state was different. That way, if we find it, it will prove that there was a different past state. And if we don't find it, then we know the past state was the same.

dad · Apr 26, 2014

KTS said:
Then how about this...

You suggest something that we can go and test. Something that can only exist if the past state was different. That way, if we find it, it will prove that there was a different past state. And if we don't find it, then we know the past state was the same.

The simplest way to loook at this is by looking at the future, which is also unknown to science. What, praytell might we ask you to 'go look at' to help you tell us the nature that will exist???

PsychoSarah · Apr 26, 2014

dad said:
No! The evidence I have is that science doesn't know. That knocks them out of the fight.

If we have ideas emanating from the darkest recesses of hell, being piped to man, it is a safe bet to refer to these as unholy actually. Even if we have a philosophy that forbids anything holy from being any part of it, I woulld call that unholy!

No, it knocks you out of the fight, because even if you could prove that there was a prior state, it doesn't mean that prior state would work in such a way that the bible could be correct. Additionally, it makes sense that the laws of physics wouldn't change, and there is no reason any deity would have to change the laws of physics so drastically if that deity was supposedly perfect (and thus would do everything right the first time ). Your ideas aren't provable, therefore, you might as well be claiming that invisible ghost unicorns watch us while we sleep, but we can't ever detect them. If you can't provide any evidence for an idea, it is less credible than some of the most laughable of pseudosciences, because at the very least the cryptozoologists have some amount of blurry pictures and eyewitness accounts. You have nothing, no, you have less than nothing because you are opposing theories so superior and so much more useful and well tested compared to yours that for you to actually think that anyone should consider your ideas valid is a sad joke. Unless you can provide some reason for people to think that your prior state stuff has any probability if being true, you have to show us something, and you can't.

People aren't allowed put miracles or god in the gaps in their theories, so what? The only reason this is the case is that so far no one has proven or provided sufficient evidence that a deity exists, prove one does and there will be scientific theories which account for it, but until that happens people won't use ideas they can't hope to prove or provide evidence for, which is why you are the one blabbing about some prior state and not some professor at a university.

Questions about origins of life timeline

Undefeated!

Junior Member

Defeater of Illogic

Counselor

Newbie

Counselor

Newbie

Counselor

Newbie

Undefeated!

Chaotic Neutral

Undefeated!

Chaotic Neutral

Newbie

Undefeated!

Chaotic Neutral

Undefeated!

Defeater of Illogic

Undefeated!

Chaotic Neutral

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency