Questions about origins of life timeline

[lasthero]

Oh, a pattern. Right.

Yes, a pattern. Do you need this explained to you again?

You could try to present a theory that something came from nothing or that complex genetic structures all the way up to the human brain and through that brain evolution, ipods, computers and airplanes were created. All by random chance.

I could, but since that's just a strawman, there's be little point. Evolution doesn't propose pure random chance. You've had this explained to you.

What is a family? A genus? A species?

There's a difference between a word with a fuzzy definition and a word with no defintion.

Now. Again. What is a kind?

 

[EternalDragon]

Yes, a pattern. Do you need this explained to you again?

I am quite aware of the scientific assumptions men make.

I could, but since that's just a strawman, there's be little point. Evolution doesn't propose pure random chance. You've had this explained to you.

There's a difference between a word with a fuzzy definition and a word with no defintion.

Now. Again. What is a kind?

You've had this explained to you.

Genesis 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

 

[lasthero]

I am quite aware of the scientific assumptions men make.

Such as?

You've had this explained to you.

That's not a workable definition. That's a Bible verse.

 

[Kylie]

Let's get off this "science is wrong" kick, shall we?

I don't really claim "science is wrong".

More accurately, I claim "science can take a hike."

And only if it disagrees with the Bible.

I'm on record here many times as claiming I believe in 95% of science.

Okay, then let's amend it to saying that evolution is wrong, according to you.

You are still making a decision of what is right and wrong in a poor way - by seeing if it fits with what you have already decided is true.

Now, if I was to just decide that the Bible is wrong because it doesn't mesh with science, would it be a logically valid thing for me to say, "The Bible is wrong. I don't need to actually know anything about the Bible to know it is wrong. The simple fact that it disagrees with what I have already decided is true is enough for me." Wouldn't you think that's a daft way to reach a conclusion?

If you tell me you believe the sky is pink with yellow polka dots, and I say it is blue, I would expect you to come back with something like:

That's your opinion.

Anything else, and I'm going to suspect you have a problem.

If you asked a blind man what color he believes the sky is, and he says RED, what would you think?

So lemme get this straight, you think an acceptable reason for someone to believe something that doesn't match reality is because they are denied a source of information? So what does it mean when your point of view is not what we find when we investigate reality? Are you the metaphorical blind man here, AV?

That's nice.

Yes, isn't it? Such a shame that you only talked about making a statement, and said nothing about how to make sure it is an ACCURATE statement...

No -- you don't get it.

I have made the claim here I would kiss the feet of a scientist before I kiss the feet of a theologian any day.

But evidently you, a johnny-come-lately here, prefer to listen to all the misrepresentations of the others as to my take on science; and have taken my silence as an admission that I hate science and all science is wrong.

Suit yourself ... because I'm not planning on defending myself every time some Tom, Dick, or Harry accuses me of being anti-science.

If you want to believe them, that's your prerogative; but don't come to me telling me I've got some kind of problem ... when the problem is on your end.

My problem is that you pick and choose the science you accept on arbitrary conditions, and you don't give a fig about the actual science itself. You are perfectly happy to accept the scientific method when it leads to one conclusion, but insist on denying it when it leads to a conclusion you DON'T like. In short, you don't care about science at all, not any of it. You only care what your interpretation of the Bible tells you to think about science.

Yes I do -- and for the record, I don't believe I'm a religious person, as I define "religion" as a set of beliefs that arise when the Bible is resisted.

But I'm sure you couldn't care less.

You'll believe anything that makes you look right and me wrong.

You know perfectly well what I meant, and instead of addressing the point I was making, you only quibble about terminology. The hallmark of someone who has no point to make.

You're entitled to your opinion.

An opinion I then backed up.

For the record, I believe your religion is not "science" but "scientism," of which Google has a short but very poignant definition that ... to me ... fits you guys to a tee.

Yeah, you don't get to tell me what my religion is unless you can actually back up your claims, okay?

Well, since I define "faith" as "believing something, even when science says otherwise," I define your faith as "believing something, even when the Bible says otherwise."

So guess what? I'm going to disagree with your statement.

Big surprise, eh?

So you claim that the Bible is a more accurate source of information about reality than reality itself, is that it?

Says you.

And many other people.

Oh, I bet you would drop it like a hot potato if more evidence trumped your current evidence.

Even if you had to rig a vote to do it.

Are you suggesting that I am corrupt? That's a pretty bold statement, You got something to back that up or should I report you for making insulting remarks? I believe that's against the rules, yes?

No.

Because the evidence in reality is staring you in the eyes.

No.

Because the evidence in reality is staring you in the eyes.

Is this line of questioning going somewhere?

I'm sure you have the brains to see for yourself.

Then I won't look at the evidence ... the evidence can take a hike.

Spoken just like the person who insists I am a guy and refuses to look at me for fear of being proven wrong. And just like the guy who insists the weather is heavily overcast and refuses to look out the window.

You ignore reality whenever it suits you so you can hold onto your beliefs. Once again, you think the Bible is a better source of information about reality than reality is. Not a smart way to do things.

 

[Kylie]

What evidence exactly? Similarities? That is about all evolution has as "evidence". Hardly compelling and could equally be evidence for ID.

Speciation within kinds does occur, however, if that is what you are talking about.

Otherwise, any rational person should be able to see through the assumed stories being propagated within the evolution theory.

You don't really understand the evidence for evolution, do you?

 

[biggles53]

I am quite aware of the scientific assumptions men make.



You've had this explained to you.

Genesis 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

So..like she said....what's a kind...?

 

[biggles53]

What evidence exactly? Similarities? That is about all evolution has as "evidence". Hardly compelling and could equally be evidence for ID.

Speciation within kinds does occur, however, if that is what you are talking about.

Otherwise, any rational person should be able to see through the assumed stories being propagated within the evolution theory.

Please explain why the ERV locations in various primates are EXACTLY the same....

 

[EternalDragon]

You don't really understand the evidence for evolution, do you?

Yes, I do. Since being here on these forums for some time it has boiled down to simply similarities.

Also speciation is observable. Natural selection is observable. Within species. So when some people use the word "evolution", they simply mean change within species.

Other people use it to mean dinosaurs became birds and apes became men, and in fact everything evolved from simple organisms and then to plants and on up to form a whole common ancestry with each other.

I'm not sure you realize that there are observable facts there and then there is fantasy story telling as well. Perhaps you are mixing it all in with that one word, "evolution". I don't ever know for sure with you guys though. You often like to blur the picture and meaning of "evolution" to promote your brand of make believe philosophy.

 

[EternalDragon]

Please explain why the ERV locations in various primates are EXACTLY the same....

Because primates are similar to us in design and the ERV's like to insert into certain regions that work best for them. They could be independent insertions.

Do Shared ERVs Support Common Ancestry? - Evolution News & Views

New studies show that human genetics are 6% or more different than chimp genetics. Also 17.4% of gene regulatory networks in the brain are unique to humans.

Here are some large-scale differences that get overlooked in the drive to assert our similarity. Our physiology differs from that of chimps. We do not get the same diseases, our brain development is different, even our reproductive processes are different. Our musculoskeletal systems are different, permitting us to run, to throw, to hold our heads erect. We have many more muscles in our hands and tongues that permit refined tool making and speech.

The Mismeasure of Man: Why Popular Ideas about Human-Chimp Comparisons Are Misleading or Wrong - Evolution News & Views

 

[bhsmte]

Because primates are similar to us in design and the ERV's like to insert into certain regions that work best for them. They could be independent insertions.

Do Shared ERVs Support Common Ancestry? - Evolution News & Views

New studies show that human genetics are 6% or more different than chimp genetics. Also 17.4% of gene regulatory networks in the brain are unique to humans.

Here are some large-scale differences that get overlooked in the drive to assert our similarity. Our physiology differs from that of chimps. We do not get the same diseases, our brain development is different, even our reproductive processes are different. Our musculoskeletal systems are different, permitting us to run, to throw, to hold our heads erect. We have many more muscles in our hands and tongues that permit refined tool making and speech.

The Mismeasure of Man: Why Popular Ideas about Human-Chimp Comparisons Are Misleading or Wrong - Evolution News & Views

Evolution news and views? Nice and quite credible, when it comes to science.

It would appear, when God designed Man and primates, he took the same approach Toyota did when their Lexus brand used many of the same components to build the Lexus ES, that they used from the Toyota Camry. God didn't want to bother with having a completely different design for humans.

 

[EternalDragon]

Evolution news and views? Nice and quite credible, when it comes to science.

It would appear, when God designed Man and primates, he took the same approach Toyota did when their Lexus brand used many of the same components to build the Lexus ES, that they used from the Toyota Camry. God didn't want to bother with having a completely different design for humans.

Why change what works? You've actually made a point for ID theory.

 

[bhsmte]

Why change what works? You've actually made a point for ID theory.

But I thought man was special in God's eyes, yet he uses a primate platform to build man?

 

[EternalDragon]

But I thought man was special in God's eyes, yet he uses a primate platform to build man?

Not exactly. Unless you see ape animals walking upright, buying clothing in stores, driving to work, contemplating life and doing science experiments.

Wait, you think you do see that, don't you?

 

[Aman777]

But I thought man was special in God's eyes, yet he uses a primate platform to build man?

Dear bhsmte, Humans are God's most Special Creation. Man was formed from the dust of the ground on the 3rd Day. Gen 2:4-7 This gives Humans FIRST place in the creation and the ONLY living creature made on the 3rd Day. The sons of God (prehistoric man) were NOT made until the 5th Day. Gen 1:21

Adam has an intelligence level like God's, Gen 3:22 which NO other creature has. it's because Human destiny is to have dominion or rule over EVERY other living creature. Gen 1:28 This includes ALL Apes, from which we did NOT evolve since Humans were made long BEFORE our Earth was made. God Bless you and open your eyes to God's Truth.

In Love,
Aman

 

[dad]

You don't really understand the evidence for evolution, do you?

Evidence for Evolution

 

[PsychoSarah]

Not exactly. Unless you see ape animals walking upright, buying clothing in stores, driving to work, contemplating life and doing science experiments.

Wait, you think you do see that, don't you?

We are apes so... Yeah, we do see apes which walk upright and do all of those things.

 

[Loudmouth]

Not exactly. Unless you see ape animals walking upright, buying clothing in stores, driving to work, contemplating life and doing science experiments.

Wait, you think you do see that, don't you?

We do. Here is a picture of one.

 

[EternalDragon]

We are apes so... Yeah, we do see apes which walk upright and do all of those things.

Yes, I know. That is your belief faith system. There is no evidence that an ape or ape like animal turned into a man. That only exists in sci-fi land.

 

[EternalDragon]

We do. Here is a picture of one.

That is a human being.

This is an ape:

 

[PsychoSarah]

Yes, I know. That is your belief faith system. There is no evidence that an ape or ape like animal turned into a man. That only exists in sci-fi land.

No, there is tons of evidence for it, we have so many transition fossils for that you could make one of those quick flip books and have it start out as the last common ancestor we had with chimpanzees and end up with humans with no significant gaps (so much so that you can almost know the time period for nearly ever change from those ape ancestors to the arp we are today and pick them out if you look closely enough). We are more genetically similar to chimpanzees than any other nonhuman species, and as it turns out, chimpanzees are more genetically similar to humans than any other non chimp species.