The Fossil Record Proves Speciation, Not Evolution of Lifeforms Observed

[xianghua]

Archaeopteryx is a good example; it really is a dino-bird . It has traits of both birds and theropod dinosaurs

a van is also a combination between a car and a truck. but it doesnt prove any evolution. right?

 

[stevevw]

But in your original post, the one I responded to, you made it sound like science proving itself wrong was a bad thing.

I didnt intent to give that impression. As you can see from my post when I say they predicted this and they will probably be wrong again I am talking about those behind the predictions. Brightmoon was saying Creationists and believers in God believe anything the bible says so he was referring to the people behind the faith as being stupid. I was merely pointing out that the people behind science can also believe in things that some would say is unreal or unverifiable and I guess stupid and it is often because it cannot be verified that they can come up with far fetched ideas and make up new ideas and predictions loosely based on indirect evidence that could mean anything and then call it science which is false. But becuaseit is labelled under the tag science for some reason people situp and believe anything without question. I also call that faith. At least religion acknowledges that it is faith based and there is no scientific verification for it.

 

[xianghua]

--

 

[stevevw]

I think the site is having problems. I have notoced a few double posts. When you post your comments it doesnt appear to load but it actually has.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

When you use the term that believers say “I got this Book here and I believe everything in it - even the stupid stuff.” Scientists can’t do that" you are comparing apples and oranges and being naieve. Scientists can do that. You are confusing the topic of science with the humans behind it.

The bible is not a scientific book and is not measured that way so that is a fruitless exercise. Creationists are not the only ones who believe in what you say is stupid stuff. The core of all faith is the resurrection of Christ and his life and miracles. Science would also say this is non-verifiable yet millions upon millions of people believe this, many who are supporters of evolution, scientists and intelligent coherent people, some in the past founded our greatest theories, are they all stupid ?.

My point was that there is also a worldview about science where people believe just about whatever is claimed is right without question which also requires faith. The claim that just because it is science that it can never be influenced by humans who have a tendency to believe in things without verification is naive. The subject of science itself may seek the truth and only stand if verified and therefore things need to be questioned is correct. But those behind it do not always act that way and in fact, there is a dominant worldview that can permeate our teaching institutions that promotes a certain world views that is just as much indoctrinated as religion.

So yes it is good to keep on searching for verification but I think even more prominent is that the humans behind science are basing scientific discoveries on faith in a world view and using that as a way to support their atheism. They have a blinkered view that there can only be certain outcomes that can be predicted which affects their predictions and that is why they get it so wrong so often.

But in your original post, the one I responded to, you made it sound like science proving itself wrong was a bad thing.

 

[tas8831]

a van is also a combination between a car and a truck. but it doesnt prove any evolution. right?

Why would something that humans made have anything to do with evolution?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I tell people what I know related to the issue raised in the OP. This is what you called to "make a claim".
Accept it or not is your business, not mine. I have no obligation to explain anything to anyone here. If you like to question/discuss, I am always here to fully answer what you questioned.

What you claimed to 'know' was incoherent (i.e. was nonsense by the commonly accepted meanings of the words you used). When asked to explain, you obfuscated and evaded. We've seen this kind of behaviour before, so it's no great surprise, but worth pointing out.

I do this for two reasons: 1. love myself; 2. love you. I don't care if you accept what I said or not. And I don't care if you want to understand it or not.

The first point is obvious; the second is slightly disturbing - you don't know me to love me; to love me on the basis of some forum posts is a bit sad and creepy.

But if point 2 is true, and your 'love' was of any practical value, you'd have made your best efforts to answer my questions and explain your meaning. If what you've posted was your best efforts, either you were talking nonsense, or you're incapable of coherently answering or explaining; alternatively, your 'love' is of no practical value.

Either way, it doesn't reflect well on what you've posted.

 

[VirOptimus]

a van is also a combination between a car and a truck. but it doesnt prove any evolution. right?

Are you serious?

This is an incredibly stupid post.

 

[Shemjaza]

a van is also a combination between a car and a truck. but it doesnt prove any evolution. right?

Do you actually ignore the content of every response to your posts?

CARS DON'T BREED! TRUCKS DON'T BREED!
BIRDS DO BREED! DINOSAURS DID BREED! REPTILES DO BREED!

We know for a fact that reptiles and birds reproduce with variation via the mechanisms in DNA... and given everything we know about extant life we have every reason to extrapolate this to extinct life.

No please don't respond to facts found in the real world with your totally ridiculous hypothetical magical animal cars. I don't care if the intelligent design of organisms is possible, there just isn't any evidence that it happened to the life we see on Earth.

 

[VirOptimus]

I didnt intent to give that impression. As you can see from my post when I say they predicted this and they will probably be wrong again I am talking about those behind the predictions. Brightmoon was saying Creationists and believers in God believe anything the bible says so he was referring to the people behind the faith as being stupid. I was merely pointing out that the people behind science can also believe in things that some would say is unreal or unverifiable and I guess stupid and it is often because it cannot be verified that they can come up with far fetched ideas and make up new ideas and predictions loosely based on indirect evidence that could mean anything and then call it science which is false. But becuaseit is labelled under the tag science for some reason people situp and believe anything without question. I also call that faith. At least religion acknowledges that it is faith based and there is no scientific verification for it.

Your use of faith as regards to science has no basis is reality but is just wishful thinking on your part.

 

[juvenissun]

What you claimed to 'know' was incoherent (i.e. was nonsense by the commonly accepted meanings of the words you used). When asked to explain, you obfuscated and evaded. We've seen this kind of behaviour before, so it's no great surprise, but worth pointing out.

I have never do that. I ALWAYS fully answer a specific question. (or no answer at all to some unworthy ones). Just ask to explain a big idea is not good. For example, please explain Christianity. I do not intend to give answer more than the question asked. The question has to be specific. Vague question only deserves a vague answer.

For example, this reply FULLY refuted your accusation which is hi-lighted.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I have never do that. I ALWAYS fully answer a specific question. (or no answer at all to some unworthy ones). Just ask to explain a big idea is not good. For example, please explain Christianity. I do not intend to give answer more than the question asked. The question has to be specific. Vague question only deserves a vague answer.

For example, this reply FULLY refuted your accusation which is hi-lighted.

You went on at length to try and claim that a rock was alive, when clearly you were refusing to simply admit that you were wrong.

 

[Kylie]

So, you may choose: Go away.

No. I'm not leaving just because you are completely incapable of backing up your outrageous claims.

 

[Kylie]

I tell people what I know related to the issue raised in the OP. This is what you called to "make a claim".
Accept it or not is your business, not mine. I have no obligation to explain anything to anyone here. If you like to question/discuss, I am always here to fully answer what you questioned. If you still don't understand and don't want to ask any more question, then you can go. I accomplished what I originally want to do: tell you what I know.

I do this for two reasons: 1. love myself; 2. love you. I don't care if you accept what I said or not. And I don't care if you want to understand it or not.

So, lemme get this straight. You claim rocks are alive, yet you provide no supporting evidence to back up this claim, and you can't even tell us how you define life.

Is this a joke?

 

[Kylie]

a van is also a combination between a car and a truck. but it doesnt prove any evolution. right?

Given that cars, trucks and vans are incapable of reproduction, of course it doesn't.

Are you going to get off this strawman any time soon?

 

[Kylie]

I have never do that. I ALWAYS fully answer a specific question. (or no answer at all to some unworthy ones). Just ask to explain a big idea is not good. For example, please explain Christianity. I do not intend to give answer more than the question asked. The question has to be specific. Vague question only deserves a vague answer.

For example, this reply FULLY refuted your accusation which is hi-lighted.

No you don't!

In post 567 I SPECIFICALLY asked you to provide the definition of life you were using to conclude that rocks are alive. In post 570, you gave a vague answer that explained nothing.

But that wasn't the first time that happened. In post 490, I asked you to "Define life for me please, so that we have a clear understanding of what is being spoken of."

Your response in post 493 was simply: "No use. If you strongly "believe" that rock is not alive, then you obviously won't agree with me on my definition of life."

Both times you were totally INCAPABLE of answering what definition of life you use.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Vague question only deserves a vague answer.

For example, this reply FULLY refuted your accusation which is hi-lighted.

I can feel the love already...

 

[juvenissun]

I can feel the love already...

Count my reply as a form of love. Some won't get it.

 

[juvenissun]

No. I'm not leaving just because you are completely incapable of backing up your outrageous claims.

I am completely capable to answer. YOU are not capable to ask.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I am completely capable to answer. YOU are not capable to ask.

Says the man who tried to say that rocks are alive and completely dodged every sane question to try and get him to explain why he thinks that rocks are alive.

 

[juvenissun]

So, lemme get this straight. You claim rocks are alive, yet you provide no supporting evidence to back up this claim, and you can't even tell us how you define life.

Is this a joke?

I did provide enough supporting arguments to one who asked, and I don't like to repeat it to many who asked the same question at later time. Which of your question I did not answer? For the sake of love, if you ask it again, I would answer it one more time.