The Fossil Record Proves Speciation, Not Evolution of Lifeforms Observed

[juvenissun]

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."

I think I did give you my definition after I said the above. Obviously I was right. My straight forward answer did not help at all. It is a good example that your question did not help you at all, i.e. not a right question.

Ed: As I went back to check. I did not answer in that post. But I remembered I did reply that question in another post (forgot which one). I don't like to have this burden. I am not doing any documentation here. It is a conversation. If you don't get my answer or not satisfied, then ASK AGAIN. If you don't bother, then so be it.

 

[juvenissun]

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.

A vague answer to you is usually a very clear cut, to the point answer to me. If you don't get it, then ASK AGAIN. If you do, I definitely don't mind to elaborate.

 

[stevevw]

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

If thats the case then why say scientists can't do that. You were referring to the people behind the science and thats what I was responding to. Thats why I said scientists can do that.

 

[stevevw]

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

I agree but it is just the same for some who support a scientific worldview that is also not based in reality. Just because some put some loose maths to the equations does not mean that it is real. What is reality anyway. This is part of the problem in that a naturalistic worldview can claim that the description they make of reality is the be all and end all. They can come up with some far-fetched idea of reality and so long as it fits their worldview it is science.

Does the quantum world act like the reality we have come to know in the world around us? Is there a particular version of reality that exists in the millions of alternative worlds proposed by the well-accepted theory of Many worlds and is that more real than ours. Many say what we see is not reality so how do we know. Support for a multiverse has just as much faith as some sort of realm where there may be an intelligent agent for which we call heaven.

 

[VirOptimus]

I agree but it is just the same for some who support a scientific worldview that is also not based in reality. Just because some put some loose maths to the equations does not mean that it is real. What is reality anyway. This is part of the problem in that a naturalistic worldview can claim that the description they make of reality is the be all and end all. They can come up with some far-fetched idea of reality and so long as it fits their worldview it is science.

Does the quantum world act like the reality we have come to know in the world around us? Is there a particular version of reality that exists in the millions of alternative worlds proposed by the well-accepted theory of Many worlds and is that more real than ours. Many say what we see is not reality so how do we know. Support for a multiverse has just as much faith as some sort of realm where there may be an intelligent agent for which we call heaven.

This post is 100 % wrong apart from that you use wishful thinking.

Educate yourself.

 

[DogmaHunter]

[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse], lol.....
Are the discussions of ridiculous car-evolution and "rocks are alive" STILL going?

Ow my.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Is there a particular version of reality that exists in the millions of alternative worlds proposed by the well-accepted theory of Many worlds and is that more real than ours.

Only someone who doesn't understand what Many Worlds means would ask that. All the 'worlds' of Many Worlds are superpositions of the universe's wavefunction in Hilbert space; they're all equally real.

 

[xianghua]

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.

realy? do you think that the flagellum is a spinning motor or not?

 

[Speedwell]

realy? do you think that the flagellum is a spinning motor or not?

I will repeat Shemjaza's main point, which you ignored:

"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."

With respect to your motor, I don't care if the intelligent desgn of the flagellum is possible or not. There is no evidence that it was designed. Just being motor-like is not evidence of it.

 

[xianghua]

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?

but even if they were able to do so the best explanation will still be that they dont evolved from a common descent. right?

 

[VirOptimus]

but even if they were able to do so the best explanation will still be that they dont evolved from a common descent. right?

Why keep using this worthless analogy?

 

[Heissonear]

This post is 100 % wrong apart from that you use wishful thinking.

Educate yourself.

Your world view has an extreme error. Evolution never happened. Look at the fossil record. Not one transitioning of of one oife fore to another by morphological steps. Out of billions of fossils.

Next.

 

[Heissonear]

Why keep using this worthless analogy?

A car will never be assembled by nature or natural processes.

This understanding iwill aleays forefront - not swept under the bus by debaters of bias origin.

 

[Heissonear]

[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse], lol.....
Are the discussions of ridiculous car-evolution and "rocks are alive" STILL going?

Ow my.

Ridiculous to you - since nature or natural processes will never produce a car, much less most of its highly engineered components, like the transmission.

Are you sweeping this reality under the bus like it has not meaning about nature producing higher life forms by a natural processes?

A debater of bias viewpoint, rather than seeker of truth?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Your world view has an extreme error. Evolution never happened. Look at the fossil record. Not one transitioning of of one oife fore to another by morphological steps. Out of billions of fossils.

Next.

Then why do hundreds of thousands of scientists worldwide say that evolution happened?

 

[Brightmoon]

Better yet why do they have evidence that evolution happens, happened in the past and will continue to happen?

 

[Shemjaza]

I will repeat Shemjaza's main point, which you ignored:

"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."

With respect to your motor, I don't care if the intelligent desgn of the flagellum is possible or not. There is no evidence that it was designed. Just being motor-like is not evidence of it.

What he said.

but even if they were able to do so the best explanation will still be that they dont evolved from a common descent. right?

But they don't and they can't, so stop, just stop.

A car will never be assembled by nature or natural processes.

This understanding iwill aleays forefront - not swept under the bus by debaters of bias origin.

Don't blame us for the ridiculous breeding cars and trucks nonsense. That's a creationist talking point.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Ridiculous to you - since nature or natural processes will never produce a car, much less most of its highly engineered components, like the transmission.

Indeed it won't. Which is why it is not a valid analogy for biological organisms.

Are you sweeping this reality under the bus like it has not meaning about nature producing higher life forms by a natural processes?

Cars and living things, are not the same thing
It's not even apples and oranges.
It's organic apples and plastic oranges.

A debater of bias viewpoint, rather than seeker of truth?

The bias here, is entirely in the camp of those with a priori religious beliefs.
This is why they feel a need to make such ridiculous comparisions.

 

[stevevw]

This post is 100 % wrong apart from that you use wishful thinking.

Educate yourself.

So how are parallel universes based in our reality. If parelelle worlds can have possibly millions of alternative makeups does this not support other realities besides our own. Yet some scientists support this idea and believe that there are alternative realities out there where all sorts of weird stuff can go on. Some believe in hologram realities where everything is just a 2D projection on some cosmic screen. How is this different from someone believing in an alternative reality such as a spiritual realm that may be just some dimension that defies what many think is reality.

 

[VirOptimus]

So how are parallel universes based in our reality. If parelelle worlds can have possibly millions of alternative makeups does this not support other realities besides our own. Yet some scientists support this idea and believe that there are alternative realities out there where all sorts of weird stuff can go on. Some believe in hologram realities where everything is just a 2D projection on some cosmic screen. How is this different from someone believing in an alternative reality such as a spiritual realm that may be just some dimension that defies what many think is reality.

Scientific hypothesis may seem outlandish, but they do always have a ground in facts and data. But there is often a long way before they may be confirmed and considered a scientific theory.

You really should learn how science works and how scientists work. Science and religion has nothing in common, they work under very different paradigms.

Just because you dont understand it doesnt make it not science or "faith".