| 1/30/2016 8:20:30 PM |
Let's get to specifics about evolution. |
|
followjesusonly
Kingman, AZ
73, joined May. 2012
|
It's like others have told you, go do some research for yourself if you really want to know.
You obviously do not believe anything anyone posts and I for one am tired of trying show you anything.
You will need to do your own homework or you can go your happy way in denial, All I am doing is rebutting FJOs mine quotes.
How can you rebut them? I agreed with them. You and Clarence should stop calling quotes from people, "quote mines." They are what they are, QUOTES. Calling them "quote mines" doesn't change what those people said. If Dawkins was being facetious, too bad for him. Facetious people get on jet planes and joke about having a bomb. Then they are escorted off. You have to live with what you say, and Dawkins said:
"...the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history."
You once said seek the truth, if you want truth use google if not it's your life live it in ignorance I just don't care.
Start with whales evolution.
Meet singles at DateHookup.dating, we're 100% free! Join now!
|
| 1/30/2016 8:29:20 PM |
Let's get to specifics about evolution. |
|
clarence2
South Yorkshire
United Kingdom
58, joined May. 2011
|
.
But...Aside from the fact that mutation is generally deleterious to survival of the individual (there are instances in microbiology where this is not the case, but is there any clearly documented case of beneficial mutation in any complex life form- aside from the presumption of species A, represented by fossil records, becoming species B of another record?)... the "herd instinct" (a readily observable phenomena) would result in any obvious mutation being "culled".
Most mutations are neutral, not deleterious, and the benefits of a particular mutation depend on the environment, which is a factor fundamental to evolution by natural selection. A mutation can be disadvantageous in one environment, while conferring benefit in another. For example, the gene for sickle cell anaemia, which is bad news for inheritors of two copies of the gene, prospered in Africa because one copy of the gene confers protection against Malaria, which can devastate populations. The genes for Cystic fibrosis and Tay-Sachs disease are also thought to have propagated in certain populations because one copy of their causitive genes confer disease resistance against tuberculosis and cholera, respectively.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/educators/course/session7/explain_b_pop1.html
Your "herd instinct" attack idea sounds like you take "mutation" to mean an animal developing an ostentatious trait that would instantly single it out from its species companions as a freak - like a mutant out of The X Men or something. A beneficial mutation would probably be more like the ones I describe above, or control a trait for something visually unnoticeable like slightly longer legs or sharper sight or hearing. You only have to consider human directed selection in domestic animals to see that physical traits are highly plastic and amenable to being manipulated and modified.
Clarence has presented counter argument to what has been coined the "watchmaker argument", but I find it unconvincing.
For convincing refutations of William Paley's Watchmaker argument I recommend Charles Darwin's "The Origin of Species" or popular books on evolution by such as Jerry Coyne, Donald Protheroe or Richard Dawkins
Eyes, lungs, feathers, etc.- Just how would any intermediate step towards these organs confer any benefit, or have any reason for proliferation?
Eyes have evolved independently as many as 40 and perhaps as many as 60 times in different designs, so can hardly be thought to represent a problem for evolution. Even a patch of light sensitive cells on the surface of an organism's body conveys some advantage, and plausible pathways have been identified by which the mammalian eye may have gradually evolved by the study of examples from nature.
Lungs are thought to have evolved in bony fish, along with gills, as an alternative method of extracting air gulped from the atmosphere in low oxygenated muddy water, and then to have altered function in most species of fishes to become the swim bladder, which serves to regulate bouyancy and by the position of the bladder towards the upper part of the body, to maintain an upright orientation. Any slight development of lunged fish to increase their capacity for extracting oxygen from the atmosphere would have been advantageous, so it isn't hard to imagine how lungs may plausibly have evolved and increased in size and capacity from humble beginnings.
[Edited 1/30/2016 8:31:37 PM ]
|
| 1/30/2016 8:29:39 PM |
Let's get to specifics about evolution. |
|
clarence2
South Yorkshire
United Kingdom
58, joined May. 2011
|
More stuff..
Wings evolved from the forelimbs of theropod dinosaurs. Indeed birds are living dinosaurs - the only dinosaur group that survived the Cretaceous-Tertiary mass extinction 65 nmillion years ago and was associated with a strike by a comet or asteroid. What the evidence is increasingly showing is that feathers were common to theropod dinosaurs and probably evolved initially for heat insulation and mating display before being co-opted for flight - which may have evolved via two mechanisms - either the trees down or the ground up hypothesis.
I think the ground up one is currently favoured by experts. The hypothesis posits that dinosaurs used feathered forelimbs to assist them in running and making small hops - perhaps to evade predators. This sort of action could have developed by degrees into gliding, followed by true flight. Also consider how bird species can lose the power of flight when there's no need for it - say due to a lack of ground predators, and the wings again can revert to relatively disordered structures unsuitable for flight but useful for display, insulation and scaring predators, as is the case in the ostrich for instance. In the absence of a need for flight ability, a species may develop other traits, like the gigantism of the ostrich and New Zealand's now extinct Giant Moas. Consider also how wings were modified to become flippers in penguins. This example shows better than anything the plasticity available in for birds wings to gradually become modified from serving one function to another entirely. And if those examples aren't enough, consider the evolution of flight in bats, which are mammals who evolved the ability to fly much later than the dinosaurs, and without the benefit of feathers. And pterosaurs, which evolved flight without the benefit of feathers and independantly from the dino group that produced birds Gliding mammals also come to mind, like flying squirrels, Colugos and their masupial counterparts, the Sugar Gliders. Very likely these animals developed flight as per the trees down hypothesis, by leaping from tree to tree. These examples show that evolution has no more trouble evolving flight in widely different orders of species than it does in evolving eyes.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/similarity_hs_12
Here's a "twist"-- How about, instead of "punctuated equilibrium" to explain what seem to be "sudden" changes, posit an outside agency.
One theory presented for the origin of life on Earth is microbes from meteorites.
Science is the study of natural laws, etc. and so is constrained (as per a source Clarence presented) from even considering "supernatural", but...the agency does not have to fall into that category. (Think Eric Von Daniken's concept).
Why is it so "far out" to hypothesize the possibility of "terraforming"?
Would that not explain all the observed data, including the records of various cultures that seem to be referring to life forms far superior to humans (as far as our known history anyway)?
Positing outside agencies that themselves have a biological origin does nothing to answer the problem of how life arose and speciated. Also, there's no serious evidence that intelligent aliens exist and have visited earth. Writers like Von Daniken are merely clever opportunists creatively misinterpreting ancient atefacts to cater to a public appetite fed by science fiction for out-of-this-world explanations of natural phenomena, much as prophets and priests performed this function in antiquity and used gods, anagels and devils as explanations. The chance of aliens reaching earth from whatever inhabited planets exist out there is infinitely more unlikely than the explanations of evolutionists that you blithely dismiss as "circular logic".
[Edited 1/30/2016 8:32:34 PM ]
|
| 1/30/2016 8:30:46 PM |
Let's get to specifics about evolution. |
|
followjesusonly
Kingman, AZ
73, joined May. 2012
|
None of the various hypothesi (is that the plural of hypothesis?) of the origin of homo sapien has been proved, not evolutionism, not creationism, none of them. Why don't we all just the humility to say that none of us know for sure?
I think the two choices are hypothesis and hypotheses.
But I could be wrong.
|
| 1/30/2016 8:35:43 PM |
Let's get to specifics about evolution. |
|
olderthandirt20
Waldron, AR
69, joined Jul. 2014
online now!
|
Dawkins also said
I once introduced a chapter on the so-called Cambrian Explosion with the words: "It is as though the fossils were planted there without any evolutionary history." Again, this was a rhetorical overture, intended to whet the reader's appetite for the explanation. Inevitably, my remark was gleefully quoted out of context. Creationists adore "gaps" in the fossil record.
Which puts your quote in context. And Dawkins called your quote "out of context".
|
| 1/30/2016 9:07:27 PM |
Let's get to specifics about evolution. |
|
clarence2
South Yorkshire
United Kingdom
58, joined May. 2011
|
.
And you're the guy who thinks that blacks evolved into Swedes and Vietnamese, right? Why are there still blacks then?
I can't understand why you'd have a problem with the concept of humans evolving regional variations such as differences in skin colour - which lets remember is only one of the superficial characters that mark varieties of human. Others include traits like hair type, facial bone structure, shape of eyes, distribution of body fat, lactose tolerance, prevalences of particular genetic diseases. It's weird that you (and the UB author) should single out skin colour as a big deal. Especially considering that most other plants and animals also have evolved into regional variations that look slightly different to each other - think African elephants, Indian elephants and Mammoths, or the Common Chimpanzee and the Bonobo, or Horses, Zebras, Donkeys etc. Nature abounds with species that split into different varieties, and they do this through the common cause of population dispersal and division, followed by divergence in character as each respective population accrues its own random genetic mutations which are then acted upon by natural selection in their particular environment - along with other mechanisms such as sexual selection and genetic drift.
And asking why there are still blacks is the kind of naive question that many ignorant people ask of If humans evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?"
Curious. 
[Edited 1/30/2016 9:09:07 PM ]
|
| 1/30/2016 9:39:58 PM |
Let's get to specifics about evolution. |
|
followjesusonly
Kingman, AZ
73, joined May. 2012
|
All in all there exists more specific verifiable evidence for evolution than either the urantan hypothesis of evolution or the biblical version of genesis.
Oh, you read The Urantia Book? Tell me, what is "the Urantian hypothesis?
There seems to be an epidemic around here of people not knowing what they're talking about.
|
| 1/30/2016 9:48:22 PM |
Let's get to specifics about evolution. |
|
cupocheer
Assumption, IL
67, joined May. 2010
|
|
| 1/30/2016 10:24:44 PM |
Let's get to specifics about evolution. |
|
thebard58
Hermiston, OR
57, joined Jul. 2010
|
Positing outside agencies that themselves have a biological origin does nothing to answer the problem of how life arose and speciated.
Granted. It does not answer the question of the origin of life. However... "seeding" would explain the diversity of life forms, and solve the dilemma of the Cambrian era that was referred to earlier in the thread.
...Also, there's no serious evidence that intelligent aliens exist and have visited earth. Writers like Von Daniken are merely clever opportunists creatively misinterpreting ancient atefacts...
Just what would you consider "serious evidence"? IMO Von Daniken presented his argument quite logically.
Whether someone deems what he considered evidence for his POV to be so, in fact, is subject to interpretation.
And one might make the same statement you make here about Von Daniken, in regards to espousers of evolution as the process/cause for the existence of diverse species.
...The chance of aliens reaching earth from whatever inhabited planets exist out there is infinitely more unlikely than the explanations of evolutionists that you blithely dismiss as "circular logic".
If I "blithely dismiss" something, I don't generally bother discussing it.
I am simply pointing out that IMO the same concept applies to discussions regarding evolution as the origin of the species, as is often asserted regarding theological discussions. (I.E.- A led to B, though we can't explain it...which contains the inherent assumption that A led to B.)
If you look over the sources you, yourself, have quoted, and see how many words such as "may have", "must have", or "might have" and "scientists" "think", or "believe", etc., you should (giving you credit for the intelligence I believe you possess) see what I mean.
And on what basis do you assess this likeliness (or lack thereof)?
Do we not live in a "young" sector, according to prevailing cosmic theory?
Something I found intriguing about Von Daniken's concept, is that it explains certain archaeological finds, and reports found in "religious" texts around the globe, including such things as the NAZCA lines, the "giants", and the designs for "vimana" found in the Vedas (I believe Jim has referred to those frequently).
Seems to me that extra-terrestrial interference would explain a lot of mysteries.
Why is that "theory" any less credible?
In essence, what I am saying is simply that the concept of "The Origin of the Species" is no really more proven than the ET scenario. (Which you seem to "blithely dismiss").
|
| 1/30/2016 10:35:06 PM |
Let's get to specifics about evolution. |
|
followjesusonly
Kingman, AZ
73, joined May. 2012
|
.
And you're the guy who thinks that blacks evolved into Swedes and Vietnamese, right? Why are there still blacks then?
I can't understand why you'd have a problem with the concept of humans evolving regional variations such as differences in skin colour - which lets remember is only one of the superficial characters that mark varieties of human. Others include traits like hair type, facial bone structure, shape of eyes, distribution of body fat, lactose tolerance, prevalences of particular genetic diseases. It's weird that you (and the UB author) should single out skin colour as a big deal. Especially considering that most other plants and animals also have evolved into regional variations that look slightly different to each other - think African elephants, Indian elephants and Mammoths, or the Common Chimpanzee and the Bonobo, or Horses, Zebras, Donkeys etc. Nature abounds with species that split into different varieties, and they do this through the common cause of population dispersal and division, followed by divergence in character as each respective population accrues its own random genetic mutations which are then acted upon by natural selection in their particular environment - along with other mechanisms such as sexual selection and genetic drift.
And asking why there are still blacks is the kind of naive question that many ignorant people ask of If humans evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?"
That's why I asked it, to mimic those who ask, "If humans evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" Sorry you didn't get the joke.
Get your common sense screwed on and eschew spouting dogma.
This,
Did not evovlve into this:
or this...
as you apparently want to believe, that blacks migrated out of Africa and magically, somehow, turned into Swedes and Englishmen and Vietnamese and Chinese and Japanese, and Apaches and Lakotas. It's ridiculous, and all you can do is spout science dogma about it, and that because you won't allow God's foot in the door. You're actually quite closed minded about that, you know?
When exactly did this "evolution" happen? You can't say.
|
| 1/30/2016 10:40:16 PM |
Let's get to specifics about evolution. |
|
followjesusonly
Kingman, AZ
73, joined May. 2012
|
Dawkins also said
I once introduced a chapter on the so-called Cambrian Explosion with the words: "It is as though the fossils were planted there without any evolutionary history." Again, this was a rhetorical overture, intended to whet the reader's appetite for the explanation. Inevitably, my remark was gleefully quoted out of context. Creationists adore "gaps" in the fossil record.
Which puts your quote in context. And Dawkins called your quote "out of context".
Doesn't matter. Dawkins still said what he said. "It is as though the fossils were planted there without any evolutionary history."
What are you trying to prove, exactly? That he didn't say it? That he didn't mean it? 
|
| 1/30/2016 11:26:03 PM |
Let's get to specifics about evolution. |
|
followjesusonly
Kingman, AZ
73, joined May. 2012
|
All in all there exists more specific verifiable evidence for evolution than either the urantan hypothesis of evolution or the biblical version of genesis.
First of all, the bible genesis account has little or nothing to do with The Urantia Book's account of EVOLUTION, which evolutionary account you know nothing about since you haven't read the book. The Urantia Book's account IS an evolutionary account. Any and All specific, verifiable, bona fide evolution evidence there is will support The Urantia Book's account. We're talking evidence here, however, not theory. As Darwin said: “When we descend to details, we cannot prove that a single species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory.
Is Darwin still right about that? If so, then your "evidence" must be thin.
And second, this is a religious forum and "evidence" is not required by believers for many things religious. It never ceases to amaze me how non believers continually assume they can demand evidence of everything and that they have "won" the argument if no evidence is forthcoming. It's like the guy who said, "If you want to live off the grid, move to Afghanistan." If you want "evidence" for everything, don't debate on a religious forum, debate on a science forum where evidence is expected. Religion is largely about belief sans evidence. Yes, the Genesis account of creation is wrong. Still, it's a nice story.
|
| 1/30/2016 11:34:56 PM |
Let's get to specifics about evolution. |
|
followjesusonly
Kingman, AZ
73, joined May. 2012
|
Also, there's no serious evidence that intelligent aliens exist and have visited earth.
Yes, there probably is, and not only earth, but you are closed to it, unless and until some authority like the government or the Catholic church announces it, you won't accept it.
The chance of aliens reaching earth from whatever inhabited planets exist out there is infinitely more unlikely than the explanations of evolutionists that you blithely dismiss as "circular logic".
You're probably wrong about that too. How did you determine it's "infinitely more unlikely"? The chance is quite high actually, imo, if they are from our solar system in the first place. Elon Musk says he's going to put a man on Mars in 10 years. What if we had an alien race living right here in our solar system and their "10 years" to Mars situation happened 50,000 years ago? They'd have been all over the solar system by now, and perhaps explored around the nearby stars as well.
|
| 1/30/2016 11:39:54 PM |
Let's get to specifics about evolution. |
|
followjesusonly
Kingman, AZ
73, joined May. 2012
|
Older, there is plenty of evidence that species change within the species, generation after generation, but where is the evidence that one mammal species ever evolved into another one?
"Oh, we suppose it happened that way," say many scientists. That's not proof. Or even evidence.
Ludlow is right. And Ludlow is an expert at assertions. He knows one when he sees one.
|
| 1/30/2016 11:47:00 PM |
Let's get to specifics about evolution. |
|
followjesusonly
Kingman, AZ
73, joined May. 2012
|
Has it been proved that whales evolved from or into another species? I'd like to see this proof. And even if there is proof, that doesn't prove humans evolved from anything.
They have assertions, and when they assert something, they want you (and me) to assume that their assertion is proof. You know how that works, Lud.
And otd said, "All I am doing is rebutting FJOs mine quotes."
You are not rebutting anything I said. You are rebutting Stephen Jay Gould, Dawkins, and Darwin and what THEY said. Calling quotes "quote mines" does not invalidate the quotes. They're just quotes.
Main Entry: quote
1 : to speak or write a passage from another usually with acknowledgment; also : to repeat a passage in substantiation or illustration
2 : to state the market price of a commodity, stock, or bond
3 : to inform a hearer or reader that matter following is quoted
–quote noun
Are you arguing with Darwin?
“When we descend to details, we cannot prove that a single species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory.
|
| 1/31/2016 12:55:50 AM |
Let's get to specifics about evolution. |
|
olderthandirt20
Waldron, AR
69, joined Jul. 2014
online now!
|
Oh, you read The Urantia Book? Tell me, what is "the Urantian hypothesis?
There seems to be an epidemic around here of people not knowing what they're talking about.
Well no I have not read the entire book only parts like;
The Urantia Book
Paper 62
The Dawn Races of Early Man
Excerpt: 62:0.1 (703.1) ABOUT one million years ago the immediate ancestors of mankind made their appearance by three successive and sudden mutations stemming from early stock of the lemur type of placental mammal. The dominant factors of these early lemurs were derived from the western or later American group of the evolving life plasm. But before establishing the direct line of human ancestry, this strain was reinforced by contributions from the central life implantation evolved in Africa. The eastern life group contributed little or nothing to the actual production of the human species.
http://www.urantia.org/urantia-book-standardized/paper-62-dawn-races-early-man
Paper 63
The First Human Family
Excerpt: 63:0.1 (711.1) URANTIA was registered as an inhabited world when the first two human beings — the twins — were eleven years old, and before they had become the parents of the first-born of the second generation of actual human beings. And the archangel message from Salvington, on this occasion of formal planetary recognition, closed with these words:
63:0.2 (711.2) “Man-mind has appeared on 606 of Satania, and these parents of the new race shall be called Andon and Fonta. And all archangels pray that these creatures may speedily be endowed with the personal indwelling of the gift of the spirit of the Universal Father.”
http://www.urantia.org/urantia-book-standardized/paper-63-first-human-family
Paper 64
The Evolutionary Races of Color
Excerpt: 64:0.1 (718.1) THIS is the story of the evolutionary races of Urantia from the days of Andon and Fonta, almost one million years ago, down through the times of the Planetary Prince to the end of the ice age.
64:0.2 (718.2) The human race is almost one million years old, and the first half of its story roughly corresponds to the pre-Planetary Prince days of Urantia. The latter half of the history of mankind begins at the time of the arrival of the Planetary Prince and the appearance of the six colored races and roughly corresponds to the period commonly regarded as the Old Stone Age.
http://www.urantia.org/urantia-book-standardized/paper-64-evolutionary-races-color
Which is enough to let me ascertain it's bogus evolution in a nutshell.
|
| 1/31/2016 1:02:58 AM |
Let's get to specifics about evolution. |
|
olderthandirt20
Waldron, AR
69, joined Jul. 2014
online now!
|
First of all, the bible genesis account has little or nothing to do with The Urantia Book's account of EVOLUTION, which evolutionary account you know nothing about since you haven't read the book. The Urantia Book's account IS an evolutionary account. Any and All specific, verifiable, bona fide evolution evidence there is will support The Urantia Book's account. We're talking evidence here, however, not theory. As Darwin said: “When we descend to details, we cannot prove that a single species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory.
Is Darwin still right about that? If so, then your "evidence" must be thin.
And second, this is a religious forum and "evidence" is not required by believers for many things religious. It never ceases to amaze me how non believers continually assume they can demand evidence of everything and that they have "won" the argument if no evidence is forthcoming. It's like the guy who said, "If you want to live off the grid, move to Afghanistan." If you want "evidence" for everything, don't debate on a religious forum, debate on a science forum where evidence is expected. Religion is largely about belief sans evidence. Yes, the Genesis account of creation is wrong. Still, it's a nice story.
Yes Darwin was right for his time, however scientific advances such as DNA and many new fossil discoveries have provided a lot of new knowledge that Darwin didn't have.
You can call the evidence thin but the UB evidence, well it's just not there now is it?
|
| 1/31/2016 1:14:21 AM |
Let's get to specifics about evolution. |
|
olderthandirt20
Waldron, AR
69, joined Jul. 2014
online now!
|
Quote from FJO
They have assertions, and when they assert something, they want you (and me) to assume that their assertion is proof. You know how that works, Lud.
If you care to pay attention I asked lud to research for himself not to assume anything.
Quote from OTD
It's like others have told you, go do some research for yourself if you really want to know.
You obviously do not believe anything anyone posts and I for one am tired of trying show you anything.
You will need to do your own homework or you can go your happy way in denial, All I am doing is rebutting FJOs mine quotes.
You once said seek the truth, if you want truth use google if not it's your life live it in ignorance I just don't care.
Start with whales evolution.
|
| 1/31/2016 1:59:15 AM |
Let's get to specifics about evolution. |
|
followjesusonly
Kingman, AZ
73, joined May. 2012
|
Yes Darwin was right for his time, however scientific advances such as DNA and many new fossil discoveries have provided a lot of new knowledge that Darwin didn't have.
You can call the evidence thin but the UB evidence, well it's just not there now is it?
Well, I donno. Read the book and then you tell me.
|
| 1/31/2016 2:00:43 AM |
Let's get to specifics about evolution. |
|
followjesusonly
Kingman, AZ
73, joined May. 2012
|
Which is enough to let me ascertain it's bogus evolution in a nutshell.
How did you ascertain it, exactly? I missed that part.
|
| 1/31/2016 2:02:47 AM |
Let's get to specifics about evolution. |
|
followjesusonly
Kingman, AZ
73, joined May. 2012
|
Yes Darwin was right for his time, however scientific advances such as DNA and many new fossil discoveries have provided a lot of new knowledge that Darwin didn't have.
You can call the evidence thin but the UB evidence, well it's just not there now is it?
So you might say that Darwin's theories have been "discarded" since they were right for his time but now, not so much?
How about you, Clarence? Darwin discarded?
|
| 1/31/2016 2:04:40 AM |
Let's get to specifics about evolution. |
|
followjesusonly
Kingman, AZ
73, joined May. 2012
|
Quote from FJO
They have assertions, and when they assert something, they want you (and me) to assume that their assertion is proof. You know how that works, Lud.
If you care to pay attention I asked lud to research for himself not to assume anything.
Lud's not going to do that, nor would I. That's no different from a Christian who says they can prove what they say, and all you have to do is read the entire bible.
|
| 1/31/2016 2:10:22 AM |
Let's get to specifics about evolution. |
|
olderthandirt20
Waldron, AR
69, joined Jul. 2014
online now!
|
So you might say that Darwin's theories have been "discarded" since they were right for his time but now, not so much?
How about you, Clarence? Darwin discarded?
You might say that but I did not.
Why would you try to put words in my mouth?
Rather than trying to play the ventriloquist why don't you point out where I have misrepresented TUB like you did earlier?
|
| 1/31/2016 2:13:19 AM |
Let's get to specifics about evolution. |
|
followjesusonly
Kingman, AZ
73, joined May. 2012
|
Seems to me that extra-terrestrial interference would explain a lot of mysteries.
Why is that "theory" any less credible?
In essence, what I am saying is simply that the concept of "The Origin of the Species" is no really more proven than the ET scenario. (Which you seem to "blithely dismiss").
Nicely said, Bard.
49:3.5 On the nonbreathing worlds the animal species are radically unlike those found on the atmospheric planets. The nonbreathing plan of life varies from the technique of existence on an atmospheric world; even in survival their peoples differ, being candidates for Spirit fusion. Nevertheless, these beings enjoy life and carry forward the activities of the realm with the same relative trials and joys that are experienced by the mortals living on atmospheric worlds. In mind and character the nonbreathers do not differ from other mortal types.
49:3.6 You would be more than interested in the planetary conduct of this type of mortal because such a race of beings inhabits a sphere in close proximity to Urantia.
-The Urantia Book
They live right here in our solar system. They aren't coming from another star. Most any of the airless-atmosphereless worlds in our solar system would suffice, and we have a lot of them.
|
| 1/31/2016 2:14:02 AM |
Let's get to specifics about evolution. |
|
olderthandirt20
Waldron, AR
69, joined Jul. 2014
online now!
|
Lud's not going to do that, nor would I. That's no different from a Christian who says they can prove what they say, and all you have to do is read the entire bible.
Do you speak for lud too?
It's no different than you trying to get people to read TUB.
|
| 1/31/2016 2:16:27 AM |
Let's get to specifics about evolution. |
|
followjesusonly
Kingman, AZ
73, joined May. 2012
|
You might say that but I did not.
Why would you try to put words in my mouth?
Rather than trying to play the ventriloquist why don't you point out where I have misrepresented TUB like you did earlier?
I said what I said facetiously because Clarence always says that a theory he doesn't like has been "discarded." But that's the way it is. A theory is in vogue today, discarded tomorrow.
When did I say you misrepresented The Urantia Book? You'll have to refresh me. Quote me please.
|
| 1/31/2016 2:20:07 AM |
Let's get to specifics about evolution. |
|
followjesusonly
Kingman, AZ
73, joined May. 2012
|
Do you speak for lud too?
It's no different than you trying to get people to read TUB.
I predict that Lud will not do the research that you advised him to do. Nor would I. We're busy people. Lud has to go to Mass and I have stuff to do as well. Believe what you want to believe. That's what I do. I'm not trying to get you to believe ANYTHING that I believe. I don't have time to read everything that current science has to say about evolution, or whale evolution. Sorry. This isn't the Science Forum. Does DH have one? I'm sure this ain't it.
Yes, I would like people to read The Urantia Book. But that's all. Whether or not they believe it is up to them. I don't try convince anyone of the truth of The Urantia Book or anything in it, they have to convince themselves. It's not the usual way, like for Christianity, how they do it, with their hard sell. We don't do that. We just say, "You have to read it to believe it." They're on their own.
[Edited 1/31/2016 2:23:02 AM ]
|
| 1/31/2016 2:26:41 AM |
Let's get to specifics about evolution. |
|
followjesusonly
Kingman, AZ
73, joined May. 2012
|
Do you speak for lud too?
It's no different than you trying to get people to read TUB.
It is different. You apparently want Lud to research evolution so that he will see "the truth" as you do.
I just want people to read The Urantia Book so that they will see whatever they see. "Come and see," as Philip said to Nathaniel in the NT. What could be more reasonable than that?
|
| 1/31/2016 2:26:45 AM |
Let's get to specifics about evolution. |
|
olderthandirt20
Waldron, AR
69, joined Jul. 2014
online now!
|
Oh, you read The Urantia Book? Tell me, what is "the Urantian hypothesis?
There seems to be an epidemic around here of people not knowing what they're talking about.
|
| 1/31/2016 2:52:26 AM |
Let's get to specifics about evolution. |
|
nonstandard
York, PA
53, joined Jun. 2009
|
I wish that I could partake , but follow bs only , don't want me in on the action .
|
| 1/31/2016 3:55:08 AM |
Let's get to specifics about evolution. |
|
olderthandirt20
Waldron, AR
69, joined Jul. 2014
online now!
|
It is different. You apparently want Lud to research evolution so that he will see "the truth" as you do.
I just want people to read The Urantia Book so that they will see whatever they see. "Come and see," as Philip said to Nathaniel in the NT. What could be more reasonable than that?
There you go making assumptions again, biased much?
You want people to read your blue book and decide and that's acceptable.
I want lud to discover the mechanics of evolution so he can ask intelligent questions concerning evolution. And I'm the bad guy?
|
| 1/31/2016 8:46:33 AM |
Let's get to specifics about evolution. |
|
jester0011
Lake Waccamaw, NC
48, joined Jun. 2014
online now!
|
its flawed for sure.
|
| 1/31/2016 8:47:29 AM |
Let's get to specifics about evolution. |
|
jrbogie1949
Red Bluff, CA
67, joined Mar. 2009
|
Something I found intriguing about Von Daniken's concept, is that it explains certain archaeological finds, and reports found in "religious" texts around the globe, including such things as the NAZCA lines, the "giants", and the designs for "vimana" found in the Vedas (I believe Jim has referred to those frequently).
Seems to me that extra-terrestrial interference would explain a lot of mysteries.
Why is that "theory" any less credible?
you simply can't seem to grasp what the term 'scientific theory' actually means. how can your et theory be tested under the strict scrutiny of the scientific method do produce predictable and repeatable results?
|
| 1/31/2016 9:17:43 AM |
Let's get to specifics about evolution. |
|
kb2222
Jacksonville, FL
75, joined Apr. 2011
|
you simply can't seem to grasp what the term 'scientific theory' actually means. how can your et theory be tested under the strict scrutiny of the scientific method do produce predictable and repeatable results?
Indeed, how can the scientific "Big Bang Theory" "be tested under the strict scrutiny of the scientific method do produce predictable and repeatable results"?
It can't and it is nothing more than a unproven and untestable hypothesis falsely presented to the public as fact.
|
| 1/31/2016 9:25:31 AM |
Let's get to specifics about evolution. |
|
aphrodisianus
Leander, TX
66, joined Oct. 2013
|
Indeed, how can the scientific "Big Bang Theory" "be tested under the strict scrutiny of the scientific method do produce predictable and repeatable results"?
It can't and it is nothing more than a unproven and untestable hypothesis falsely presented to the public as fact.
You're scientifically illiterate. Tested at CERN.
|
| 1/31/2016 9:34:27 AM |
Let's get to specifics about evolution. |
|
jrbogie1949
Red Bluff, CA
67, joined Mar. 2009
|
You're scientifically illiterate. Tested at CERN.
along with cassini, hubble, wmap and others. this is of course foreign to the god fearing folks as they don't seem to understand the scientific method.
[Edited 1/31/2016 9:34:49 AM ]
|
| 1/31/2016 9:35:02 AM |
Let's get to specifics about evolution. |
|
kb2222
Jacksonville, FL
75, joined Apr. 2011
|
You're scientifically illiterate. Tested at CERN.
Nonsense. They don't even know what 95% of the universe IS (i.e. dark matter/dark energy) yet they claim it all came from a infinitesimally small and dense point 13.8 billion years ago that suddenly exploded (expanded) and that's pure untestable SPECULATION.
|
| 1/31/2016 9:37:37 AM |
Let's get to specifics about evolution. |
|
aphrodisianus
Leander, TX
66, joined Oct. 2013
|
Nonsense. They don't even know what 95% of the universe IS (i.e. dark matter/dark energy) yet they claim it all came from a infinitesimally small and dense point 13.8 billion years ago that suddenly exploded (expanded) and that's pure untestable SPECULATION.
You're too stupid to understand the scientist method and have no clue about what is already known in physics.
|
| 1/31/2016 9:48:24 AM |
Let's get to specifics about evolution. |
|
kb2222
Jacksonville, FL
75, joined Apr. 2011
|
You're too stupid to understand the scientist method and have no clue about what is already known in physics.
You are really an arrogant idiot and you can't support your statement that the BBT as been "Tested at CERN."
|
| 1/31/2016 10:00:22 AM |
Let's get to specifics about evolution. |
|
aphrodisianus
Leander, TX
66, joined Oct. 2013
|
You are really an arrogant idiot and you can't support your statement that the BBT as been "Tested at CERN."
You're too uneducated to know what goes on there. You're a religious ignoramus. You're too ignorant to understand the works Einstein, Alan Guth, Higgs, Krauss, and the thousands of physicists employed at CERN and around the world.
So what extraterrestrials wrote the Urantia? Your source for knowledge isn't science. It's psychosis and just plain stupidity.
|
| 1/31/2016 10:37:50 AM |
Let's get to specifics about evolution. |
|
kb2222
Jacksonville, FL
75, joined Apr. 2011
|
You're too uneducated to know what goes on there. You're a religious ignoramus. You're too ignorant to understand the works Einstein, Alan Guth, Higgs, Krauss, and the thousands of physicists employed at CERN and around the world.
So what extraterrestrials wrote the Urantia? Your source for knowledge isn't science. It's psychosis and just plain stupidity.
You are really an arrogant idiot and you can't support your statement that the BBT as been "Tested at CERN."
|
| 1/31/2016 11:19:18 AM |
Let's get to specifics about evolution. |
|
olderthandirt20
Waldron, AR
69, joined Jul. 2014
online now!
|
Space theology is no replacement for biology or physics it leaves you dumbfounded over the simplest things.
[Edited 1/31/2016 11:19:42 AM ]
|
| 1/31/2016 11:25:16 AM |
Let's get to specifics about evolution. |
|
kb2222
Jacksonville, FL
75, joined Apr. 2011
|
Obviously you can't support your claim and just as obvious is that you are on the path to mind disruption and insanity.
|
| 1/31/2016 11:57:03 AM |
Let's get to specifics about evolution. |
|
olderthandirt20
Waldron, AR
69, joined Jul. 2014
online now!
|
You're too dull to understand what has been proven many times.
You fail to comprehend simple biology, how can you speak on cosmology with any intelligence?
|
| 1/31/2016 12:23:00 PM |
Let's get to specifics about evolution. |
|
kb2222
Jacksonville, FL
75, joined Apr. 2011
|
Obviously you can't support your claim and just as obvious is that you are on the path to mind disruption and insanity.
|
| 1/31/2016 12:28:29 PM |
Let's get to specifics about evolution. |
|
aphrodisianus
Leander, TX
66, joined Oct. 2013
|
Mental disruption
the authors are all non-humans
  
|
| 1/31/2016 12:32:54 PM |
Let's get to specifics about evolution. |
|
olderthandirt20
Waldron, AR
69, joined Jul. 2014
online now!
|
|
| 1/31/2016 12:50:57 PM |
Let's get to specifics about evolution. |
|
aphrodisianus
Leander, TX
66, joined Oct. 2013
|
Kb2222,
Is that what they look like? I'd hate to think olderthandirt is misrepresenting your beliefs. You should set the record straight. You must have pictures from your meetings with them.
|
| 1/31/2016 1:20:44 PM |
Let's get to specifics about evolution. |
|
thebard58
Hermiston, OR
57, joined Jul. 2010
|
you simply can't seem to grasp what the term 'scientific theory' actually means. how can your et theory be tested under the strict scrutiny of the scientific method do produce predictable and repeatable results?
Apply the same standard to BBT or Origin of the species.
Actually, I'm not certain what would constitute "predictable and repeatable results" that would be considered validation of BBT. I would say that some sort of duplication, in miniature, under laboratory conditions, would be required for a definitive proof.
Has anyone succeeded in this?
(Of course, I'm not saying they should, as the result might be as hazardous as creating a singularity.)
The last I knew (granted I don't subscribe to physics journals, because cosmology, etc. is not an area of great interest to me) BBT, though fairly commonly accepted, was still a matter of debate in the scientific community (along with "string theory", and many conjectures and hypothesis related to "quantum physics").
Similarly, though the attempt has been made since at least the time of the proposing of the theory, no one has succeeded in causing inorganic matter to become "living".
And given the time scale, duplication of the theory of origin of the species might simply be impossible. But certainly someone should have been able to duplicate a broad divergence in some life form with limited life span and prolific reproduction.
In basic biology, we used fruit flies for study in genetics, due to these same characteristics. By now someone should certainly have been able to create not only new species, but indeed, one might suppose new genus, even new families of some life form.
|
| 1/31/2016 1:37:02 PM |
Let's get to specifics about evolution. |
|
olderthandirt20
Waldron, AR
69, joined Jul. 2014
online now!
|
Why does big bang theory , abiogenesis & biogenesis crop up in a thread on specifics of evolution?
Each is a separate non related subject.
|
| 1/31/2016 1:57:04 PM |
Let's get to specifics about evolution. |
|
nonstandard
York, PA
53, joined Jun. 2009
|
Everything is born with a belief that is totally bogus , they all learn from a universe that is totally genuine .
|
| 1/31/2016 2:23:13 PM |
Let's get to specifics about evolution. |
|
kb2222
Jacksonville, FL
75, joined Apr. 2011
|
Everything is born with a belief that is totally bogus , they all learn from a universe that is totally genuine .
What belief were you born with? And who says the universe is not genuine? Babbling is all you do and when questioned abut your babble you consistently refuse to answer.
|
| 1/31/2016 3:12:23 PM |
Let's get to specifics about evolution. |
|
up2youandme
Chandler, AZ
41, joined Jan. 2014
|
Apply the same standard to BBT or Origin of the species.
Actually, I'm not certain what would constitute "predictable and repeatable results" that would be considered validation of BBT. I would say that some sort of duplication, in miniature, under laboratory conditions, would be required for a definitive proof.
Has anyone succeeded in this?
(Of course, I'm not saying they should, as the result might be as hazardous as creating a singularity.)
The last I knew (granted I don't subscribe to physics journals, because cosmology, etc. is not an area of great interest to me) BBT, though fairly commonly accepted, was still a matter of debate in the scientific community (along with "string theory", and many conjectures and hypothesis related to "quantum physics").
Similarly, though the attempt has been made since at least the time of the proposing of the theory, no one has succeeded in causing inorganic matter to become "living".
And given the time scale, duplication of the theory of origin of the species might simply be impossible. But certainly someone should have been able to duplicate a broad divergence in some life form with limited life span and prolific reproduction.
In basic biology, we used fruit flies for study in genetics, due to these same characteristics. By now someone should certainly have been able to create not only new species, but indeed, one might suppose new genus, even new families of some life form.
If my memory serves me right,Stephen Hawking, the guy who first put forward the theory,recanted his theory. He said his mathematics was wrong and therefore cannot support his own theory.
|
| 1/31/2016 3:17:03 PM |
Let's get to specifics about evolution. |
|
nonstandard
York, PA
53, joined Jun. 2009
|
What belief were you born with? And who says the universe is not genuine? Babbling is all you do and when questioned abut your babble you consistently refuse to answer.
Everything is born to believe its the most important thing in the universe . Clean your ears once in a while douchebag .
|
| 1/31/2016 4:07:14 PM |
Let's get to specifics about evolution. |
|
kb2222
Jacksonville, FL
75, joined Apr. 2011
|
Everything is born to believe its the most important thing in the universe . Clean your ears once in a while douchebag .
If you think you believed at birth you were the most important thing in the universe you are NUTS.
|
| 1/31/2016 4:13:30 PM |
Let's get to specifics about evolution. |
|
nonstandard
York, PA
53, joined Jun. 2009
|
Its commonly called ego , as shitty as it may seem , no life would be here without it .
Things have to care about themselves , to be a thing .
Its total bullshit , luckily we have an environment to show us the way .
|
| 1/31/2016 4:16:46 PM |
Let's get to specifics about evolution. |
|
jrbogie1949
Red Bluff, CA
67, joined Mar. 2009
|
Apply the same standard to BBT or Origin of the species.
Actually, I'm not certain what would constitute "predictable and repeatable results" that would be considered validation of BBT. I would say that some sort of duplication, in miniature, under laboratory conditions, would be required for a definitive proof.
Has anyone succeeded in this? .
of course you're not certain what would constitute predictable and repeatable results that would prove a theory. you cannot understand that a scientific theory can never be proved to be correct? NEVER for crying out loud. tell ya what. you've been given several explanation of the term by accredited scientists explaining the term. until we can agree on what the term 'scientific theory' actually means we're simply speaking a different language. if none of the explanations you've been given are acceptable to you, why don't you give us your explanation and we'll see if we can at least agree on the term and then discuss the issue. all I can find from Webster's which you keep referring to so reverently is,
Noun 1. scientific theory - a theory that explains scientific observations; "scientific theories must be falsifiable"
a scientific theory is simply an explanation of what scientists have observed. nothing more. nothing less. scientists understand that no theory can ever be proved. all they can do is continue to gather evidence to be observed. either the evidence supports the theory or the theory is modified or even abandoned entirely.
|
| 1/31/2016 4:25:03 PM |
Let's get to specifics about evolution. |
|
nonstandard
York, PA
53, joined Jun. 2009
|
I cant pull on your tail , or tug on your ears , its a voluntary thing , that I have no control over .
|
| 1/31/2016 4:25:16 PM |
Let's get to specifics about evolution. |
|
kb2222
Jacksonville, FL
75, joined Apr. 2011
|
Its commonly called ego , as shitty as it may seem , no life would be here without it .
Things have to care about themselves , to be a thing .
Its total bullshit , luckily we have an environment to show us the way .
If you think you believed at birth you were the most important thing in the universe you are NUTS.
You didn't have a ego at birth.
|
| 1/31/2016 4:40:41 PM |
Let's get to specifics about evolution. |
|
kb2222
Jacksonville, FL
75, joined Apr. 2011
|
Quote from jrbogie1949: of course you're not certain what would constitute predictable and repeatable results that would prove a theory. you cannot understand that a scientific theory can never be proved to be correct? NEVER for crying out loud. tell ya what. you've been given several explanation of the term by accredited scientists explaining the term. until we can agree on what the term 'scientific theory' actually means we're simply speaking a different language. if none of the explanations you've been given are acceptable to you, why don't you give us your explanation and we'll see if we can at least agree on the term and then discuss the issue. all I can find from Webster's which you keep referring to so reverently is,
Noun 1. scientific theory - a theory that explains scientific observations; "scientific theories must be falsifiable"
a scientific theory is simply an explanation of what scientists have observed. nothing more. nothing less. scientists understand that no theory can ever be proved. all they can do is continue to gather evidence to be observed. either the evidence supports the theory or the theory is modified or even abandoned entirely.
~~~~~~~~
Theory
noun: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena ("A scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory")
OneLook Dictionary http://onelook.com/?w=theory&ls=a
What experiments validated the hypothesis?
|