Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You're correct, the problem is NOT your belief in God. However there is abundant evidence to support (macro)evolution. The fossil record clearly shows the genus Australopithecus was replaced by the genus Homo around 2.8 million years ago for example. There are plenty of other examples.The problem is NOT my belief in God. The problem is your lack of evidence to support your theory. Now.... I can see evidence of micro-evolution. These are mostly small adaptive changes to species over time, resulting in new species. They are almost always related to environment or natural necessity for reproduction through natural selection. BUT.... I see ZERO evidence to support MACRO-evolution, whereby species jump to a completely new genera. If that has happened, we should have plenty of evidence and there is none. Everything you can present is speculative.
If one believes in microevolution, then he has admitted to all of evolution.
The IDer argument that while microevolution is true, while macroevolution is false, is merely buying time instead of surrendering to science today.
Fossilization is a very rare process. Transitional fossils are extremely rare due to the short periods of time they existed and also the fact that they are small in number (they are transitioning on the edges of larger populations). Most of the fossils we are lucky enough to find occur during the long periods of statis when no evolution is occurring and populations are large.
For pre-human populations, they never were large in numbers. Not until farming gave rise to civilization and cities.
Yes, exactly, but I was talking about macroevolution that the IDers are so desperate for.But we still find examples of gradualism in the fossil record. Natural selection by the environment is only one mechanism of evolution. Genetic drift is another, significant mechanism, and it could certainly result in gradual change of a species over time and speciation, even in a fixed climate/environment.When we evolutionary biologists talk about evolution, we are talking in the past tense mostly. Organsims do not really evolve cuz there is no reason to. All life is finely tuned to its environment from previous evolution. For evolution to occur, something must change that opens up new environmental niches that cannot be filled by migration.Sorry but the world/science doesn't confirm to your expectaions. How many changes must there be before you say the finches are no longer finches?You are incorrect, they are considered separate species, at least by biologists. They have different genes and don't interbreed allowing the differences to be inherited by subsequent generations.
But no frogs become say lizards? Just finches becoming different finches
When they no longer are finches. It's hard to argue that a finch isn't a finch. Especially when even the scientific community calls them finches.
And btw it's not my expectation that's the issue. It's the theory of evolution that states that one create evolves into another creature. How exactly can this be true if science and reality don't confirm to those expectations?
You can't have it both ways. Either animals evolve into different animals or science and reality don't confirm to those expectations.
The history of life on this planet is one of long periods of stasis followed by the rapid radiation of new taxa due mainly to environmental change selection and other evolutionary mechanisms. This is where Chuck Darwin was wrong with his gradualism (which IDers are wrongly still stuck on).
I think I have to agree with those who feel evolution occurs at any and all speeds, and we can find examples all along the spectrum.
Half and halfs ~ LOLYou're correct, the problem is NOT your belief in God. However there is abundant evidence to support (macro)evolution. The fossil record clearly shows the genus Australopithecus was replaced by the genus Homo around 2.8 million years ago for example. There are plenty of other examples.The problem is NOT my belief in God. The problem is your lack of evidence to support your theory. Now.... I can see evidence of micro-evolution. These are mostly small adaptive changes to species over time, resulting in new species. They are almost always related to environment or natural necessity for reproduction through natural selection. BUT.... I see ZERO evidence to support MACRO-evolution, whereby species jump to a completely new genera. If that has happened, we should have plenty of evidence and there is none. Everything you can present is speculative.
But that is not an example because there are no "transitional" fossils to indicate anything replaced anything. We should find plenty of half and halfs... we don't. We have a lot of speculations... we lack clear irrefutable evidence.
All I need to do is extend your microevolution for a few more years, add some extinction events like asteroid impacts, ice ages, continential drift, etc. and shazaam!If one believes in microevolution, then he has admitted to all of evolution.
The IDer argument that while microevolution is true, while macroevolution is false, is merely buying time instead of surrendering to science today.
Nonsense. I believe it's possible for a species to undergo changes due to environmental pressures and natural selection to form new species over time. The species are still in the same genus taxon. I see no evidence that anything has ever leaped to a new genus in the evolution process. The fossil record doesn't show this.
Now if you want to fall back on the argument that "just because" science can't explain it today, doesn't mean they won't be able to explain it tomorrow, that's fine but it's a faith based argument no different than "God Did It!"
It is a cross we must bearFossilization is a very rare process. Transitional fossils are extremely rare due to the short periods of time they existed and also the fact that they are small in number (they are transitioning on the edges of larger populations). Most of the fossils we are lucky enough to find occur during the long periods of statis when no evolution is occurring and populations are large.
For pre-human populations, they never were large in numbers. Not until farming gave rise to civilization and cities.
That's a really nice explanation for why you have NO evidence to support your theory!
THANKS!
It is hard to convince the angry mob, but we do try!But "transitional fossils" (a somewhat nonsensical term) satisfying any silly or arbitrary constraint handed down by any know-nothing hack have still been found. That should clue them in as to how wrong they are.... even when their goofy conditions are granted, they are still wrong, in the end....
You try. I do not try. I long ago stopped engaging people in debates litigating the truth of strong theories, like evolution, or climate change. Now, i am content simply to point out the false things they say, and ridicule them for the absurd implication that they have somehow outsmarted decades of scientists who dedicated their lives to these fields of science. And I like to point out the other implications of their absurd suggestions, such as the implication that all scientists are liars engaged in conspiracy or incompetent, or the implication that some know-nothing hack has to remind scientists of their own discoveries (climate is always changing!!!).It is hard to convince the angry mob, but we do try!But "transitional fossils" (a somewhat nonsensical term) satisfying any silly or arbitrary constraint handed down by any know-nothing hack have still been found. That should clue them in as to how wrong they are.... even when their goofy conditions are granted, they are still wrong, in the end....
Oh, didn't hear that explanation for the lights, nor saw that they were indeed planes...it's a very odd formation for planes, but I certainly do not rule out planes. I was just going off of memory from the time (I think I was maybe 10), and all I remember is that they said they were flares, and even at ten I said the fuck they are. But still did not assume aliens. I kind of thought since then, they were military planes, testing some new surveillance tech and technique or something because of that very far apart but very consistent formation they were flying. I mean I take a bunch of friends out on my boat for the blue angles at the shore every year. They fly very precise, but not perfect....they're also much closer to me, and much closer together, and I'm also seeing them in person, not some 20 year old video. Anyway that's just the first example that I went to (looking for Halloween movies recently, theres one based on that event, made me think of it) too show something else eye raising, or sort of in the same category.Oh, I agree there is much we do not yet know about evolution, and the universe in general. To know it, it would be helpful for all of these people trying to stuff god into these gaps in our knowledge to stay the fk out of the way."If the natural living landscape is transformed in a relatively brief period (evolutionary wise)""Not necessarily incompatible"Not necessarily incompatible as the combatants make it out to be. In the years since Darwin, science has realized that "evolution" didn't muddle along at a snail's pace all the time. With all adaptations being based on survival. If that were true -- everything on the planet would have BIG TEETH and the ability to kill it's competition.
NOW we know that DNA is the key. And that expression of genes or the sequence of CATG is what moves evolution along. And we also know that is affected by cosmic rays, enviro stress, chemical exposure and rapid changes in climate. ALL of those things can be looked at by State Farm or Farmers as legal "acts of God". And during these periods, evolution moves quite quickly. Just as it does in the lab when you irradiate a jar of fruit flies.
It's NOT the Darwinian view anymore. It's a LOT more nuanced. And it allows for accelerated evolution where nobody should be expected to dig up a lot of "missing links". Because possibly -- there are none.
Of course not! Agreed wholeheartedly. One can point at anything, and say, "God did that!" Okay, fine.
If the natural living landscape is transformed in a relatively brief period (evolutionary wise), which is documented several times in the fossil record -- it kinda, sorta, almost starts looking like a cosmic ray storm or violent event is indeed an "act of God". That's what the insurance companies call it --- RIGHT?
Point is, the tree of life didn't "plod along" at a constant rate of growth and diversity.
Besides, if you look at the story of Creation in Genesis, it's REALLY NOT that far off from the researchsy, sciency version of events. How did they get that far before science began?
Nonsensical statement. "Evolutionary wise" can mean many things, depending on one's view of graduation and punctuation, and the overlap. You are selling snake oil, friend. You picked the wrong mark this time. And it's misleading, in that even those pushing punctuated evolution admit gradualism.
No, it does not "almost" look like an "act of God". Bullshit. That's you trying to cram magical nonsense in the gaps of our understanding. Same bullshit for 1000s of years. Nor do the examples of phyletic gradualism rule out an act of God. You are simply taking an overlay of magical bullshit and laying it on top of a scientific theory.
Yes, the story of Genesis, as it relates to human origin, is far off; as in, as far off as it gets. No, our genetic "Adan and Eve" did not meet. We know this. It is clearly 100% wrong .
I think what flacaltenn was referring to in genesis is the actual creation story of the heavens, earth and life. Which actually is not far off considering all the other creation stories from the thousands of other religions out there. This one came from a time where they didn't comprehend the earth was a sphere, or that the sun was a star, or what an actual star was. They didn't understand the concept of gravity, what blood did, what lightning was. No concept of energy, or matter, or disease was caused by microbes, or that microbes even existed, or that light has a speed. Schools didn't even exist, and they didn't even have the language or terms for half the shit I'm talking about. So that being considered, how close they got it does raise eyebrows, at least for me. Now you could say even a blind squirrel to that, absolutely. It doesn't prove anything one way or the other. I mean if a God was going to contact people, THESE PEOPLE, who thought the warm ball of light in the sky was spinning around THEM...and explain to them how of all this came about, to people who''d scratch their head at the basic concept of DNA...how we'll do you think they'd comprehend and explain that story to others? I mean they described a great void, then a burst of existence, then light, then a formation of heavens and earth, then a geo forming on earth with lands and sea, then plants, then fish, then animals, then humans (I think, I'm just going off of memory, haven't practiced since I was a kid). I mean try to explain what we know now to a five year old, and see how well they can recite it to 5 others, then see how those 5 explain it others...it could sound something a lot like that. Again you could say even a blind squirrel absolutely...but it is something that I, and I'm sure others find interesting.
I mean I find the Phoenix lights interesting. that doesn't mean I think aliens are among us and infiltrating government and abducting people and stuff. But that shit did not look like flares to me. I don't know what it was, could've been some government secret project or something, but if that doesn't raise your eyebrows...
And like it or not, there a still tons of questions that have our greatest minds scratching their heads, even when it comes to existence and life. Like the jump from non life to life, then the jump from prokaryotic life to eukaryotic life (which might even be more statistically rare than life to non life), and the jump of the mammal to human brain, which is a pretty significant jump compared to the rest of the field. To say that science has completely disproven god is ridiculous. If there is one, it's certainly outside of our realm of existence...since it created it, which includes our current and probably future reach of science. I also don't think you can prove god.
"but if that doesn't raise your eyebrows..."
Yes, but only because I don't, personally, understand it. It would not then rationally follow that nobody understands it, or that it cannot be understood. In fact, the reasonable assumption would be to assume it can be understood, and that this understanding likely does not involve some extraordinary or new concept or claim.
And I don't think they looked like flares. they looked like planes to me. And, voila, that's exactly what they were.
the second event of lights that evening were indeed, flares.
the Phoenix lights were long ago explained. as in, literally days after they were witnessed. Don't you find it odd that this "faux mystery" is still presented as a mystery?
I should also throw in here that taxonomic categories are very arbitrary. Some genera are much different from other genera. Not a lot of sponges, but tons of chordates (vertebrates), so with vertebrate, we smash a lot into a little name. Even then we add super, sub, infra, etc. Old taxonomy was by looks only and wow did they get it wrong.If one believes in microevolution, then he has admitted to all of evolution.
The IDer argument that while microevolution is true, while macroevolution is false, is merely buying time instead of surrendering to science today.
Nonsense. I believe it's possible for a species to undergo changes due to environmental pressures and natural selection to form new species over time. The species are still in the same genus taxon. I see no evidence that anything has ever leaped to a new genus in the evolution process. The fossil record doesn't show this.
Now if you want to fall back on the argument that "just because" science can't explain it today, doesn't mean they won't be able to explain it tomorrow, that's fine but it's a faith based argument no different than "God Did It!"
Oh, didn't hear that explanation for the lights, nor saw that they were indeed planes...it's a very odd formation for planes, but I certainly do not rule out planes. I was just going off of memory from the time (I think I was maybe 10), and all I remember is that they said they were flares, and even at ten I said the fuck they are. But still did not assume aliens. I kind of thought since then, they were military planes, testing some new surveillance tech and technique or something because of that very far apart but very consistent formation they were flying. I mean I take a bunch of friends out on my boat for the blue angles at the shore every year. They fly very precise, but not perfect....they're also much closer to me, and much closer together, and I'm also seeing them in person, not some 20 year old video. Anyway that's just the first example that I went to (looking for Halloween movies recently, theres one based on that event, made me think of it) too show something else eye raising, or sort of in the same category.Oh, I agree there is much we do not yet know about evolution, and the universe in general. To know it, it would be helpful for all of these people trying to stuff god into these gaps in our knowledge to stay the fk out of the way."If the natural living landscape is transformed in a relatively brief period (evolutionary wise)""Not necessarily incompatible"Not necessarily incompatible as the combatants make it out to be. In the years since Darwin, science has realized that "evolution" didn't muddle along at a snail's pace all the time. With all adaptations being based on survival. If that were true -- everything on the planet would have BIG TEETH and the ability to kill it's competition.
NOW we know that DNA is the key. And that expression of genes or the sequence of CATG is what moves evolution along. And we also know that is affected by cosmic rays, enviro stress, chemical exposure and rapid changes in climate. ALL of those things can be looked at by State Farm or Farmers as legal "acts of God". And during these periods, evolution moves quite quickly. Just as it does in the lab when you irradiate a jar of fruit flies.
It's NOT the Darwinian view anymore. It's a LOT more nuanced. And it allows for accelerated evolution where nobody should be expected to dig up a lot of "missing links". Because possibly -- there are none.
Of course not! Agreed wholeheartedly. One can point at anything, and say, "God did that!" Okay, fine.
If the natural living landscape is transformed in a relatively brief period (evolutionary wise), which is documented several times in the fossil record -- it kinda, sorta, almost starts looking like a cosmic ray storm or violent event is indeed an "act of God". That's what the insurance companies call it --- RIGHT?
Point is, the tree of life didn't "plod along" at a constant rate of growth and diversity.
Besides, if you look at the story of Creation in Genesis, it's REALLY NOT that far off from the researchsy, sciency version of events. How did they get that far before science began?
Nonsensical statement. "Evolutionary wise" can mean many things, depending on one's view of graduation and punctuation, and the overlap. You are selling snake oil, friend. You picked the wrong mark this time. And it's misleading, in that even those pushing punctuated evolution admit gradualism.
No, it does not "almost" look like an "act of God". Bullshit. That's you trying to cram magical nonsense in the gaps of our understanding. Same bullshit for 1000s of years. Nor do the examples of phyletic gradualism rule out an act of God. You are simply taking an overlay of magical bullshit and laying it on top of a scientific theory.
Yes, the story of Genesis, as it relates to human origin, is far off; as in, as far off as it gets. No, our genetic "Adan and Eve" did not meet. We know this. It is clearly 100% wrong .
I think what flacaltenn was referring to in genesis is the actual creation story of the heavens, earth and life. Which actually is not far off considering all the other creation stories from the thousands of other religions out there. This one came from a time where they didn't comprehend the earth was a sphere, or that the sun was a star, or what an actual star was. They didn't understand the concept of gravity, what blood did, what lightning was. No concept of energy, or matter, or disease was caused by microbes, or that microbes even existed, or that light has a speed. Schools didn't even exist, and they didn't even have the language or terms for half the shit I'm talking about. So that being considered, how close they got it does raise eyebrows, at least for me. Now you could say even a blind squirrel to that, absolutely. It doesn't prove anything one way or the other. I mean if a God was going to contact people, THESE PEOPLE, who thought the warm ball of light in the sky was spinning around THEM...and explain to them how of all this came about, to people who''d scratch their head at the basic concept of DNA...how we'll do you think they'd comprehend and explain that story to others? I mean they described a great void, then a burst of existence, then light, then a formation of heavens and earth, then a geo forming on earth with lands and sea, then plants, then fish, then animals, then humans (I think, I'm just going off of memory, haven't practiced since I was a kid). I mean try to explain what we know now to a five year old, and see how well they can recite it to 5 others, then see how those 5 explain it others...it could sound something a lot like that. Again you could say even a blind squirrel absolutely...but it is something that I, and I'm sure others find interesting.
I mean I find the Phoenix lights interesting. that doesn't mean I think aliens are among us and infiltrating government and abducting people and stuff. But that shit did not look like flares to me. I don't know what it was, could've been some government secret project or something, but if that doesn't raise your eyebrows...
And like it or not, there a still tons of questions that have our greatest minds scratching their heads, even when it comes to existence and life. Like the jump from non life to life, then the jump from prokaryotic life to eukaryotic life (which might even be more statistically rare than life to non life), and the jump of the mammal to human brain, which is a pretty significant jump compared to the rest of the field. To say that science has completely disproven god is ridiculous. If there is one, it's certainly outside of our realm of existence...since it created it, which includes our current and probably future reach of science. I also don't think you can prove god.
"but if that doesn't raise your eyebrows..."
Yes, but only because I don't, personally, understand it. It would not then rationally follow that nobody understands it, or that it cannot be understood. In fact, the reasonable assumption would be to assume it can be understood, and that this understanding likely does not involve some extraordinary or new concept or claim.
And I don't think they looked like flares. they looked like planes to me. And, voila, that's exactly what they were.
the second event of lights that evening were indeed, flares.
the Phoenix lights were long ago explained. as in, literally days after they were witnessed. Don't you find it odd that this "faux mystery" is still presented as a mystery?
"Like this apparent star system that's appears to be mostly covered by something we can't explain. Some suggest A Dyson sphere, or it could be some other natural event we just haven't thought of. Eye raising still."Oh, didn't hear that explanation for the lights, nor saw that they were indeed planes...it's a very odd formation for planes, but I certainly do not rule out planes. I was just going off of memory from the time (I think I was maybe 10), and all I remember is that they said they were flares, and even at ten I said the fuck they are. But still did not assume aliens. I kind of thought since then, they were military planes, testing some new surveillance tech and technique or something because of that very far apart but very consistent formation they were flying. I mean I take a bunch of friends out on my boat for the blue angles at the shore every year. They fly very precise, but not perfect....they're also much closer to me, and much closer together, and I'm also seeing them in person, not some 20 year old video. Anyway that's just the first example that I went to (looking for Halloween movies recently, theres one based on that event, made me think of it) too show something else eye raising, or sort of in the same category.Oh, I agree there is much we do not yet know about evolution, and the universe in general. To know it, it would be helpful for all of these people trying to stuff god into these gaps in our knowledge to stay the fk out of the way."If the natural living landscape is transformed in a relatively brief period (evolutionary wise)""Not necessarily incompatible"
Of course not! Agreed wholeheartedly. One can point at anything, and say, "God did that!" Okay, fine.
If the natural living landscape is transformed in a relatively brief period (evolutionary wise), which is documented several times in the fossil record -- it kinda, sorta, almost starts looking like a cosmic ray storm or violent event is indeed an "act of God". That's what the insurance companies call it --- RIGHT?
Point is, the tree of life didn't "plod along" at a constant rate of growth and diversity.
Besides, if you look at the story of Creation in Genesis, it's REALLY NOT that far off from the researchsy, sciency version of events. How did they get that far before science began?
Nonsensical statement. "Evolutionary wise" can mean many things, depending on one's view of graduation and punctuation, and the overlap. You are selling snake oil, friend. You picked the wrong mark this time. And it's misleading, in that even those pushing punctuated evolution admit gradualism.
No, it does not "almost" look like an "act of God". Bullshit. That's you trying to cram magical nonsense in the gaps of our understanding. Same bullshit for 1000s of years. Nor do the examples of phyletic gradualism rule out an act of God. You are simply taking an overlay of magical bullshit and laying it on top of a scientific theory.
Yes, the story of Genesis, as it relates to human origin, is far off; as in, as far off as it gets. No, our genetic "Adan and Eve" did not meet. We know this. It is clearly 100% wrong .
I think what flacaltenn was referring to in genesis is the actual creation story of the heavens, earth and life. Which actually is not far off considering all the other creation stories from the thousands of other religions out there. This one came from a time where they didn't comprehend the earth was a sphere, or that the sun was a star, or what an actual star was. They didn't understand the concept of gravity, what blood did, what lightning was. No concept of energy, or matter, or disease was caused by microbes, or that microbes even existed, or that light has a speed. Schools didn't even exist, and they didn't even have the language or terms for half the shit I'm talking about. So that being considered, how close they got it does raise eyebrows, at least for me. Now you could say even a blind squirrel to that, absolutely. It doesn't prove anything one way or the other. I mean if a God was going to contact people, THESE PEOPLE, who thought the warm ball of light in the sky was spinning around THEM...and explain to them how of all this came about, to people who''d scratch their head at the basic concept of DNA...how we'll do you think they'd comprehend and explain that story to others? I mean they described a great void, then a burst of existence, then light, then a formation of heavens and earth, then a geo forming on earth with lands and sea, then plants, then fish, then animals, then humans (I think, I'm just going off of memory, haven't practiced since I was a kid). I mean try to explain what we know now to a five year old, and see how well they can recite it to 5 others, then see how those 5 explain it others...it could sound something a lot like that. Again you could say even a blind squirrel absolutely...but it is something that I, and I'm sure others find interesting.
I mean I find the Phoenix lights interesting. that doesn't mean I think aliens are among us and infiltrating government and abducting people and stuff. But that shit did not look like flares to me. I don't know what it was, could've been some government secret project or something, but if that doesn't raise your eyebrows...
And like it or not, there a still tons of questions that have our greatest minds scratching their heads, even when it comes to existence and life. Like the jump from non life to life, then the jump from prokaryotic life to eukaryotic life (which might even be more statistically rare than life to non life), and the jump of the mammal to human brain, which is a pretty significant jump compared to the rest of the field. To say that science has completely disproven god is ridiculous. If there is one, it's certainly outside of our realm of existence...since it created it, which includes our current and probably future reach of science. I also don't think you can prove god.
"but if that doesn't raise your eyebrows..."
Yes, but only because I don't, personally, understand it. It would not then rationally follow that nobody understands it, or that it cannot be understood. In fact, the reasonable assumption would be to assume it can be understood, and that this understanding likely does not involve some extraordinary or new concept or claim.
And I don't think they looked like flares. they looked like planes to me. And, voila, that's exactly what they were.
the second event of lights that evening were indeed, flares.
the Phoenix lights were long ago explained. as in, literally days after they were witnessed. Don't you find it odd that this "faux mystery" is still presented as a mystery?
Which every once in a while those things come up. Like this apparent star system that's appears to be mostly covered by something we can't explain. Some suggest A Dyson sphere, or it could be some other natural event we just haven't thought of. Eye raising still.
Or a couple years back I read a story, from a reputable source, (I should try to find it, this story is in season now). But a mother from middle America somewhere, claimed her house was haunted and her kids were getting possessed. And (fuzzy on the details), but she either took them to a hospital, or got forced too, and the hospital thought with her claims that she was unfit parent with her mental health. Had a social worker there and a few nurses/staff who all apparently swear up and down they saw one of the kids walking sideways up a wall, talking in a way too deep voice and different language. And I guess the staff didn't want to go back to that floor the next few days and we're pretty freaked out, and pretty much told the mom we can't help you. Eye raising. True or not no clue. Bizarre shit, either a hoax that they were all in on (or the story was somehow fake and sources thought it was real), or maybe there is stuff like that out there. Thinking about it now the fake news part seems most likely, but 3 (or more) seeming strangers all being in on a hoax doesn't seem likely (especially since I don't think there was much publicity or money made off of it). I don't know how you'd fake walking up a wall in a hospital room you've never been too.
But "transitional fossils" (a somewhat nonsensical term) satisfying any silly or arbitrary constraint handed down by any know-nothing hack have still been found. That should clue them in as to how wrong they are.... even when their goofy conditions are granted, they are still wrong, in the end....
Define 'transitional fossil". And then we will show you several, and then watch you change your definition. All the while of accusing everyone else of intellectual dishonesty.But "transitional fossils" (a somewhat nonsensical term) satisfying any silly or arbitrary constraint handed down by any know-nothing hack have still been found. That should clue them in as to how wrong they are.... even when their goofy conditions are granted, they are still wrong, in the end....
But there aren't any examples of transitional fossils. It's not a nonsensical term unless you believe entirely new genus taxon just suddenly poof into existence through some kind of evolutionary magic.
I'm sorry you think it's a goofy condition to ask for evidence but that's how science works. If you just want someone to accept your faith-based philosophy, buy some air time on the community access channel for Sunday mornings, select a pontiff and give him a funny hat to wear or shave your heads, put on robes and go shake your tambourine down at the airport. I've heard these are very good ways to get others to believe your faith-based dogma. With science, you are required to submit valid, testable and falsifiable evidence we can evaluate.
If you don't have the evidence but you believe something is a likely explanation, just say that... I can respect that. You may be right! But what you're NOT going to do is parade around with a science book and pretend you've proven your theory when you haven't.
It is a silly leap. I don't think alien life is that silly of a leap, especially simple forms, and who the bleep knows when it comes to more advance forms. That doesn't mean I buy into the x files version. But I find it surprising that we're not able to explain this yet. I mean is it some mini, mostly consumed nebula around a very new star. That's my best explanation. I find it odd that this is apparently that rare of an event that we haven't encountered yet or even theoretically conceived yet. I mean we conceived black holes, and dark matter and energy before we even discovered strong evidence of those. And I get that it might not even be that rare, we just don't really see the light indicating "HEY THERES A STAR HERE," so just over look it."Like this apparent star system that's appears to be mostly covered by something we can't explain. Some suggest A Dyson sphere, or it could be some other natural event we just haven't thought of. Eye raising still."Oh, didn't hear that explanation for the lights, nor saw that they were indeed planes...it's a very odd formation for planes, but I certainly do not rule out planes. I was just going off of memory from the time (I think I was maybe 10), and all I remember is that they said they were flares, and even at ten I said the fuck they are. But still did not assume aliens. I kind of thought since then, they were military planes, testing some new surveillance tech and technique or something because of that very far apart but very consistent formation they were flying. I mean I take a bunch of friends out on my boat for the blue angles at the shore every year. They fly very precise, but not perfect....they're also much closer to me, and much closer together, and I'm also seeing them in person, not some 20 year old video. Anyway that's just the first example that I went to (looking for Halloween movies recently, theres one based on that event, made me think of it) too show something else eye raising, or sort of in the same category.Oh, I agree there is much we do not yet know about evolution, and the universe in general. To know it, it would be helpful for all of these people trying to stuff god into these gaps in our knowledge to stay the fk out of the way."If the natural living landscape is transformed in a relatively brief period (evolutionary wise)"If the natural living landscape is transformed in a relatively brief period (evolutionary wise), which is documented several times in the fossil record -- it kinda, sorta, almost starts looking like a cosmic ray storm or violent event is indeed an "act of God". That's what the insurance companies call it --- RIGHT?
Point is, the tree of life didn't "plod along" at a constant rate of growth and diversity.
Besides, if you look at the story of Creation in Genesis, it's REALLY NOT that far off from the researchsy, sciency version of events. How did they get that far before science began?
Nonsensical statement. "Evolutionary wise" can mean many things, depending on one's view of graduation and punctuation, and the overlap. You are selling snake oil, friend. You picked the wrong mark this time. And it's misleading, in that even those pushing punctuated evolution admit gradualism.
No, it does not "almost" look like an "act of God". Bullshit. That's you trying to cram magical nonsense in the gaps of our understanding. Same bullshit for 1000s of years. Nor do the examples of phyletic gradualism rule out an act of God. You are simply taking an overlay of magical bullshit and laying it on top of a scientific theory.
Yes, the story of Genesis, as it relates to human origin, is far off; as in, as far off as it gets. No, our genetic "Adan and Eve" did not meet. We know this. It is clearly 100% wrong .
I think what flacaltenn was referring to in genesis is the actual creation story of the heavens, earth and life. Which actually is not far off considering all the other creation stories from the thousands of other religions out there. This one came from a time where they didn't comprehend the earth was a sphere, or that the sun was a star, or what an actual star was. They didn't understand the concept of gravity, what blood did, what lightning was. No concept of energy, or matter, or disease was caused by microbes, or that microbes even existed, or that light has a speed. Schools didn't even exist, and they didn't even have the language or terms for half the shit I'm talking about. So that being considered, how close they got it does raise eyebrows, at least for me. Now you could say even a blind squirrel to that, absolutely. It doesn't prove anything one way or the other. I mean if a God was going to contact people, THESE PEOPLE, who thought the warm ball of light in the sky was spinning around THEM...and explain to them how of all this came about, to people who''d scratch their head at the basic concept of DNA...how we'll do you think they'd comprehend and explain that story to others? I mean they described a great void, then a burst of existence, then light, then a formation of heavens and earth, then a geo forming on earth with lands and sea, then plants, then fish, then animals, then humans (I think, I'm just going off of memory, haven't practiced since I was a kid). I mean try to explain what we know now to a five year old, and see how well they can recite it to 5 others, then see how those 5 explain it others...it could sound something a lot like that. Again you could say even a blind squirrel absolutely...but it is something that I, and I'm sure others find interesting.
I mean I find the Phoenix lights interesting. that doesn't mean I think aliens are among us and infiltrating government and abducting people and stuff. But that shit did not look like flares to me. I don't know what it was, could've been some government secret project or something, but if that doesn't raise your eyebrows...
And like it or not, there a still tons of questions that have our greatest minds scratching their heads, even when it comes to existence and life. Like the jump from non life to life, then the jump from prokaryotic life to eukaryotic life (which might even be more statistically rare than life to non life), and the jump of the mammal to human brain, which is a pretty significant jump compared to the rest of the field. To say that science has completely disproven god is ridiculous. If there is one, it's certainly outside of our realm of existence...since it created it, which includes our current and probably future reach of science. I also don't think you can prove god.
"but if that doesn't raise your eyebrows..."
Yes, but only because I don't, personally, understand it. It would not then rationally follow that nobody understands it, or that it cannot be understood. In fact, the reasonable assumption would be to assume it can be understood, and that this understanding likely does not involve some extraordinary or new concept or claim.
And I don't think they looked like flares. they looked like planes to me. And, voila, that's exactly what they were.
the second event of lights that evening were indeed, flares.
the Phoenix lights were long ago explained. as in, literally days after they were witnessed. Don't you find it odd that this "faux mystery" is still presented as a mystery?
Which every once in a while those things come up. Like this apparent star system that's appears to be mostly covered by something we can't explain. Some suggest A Dyson sphere, or it could be some other natural event we just haven't thought of. Eye raising still.
Or a couple years back I read a story, from a reputable source, (I should try to find it, this story is in season now). But a mother from middle America somewhere, claimed her house was haunted and her kids were getting possessed. And (fuzzy on the details), but she either took them to a hospital, or got forced too, and the hospital thought with her claims that she was unfit parent with her mental health. Had a social worker there and a few nurses/staff who all apparently swear up and down they saw one of the kids walking sideways up a wall, talking in a way too deep voice and different language. And I guess the staff didn't want to go back to that floor the next few days and we're pretty freaked out, and pretty much told the mom we can't help you. Eye raising. True or not no clue. Bizarre shit, either a hoax that they were all in on (or the story was somehow fake and sources thought it was real), or maybe there is stuff like that out there. Thinking about it now the fake news part seems most likely, but 3 (or more) seeming strangers all being in on a hoax doesn't seem likely (especially since I don't think there was much publicity or money made off of it). I don't know how you'd fake walking up a wall in a hospital room you've never been too.
yes, it's fascinating, but even those suggesting the Dyson sphere admit it's a bit of a silly leap.
And I tune out of any story the moment "haunted" or "ghost" is mentioned. i don't buy any of that stuff for a second.
