Realizing the darling theory fell flat in explaining origin of life they introduced the manuevor - go to Evolution does not concern that.
You bought into it.
Interestingly, WHEN a thoery comes with some hopeful prospects to it, SUDDENLY NPR or Time Magazine assuress us Evolution may have the answer to ...[text shortened]... rd safe retreat - "Evolution has nothing to do with what we are at a total loss to explain. "
You don't understand what is meant by evolution. I get it. Move along.
@secondsonsaid Geez Ghost! You nailed me good with that. I'm speechless. 😶
Not! Ok, so maybe I'm a little confused. "Evolution has nothing to do with how matter and life came into existence".
So what you're saying is science does not speak to the question of the origin of things. That evolution only deals with how matter and life developed over time.
If I said that correctly, a ...[text shortened]... n has no basis with which to engage in such discourse, and only creationism can answer the question.
If you wish to discuss the veracity of the theory of evolution, let's do that. If you want to discuss how the universe came into existence, let's do that. Just don't conflate the two.
Can I point to observable evidence as to how the universe got here? No, not conclusively. Can I point to observable evidence (in the form of fossils and the like) as to how we evolved as a species? Yes, absolutely.
If you wish to discuss the veracity of the theory of evolution, let's do that.
You both better decide what you mean by the the word Evolution.
Otherwise there is a communication problem. One person may be talking about 30 varieties of chickens and a hundred varieties of dogs and the other person talking about something else.
One person may be talking about changing finch beaks over time and the other about cows wandering into the sea to become whales millions of years latter.
IF you all debate Evolution clearly define what each of you mean by the word up front.
@ghost-of-a-dukesaid If you wish to discuss the veracity of the theory of evolution, let's do that. If you want to discuss how the universe came into existence, let's do that. Just don't conflate the two.
Can I point to observable evidence as to how the universe got here? No, not conclusively. Can I point to observable evidence (in the form of fossils and the like) as to how we evolved as a species? Yes, absolutely.
You put a lot of faith in how people describe fossils. Your beliefs about Lucy left me wondering if you actually really give any of that serious thought. Your assumptions were incredible without any thoughts about could this not be what is being suggested as I read the link you gave me.
If you wish to discuss the veracity of the theory of evolution, let's do that.
You both better decide what you mean by the the word Evolution.
Otherwise there is a communication problem. One person may be talking about 30 varieties of chickens and a hundred varieties of dogs and the other person talking about something else.
...[text shortened]... latter.
IF you all debate Evolution clearly define what each of you mean by the word up front.
Let's make this very clear sonship. You get to define what you mean by God but you do not get to define what I mean by evolution.
My definition of evolution is the one you can find in any science book. Someone may take that definition and seek to water it down or twist it to mean something else entirely but that in no way changes what evolution actually means.
Communication problems only occur when people don't take the time to understand what evolution is and what it is not.
@kellyjaysaid You put a lot of faith in how people describe fossils. Your beliefs about Lucy left me wondering if you actually really give any of that serious thought. Your assumptions were incredible without any thoughts about could this not be what is being suggested as I read the link you gave me.
While your easy dismissal of fossils and Lucy (tangible evidence) left me wondering if any openmindedness existed in you at all.
@ghost-of-a-dukesaid While your easy dismissal of fossils and Lucy (tangible evidence) left me wondering if any openmindedness existed in you at all.
I am open minded to a point, but when you dismissed what I thought should have been obvious concerns without really addressing them, it left me wondering what else you simply take as solid evidence without question?
You made a lot of assumptions without anything concrete backing them up, and if my memory serves me your reasoning was it’s science. That didn’t move the needle as far as I was concern.
@ghost-of-a-dukesaid While your easy dismissal of fossils and Lucy (tangible evidence) left me wondering if any openmindedness existed in you at all.
One other thing I didn't dismiss the fossils, just what people were saying about a number of them all found in a small area according to the people who found them.
@ghost-of-a-dukesaid Evolution has nothing to do with how matter and life came into existence. (But rather how it evolved after it did so). Eye witness accounts are not necessary to prove evolution so I absolutely contest your assertion that it has no basis of evidence by observation. Sure, we can't observe evolution as it happens (live) due to the amount of time it takes, but we can cert ...[text shortened]... om, actually inhibit your ability and willingness to accept verifiable evidence provided by science.
"... certainly observe conclusive evidence in the form of fossils..."
You believe in the Darwin’s ‘tree of life’, if so you think that is why the fossils give us some very conclusive evidence or is there more to it?
Can Forensic Science Trace the World’s Origins?
21 Jan '19 16:08
Back to Top