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.
.
there is just very little evidence of truly transitional fossils
there may not be a physical proof of transition from one being to another as it occurs by a sequence of commands executed in a single event without leaving a physical trace for inspection, spiritual transformation - the transformation from one to another in metamorphosis, the cicada below is an example of a physically traceless transformation.
View attachment 148037
the same process can occur from one species to a new species when the necessary sequence over years of development is completed, the spiritual transformation becomes a single physical event producing a new species without a physical intermediate transition.
You are illustrating a process of life. This is not evolution. You are conflating it with evolution for some odd reason. In your wacky theory, things just pop into existence when they are "spiritually ready" or something. That's way out there man.
may I remind you this is the religion forum ... the shocking thing for me is your denial of spirituality for all beings but yourself and your singular conection to it you likewise deny other beings were they even spiritual.
This is not evolution ...
you know perfectly well others have claimed the same response, and this is about spirituality, I expect the atheist to not see the connection but for you it is almost criminal.
that process is the Almighty's display of refined spiritual purity and is the playground for the future deny it all you want it's not going away for them only by Humanity and for their final extinction.
LOL, yes that's your story and you're sticking to it.Macroevolution is proven by the fossil record and mainly occurred in the ancient past.
I've seen NO evidence of it thus far.
Yes, it's arbitrary, as you could have meant species, family, etc. But you , arbitrarily, chose genus.
Yes, every fossil is a "transition fossil" (which is actually a nonsensical term, avoided by scientists) under your own conditions, as evolution is working on all species at all times. Every species which has ever lived was and is "transitioning". Evolution is not something that can be stopped, no matter how hard we try.
So, again: show me a fossil that is NOT a "transitional fossil".
No, I did not arbitrarily choose genus, that's what we were discussing. I have already stated that microevolution within a genus is factual. So the entire debate is surrounding evolution across genus taxon. In THAT context, "transition" can only mean one thing. And you have exactly ZERO fossil evidence showing one genus transitioning to another genus. You also have no example of any living thing that is part one genus and part another genus because it is in a state of evolutionary transition.
LOL, yes that's your story and you're sticking to it.Macroevolution is proven by the fossil record and mainly occurred in the ancient past.
I've seen NO evidence of it thus far.
Until I see some fucking science to prove otherwise... YES!
.
there is just very little evidence of truly transitional fossils
there may not be a physical proof of transition from one being to another as it occurs by a sequence of commands executed in a single event without leaving a physical trace for inspection, spiritual transformation - the transformation from one to another in metamorphosis, the cicada below is an example of a physically traceless transformation.
View attachment 148037
the same process can occur from one species to a new species when the necessary sequence over years of development is completed, the spiritual transformation becomes a single physical event producing a new species without a physical intermediate transition.
Yes, it's arbitrary, as you could have meant species, family, etc. But you , arbitrarily, chose genus.
Yes, every fossil is a "transition fossil" (which is actually a nonsensical term, avoided by scientists) under your own conditions, as evolution is working on all species at all times. Every species which has ever lived was and is "transitioning". Evolution is not something that can be stopped, no matter how hard we try.
So, again: show me a fossil that is NOT a "transitional fossil".
No, I did not arbitrarily choose genus, that's what we were discussing. I have already stated that microevolution within a genus is factual. So the entire debate is surrounding evolution across genus taxon. In THAT context, "transition" can only mean one thing. And you have exactly ZERO fossil evidence showing one genus transitioning to another genus. You also have no example of any living thing that is part one genus and part another genus because it is in a state of evolutionary transition.
" I did not arbitrarily choose genus, that's what we were discussing."
You absolutely did. And that's fine, because your argument is just as bad no matter what arbitrary definition you choose.
LOL, yes that's your story and you're sticking to it.Macroevolution is proven by the fossil record and mainly occurred in the ancient past.
I've seen NO evidence of it thus far.
Until I see some fucking science to prove otherwise... YES!
I wonder how all virtually of the people who dedicate their lives to science have agreed that they have "seen" enough science (a nonsensical phrase, really) to be convinced have missed what you, apparently, have discovered by reading creationist blogs?
LOL, yes that's your story and you're sticking to it.Macroevolution is proven by the fossil record and mainly occurred in the ancient past.
I've seen NO evidence of it thus far.
Until I see some fucking science to prove otherwise... YES!
I wonder how all virtually of the people who dedicate their lives to science have agreed that they have "seen" enough science (a nonsensical phrase, really) to be convinced have missed what you, apparently, have discovered by reading creationist blogs?
Okay, what you are doing now is called "argumentum ad populum." You need to know, this is NOT science and is actually the antithesis of science. It does not matter to science how many people believe something. That factor is not in the scientific method, and for good reason. It's sort of why Science was invented. Science allows us to observe, measure, test and evaluate without regard for what popular opinion may be. I would say that probably 98% of what Science has discovered is a contradiction of what was prevailing common assumption of the time. Even when the common assumption was based on previous scientific work.
I don't read creationist blogs. I don't agree with creationist theory for the most part. I will make the philosophical argument that we are ALL believers in creationism. How so, you may ask? Well... we do exist, right? If we exist, we had to be created somehow. You believe in creation through physical happenstance and I believe in an intelligent designer... but we both believe in creationism.
LOL, yes that's your story and you're sticking to it.Macroevolution is proven by the fossil record and mainly occurred in the ancient past.
I've seen NO evidence of it thus far.
Until I see some fucking science to prove otherwise... YES!
I wonder how all virtually of the people who dedicate their lives to science have agreed that they have "seen" enough science (a nonsensical phrase, really) to be convinced have missed what you, apparently, have discovered by reading creationist blogs?
Okay, what you are doing now is called "argumentum ad populum." You need to know, this is NOT science and is actually the antithesis of science. It does not matter to science how many people believe something. That factor is not in the scientific method, and for good reason. It's sort of why Science was invented. Science allows us to observe, measure, test and evaluate without regard for what popular opinion may be. I would say that probably 98% of what Science has discovered is a contradiction of what was prevailing common assumption of the time. Even when the common assumption was based on previous scientific work.
I don't read creationist blogs. I don't agree with creationist theory for the most part. I will make the philosophical argument that we are ALL believers in creationism. How so, you may ask? Well... we do exist, right? If we exist, we had to be created somehow. You believe in creation through physical happenstance and I believe in an intelligent designer... but we both believe in creationism.
I just made a casserole! Looks like I am a creator! I never knew I believed in creationism!
By the way, that was another example of you insisting upon your own, arbitrary definition of a term. Can I play, too?
I just made a casserole! Looks like I am a creator! I never knew I believed in creationism!
By the way, that was another example of you insisting upon your own, arbitrary definition of a term. Can I play, too?
Sure... you go right ahead and play "I'm a retard who doesn't comprehend context!" You're winning so far!
.may I remind you this is the religion forum ... the shocking thing for me is your denial of spirituality for all beings but yourself and your singular conection to it you likewise deny other beings were they even spiritual.
This is not evolution ...
you know perfectly well others have claimed the same response, and this is about spirituality, I expect the atheist to not see the connection but for you it is almost criminal.
that process is the Almighty's display of refined spiritual purity and is the playground for the future deny it all you want it's not going away for them only by Humanity and for their final extinction.
Breezy.... Man.... really now.... your hatred and vitriol for me has gone on far too long to be healthy. You would think, given our personal views, we'd kinda be on the same page regarding spirituality. I mean, I read your posts and find a lot of things to agree with you on when you are conversing with the Atheists. But for some mysterious reason, you like to attack me and say things that are just absolutely not true about my views.
I have not denied a spiritual aspect to other beings. In fact, I once told you that you made a good point and actually caused me to think differently about that. Other living things might indeed make spiritual connections and we may just not be aware of that. I've tried to be very careful since then about how I phrase things so as to leave that possibility open. But apparently, whatever your beef is with me, it's not good enough... you must find some way to contest anything I say.
I don't understand it... never will.
Breezy.... Man.... really now.... your hatred and vitriol for me has gone on far too long to be healthy.
But for some mysterious reason, you like to attack me and say things that are just absolutely not true about my views.
I believe that man has to invent a God he can relate to and this is why God has these attributes. MY God is more like an energy source... like nuclear power or electricity. It's there for our benefit if we choose to utilize it. It doesn't "care" if we do or not. It doesn't get hurt feelings if we don't worship it.
However.... I do believe that our spirits will ultimately be judged based on our earthly deeds.
From Atheists are hoping aliens from outer space will contact us...
Boss said:
Humans are NOT apes. If we were, we could breed with apes. The biochemistry is NOT the same, if it were, there would be no reason for the RNA World theory your article is about. I already said the DNA structure (sequences) is remarkably similar. We share 53% commonality with DNA of bananas but no serious person thinks we're descendants of a banana.... although, you might believe that!
And then you just said: "For the record, I didn't say we didn't evolve from apes."
Technically, you didn't say it in those exact words, but... that's exactly what your previous post implied.
No, not technically... FACTUALLY.
You are drawing implications that weren't made.
I believe that man has to invent a God he can relate to and this is why God has these attributes. MY God is more like an energy source... like nuclear power or electricity. It's there for our benefit if we choose to utilize it. It doesn't "care" if we do or not. It doesn't get hurt feelings if we don't worship it.
However.... I do believe that our spirits will ultimately be judged based on our earthly deeds.
By whom?
From Atheists are hoping aliens from outer space will contact us...
Boss said:
Humans are NOT apes. If we were, we could breed with apes. The biochemistry is NOT the same, if it were, there would be no reason for the RNA World theory your article is about. I already said the DNA structure (sequences) is remarkably similar. We share 53% commonality with DNA of bananas but no serious person thinks we're descendants of a banana.... although, you might believe that!
And then you just said: "For the record, I didn't say we didn't evolve from apes."
Technically, you didn't say it in those exact words, but... that's exactly what your previous post implied.
No, not technically... FACTUALLY.
You are drawing implications that weren't made.
Stop changing your story.
Your statement said what it said. It speaks for itself. And it's recorded so you can no longer change it. So you're going to change your story again?
You say things that are factually incorrect constantly and then continue to argue them to save face. When busted, you change your story every time. You owe me a few cookies btw...
But of course, the way you roll, you would need to buy Keebler, to hand out enough cookies to compensate for your false arguments...
your a rightwinger that preys on the innocent, you trample the Free Spirit in others, then play innocent, blade like I said this is the religion forum such behavior is reprehensible, believe it or not.
I believe that man has to invent a God he can relate to and this is why God has these attributes. MY God is more like an energy source... like nuclear power or electricity. It's there for our benefit if we choose to utilize it. It doesn't "care" if we do or not. It doesn't get hurt feelings if we don't worship it.
However.... I do believe that our spirits will ultimately be judged based on our earthly deeds.
By whom?
I don't know... something. Probably whatever Spiritual Force gave us souls.
As I explained (apparently you ignored it), I believe this because rationality tells me there must be some fundamental reason our spirits are guided toward goodness... good things... good deeds... love... as opposed to the opposite. Now, maybe I am wrong? I'm willing to take the chance that I'm not wrong and attempt to live a moral and ethical life while nurturing my soul. But honestly, from the bottom of my heart... I couldn't give one rat's ass whether you do that or not. That is MY personal belief and that's all.
