Replies

DoughtyOne: "I merely said that you don’t get a horse from a squirrel or a maple tree from a sequoia."

Nor did any scientist ever say such a thing, and that is your basic problem: you don't know, or won't confess, the truth about scientific theory of evolution.

Fossils show the earliest actual mammals around 160 million years ago, small, insect eating tree climbing.
They were certainly not squirrels, but did perhaps fill some of the same ecological niches squirrel-like creatures fill today.

Fossils show the first identifiable ancestors of horses & rhinoceroses -- they were fox to sheep-sized creatures -- around 60 million years ago, relatively soon after dinosaurs' extinction.
The first clearly horse-like fossils -- dog sized -- appeared around 50 million years.
From that point on, each later fossil appears more and more like today's horses.

As for Sequoia trees, they are not even in the same order as Maple trees, arguably not even in the same phylum, meaning in no possible way did maples turn into sequoias.
Their common ancestors, which were far from either Sequoias or Maples, lived hundreds of millions of years ago.

DoughtyOne: "I don’t buy into evolution as the origin of the human species."

Fossil evidence for distinctly pre-human and human-like creatures goes back millions of years, and some more recent bones have been analyzed for DNA, showing they were very closely related to us -- close enough to be classified in the same species, and to have interbred.

As for God's role in our creation, Genesis tells us that He formed man from the "dust of the ground" and "breathed the breath of life" into us.
Seems to me, that is also what evolution theory tells us.

DoughtyOne: "I don’t buy into the idea that every animal came from some space spill on isle 6 or a lightening bolt in a pond."

I have no idea what that's supposed to mean, but so far as I know, no evidence has ever been found that all life on Earth is not somehow related, meaning descended from common ancestors.
What's certainly true is that we have, as yet, no confirmed theory on how life first arose on Earth -- whether home-grown, or imported from some other star-system, we don't know. Yet.

Therefore: at this point, almost any hypothesis is still a possibility.

DoughtyOne: "Science does not prove that was the case.
That’s the end of the story for me."

Literally, science does not "prove" any hypothesis, theory, or even observation.
The best science can hope to do is confirm by repeated experiments that a theory is not false.
So, do you begin to comprehend that science is not all-about "certainty"?
So we don't "believe" a scientific theory, we merely accept it as having been confirmed, pending some better confirmed explanation.
That's the way science works.

Nor does science require anybody to accept any of its hypotheses & theories.
The only real restriction is: you must not call your own religious ideas "science", because they are not.

I merely said that you don’t get a horse from a squirrel or a maple tree from a sequoia.

Nor did any scientist ever say such a thing, and that is your basic problem: you don't know, or won't confess, the truth about scientific theory of evolution.

You can pull out your crap sandwich, but I don't have to eat it, and I'm not going to. Just help yourself. I don't know? I won't confess? Confess what, that I don't buy into your nonsense? The theory of evolution is taught in our schools. It is tought as the origion of the human species over billiosn of years. And what's more, it is taught exclusively that way, because no other "theory" is allowed in the school system. So don't wax rhapsodic about what scientists do or do not claim. That's B. S. and you know it. If you don't know it, perhaps you should do some studying. And that is your basic problem, you aren't really being truthful. So when you have a moment, reflect on what is being taught in the schools, confess, and perahps we'll have something to talk about.
Fossils show the earliest actual mammals around 160 million years ago, small, insect eating tree climbing.
They were certainly not squirrels, but did perhaps fill some of the same ecological niches squirrel-like creatures fill today.

Yawn. Yes, I was in the third grade too.

Fossils show the first identifiable ancestors of horses & rhinoceroses -- they were fox to sheep-sized creatures -- around 60 million years ago, relatively soon after dinosaurs' extinction.
The first clearly horse-like fossils -- dog sized -- appeared around 50 million years. From that point on, each later fossil appears more and more like today's horses.

Identifiable. LOL, there you go, leaps of fantasy to patch together your smooth transition from amoeba to modern man. Why we found this here fossil from 160 million years ago. It's only 18 inches tall, but you can tell right away that it's a horse. I know it looks more like a sloth right there, but honest, it was a horse. The DNA shows true lineage.

You find stages, but you don't find a smooth transition. It's like a movie. In the movie the characters are talking in an office about going to a lab. In the next scene they're in the lab. You assume they went downstairs, walked outside, got in the car, drove side streets to a freeway, traveled down ten miles, got off the freeway, traveled by car on side streets, turned into a parking lot, got out of the car, went inside, went upstairs, went into an office, and wala, the next scene. Sounds rather complicated, but in your version we're talking about billions of years, trillions if not quadrillions of turns, and suddently we're there, some small animal to horse. Had to happen just like that. Roll-em...

You extrapolate out these charming story lines, but you can't prove them. There are certain building blocks in nature. The genetic code is there. Was it because these items came from the same amoeba, or because those building blocks were used by God during creation? Well, frankly you don't know. Can't disprove that can you. Here you are setting me straight though. Your theory, and that's all it is, by your own admission is nothing more than that.

As for Sequoia trees, they are not even in the same order as Maple trees, arguably not even in the same phylum, meaning in no possible way did maples turn into sequoias. Their common ancestors, which were far from either Sequoias or Maples, lived hundreds of millions of years ago.

In a word, DUH! You actually thought I meant that Maple Trees were around 500 million years ago, and they transitioned to Sequoias right? No, I know what the theory is. I don't buy the theory that there was a common ancestor. You can't prove it, but here we are discussing this anyway. You have a hypothesis. That's all you've got..

I don’t buy into evolution as the origin of the human species.

Fossil evidence for distinctly pre-human and human-like creatures goes back millions of years, and some more recent bones have been analyzed for DNA, showing they were very closely related to us -- close enough to be classified in the same species, and to have interbred.

Pre-human..., human like..., close enough... is there a pattern here? Yes. You don't know if they are truly prehuman, human like, or simple close enough... at all.

And yet here we are discussing the issue as if it was settled science. It's no more settled science than the earth being flat was settled science. It's a current thoery. That's all it is, and that's all it will ever will be IMO.

As for God's role in our creation, Genesis tells us that He formed man from the "dust of the ground" and "breathed the breath of life" into us.

Seems to me, that is also what evolution theory tells us.

Except one thing, Evolution is being taught as fact, and the other theory is laughed at by the brillaint scientific community. This the same community that holds certain beliefs in mind for decades calling anyone that doesn't agree with accepted theory to be an essential heretic, but on this one we're supposed to accept everything hook line and sinker. NO! I've watched as the two clever by half folks have had to backtrack and accept that they were wrong over and over and over again.

I don’t buy into the idea that every animal came from some space spill on isle 6 or a lightening bolt in a pond.

I have no idea what that's supposed to mean, but so far as I know, no evidence has ever been found that all life on Earth is not somehow related, meaning descended from common ancestors.

Funny, you addressed the issue spot on. How did you do that without having any idea what that was supposed to mean?

Did all life come from the same source? You statement here leaves that distinct possibility. And frankly, that's what you guys believe. You believe that based on common genetic codes. Well the same thing could be the outcome of creation. A supreme being having the genetic code knowledge, utilized that knowedge to bring forth vegitaion, living animals, man, and the other forms of life on earth using the same building blocks. Can you explain to me why creation would have had to use different genetic codes with every living thing on the planet, no commonalities allowed? To simplify, the answer is NO.

What's certainly true is that we have, as yet, no confirmed theory on how life first arose on Earth -- whether home-grown, or imported from some other star-system, we don't know. Yet.

No, you don't know yet, but you do know there are only about three theories for it, and none of them include God. Ligthening, meteor, or volcanic activity... I believe those are the three main theories today.

Therefore: at this point, almost any hypothesis is still a possibility.

Theory. That's basically what this is. Every bit of it. There are many things you know, and as many or more things you don't. That's the truth of it.

Science does not prove that was the case. That’s the end of the story for me.

Literally, science does not "prove" any hypothesis, theory, or even observation. The best science can hope to do is confirm by repeated experiments that a theory is not false. So, do you begin to comprehend that science is not all-about "certainty"?
So we don't "believe" a scientific theory, we merely accept it as having been confirmed, pending some better confirmed explanation. That's the way science works.

Oh yes, here you folks talk about uncertainty. Then in the schools you teach the theory as if there is no other answer. You're so deathly afraid that creationism will creep in, that you feel compelled to come here and prattle on about things you honestly can't prove at all. You even admit as much. Then you ask me to confess. No, you confess.

Nor does science require anybody to accept any of its hypotheses & theories. The only real restriction is: you must not call your own religious ideas "science", because they are not.

When they started selling Evolution as the only thoery allowed, they took the science right out of it.

I believe in creation. I cannot prove my theory either. My theory is not allowed to be taught. Your theory is.

What are you big boys who can't prove a damn thing afraid of?