Evolution

[blarg]

Initiating force, yes. HOWEVER....the NAS says, GOD!

Theistic Evolution is the belief that GOD created the universe and blah-blah-blah.....

The NAS is referring to theistic evolution, therefore.....the NAS isn't just talking about a "force."



It's funny that you refuse to acknowledge what's clearly stated....and yet, you're trying to inject something that's not. You're blinded by bias, and therefore, you don't have the credibility.

is their any one else on your side of the screen who you could get to read the source NASA sites im curious if they would come to the same conclusion as you

 

[tosca1]

Unfounded assumption.

You're the one who said it. I'm just merely pointing out what you've said. :shrug:

You guys seems to not remember - or actually, don't realize - what you've actually said.
Something tells me some of you folks are just trying to "wing" it through this issue.

 

[tosca1]

still not true on that 2nd claim now think about it please

religious explanations like the universe works the way it dose because an unseen god arranged it that way are not testable

unobserved untestable claims can not be science the same source says as much

therefore theistic evolution is not in contradiction with science because we cant test for that not because we have found evidence for it

in fact that mean the sciences cant find evidence for it or against it

do you understand now?

Irrelevant.
You keep trying to make supernatural your argument - which isn't an issue!

 

[tosca1]

is their any one else on your side of the screen who you could get to read the source NASA sites im curious if they would come to the same conclusion as you

I don't care what others come up with. I explained my stance.


What you suggest is juvenile thinking.
You might think fact is based on popularity - it's not.

Don't you see you folks are tripping all over your own arguments?

 

[Manc Skipper]

Irrelevant.
You keep trying to make supernatural your argument - which isn't an issue!

If there's no physical evidence, which is what the natural provides, then the supernatural can be the only place your god resides. Since it is supernatural there is no way for the natural to access it.

 

[blarg]

Irrelevant.
You keep trying to make supernatural your argument - which isn't an issue!

relevant thats what god are no one has seen them no one has come up with a test for them or support for them

your miss reading which would explain why no ones says theistic evolution is the case or points out how they know gods are behind evolution like they do with evidence for evolution and the formation of the solar system

 

[blarg]

I don't care what others come up with. I explained my stance.


What you suggest is juvenile thinking.
You might think fact is based on popularity - it's not.

Don't you see you folks are tripping all over your own arguments?

no pretty sure you just cant read that well or are trolling

 

[tosca1]

relevant thats what god are no one has seen them no one has come up with a test for them or support for them

your miss reading which would explain why no ones says theistic evolution is the case or points out how they know gods are behind evolution like they do with evidence for evolution and the formation of the solar system

Your response isn't inline with the arguments.....you're the one who's either not reading, or not comprehending.
I don't think we're on the same page. I guess I'll have to ignore you too, until you've got something worth responding to.

 

[Quag]

Theistic Evolution, boils down to creationism.

Those who believe in theistic evolution agree with evolution, creationists do not.
Are you a theistic evolutionist ie do you accept evolution or are you a creationist? If so why?

 

[Deuce]

A belief that the NAS says, is not in disagreement with the scientific explanation of evolution. And that, indeed, there are evidences that support it.



Quag......it's clear that you, yourself, had admitted to it.
You're just being silly now.....so I'll have to ignore you.

They didn't say evidences support it.

 

[Deuce]

You're the one who said it. I'm just merely pointing out what you've said. :shrug:

You guys seems to not remember - or actually, don't realize - what you've actually said.
Something tells me some of you folks are just trying to "wing" it through this issue.

No, I know what I said. You just have an absurd interpretation of what I said.

Snowflakes form in a certain fashion. This isn't suggesting intelligence.

If you put hydrogen and oxygen together, under the right temperature and pressure, water will form. This is putting hydrogen and oxygen together in a certain fashion. Now, an intelligence doesn't have to put them together. Gravity can do that. Is Gravity intelligent?

 

[blarg]

Your response isn't inline with the arguments.....you're the one who's either not reading, or not comprehending.
I don't think we're on the same page. I guess I'll have to ignore you too, until you've got something worth responding to.

your only argument is that nasa quoting nas was being a bit coy but admitted they have found evidence that a god set evolution in motion

so their complete lack of stating anything to that effect has everything to do with are argument

why dont you try and go find some publications reckognized by these people that says theirs evidence for theistic evolution of your so sure thats what they are saying

its kind of a big deal should not be hard to find if that is the case

if you cant then maybe the reasons for everyone is telling you you have misinterpreted what you read is down to a problem with you

 

[SirGareth]

According to evolution theory, do we all trace our ancestry back to one single cell that somehow learned how to subdivide or are there multiple threads of independent genesis.

I'm taking no position on this but there are a number of experts who must know the answers to this. What is it?

 

[Deuce]

According to evolution theory, do we all trace our ancestry back to one single cell that somehow learned how to subdivide or are there multiple threads of independent genesis.

I'm taking no position on this but there are a number of experts who must know the answers to this. What is it?

There appear to have been several independent instances of the single-cell organism to multi-cell organism evolution. It even seems to be just a single new gene that results in the new capability. Not easy to study, since most of this happened a couple billion years ago.

 

[RAMOSS]

According to evolution theory, do we all trace our ancestry back to one single cell that somehow learned how to subdivide or are there multiple threads of independent genesis.

I'm taking no position on this but there are a number of experts who must know the answers to this. What is it?

It appears that the process is 'single celled', to "colony organism" to 'specialization and integration". Did you know that the same substance that holds a group of colony cells together is the same substance that holds more complex animals together?

 

[SirGareth]

There appear to have been several independent instances of the single-cell organism to multi-cell organism evolution. It even seems to be just a single new gene that results in the new capability. Not easy to study, since most of this happened a couple billion years ago.

In other words, its not possible to find out so it's a mystery, but it's not important to us as to how we should conduct our lives today so we really do not need to get all worked up over genesis theories.

Sounds good to me.

 

[blarg]

According to evolution theory do we all trace our ancestry back to one single cell that somehow learned how to subdivide or are there multiple threads of independent genius.

I'm taking no position on this but there are a number of experts who must know the answers to this. What is it?

by learned do you mean managed to divide pretty sure cells dont have thoughts about it but that is just a guess on my part

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_descent

seems to be the prevailing theory that all life on earth is related from common ancestor but theirs still the idea that things universal to all known life could have evolved independently
and the fact that living things are capable of adsorbing genes form other organisms and viruses to varying degrees

for example

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/scie...es-master-dna-thieves-animal-world-180957371/

thats more common in single celled life

 

[Deuce]

In other words, its not possible to find out so it's a mystery, but it's not important to us as to how we should conduct our lives today so we really do not need to get all worked up over genesis theories.

Sounds good to me.

It's not really a mystery, no.

The formation of black holes probably doesn't have an influence on how you "conduct your life" today but what does that have to do with anything? No, it's not going to change how you discipline your children or what movies you like. Why would you even bring that up?

It's because, for whatever reason, you feel threatened by discussions of evolution and need to find yourself an out.

 

[calamity]

In other words, its not possible to find out so it's a mystery, but it's not important to us as to how we should conduct our lives today so we really do not need to get all worked up over genesis theories.

Sounds good to me.

It's just chemistry. No need for gods.

 

[sKiTzo]

Try looking at it this way. When did Italians stop speaking Latin and start speaking Italian?

I don't see the relevance because my point is that there's no working model when other similar things didn't first exist. I'm talking about the one phase/transition of evolution that there has never been a reasonable physically detailed explanation for: exactly what takes place when a multi-celled blob gives way to the very first thing to have a head - the FIRST hominid. The clincher is that when the very first hominid was born (let's just say it didn't need to be "birthed" by anything [a paradox in itself], it would just lay there and die because being the first of its kind, who's going to feed and shelter it?

 

[Quag]

I don't see the relevance because my point is that there's no working model when other similar things didn't first exist. I'm talking about the one phase/transition of evolution that there has never been a reasonable physically detailed explanation for: exactly what takes place when a multi-celled blob gives way to the very first thing to have a head - the FIRST hominid. The clincher is that when the very first hominid was born (let's just say it didn't need to be "birthed" by anything [a paradox in itself], it would just lay there and die because being the first of its kind, who's going to feed and shelter it?

You are missing the point, no blob suddenly had a head.
Just like no Roman suddenly spoke Italian instead of Latin or Some ancient ancestor suddenly spoke Latin instead of just making grunts.

 

[sKiTzo]

You are missing the point, no blob suddenly had a head.
Just like no Roman suddenly spoke Italian instead of Latin or Some ancient ancestor suddenly spoke Latin instead of just making grunts.

Okay but you might have to agree that there has to be a single solitary point on that timeline where the first hominid appeared if for no other reason other than none existed up to that point. Looking at an evolution timeline chart with the ever-improving creatures branching off is an oversimplification without any explanation of what is it exactly the process that takes place in between each one, especially where changes appear that to any reasonable researcher would seem to require some sort of intelligent input. The mind-boggling designs we see in nature cannot be possible without some brilliant input. `Natural selection is driven by what? This is never adequately explained.

 

[RAMOSS]

Okay but you might have to agree that there has to be a single solitary point on that timeline where the first hominid appeared if for no other reason other than none existed up to that point. Looking at an evolution timeline chart with the ever-improving creatures branching off is an oversimplification without any explanation of what is it exactly the process that takes place in between each one, especially where changes appear that to any reasonable researcher would seem to require some sort of intelligent input. The mind-boggling designs we see in nature cannot be possible without some brilliant input. `Natural selection is driven by what? This is never adequately explained.

2 things.. variation ,reproductive success. and also change in environment. IF there is a change in environment, the traits that allow for the reproductive success will change.

 

[Manc Skipper]

Okay but you might have to agree that there has to be a single solitary point on that timeline where the first hominid appeared if for no other reason other than none existed up to that point. Looking at an evolution timeline chart with the ever-improving creatures branching off is an oversimplification without any explanation of what is it exactly the process that takes place in between each one, especially where changes appear that to any reasonable researcher would seem to require some sort of intelligent input. The mind-boggling designs we see in nature cannot be possible without some brilliant input. `Natural selection is driven by what? This is never adequately explained.

Imagine a picture of you. Then your dad, and his dad, and his dad, and so on, back to the first living thing, through hominids, rodents, and fish, and so on. each child looking similar to the parent, but radically changing over the thousands of generations. Pick out the first hominid.

 

[Deuce]

I don't see the relevance because my point is that there's no working model when other similar things didn't first exist. I'm talking about the one phase/transition of evolution that there has never been a reasonable physically detailed explanation for: exactly what takes place when a multi-celled blob gives way to the very first thing to have a head - the FIRST hominid. The clincher is that when the very first hominid was born (let's just say it didn't need to be "birthed" by anything [a paradox in itself], it would just lay there and die because being the first of its kind, who's going to feed and shelter it?

You seem to be picturing this massive leap from "multi-celled blob" to "hominid" which is a bit absurd. A fish didn't give birth to a bird, that's not how this works. A head didn't just form in a single generation. Let me know if you have further confusion.