What is evolution, not what some think

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: iterationzero

Then stop calling them evolution in a way that attempts to conflate them with biological evolution. It's a semantic ploy meant to obfuscate, not enlighten.

How would you like me to address them, or should I not

We're having enough trouble trying to get you to grasp the basic premise of one scientific theory... please don't ask us to reteach everything you should have learned in highschool and college.

There are entire college courses devoted to the formation of the universe after the big bang. We don't have the patience to take you through it all step by step just to have ALL the science ignored anyway.

a reply to: borntowatch

Address whatever you like, but do it in a way that's transparent and honest. No person with any degree of scientific literacy would hear someone discussing evolution and understand that they meant anything other than biological evolution. If you're more interested in cosmology, then why not make a thread to discuss that?

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
The idea seems reasonable to me that modern African elephants, modern Asian elephants, wooly mammoths (which are now extinct), and stegadons (which are now extinct) shared common ancestors in the past. All of these more recent creatures share characteristics of a creature known as "paleomastodon" that lived 30 million years ago. The paleomastodon itself shares characteristics with other elephant-ish creatures that lived before that known as Deinotherium and Moeritherium.

The fossil record shows that there were no elephants, mammoths, or stegadons around 30 or 35 million years ago -- just these paleomastodons and moeritherium (which are long-extict) that had elephant-like characteristics. That is to say, these creatures were the most elephant-like creatures living back then...

...So if there were no modern elephants or mammoths during the time of paleomastodon, then that begs the question: Where did elephants and mammoths come from? Also, where did the paleomastodons go?

Why does it seem as if there were creatures who lived in the past (before elephants) that had most -- but not all -- characteristics of modern elephants? And creatures before that who had some, but not all, characteristics of modern elephants, and creatures who lived before that who had just a few characteristics of modern elephants?

It does indeed beg the question
and I have no intention of arguing the seeming logic of the issue of evolution.
I have issues with the lack of fossils that should be unearthed over time that links the chain.

The chain that is broken in every specific type of species.

Why elephants, why not any other animals, why the lack of fossils that show the animals evolution.

Irrespective, thats a minor issue.

I mentioned elephants only so we could concentrate our discussion on one answer at a time in order to friggin' get somewhere with this circuitous discussion....(sorry for the outburst, mods...I feel better now)

It seems, however, that you don't want to concentrate on getting answers -- just perpetually asking more questions, and ignoring any discussion that may lead to answers.

...Logically, I need to know how and why a big bang, how stars evolved, why they came together, why and how planets formed, why did space dust join up, where did gravity come from to form planets, stars....

Nobody yet knows "how and why" there was a big bang, so I can't help you there.

As for how did stars form, that's due to gravity. The cause for gravity is also unknown, but there are hypotheses being tested. However, there is gravity, and even though we may not know why gravity works, we can seem to understand the effects of it.

The first stars probably formed differently than subsequent generations of stars. Subsequent star generations formed from gravitationally-bound dust and gas created from those first star generations, bu the early universe was lacking in this gas and dust, and the early universe was much more gravitationally smooth..

It is believed that even though the early universe was mostly gravitationally smooth, there were a few fluctuations in that smoothness that led to some small areas of the hydrogen in the universe to gravitationally bind. Gravity then caused those small areas to become large areas, eventually binding together into a dense area of hydrogen, that eventually became dense enough for fusion to occur -- and the birth of a star.

Rocky planets such as earth came later -- after subsequent generations of stars blew their material into the universe (our sun, for instance, is at least a third-generation star. -- that is to say, considering the elements that make up the Sun and our solar system, there were probably at least two generations of long-dead stars that contributed material to our Sun and solar system).

To form the planets, dust grains from those previous generations of stars (dust the size of smoke particles) first clumped together, perhaps due to electrostatic interactions. Once the clumps got large enough, gravity set in, allowing the clumps of dust to clump together even more. Eventually, this gravitational attraction formed planets.


Edit to add:
By the way, you didn't answer my question about elephants. Where did they come from? Why does the fossil record NOT show elephants 20 million years ago, but DOES show creatures that were slightly elephant-like. Where did those creatures go, and how did elephants subsequently get here...

...If you don't want to talk about elephants, then maybe horses instead? Millions of years ago there were no horses, but there were small creatures who shared specific anatomical traits with horses. Those creatures are gone, and horse have since come on the scene. Why?

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

The problem is, none of what you said will sound logical to a person who believes in a young Earth.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

..If you don't want to talk about elephants, then maybe horses instead? Millions of years ago there were no horses, but there were small creatures who shared specific anatomical traits with horses. Those creatures are gone, and horse have since come on the scene. Why?

Nobody yet knows "how and why" there was a big bang, so I can't help you there
The cause for gravity is also unknown
The first stars probably formed differently
It is believed that even though
there were probably

Well at least you are far more honest that most who have come on this thread, most people who try to win the argument.

Ok Elephants then
Can you show me evidence that the animals you listed were definitely precursors to elephants and not separate species

That would go along way to win me over.

But remember, your dating techniques are a little (I mean a lot) sloppy in my opinion.
Maybe that is the issue we should discuss.
The geological time scale, tee hee hee, its so funny people believe that

This issue is a rabbit hole that just gets worse, you have no foundation to support your argument.

originally posted by: borntowatch

But remember, your dating techniques are a little (I mean a lot) sloppy in my opinion.
Maybe that is the issue we should discuss.
The geological time scale, tee hee hee, its so funny people believe that

This issue is a rabbit hole that just gets worse, you have no foundation to support your argument.

Just out of curiosity, could you explain what exactly you feel is wrong or sloppy regarding dating techniques? If you could be more specific instead of issuing a blanket statement it will be much easier to address if people know what the starting point is for what you feel is wrong with the myriad of dating techniques used.

originally posted by: peter vlar

Just out of curiosity, could you explain what exactly you feel is wrong or sloppy regarding dating techniques? If you could be more specific instead of issuing a blanket statement it will be much easier to address if people know what the starting point is for what you feel is wrong with the myriad of dating techniques used.

Yeah I could but do I want to
Its just going to cause an argument and bitterness, sufficient to say that the internet is packed with the issues surrounding dating techniques if you are interested

I could give you lots of creation links that shine a light on to there dubious dating method conclusions and you wouldnt read them, belittle them even
Same, I wont read your links as I think they are dubious.

"The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately. Stratigraphy cannot avoid this kind of reasoning if it insists on using only temporal concepts, because circularity is inherent in the derivation of time scales."
J.E. O'Rourke, "Pragmatism versus Materialism in Stratigraphy," American Journal of Science, Vol. 276, January 1976, p. 53

www.icr.org...

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: peter vlar

Just out of curiosity, could you explain what exactly you feel is wrong or sloppy regarding dating techniques? If you could be more specific instead of issuing a blanket statement it will be much easier to address if people know what the starting point is for what you feel is wrong with the myriad of dating techniques used.

Yeah I could but do I want to
Its just going to cause an argument and bitterness, sufficient to say that the internet is packed with the issues surrounding dating techniques if you are interested

I could give you lots of creation links that shine a light on to there dubious dating method conclusions and you wouldnt read them, belittle them even
Same, I wont read your links as I think they are dubious.

"The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately. Stratigraphy cannot avoid this kind of reasoning if it insists on using only temporal concepts, because circularity is inherent in the derivation of time scales."
J.E. O'Rourke, "Pragmatism versus Materialism in Stratigraphy," American Journal of Science, Vol. 276, January 1976, p. 53

www.icr.org...

Creationist sites are not legitimate sources. That's why you remain so confused about this whole thing... you're using junk sources.

If you can present an unbiased scientific source that discusses the inaccuracy of dating methods without a pre-set agenda... then you'll have a legitimate source. Legitimate scientists don't have an agenda, they just present the evidence.

originally posted by: iterationzero
a reply to: borntowatch

Address whatever you like, but do it in a way that's transparent and honest. No person with any degree of scientific literacy would hear someone discussing evolution and understand that they meant anything other than biological evolution. If you're more interested in cosmology, then why not make a thread to discuss that?

Well thats a bit sad isnt it.
Science has to deal with many questions and many things on this planet evolve, language for instance.

How should we describe that type of evolution, make up a new word? I guess we see language evolve with new words, oops I cant say that can I

I what a quandary I am in

originally posted by: Answer

Creationist sites are not legitimate sources. That's why you remain so confused about this whole thing... you're using junk sources.

If you can present an unbiased scientific source that discusses the inaccuracy of dating methods without a pre-set agenda... then you'll have a legitimate source. Legitimate scientists don't have an agenda, they just present the evidence.

Pro evolutionist sites are not legitimate sources. That's why you remain so confused about this whole thing... you're using junk sources.

If you can present an unbiased scientific source that discusses the inaccuracy of dating methods without a pre-set agenda... then you'll have a legitimate source. Legitimate scientists have an agenda, they just present evidence that helps fund their research and wages.

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: Answer

Creationist sites are not legitimate sources. That's why you remain so confused about this whole thing... you're using junk sources.

If you can present an unbiased scientific source that discusses the inaccuracy of dating methods without a pre-set agenda... then you'll have a legitimate source. Legitimate scientists don't have an agenda, they just present the evidence.

Pro evolutionist sites are not legitimate sources. That's why you remain so confused about this whole thing... you're using junk sources.

If you can present an unbiased scientific source that discusses the inaccuracy of dating methods without a pre-set agenda... then you'll have a legitimate source. Legitimate scientists have an agenda, they just present evidence that helps fund their research and wages.

That's why we'll never get anywhere with this issue. You think there is such a thing as a "pro evolutionist source."

There's science... and there's junk science with an agenda. Creationist sites are the latter.

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: Answer

Creationist sites are not legitimate sources. That's why you remain so confused about this whole thing... you're using junk sources.

If you can present an unbiased scientific source that discusses the inaccuracy of dating methods without a pre-set agenda... then you'll have a legitimate source. Legitimate scientists don't have an agenda, they just present the evidence.

Pro evolutionist sites are not legitimate sources. That's why you remain so confused about this whole thing... you're using junk sources.

If you can present an unbiased scientific source that discusses the inaccuracy of dating methods without a pre-set agenda... then you'll have a legitimate source. Legitimate scientists have an agenda, they just present evidence that helps fund their research and wages.

That's why we'll never get anywhere with this issue. You think there is such a thing as a "pro evolutionist source."

There's science... and there's junk science with an agenda. Creationist sites are the latter.

www.ridgecrest.ca.us...

Several of the scientists who wrote chapters for In Six Days say they were once atheistic evolutionists who didn’t accept Christianity and creation until after they realized that the theory of evolution is scientifically bankrupt. Their rejection of evolution did not come from some Christian brainwashing which prevented them from thinking rationally. They rejected the theory because science evidence is overwhelmingly against evolution.

We try as hard as we can to examine evolution from the point of view that it is a scientific theory, and examine it as critically as one might examine cold fusion or global warming. But whenever we do, an evolutionist tries to drag religion into the discussion, as “P” did in his email.

I was an evolutionist before a creationist, I was a non Christian before accepting God and I didnt accept creation till many years after believing in God.

Get over it

Grow up, I wont convert because you think you are right

a reply to: borntowatch

given you demonstrated scientific illiteracy - I doubt you were ever an " evolutionist " - yes I am calling you a liar

originally posted by: borntowatch

If you can present an unbiased scientific source that discusses the inaccuracy of dating methods without a pre-set agenda... then you'll have a legitimate source. Legitimate scientists don't have an agenda, they just present the evidence.[/quote

Pro evolutionist sites are not legitimate sources. That's why you remain so confused about this whole thing... you're using junk sources.

If you can present an unbiased scientific source that discusses the inaccuracy of dating methods without a pre-set agenda... then you'll have a legitimate source. Legitimate scientists have an agenda, they just present evidence that helps fund their research and wages.

and there we have it - we could have saved 46 pages of the internets if this dogma had come forth on page one

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: peter vlar

Yeah I could but do I want to

It is rather unfortunate that you have taken this attitude. If you're not willing to discuss your own thread, why bother posting it in the first place? As the author of this thread, the onus is upon you to supply links and an explanation for your response. It is not our duty to do the legwork for you and provide sources for your claim.

Its just going to cause an argument and bitterness, sufficient to say that the internet is packed with the issues surrounding dating techniques if you are interested .

I very much disagree with the notion that giving a simple answer will lead to an argument and/or bitterness. I was merely interested in why YOU personally find every method of dating to be a crock of feces. This is what I went to school for so I am simply asking about your personal thoughts were on this matter so that I am more able to discern how what and why you are thinking this way. Your own unwillingness to read any links I may post is rather saddening in that you believe them all to be biased without giving them a fair chance.

I could give you lots of creation links that shine a light on to there dubious dating method conclusions and you woldnt read them, belittle them even

You make the claim that you can pull up many records from creationist websites that would help to illuminate me as to the dubious nature of the fossil record and methods of dating and then in the same sentence you do exactly what you have accused others of doing... pre-supposition regarding the creationist links and claim that I wont read them and believe it or not, I actually do read links and posts that are oftentimes 180 degrees different from my own opinions. It gives me a more rounded viewpoint and better understanding of where your arguments originate. I find it rather insulting that you peg me this way. I was simply attempting to engage in a civil dialogue, not go for your throat.

originally posted by: borntowatch
Pro evolutionist sites are not legitimate sources. That's why you remain so confused about this whole thing... you're using junk sources.

If you can present an unbiased scientific source that discusses the inaccuracy of dating methods without a pre-set agenda... then you'll have a legitimate source. Legitimate scientists have an agenda, they just present evidence that helps fund their research and wages.

There's no such thing as a "pro evolutionist" site. There are scientific research papers backed by evidence and then there aren't. You know well that I don't have to point out which is backed by evidence and which is not. You already know this. By definition, scientific research papers are unbiased. Unless of course you're suggesting that all science is lies and propaganda, and if that's the case you are arguing something completely different altogether aside from not understanding what is meant by evolution in science. It wouldn't surprise me as you have already suggested that anything that changes over time is a "form of evolution". Can you prove that music has evolved? If you can't biological evolution MUST be wrong! LOL. It would be one thing if you had data to support your claims that isn't completely based on a belief system.

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

..If you don't want to talk about elephants, then maybe horses instead? Millions of years ago there were no horses, but there were small creatures who shared specific anatomical traits with horses. Those creatures are gone, and horse have since come on the scene. Why?

Nobody yet knows "how and why" there was a big bang, so I can't help you there
The cause for gravity is also unknown
The first stars probably formed differently
It is believed that even though
there were probably

Well at least you are far more honest that most who have come on this thread, most people who try to win the argument.

Who here says they understand the "how and why" of the Big Bang? Our scientific understanding can give us some ideas about what happened immediately after the Big Bang, but science would freely admit that "they don't know why and how". Science is not bashful in admitting that they do not have the answer to "why did the Big bang happen".

Sure -- there are hypotheses, but there is nothing wrong with people developing hypotheses. That's how we learn.

Ok Elephants then
Can you show me evidence that the animals you listed were definitely precursors to elephants and not separate species

It certainly appears that way, considering that these alleged ancient precursors to elephants tended to become more-and more elephant like as time progresses.

Are you telling me that it is more logical that -- say 50 million years ago, a species spontaneous popped into existence that was only a little elephant-like (had only a few characteristics shared by modern elephants; then 30 million years ago, a totally unrelated species (unrelated to the first I mention) spontaneously came into being that was slightly more elephant-like; then 20 million years ago, another species totally unrelated to the other two spontaneously came into being that was even more elephant-like; then 5 million years ago another creature totally unrelated to those other species spontaneous popped into existence, and shared many many characteristics with modern elephants. But none of these had any connection whatsoever to modern elephants.

Are you saying that seems more likely to you?

If so, then where did the first modern elephant come from, anyway (I mean the very first individual elephant)? Out of a cave? Out of a hole in the ground? Did it fall from the sky? It couldn't have been born from a mother elephant, because then it would no longer be the first.

You are asking me to believe that each of these elephant ancestors may have been totally separate species from each other, and all lived in different time periods than each other, but the first individual animals from each of these species were actually born from a mother, but instead just "poofed" onto the scene, all ready to go.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

It certainly appears that way, considering that these alleged ancient precursors to elephants tended to become more-and more elephant like as time progresses.

Are you telling me that it is more logical that -- say 50 million years ago, a species spontaneous popped into existence that was only a little elephant-like (had only a few characteristics shared by modern elephants; then 30 million years ago, a totally unrelated species (unrelated to the first I mention) spontaneously came into being that was slightly more elephant-like; then 20 million years ago, another species totally unrelated to the other two spontaneously came into being that was even more elephant-like; then 5 million years ago another creature totally unrelated to those other species spontaneous popped into existence, and shared many many characteristics with modern elephants. But none of these had any connection whatsoever to modern elephants.

Are you saying that seems more likely to you?

If so, then where did the first modern elephant come from, anyway (I mean the very first individual elephant)? Out of a cave? Out of a hole in the ground? Did it fall from the sky? It couldn't have been born from a mother elephant, because then it would no longer be the first.

You are asking me to believe that each of these elephant ancestors may have been totally separate species from each other, and all lived in different time periods than each other, but the first individual animals from each of these species were actually born from a mother, but instead just "poofed" onto the scene, all ready to go.

First of all, the earth is only 6,000 years old so phooey to all that "50 million, 30 million, 20 million" nonsense.

Secondly, it's obvious that the different elephant bones are proof that god couldn't make up his mind about the final design so he kept changing it. I mean, duh.

Once he came up with the elephant we all know and love, he said "ok, that one's just right" and tossed all the other ones into various layers of the earth's surface to confuse scientists so they'd look super stupid to us creationists.

originally posted by: Answer



First of all, the earth is only 6,000 years old so phooey to all that "50 million, 30 million, 20 million" nonsense.

Secondly, it's obvious that the different elephant bones are proof that god couldn't make up his mind about the final design so he kept changing it. I mean, duh.

Once he came up with the elephant we all know and love, he said "ok, that one's just right" and tossed all the other ones into various layers of the earth's surface to confuse scientists so they'd look super stupid to us creationists.

Really, you want to post for me, isnt that a little presumptuous, a little arrogant, maybe a little rude.
Seriously you want to be that type of person, evidently

How about I post what I think you would say
Along the lines of how .......
No I wont become you

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: Answer



First of all, the earth is only 6,000 years old so phooey to all that "50 million, 30 million, 20 million" nonsense.

Secondly, it's obvious that the different elephant bones are proof that god couldn't make up his mind about the final design so he kept changing it. I mean, duh.

Once he came up with the elephant we all know and love, he said "ok, that one's just right" and tossed all the other ones into various layers of the earth's surface to confuse scientists so they'd look super stupid to us creationists.

Really, you want to post for me, isnt that a little presumptuous, a little arrogant, maybe a little rude.
Seriously you want to be that type of person, evidently

How about I post what I think you would say
Along the lines of how .......
No I wont become you

thats basically what creationists ARE saying though. they just like to dress it up in pretty bows and glitter before delivering it. i hope you'll forgive mr answer for skipping that step.