I think you're safe, you will always believe the Bible, because there will probably never be proof to convince you otherwise.
/Sunil From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2014 19:44:54 +0800 Then show me fossil evidence where transition forms are clearly evident. How can we construct the entire narrative of Human evolution when all the fossils of all previous humanoid forms fit in the bed of a F-150 truck. That is some flimsy evidence for humanoid evolution. Also, precisely for the reason that macro-evolution is not obeservable, why I call it a theory, not science, let alone settled science. Jojo PS: I want concrete proof because I wanted to be convinced. As Mulder would say "I want to believe". I want to be convinced that I have not wasted my life believing the Bible. But so far, Darwinian Evolution has been shallow and empty from an intellectual point of view. It does not make sense I studied the Bible for a while before I was convinced it is reliable. ----- Original Message ----- From: Sunil Shah To: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 7:26 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium Jojo, if we assume macro-evolution occurs in long time-frames, how can anyone show you "concrete proof" the way you say you want it? I found this http://www.debate.org/debates/There-is-no-Observable-Evidence-for-Macroevolution/1/ from which I took this http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/hominids2.jpg and this: (A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern (B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My (C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My (D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My (E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My (F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My (G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My (H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My (I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y (J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y (K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y (L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y (M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y (N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern" (Of course, this list is useless in light of your radioactive dating discussion) Best Regards, Sunil PS A personal question: For what reason you want concrete proof? From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2014 09:04:13 +0800 Ken, are you saying the Clymene dolphin is an example of Macro-evolution. It seems to me that it is just a variation of the spinner dolphin. Not sure what you are claiming here. Which 2%-4% of flowering plants are you referring to? Please be specific so that I can research it to see if you are right. So, you people make fun of my probability calculation so I pointed out the probability calculation of a staunch evolutionists who have already considered many of your objections. Now, you make fun of him (Julian Huxley). What level of proof or which personality would you really consider credible? Whose proof is acceptable to you? Please don't just say there are thousands of textbooks. If there are thousands of proofs, it shouldn't be difficult for you to point out one example of an observable macro-evolution event. Though I can understand part of your problem. As a biology teacher, you have been totally immersed in this Darwinian paradigm. Like Huzienga, it is very difficult for you to change your mind or to admit that what you believed your entire life has been a lie. Me? I will accept Darwinian Evolution today if someone can show me concrete proof. Not conjectures, and imaginations and suppositions and speculations and interpretations. I challenged Nigel to do just that, but it seems he could not. Jojo ----- Original Message ----- From: Ken Deboer To: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 2:49 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium Jojo, Here's one (actually a few ): clymene dolphin plus 2-4% of all flowering plants, inc. many sunflowers, and many crop species. BTW. This whole 'odds' thing is a joke. Julian Huxley, for example, did not state his opinion re; the astronomical 'odds' of a horse, but did ridicule the guy that did. It appears, for example, that the odds that you and I could ever agree on most anything is, let's see, 80 billion neuronal actions per sec X 80 billion neurons actions per sec by you X 30 years = ???? (I'm not too good at math, you do the math). From a former biology teacher, ken PS. don't call me, I'll call you back. On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 12:16 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: On 28/08/2014 1:11 AM, Jojo Iznart wrote: John, my friend, you have a fundamental problem in your analysis. Your unyielding adherence to Darwinian dogmaYou are mistaken. I have no adherence to Darwinian dogma whatsoever. If "Darwinian dogma" (whatever that is) happens to coincide with my understanding - well maybe its right. is blinding you and preventing you from asking the right questions. You assume Darwinian Evolution is true first and that skews your analysis. For example, you assume that the Coelacanth is 350 million years old. How do you know that?We have been over this ad nauseum. I accept radiometric dating. In many cases it is simply superb. You are welcome to continue rubbishing it but you should be aware that in the almost unanimous view of intelligent and well educated people you are thereby only rubbishing yourself. You know that only because Darwinian Evolution theory told you so. Since your first assumption is that Darwinian Evolution is true, you can liberally conclude that the Coelacanth is 350 million years old. Then a wrong question stems from this wrong understanding - wrong assumption. You then ask why the coelacanth "stopped" evolving? This of course is the wrong question that you are trying to answer. What you should do is not assume anything. You then look at the data and see if Darwinian Evolution fits the data.What about you? You make one massive assumption (that the history and legends brought back by the Jews after their exile in Babylon has to be completely inerrant), and then you look at the data and no matter how good it is, you toss it out if you can't make it fit that massive assumption. Can Darwinian Evolution explain the existence of the Coelacanth up to today and why it hasn't evolved? If not, Darwinian Evolution theory is wrong. Instead, you ask, how could the Coelacanth exist unchanged for 350 million years? This is the wrong questions that should not have been asked if your initial assumptions did not screw with your analysis. Jojo PS: I'm really at a loss understanding why people can't seem to see the stupidities of their belief in Darwinian Evolution - why they can see that Darwinian Evolution could be wrong.Take out the plank that is in your own eye, and then you can see better to pick specks of dust from others assumptions.
