All eyes evolved from a common ancestor!

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Oh, I see.
Still you have to explain what you mean by "Start stop mechanisms in life", and what you don't understand with it.
I assume you have been doing some googling?

You really don't know what start stop mechanisms are, you don't
grasp when a process or an event starts, we actually call that the
start, and when one stops we say that it stops? Everything about life
has stop starts to it, from how thick various body parts are, how long
they are, when a process starts like blood clotting, how some events
start, and do not stop like a heart beating, and how some are
controlled like blinking eyes. Shouldn't be to hard for you, since you
are a guy of science, let us start there.

My only request is that you limit the discussion to science and not
religion or attempt to make me the topic.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
You really don't know what start stop mechanisms are, you don't
grasp when a process or an event starts, we actually call that the
start, and when one stops we say that it stops? Everything about life
has stop starts to it, from how thick various body parts are, how long
they are, when a process starts like blood clotting, how some events
start, and do you limit the discussion to science and not
religion or attempt to make me the topic.
Kelly

And the relevance? Aren't you way off topic now? Let me remind you about the thread's title: "All eyes evolved from a common ancestor!"

I recommend you to start a new thread where you ask your question again, to have relevant answers.

You accuse others to trick you to bring threads off topic. This is off topic. And you bring it off topic all by yourself.

Why do I suspect that you don't want any answer? But if you do, that you will not understand the answer? But if you do, that you will not accept the answer, because it is not founded in the bible. Right?

Originally posted by KellyJay
”It says from the start:

“…Radiometric dating--the process of determining the age of rocks from the decay of their radioactive elements--has been in widespread use for over half a century. There are over FORTY such techniques, each using a DIFFERENT radioactive element or a DIFFERENT WAY of measuring them. It has become increasingly clear that these ns our viewing of items could give
you good or bad results without you ever knowning it.
Kelly

Opinions, opinions... (yawn)

Originally posted by FabianFnas
And the relevance? Aren't you way off topic now? Let me remind you about the thread's title: "All eyes evolved from a common ancestor!"

I recommend you to start a new thread where you ask your question again, to have relevant answers.

You accuse others to trick you to bring threads off topic. This is off topic. And you bring it off topic all by your ...[text shortened]... you do, that you will not accept the answer, because it is not founded in the bible. Right?

I guess you are not up for this, to bad, its okay, evolution is supposed
to be the means we get life and everything that life does, correct? If
you want to defend it at least be able to talk about it and how
evolution handles things like start and stop are part of that process.
You want an easier topic with respect to evolution, something you feel
you can talk to, just tell me what it is, since the one I picked is not to
your liking.
Kelly

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Opinions, opinions... (yawn)

Hey you are starting to figure it out, good there is hope for you yet!
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Hey you are starting to figure it out, good there is hope for you yet!
Kelly

If you think opinions are hard evidence, then you are way off wrong.
If the only have opinions, based on no knowledge, you are plain ignorant, nothing more. But you are a fundamentalist, and therefore anti-scinece, so it makes sense...

Originally posted by KellyJay
I guess you are not up for this, to bad, its okay, evolution is supposed
to be the means we get life and everything that life does, correct? If
you want to defend it at least be able to talk about it and how
evolution handles things like start and stop are part of that process.
You want an easier topic with respect to evolution, something you feel
you can talk to, just tell me what it is, since the one I picked is not to
your liking.
Kelly

If I want to teach you anything, than I have to rely on that you want to learn.
You don't want to learn anything, so what's the point teaching?

When you have understood the basics about evolution, and not ranting around like a parrot, then we can start a educational process with you.

Until then I'm not interested to teach you anything. Go read some books...

Originally posted by KellyJay
”It says from the start:

“…Radiometric dating--the process of determining the age of rocks from the decay of their radioactive elements--has been in widespread use for over half a century. There are over FORTY such techniques, each using a DIFFERENT radioactive element or a DIFFERENT WAY of measuring them. It has become increasingly clear that these ns our viewing of items could give
you good or bad results without you ever knowning it.
Kelly

….My thoughts on dating methods are that people these included it
seems like to compare apples and oranges and claim they are the
same thing.
..…

I don’t understand your metaphor of “apples and oranges” in this context: exactly what are the “apples” and what are the “oranges” you are referring to here that you claim that they claim are “the same thing”?
If what you are referring to by “apples and oranges” are the different dating techniques than they are VERY CLEARLY NOT claiming they are all the same thing! -that’s why they would refer to them at “DIFFERENT” dating methods -I challenge you to point out where they are claiming they are the same thing! But if what you are referring to is NOT the different dating techniques then what are you referring to here?

…The appeal here from the beginning of their approach to
this subject is no different than yours 99% of the time and that is
appeal the HERD mentality, ..… (my emphasis)

Which “HERD” are you referring too here? -they are all THEISTS!
The “appeal” here from the beginning of their approach to this subject is that they just look at the data and conclude whatever that data points to -that is their and my “approach” to this subject because we are just all curious to know what the truth is.

….We look things in the here and now and see constancy, so we portray
our methods valid and assume nothing changes over time with
different material. That is a huge assumption, since it assumes that
nothing changes over time with different types of material if we test it
the same way.
.…

Which particular property of materials that effects the dating that you are referring to here? -I assume you are referring specifically to the ‘half-life‘? -and have you any evidence that it changes over time?
Would you say it is a “huge assumption” to assume that a particular property of mater, say, the property of it being pulled down by gravity, say, one million years ago?
-if so, you need to demonstrate this as a “huge assumption” by giving a credible explanation for a possible cause for this otherwise inexplicable change in property of mater else it would be as idiotic as claiming that it is a “huge assumption” that their was no Santa one million years ago!
-if not, then why treat other properties of mater (such as the half-life) any different?
Can you explain what could cause such a change the half-life? -answer, no. It would therefore be idiotic to claim that it is a “huge assumption” -as idiotic as claiming that it is a “huge assumption” that their was no Santa one million years ago!

Originally posted by KellyJay
[b]"If you scroll about 2/5ths down to the subtitle:
“Non-Radiometric Dating Methods for the Past 100,000 Years”
You will see how there is a COMPLETE agreement between radiometric dates AND ALL OTHER dating methods -how can this credibly be so if ALL of these dating methods are giving false reading? -the agreement between the DIFFERENT kinds of evidence ...[text shortened]... rd suggestion to make!"

Apples and oranges for the reasons I have already given.
Kelly[/b]

See the first paragraph of my comments in my last post.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
See the first paragraph of my comments in my last post.

He hasn't read it, he just pretend to have. It's about science, therefore he cannot read it. He would rather be satanist than read anything about scinece...

Originally posted by FabianFnas
If you think opinions are hard evidence, then you are way off wrong.
If the only have opinions, based on no knowledge, you are plain ignorant, nothing more. But you are a fundamentalist, and therefore anti-scinece, so it makes sense...

Opinions are what we get when we look at our hard evidence, not sure
what you actually think happens when we see data, but that either
occurs or it doesn't. If you don't get a thought about what you’re seeing
you don't grasp what it is your seeing. I'm asking you to explain, give
me your opinion on what it is we are seeing, explain the process to
me. If you are either unwilling or more likely unable to walk me
through life's start stops, so I'm not sure what it is you really are up to
here, because you sure don't really grasp what is going on.

If we accept the notion that life is chemicals, they got thrown together
and from there "started" changing by growing in complexity and size,
why did it do that, what about life caused it to start doing X at one
point and Y at another. Should be the basics of evolution, I thought
I was giving you something simple; I could have asked you a million
other different things, but something basic was all I was after.

I'm starting to suspect you do not think for yourself, you read or get
told what is true and that for you is science, so if someone cannot just
tell you what to think about something your lost, you don't reason any
thing out yourself. Not sure what your definition of fundamentalist is
but I'm willing to bet you fit that description more than I do. The sad
thing is you couldn’t even express an opinion about the topic you
asked from me, you went right into making this about me again, how
sad for you.
Kelly

Originally posted by FabianFnas
If I want to teach you anything, than I have to rely on that you want to learn.
You don't want to learn anything, so what's the point teaching?

When you have understood the basics about evolution, and not ranting around like a parrot, then we can start a educational process with you.

Until then I'm not interested to teach you anything. Go read some books...

I'm not asking you to teach me squat, I don't think you grasp any
part of the process on your own, I think you have to completely rely
on the brains of others, you cannot/do not think for yourself. I'm
willing to have a conversation with you, debate, bounce ideas off
one another, but if you think the only worthwhile thing that can
happen here is for me to be taught by you, you are a joke, you are
completely full of yourself. I suspect if we were having a
conversation I could and would learn from you, but you'd have to
get over yourself first.
Kelly

Originally posted by FabianFnas
He hasn't read it, he just pretend to have. It's about science, therefore he cannot read it. He would rather be satanist than read anything about scinece...

This is all you ever offer, you attack people, I asked you to enter into
a discussion and this is all you got.
Kelly

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
See the first paragraph of my comments in my last post.

I'll read them again.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
This is all you ever offer, you attack people, I asked you to enter into
a discussion and this is all you got.
Kelly

But you usually don't read scientific texts, do you? I asked you to read a basic book about geology once, but you refuse. So why would I think otherwise here? And you seem not to want to read the proposed paragraph Andrew asked you to, wo what am I to think? You feel this is an attack? I say, no it wasn't. Still whining?