Evidence For And Against Evolution

[YoursTrue]

My goodness. If you know more than the geologists, where is your Nobel Prize?

I do not disagree that elements of various sorts are found in layers of the earth.

 

[Polymath257]

How do you feel about the following? From Scientific American: "Archaeologists vehemently disagree over the effects changing climate and competition from recently arriving humans had on the Neanderthals' demise." Why do they say "recently arriving humans" vs Neanderthals? Carbon Dating Gets a Reset

Because Neanderthals were a subspecies that existed primarily in Europe. The question is whether the Neanderthals died out because of the invasion of more modern humans or was the primary reason they died out due to climate change.

Having more accuracy in the carbon dates can help this because we then can better separate things like the climate information and the dates of the bones and other artifacts. When the dates are uncertain, that allows for more debate about which is the cause.

Again, why do you s as a signal of unreliability?

 

[Polymath257]

Nope, that's not the "bottom layer" of it all. And so what I have found is what those such as Michael Behe and others like him say, if you don't agree with the diehard believers in evolution as popular, it's possible one's career in those sciences is doomed due to political reasons. And I have seen that prejudice here, such as in your above post. (Thank you.)

The problem is that Behe's ideas were addressed and shown to be wrong long ago. In the scientific community, the debate is over. It is only among those not aware of the science that the public debate continues.

 

[Polymath257]

I do not disagree that elements of various sorts are found in layers of the earth.

And that we can use this information to correlate across the world when an unusual element (iridium) appears in a single layer world wide. We can also use this information, along with information about where iridium occurs to conjecture an asteroid hit.

And that is what was done. But, more interestingly, we actually have the impact crater. We know when the impact happened, we know the effects it had (shock waves) as far away as Montana, and we know that prior to that impact dinosaurs were going downhill, but that none have been found after.

Now, there is a debate about whether the volcanic activity just prior to the impact is the major reason for the extinction, or whether the impact itself takes all the credit, and that gets into minutia of the exact dates of the eruptions, the decline in the dinosaurs, and the date of the impact. And, it may be a one-two punch: neither enough on their own to cause the extinction, but the two together sealed the deal.

 

[YoursTrue]

Geologist I: This layer is 58.2 million years old.
Geologist II: No, it is 58.6 million years old.

You: Geologists disagree, so it's reasonable to think it is all less than 20,000 years old.

Looking at the following article and interview with a geologist who dared disagree with her colleagues, I say, "wow." Seems true to form here.
The Nastiest Feud in Science
The geologist argues that the "mass extinction was caused not by a wrong-place-wrong-time asteroid collision but by a series of colossal volcanic eruptions in a part of western India known as the Deccan Traps—a theory that was first proposed in 1978 and then abandoned by all but a small number of scientists." And this put her at the core of a vicious controversy among other scientists, including slander, threats, and attempts to ruin careers. And after I started reading up about these things, And seeing the defenses and accusations here, I realize not only that it is possible, but true.

 

[YoursTrue]

The problem is that Behe's ideas were addressed and shown to be wrong long ago. In the scientific community, the debate is over. It is only among those not aware of the science that the public debate continues.

I don't agree. There is NO WAY that the first thing (item, unicell, whatever) emerging from whatever is not a complex unit. And then over who-knows-how-long it developed more.
Let me make one thing clear, if possible, because the subject of evolution is pretty messed up, so it is hard to explain in real-time (reality). By evolutionists themselves. So let me say that inbreeding is obviously possible making observable distinctions. As well as transmittable illnesses, such as Epstein-Barr syndrome. But some may promote the idea that God causes everything. Including deformities. He does not. But like the possibility of test-tube babies and transplants, or growing brains as I see is happening now. It happens, but this is not from God.

 

[McBell]

Looking at the following article and interview with a geologist who dared disagree with her colleagues, I say, "wow." Seems true to form here.
The Nastiest Feud in Science
The geologist argues that the "mass extinction was caused not by a wrong-place-wrong-time asteroid collision but by a series of colossal volcanic eruptions in a part of western India known as the Deccan Traps—a theory that was first proposed in 1978 and then abandoned by all but a small number of scientists." And this put her at the core of a vicious controversy among other scientists, including slander, threats, and attempts to ruin careers. And after I started reading up about these things, And seeing the defenses and accusations here, I realize not only that it is possible, but true.

why do you hold scientists to higher standard than theists?
There are over a thousand versions of Christianity alone do to the infighting.

 

[YoursTrue]

Except you don't find any dinosaur fossils above the iridium deposit caused by the asteroid that hit the Yucatan about 65 million years ago.

After all that, given the immense size of some of these dinosaurs, they just did not evolve supposedly as they were to have before their extinction. Something was lost.

 

[YoursTrue]

why do you hold scientists to higher standard than theists?
There are over a thousand versions of Christianity alone do to the infighting.

I see what you are saying, and as I learned a long time ago, only God can lead a person to the right conclusion. While I can tell you what I think, only God can give you faith in Him and the trueness of what He is saying.

 

[YoursTrue]

why do you hold scientists to higher standard than theists?
There are over a thousand versions of Christianity alone do to the infighting.

I agree, but now we're not talking about the differences and horrors of infighting among religions. We're speaking of evolution vs. creation.

 

[McBell]

I see what you are saying, and as I learned a long time ago, only God can lead a person to the right conclusion. While I can tell you what I think, only God can give you faith in Him and the trueness of what He is saying.

how do you know it is your god you are following?

 

[McBell]

I agree, but now we're not talking about the differences and horrors of infighting among religions. We're speaking of evolution vs. creation.

so you don't hold scientists to a higher standard?
If not, how do you know your selected beliefs are accurate?

 

[YoursTrue]

so you don't hold scientists to a higher standard?
If not, how do you know your selected beliefs are accurate?

I have studied various religions and the Bible along with the various denominations, and have come to the conclusion that there is only one true God, the God of those such as Abraham, Moses, and Jesus. So as scientists come to their conclusions, pro or con, I have come to the conclusion that there is only one true God, as Jesus said. Only God can bring a person to this conclusion. I do not agree with everyone who professes belief in God, even if sincerely. God is the true Judge, though, not me, of a person's standing with Him. If I find out that God used evolution to create the heavens and the earth, I will agree with that. But so far I do not see that as being true. I don't know if you believe in the Bible at all, so I won't particularly discuss that right now.

 

[YoursTrue]

how do you know it is your god you are following?

You ask an interesting question. Jesus said that one must love God. Thus to love someone, you would have to know Him. Matthew 22:36-40 “Teacher, which commandment is the greatest in the Law?” Jesus declared, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

 

[YoursTrue]

Hmmm....so getting more accuracy is making past statements false? Only if you ignore the error bars that have always been there.

Yes, getting more accurate dating methods makes previous theories (ideas) false, including dating of history and theories about them.

Yes, they argue over what is true and not true. But this article isn't showing that.

It is showing that *known* issues can be resolved using more data. And that helps accuracy other places.

I fail to see why you seem to think this is a bad thing for science.

I didn't say it is a bad thing for science. How you misinterpret. I said that according to these findings, "science" keeps changing the lines.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Looking at the following article and interview with a geologist who dared disagree with her colleagues, I say, "wow." Seems true to form here.
The Nastiest Feud in Science
The geologist argues that the "mass extinction was caused not by a wrong-place-wrong-time asteroid collision but by a series of colossal volcanic eruptions in a part of western India known as the Deccan Traps—a theory that was first proposed in 1978 and then abandoned by all but a small number of scientists." And this put her at the core of a vicious controversy among other scientists, including slander, threats, and attempts to ruin careers. And after I started reading up about these things, And seeing the defenses and accusations here, I realize not only that it is possible, but true.

So what. The extinction happened 65 million years ago. Whether it was volcanos or an asteroid doesn't change that. Disagreements over details doesn't falsify evolution of make your view win by default.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I don't agree. There is NO WAY that the first thing (item, unicell, whatever) emerging from whatever is not a complex unit. And then over who-knows-how-long it developed more.
Let me make one thing clear, if possible, because the subject of evolution is pretty messed up, so it is hard to explain in real-time (reality). By evolutionists themselves. So let me say that inbreeding is obviously possible making observable distinctions. As well as transmittable illnesses, such as Epstein-Barr syndrome. But some may promote the idea that God causes everything. Including deformities. He does not. But like the possibility of test-tube babies and transplants, or growing brains as I see is happening now. It happens, but this is not from God.

Can someone translate this very confusing post for me? What is this poster trying to say?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes, getting more accurate dating methods makes previous theories (ideas) false, including dating of history and theories about them.

I didn't say it is a bad thing for science. How you misinterpret. I said that according to these findings, "science" keeps changing the lines.

How does more accurate dating falsify the theory of evolution?

it doesn't.

Science isn't religion or pretend. New information cannot be ignored like creationists are want to do.

 

[YoursTrue]

Because Neanderthals were a subspecies that existed primarily in Europe. The question is whether the Neanderthals died out because of the invasion of more modern humans or was the primary reason they died out due to climate change.
...

Subspecies? What are Neanderthals a subspecies of, and how do you know this?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I have studied various religions and the Bible along with the various denominations, and have come to the conclusion that there is only one true God, the God of those such as Abraham, Moses, and Jesus. So as scientists come to their conclusions, pro or con, I have come to the conclusion that there is only one true God, as Jesus said. Only God can bring a person to this conclusion. I do not agree with everyone who professes belief in God, even if sincerely. God is the true Judge, though, not me, of a person's standing with Him. If I find out that God used evolution to create the heavens and the earth, I will agree with that. But so far I do not see that as being true. I don't know if you believe in the Bible at all, so I won't particularly discuss that right now.

Scientists draw conclusions based on evidence. What evidence did you use?