Evidence For And Against Evolution

[YoursTrue]

What's your point? Keller is still a tenured professor earning a living in the field of her choice.

Do you think she's arguing against the extinction event because she believes the Bible like you do?

The following is from your link... My emphasis

When we discussed the risk that the Yellowstone supervolcano might blow at any time, Keller’s eyes twinkled. “It’s a fun idea,” she said. To her, mass extinctions are not depressing. Rather, they illuminate life’s fundamental questions. “Ask yourself, ‘Where did you come from?’ ‘Why are we here?’ ” Keller told me. “If you extract all the religious bull**** away from it, you have to go to nature. And the only way to find out is really to study the history.”
​

Do you understand that both sides of the argument agree that the extinction event happened about 66 million years ago? Long before your Bible says anything happened.

Do you understand that both sides of the argument agree that dinosaurs actually existed and died out within the same general time frame? Something your Bible ignores even while talking about giant men who supposedly roamed the earth.


Aside from snidely trying to show that all scientists do not always agree on all things, I don't understand the reason for you making this post.



That what is true? That scientists have egos? That scientists will defend their turf? Again, what is your point?

The point is that on many points scientists disagree vigorously. Showing that it's conjectural opinion based on their own opinions and findings, each to his own. Nothing wrong with figuring something happened. But! then other research later can turn up something else. Overturning the previous truths. Hmm? You guys are something.

 

[Audie]

The point is that on many points scientists disagree vigorously. Showing that it's conjectural opinion based on their own opinions and findings, each to his own. Nothing wrong with figuring something happened. But! then other research later can turn up something else. Overturning the previous truths. Hmm? You guys are something.

There are disagreements on some things.

You are only talking about those areas on which there is disagreement.
Why?
When there is insufficient data, of course there will be debate.
Marketplace of ideas! You think that is a weakness?

By far most research has nothing to do with "overturning" anything.
Research is about gathering data.
I could say more-
But then, it would be a big task to inform you about how science
actually work, especially as you think you know, and do not want to learn.

How do I know you know so little? One hint is when you use the
word "truth". Science does not do truth. Science works with
probabilities and approximations.

Your nonsensical assertions about something you know nothing about,
followed by attempted mockery "You guys are really something"
is on the intellectual level of an 8 yr old laughing at all those funny
squiggles that a math professor put on the board.

"Haha its all fake, everyone knows math uses numbers, not squiggles".

See if you can learn one thing today:*
Science does not do truth.

Science Isn't About 'the Truth'—It's About Building Models

* quiz tomorrow. (it is already tomorrow in Hong Kong and
I need to get going)

 

[ecco]

The point is that on many points scientists disagree vigorously. Showing that it's conjectural opinion based on their own opinions and findings, each to his own. Nothing wrong with figuring something happened. But! then other research later can turn up something else. Overturning the previous truths. Hmm? You guys are something.

Science goes forward to a better understanding of nature.

1. The sun and the earth are spheres and the earth and the planets revolve around the sun in circles.
2. The sun and the earth are mostly spherical and the earth and the planets revolve around the sun in elliptical orbits.

Do you think there will be some discoveries in the future that will again show that the orbits are circles instead of ellipticals?

In the past, it was thought that stars were stars. Then, with better equipment, science found that some of what look like stars are actually massive galaxies. Do you think that some new findings will show that galaxies are actually only stars again?

In the early days of atomic research, it was thought that electrons orbited the nucleus like the planets orbited the sun. With better instruments, we found that was not the case.

Your argument is nonsensical.


Do you also argue that advances in building products and techniques mean that architects and engineers and steelworkers were wrong?

Do you also argue that a 2019 Corvette proves that the people who designed the 1990 Corvette were wrong?

Do you have problems with better ways to implant kidneys and hearts?

Your argument is nonsensical.



You only have problems with those people and those professions that dare contradict your precious bible.

 

[Polymath257]

The point is that on many points scientists disagree vigorously. Showing that it's conjectural opinion based on their own opinions and findings, each to his own. Nothing wrong with figuring something happened. But! then other research later can turn up something else. Overturning the previous truths. Hmm? You guys are something.

Yes, at the boundary of knowledge there will be a lot of debate. That will continue until the evidence and the reasoning convinces enough people. Then the debate ebbs for that topic and moves on to another thing that is on the edge of knowledge.

You seem to think it should all be immediately obvious what the correct answer is in all cases. Well, that is simply not the case. Evidence has to be collected and evaluated. Sometimes the evidence seems, at first, to be contradictory. That has to be debated and resolved (usually through more evidence). The process can be messy and it can take a long time (sometimes decades) before a conclusion is reached.

Why do you see this as being a problem? Each side gets its ideas hear and evaluated. Everyone is free to find relevant evidence and present it. That means there *will* be back and forth, an ebb and flow to the views, always allowing that there are alternatives.

Does it bother you that this process is not immediate? or that there is more than one view discussed? or that people have different views when it comes to the edge of knowledge?

No 'previous truths' were overturned. There has *always* been a question of whether the asteroid, or volcanic activity, or disease, or whatever was the cause of the dinosaur extinction. As more date is found, some possibilities are discarded and others arise.

 

[Polymath257]

I'm thinking you just didn't understand the point here. Yes, you're right, nothing replaced them that had been "before" them, as if they had been evolving into the same things of the dinosaurs.

I am attempting to make sense out of what you wrote, but can't find anything sensible. Could you please rephrase this to make it more clear?

The dinosaurs just went poof.

Well, the question is why.

Nothing that preceded them as they evolved, so to say, before them "growing," or continuing to be dinosaurs and clearly nothing after that is a dinosaur, except maybe, a bird?

Please try to write in complete, gramatical sentences. I am having a lot of trouble figuring out what you want to ask.

Yes, there were animals before dinosaurs that evolved into dinosaurs. Some of those ancestors went extinct.

Next, not all dinosaurs lived at the same time. There are distinct differences in the types that lived 70 million years ago and those that lived 140 million years ago.

Yes, birds are descended from *one* type of dinosaur.

Maybe all their evolved predecessors were wiped out, too, when they were wiped out.

No, most of the predecessors died out long before the dinosaurs did.

Guess so. Or -- maybe some were left somewhere and either stayed the same, or evolved into something else. You know, like a bird.

Some died out, some developed into birds. There was more than one type of dinosaur just like there is more than one type of mammal and more than one type of bear.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, you're the one that denies what's there. Theories change. Are you denying that?

Nobody denies that. But what happens *when* theories change? The new theory explains why the old theory worked when it did and also gets more accuracy and extends to different situations than the old. That is a *good* thing, making science more accurate over time.

 

[YoursTrue]

How is this response of yours relevant to the post you are replying to?

(You're somethin.) You hardly answer any point directly. You either didn't get it or you are subterfuging. You fail to see the elementary things, so how can you go further? Sadly to say, you can't.

 

[YoursTrue]

Nobody denies that. But what happens *when* theories change? The new theory explains why the old theory worked when it did and also gets more accuracy and extends to different situations than the old. That is a *good* thing, making science more accurate over time.

Never said it was bad when theories change and relevant evidence changes the basis for the old theory.

 

[YoursTrue]

I am attempting to make sense out of what you wrote, but can't find anything sensible. Could you please rephrase this to make it more clear?


Well, the question is why.


Please try to write in complete, gramatical sentences. I am having a lot of trouble figuring out what you want to ask.

Yes, there were animals before dinosaurs that evolved into dinosaurs. Some of those ancestors went extinct.

Next, not all dinosaurs lived at the same time. There are distinct differences in the types that lived 70 million years ago and those that lived 140 million years ago.

Yes, birds are descended from *one* type of dinosaur.


No, most of the predecessors died out long before the dinosaurs did.



Some died out, some developed into birds. There was more than one type of dinosaur just like there is more than one type of mammal and more than one type of bear.

How do you know that? You say most of the predecessors -- such as?-- died out before the dinosaurs? Too bad they just didn't go somewhere else and evolve into dinosaurs again.

 

[Polymath257]

How do you know that? You say most of the predecessors -- such as?-- died out before the dinosaurs? Too bad they just didn't go somewhere else and evolve into dinosaurs again.

Well, because we have fossils of the precursors. Those fossils stop showing up long before the first wave of dinosaurs was even in the middle of its progression.

And why would you think that, even if they survived, they would have evolved into other dinosaurs? You realize that isn't how evolution works, right?

 

[McBell]

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.”

that does not answer the question:

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

 

[YoursTrue]

Well, because we have fossils of the precursors. Those fossils stop showing up long before the first wave of dinosaurs was even in the middle of its progression.

And why would you think that, even if they survived, they would have evolved into other dinosaurs? You realize that isn't how evolution works, right?

I do, but doesn't it seem strange to you that the dinosaurs somehow did not re-occur? It does to me. But then I'm not as educated as you are, so I suppose the possibility of reoccurance is rather small. Help me out here, if you will. I was googling as to what came before the dinosaurs and lo and behold I see that it is said the earth's land was made up of a single continent, Pangea. A single continent. Wonder what THAT must have looked like. And then it goes on to say that the dominant life form was the trilobite, visually somewhere between a wood louse and an armadillo.
[URL='https://www.theguardian.com/science/2001/feb/23/fossils.geology']https://www.theguardian.com › science › feb › fossils.geology[/URL]

 

[YoursTrue]

that does not answer the question:

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

As Jesus said, you cannot have two masters. And you say "my god." As far as knowing, well, that is not something I can tell you right now, except to tell you the scripture I shared with you at the end of the post. The knowledge comes from God and only God can give this to you. It also involves the heart. And what one puts first in life, or is looking for. But using the Bible as an example, you will see that Eve listened to the serpent's voice rather than obey the One who made her and gave her instructions. Thus the serpent (later know as the Devil) became greater to her than the God who made her.
Now here's a thought for you to ponder over: Stephen Hawking suggested that humans would need to leave the planet within 100 years and find another planet to live on in humans are going to survive. Stephen Hawking was famous for studying space—but he cared even more about life on Earth
Paul said the following in the book of Acts 17:21 to those listening to him about Jesus: "God intended that they would seek Him and perhaps reach out for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us."

 

[YoursTrue]

Well, because we have fossils of the precursors. Those fossils stop showing up long before the first wave of dinosaurs was even in the middle of its progression.

And why would you think that, even if they survived, they would have evolved into other dinosaurs? You realize that isn't how evolution works, right?

Well again -- here is what scientists say about the first animals:
Shock: First Animal on Earth Was Surprisingly Complex | Live Science
(Just isn't as simple as they first thought they were...that irreducible and inexplicable complexity rears its head again.)

 

[McBell]

As Jesus said, you cannot have two masters. And you say "my god." As far as knowing, well, that is not something I can tell you right now, except to tell you the scripture I shared with you at the end of the post. The knowledge comes from God and only God can give this to you. It also involves the heart. And what one puts first in life, or is looking for. But using the Bible as an example, you will see that Eve listened to the serpent's voice rather than obey the One who made her and gave her instructions. Thus the serpent (later know as the Devil) became greater to her than the God who made her.
Now here's a thought for you to ponder over: Stephen Hawking suggested that humans would need to leave the planet within 100 years and find another planet to live on in humans are going to survive. Stephen Hawking was famous for studying space—but he cared even more about life on Earth
Paul said the following in the book of Acts 17:21 to those listening to him about Jesus: "God intended that they would seek Him and perhaps reach out for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us."

Again, you did not answer the question.
I was hoping you would be the first one in four decades to actually give a straight answer.

 

[Valjean]

I do, but doesn't it seem strange to you that the dinosaurs somehow did not re-occur? It does to me. But then I'm not as educated as you are, so I suppose the possibility of reoccurance is rather small. Help me out here, if you will. I was googling as to what came before the dinosaurs and lo and behold I see that it is said the earth's land was made up of a single continent, Pangea. A single continent. Wonder what THAT must have looked like. And then it goes on to say that the dominant life form was the trilobite, visually somewhere between a wood louse and an armadillo.
https://www.theguardian.com › science › feb › fossils.geology

1. With the dinos' predecessors also extinct, what group would have the biological features that could evolve into new dinosaurs?
2. With the environment completely different from the one that spawned the dinosaurs, what ecological pressures would lead to the evolution of dinosaurs, even if their predecessors did still exist?
3. After the dino's extinction the mammals radiated into the ecological niches they previously occupied. It's easy to evolve to fit an empty niche, but a lot harder to dislodge already well adapted occupants.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I do, but doesn't it seem strange to you that the dinosaurs somehow did not re-occur? It does to me. But then I'm not as educated as you are, so I suppose the possibility of reoccurance is rather small. Help me out here, if you will. I was googling as to what came before the dinosaurs and lo and behold I see that it is said the earth's land was made up of a single continent, Pangea. A single continent. Wonder what THAT must have looked like. And then it goes on to say that the dominant life form was the trilobite, visually somewhere between a wood louse and an armadillo.
https://www.theguardian.com › science › feb › fossils.geology

This shows an incredible lack of education of how evolution occurs. Oddly enough creationists constantly complain about the random part of evolution and then they demonstrate what the consequences of those random events is. Evolution cannot repeat itself.

 

[YoursTrue]

Again, you did not answer the question.
I was hoping you would be the first one in four decades to actually give a straight answer.

I did answer the question. It's like looking at dollar bills. In order to recognize the real thing and not a fake you have to recognize the real thing. Jesus gave illustrations. I felt similar to you when I was asking like you are, not believing in God, I felt the same way as you do when someone gave me the answer like I gave you. If you want me to explain more about the differences between geology and what the Bible says, I can only say that however life came about on the earth, God created the heavens and the earth. It did not come about by itself, without a creative force enabling it. Can bacteria multiply and change? Yes. Does that mean that God does not enable living matter? No. Since I am not God, I cannot prove to you He exists. He can help you. I know it seems like a conundrum but perhaps in time you will see it. I hope so.

 

[YoursTrue]

Again, you did not answer the question.
I was hoping you would be the first one in four decades to actually give a straight answer.

As I said, I was very much like you. The only one who can give you faith is God. You'll know when it's there.

 

[YoursTrue]

There are disagreements on some things.

You are only talking about those areas on which there is disagreement.
Why?
When there is insufficient data, of course there will be debate.
Marketplace of ideas! You think that is a weakness?

By far most research has nothing to do with "overturning" anything.
Research is about gathering data.
I could say more-
But then, it would be a big task to inform you about how science
actually work, especially as you think you know, and do not want to learn.

How do I know you know so little? One hint is when you use the
word "truth". Science does not do truth. Science works with
probabilities and approximations.

Your nonsensical assertions about something you know nothing about,
followed by attempted mockery "You guys are really something"
is on the intellectual level of an 8 yr old laughing at all those funny
squiggles that a math professor put on the board.

"Haha its all fake, everyone knows math uses numbers, not squiggles".

See if you can learn one thing today:*
Science does not do truth.

Science Isn't About 'the Truth'—It's About Building Models

* quiz tomorrow. (it is already tomorrow in Hong Kong and
I need to get going)

Sometimes some things need to be said. I hope you do well on your test. I am not speaking against science, just against the idea that there is no God. And that there are real "leaps of faith," to put it mildly, among scientific reasonings. The more I think about it, the more I realize that even men like Stephen Hawking who looked at the universe, black holes and things like that, was looking at God's creation, and fascinated by it. That's my conclusion. Maybe he didn't believe in God, but I have come to the conclusion based on my understanding of the Bible and creation as I see it, that God exists. I also believe that it is possible Hawkings will come to know God in the future. I hope he will.