Evidence For And Against Evolution

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Oh my! Claiming that your God is evil is not a wise tactic.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

In other words you have no valid reasons for your beliefs. Given a counterfeit bill I can explain the differences between it and a real one. There is no need to say "you just know". In fact if you make that claim it shows that one really does not know. They are the sort that get taken in by all sorts of scams and not just religious ones.

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

OK. You know, there would have to be a lot of micro changes in order to produce a larger form. And of course, assuming there should be predecessors alive somewhere that weren't killed off with the dinosaurs, shouldn't there be? After all -- how many different forms does it take to make a dinosaur? Through how many stages?

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK. You know, there would have to be a lot of micro changes in order to produce a larger form. And of course, assuming there should be predecessors alive somewhere that weren't killed off with the dinosaurs, shouldn't there be? After all -- how many different forms does it take to make a dinosaur? Through how many stages?

This makes no sense at all.

 

[Skwim]

This makes no sense at all.

It doesn't have to.

.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

(You're somethin.) You hardly answer any point directly.

Says the guy who starts talking about increased accuracy of carbon dating (to date things with a max age of about 50.000 years) in response to a point about what caused the extinction of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago.

You either didn't get it or you are subterfuging.

I indeed don't get what increased accuracy in carbon dating has to do with what caused the extinction of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago.

Maybe you should explain it.

You fail to see the elementary things, so how can you go further? Sadly to say, you can't.

What elementary things?
And *I* can't address points directly????

What does increased accuracy of carbon dating have to do with what caused the dino's to go extinct?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

How do you know that?

Fossils.

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.

Not how evolution works.

Why is it, that creationists are so consistent in getting evolution wrong?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I do, but doesn't it seem strange to you that the dinosaurs somehow did not re-occur?

No.

 

[Skwim]

Why is it, that creationists are so consistent in getting evolution wrong?

What I've found.

Lack of education: they don't know.
Lack of intelligence: they're incapable of processing the knowledge they're given
Lack of integrity: they can't let themselves believe what they know
Lack of ethics: they deliberately lie about facts
Lack of principles: they're trolling

.​

 

[Polymath257]

I do, but doesn't it seem strange to you that the dinosaurs somehow did not re-occur?

Nope. Not at all.

It does to me. But then I'm not as educated as you are, so I suppose the possibility of reoccurance is rather small.

Precisely. To get the same genetics again would be incredibly unlikely.

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.

There have actually been cycles of a single continent and it breaking up and then reassembling.

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

Well, there was a LONG time before the dinosaurs. On land, you had various amphibians (Eryops, for example), as well as the rise of reptiles. For example, Dimetrodon was not a dinosaur and lived before the dinosaurs.

Trilobites were in the oceans. And, while they were very common, they were far from being the only things alive. There were lots of different types of fish, as well as sharks, for example.

Might I suggest you actually get a textbook instead of relying on Google and websites catering to kids?

 

[Astrophile]

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

That article was published nearly 19 years ago, in a newspaper, not in a scientific journal. It is also very misleading. The hypothesis that the Permo-Triassic mass extinction was caused by the impact of a comet or asteroid has not been confirmed by later research. The Permian precursors of the dinosaurs were not amphibious. By the Permian period, trilobites had long since ceased to be the dominant form of life. Trilobites were not related to armadillos and they loved in different environments; trilobites were marine arthropods, whereas armadillos are land mammals. If you really want to learn about the dinosaurs and their predecessors, I recommend The Dinosaurs Rediscovered by Michael J. Benton (Thames & Hudson Ltd., 2019) and The Rise and Fall of the Dinosaurs by Steve Brusatte (Macmillan, 2018).

 

[ecco]

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.

Just when I thought it couldn't get any worse.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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

No, I'm not. I'm the one who quoted from the article you provided. Which you didn't address. Why is that?

Your point was that, "getting more accurate dating methods makes previous theories (ideas) false."

Which is false in this case. Which I pointed out to you, by quoting from the article you provided which says otherwise.

I addressed your point. How about addressing my response to it?

 

[SkepticThinker]

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. The dinosaurs just went poof. 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? Maybe all their evolved predecessors were wiped out, too, when they were wiped out. Guess so. Or -- maybe some were left somewhere and either stayed the same, or evolved into something else. You know, like a bird.

Birds, Dinosaurs, and Reptiles | Ask A Biologist

 

[ecco]

What I've found.

Lack of education: they don't know.
Lack of intelligence: they're incapable of processing the knowledge they're given
Lack of integrity: they can't let themselves believe what they know
Lack of ethics: they deliberately lie about facts
Lack of principles: they're trolling

.​

Add:
Absolute refusal to entertain the validity of anything that conflicts with their deeply held, indoctrinated fundamentalist beliefs.

 

[Audie]

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.

What have you said that "needs to be" said?

Your nonsense about "truth" isnt one of them.
Your quiz is today.
Have you learned that science does not do truth?
Have you any idea why?

As for your prob with science and god-

Science has zero to do with whether there is a god.

The place where religion and science intersect is where
religious people such as yourself use the supposed
authority of (their interpretation of) their religion to spout as
FACT, nonsense about the physical world. All data that
shows they / you are wrong is blithely hand waved
and subsumed under the belief that they speak as (gasp)
atheists while you speak with the Authority of God. (you do not)

You speak quite blithely about things like "leaps of faith"
but you cannot identify them.

There are man unknowns, about which it is great fun to speculate,
and sometimes those guesses prove to be amazingly prescient.
It has ZERO to do with "faith". That you do "faith" is your
problem, falsely projecting onto others as their problem is
garbage. The 99% of science is about data painstakingly
gathered. All theories and laws in science are based on that,
and 100 percent of relevant data supports them.

It may be that there is a god. Railing against science
and concocting falsehoods against those who study it will
do nothing to reveal or promote "god".. Denying what science
has learned will move you further, not closer to such god
as there may be.

Are you going to see if you can pass the simple test
about "truth" in science? If you cannot or will not
you are showing you have absolutely nothing of any
value at all to say on the subject.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

I wish people would realize that this is not an answer.

 

[Audie]

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.)

Irreducible stupidity would suggest that the very first life
forms were complex animals. but luckily nobody here is that
dim.

 

[Audie]

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

Actually, in the years after the great extinction that wiped out nearly
all of the dinosaurs, "they" ( big dominant land creatures) did
make a stab at re-evolving.

We had "terror birds", (look it up) and there were crocodiles
(the only remaining archosaur reptiles) (look it up) that were
evolving into terrestrial rather than aquatic predators.


Reality is so much better than ignorance and confusion.
You really ought to study rather than speculate and post
about it.

 

[ecco]

Reality is so much better than ignorance and confusion.

A lot more fun too.