Evidence For And Against Evolution

[Subduction Zone]

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).

From what I have read the present most likely culprit for the Permian//Triassic extinction is the massive volcanic eruptions that formed the Siberian Traps. Here is a Nat Geo article on it:

The Permian Extinction—When Life Nearly Came to an End

 

[Dan From Smithville]

This makes no sense at all.

I have noticed a number of incomprehensible posts coming from this source. Not at all what I would expect given the claims on education and understanding that have been made.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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

.​

Big Winner!

 

[McBell]

I did answer the question.

Not really.
You are merely skirting around it as if you are trying desperately to make it all mystical and mysterious.

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.

Except I can show others what exactly to look for to spot a fake one dollar bill.
You seem completely unable to do anything but pay lip service for your God...

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.

You assume to much.
That aside, why would you repeat the very process that failed with yourself?

If you want me to explain more about the differences between geology and what the Bible says,

I strongly suspect I know far more about the differences between what geology says, both current and past, and what the Bible says, than you.

I can only say that however life came about on the earth, God created the heavens and the earth.

I know a lot of people who present their opinion as fact.
You are not the first, nor do I suspect you will be the last.

It did not come about by itself, without a creative force enabling it.

Repeating the same bold empty claim ad nauseum does not make the bold empty claim true.

Can bacteria multiply and change? Yes. Does that mean that God does not enable living matter? No.

That is your strawman to deal with.
I never made any such claim, nor have I seen said claim made by anyone other than creationists.

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.

I am quite familiar with the "you have to believe in order to believe" strategy.
Still not impressed.

 

[McBell]

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 fail to understand why you would play the games that failed for you with others you claim are like you

 

[Valjean]

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?

The dino's were around for ~170 million years and, like the mammals, they radiated into vacated niches after a mass extinction. After a mass extinction and 170M years, do you think there were many of the original predecessors left?

No, it doesn't take much to change size. It's not a major physiological or anatomical change. There's already a lot of variation within species. Natural selection, epigenetics &al can result in easy and rapid size change in resource restricted or resource abundant environments. Move a population of deer averaging 150 lbs to a small island, come back in 50 years, and the average size may be 100 lbs, for example.

 

[YoursTrue]

The dino's were around for ~170 million years and, like the mammals, they radiated into vacated niches after a mass extinction. After a mass extinction and 170M years, do you think there were many of the original predecessors left?

No, it doesn't take much to change size. It's not a major physiological or anatomical change. There's already a lot of variation within species. Natural selection, epigenetics &al can result in easy and rapid size change in resource restricted or resource abundant environments. Move a population of deer averaging 150 lbs to a small island, come back in 50 years, and the average size may be 100 lbs, for example.

it's the variation within species.

 

[YoursTrue]

I fail to understand why you would play the games that failed for you with others you claim are like you

I couldn't understand why God would allow and in fact, in some instances, support awful actions. Such as the crusades. I was raised in a Judeo Christian atmosphere with that history of Europe and the United States. So my mind was focused by teachers and family on that line of history. So when I finally asked religious leaders about God, the last one I asked told me that faith is a gift of the spirit, and although I had reached a wall, I can only give you my experience. I didn't join his religion, but he helped me. I never got a chance to thank him but I am forever happy he answered me the way he did.

 

[YoursTrue]

Not really.
You are merely skirting around it as if you are trying desperately to make it all mystical and mysterious.


Except I can show others what exactly to look for to spot a fake one dollar bill.
You seem completely unable to do anything but pay lip service for your God...


You assume to much.
That aside, why would you repeat the very process that failed with yourself?


I strongly suspect I know far more about the differences between what geology says, both current and past, and what the Bible says, than you.


I know a lot of people who present their opinion as fact.
You are not the first, nor do I suspect you will be the last.


Repeating the same bold empty claim ad nauseum does not make the bold empty claim true.


That is your strawman to deal with.
I never made any such claim, nor have I seen said claim made by anyone other than creationists.


I am quite familiar with the "you have to believe in order to believe" strategy.
Still not impressed.

I agree. And there are many who believe but I do not share their faith.

 

[YoursTrue]

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.



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.



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?

I'm bringing up about the dating problems. Not necessarily when the dinosaurs went extinct. Now that you mention it, though, it's a pretty long time ago they went extinct.

 

[YoursTrue]

Fossils.



Not how evolution works.

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

Can you explain more about the dating process of fossils? In your own words, of course.

 

[YoursTrue]

Not really.
You are merely skirting around it as if you are trying desperately to make it all mystical and mysterious.

No, that is not true. I simply do not want to explain my own experience with many details. That is not for me to give in a post here. And because of the nature of various conversations, this type on the internet to be exact, all I can really do is speak in generalities. Thanks for the conversation though.

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

Well, thanks. I can look up what others think about how it (life) evolved. And I see what you think. But there are no photos, no written documents at the time long ago. There are fossils and there is geology. So far I have not seen any cogent explanation as to how a form such as a dinosaur came about. It seems to be speculation, and if you have anything but somebody else's opinion, please present it.

 

[YoursTrue]

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.
...

Really? From what I read from explanations of the dinosaur wipe-outs, most of the animals and plants were wiped out during the cataclysm that knocked out the dinosaurs.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I'm bringing up about the dating problems.

1. since when is achieving more accuracy, a "problem"

2. carbon dating is irrelevant to the point of what knocked out the dino's 65 million years ago.

Not necessarily when the dinosaurs went extinct

Not just "not necessarily". But just NOT.
It is completely irrelevant to the point about WHAT knocked them out - even no matter WHEN that was.

Now that you mention it, though, it's a pretty long time ago they went extinct.

Yes. So long ago, that nobody in his right mind would think about carbon to date it.

So having dealt with that nonsense, back to the point....

You asked how we know that God didn't knock them out.
I said that it's pretty much the same way that we know that Ice Giants didn't knock them out.

Do you wish to present an argument for why your God is a better candidated then Ice Giants as the cause of dino extinction?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Can you explain more about the dating process of fossils? In your own words, of course.

Measuring the atomic decay of the rock they are found in.

Decay of specific elements occurs within known timeframes.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But there are no photos, no written documents at the time long ago

The actual objective evidence we find in the world, is loads more reliable then written documents, you know that right?

Written documents can be wrong. But bones are what they are.

There are fossils and there is geology. So far I have not seen any cogent explanation as to how a form such as a dinosaur came about. It seems to be speculation, and if you have anything but somebody else's opinion, please present it.

It would help if you would actually education yourself concering how the process of evolution works.
Clearly you aren't interested in that or you would have done it a long time ago.
Because of that, I can't consider your request for a "cogent explanation" to be sincere at all.

If you really wanted such an explanation, you'ld pick up a good book about evolutionary biology and study it. Then you'ld have your explanation.

No, we're not going to give you a course in evolutionary biology in a bunch of forum posts.

 

[Audie]

Well, thanks. I can look up what others think about how it (life) evolved. And I see what you think. But there are no photos, no written documents at the time long ago. There are fossils and there is geology. So far I have not seen any cogent explanation as to how a form such as a dinosaur came about. It seems to be speculation, and if you have anything but somebody else's opinion, please present it.

I see you have gone to the use of the word "speculation", which as
you presumably know, is about forming a conjecture without firm
evidence.

It, the word "speculate" seems effective enough in its role. It has
nothing about it which one can get hold of and respond to with
specifics, no, its a gauzy nebulous thing quite immune to that.

It spreads out to cover "how firm is firm", "what is evidence"
and so forth, and any effort to combat this attack on science
is doomed to failure.

Its real use here, though, is to convince yourself.
Look at how quickly we find how the word is used-

He dismissed their theories as mere speculation. ... These example sentences are selected automatically from various online news sources to reflect current usage of the word 'speculation.

Of course you did not think of this approach yourself, it is
something that all creationists use, and they get it from their
source materials.

As I said, though, it only serves you as a way to convince
yourself that there is nothing there, you need not look
the researchers are just idlers, persons without intellectual
integrity and of base motive.

It is not a quick easy read, a youtube vid or two that would
show you or me or anyone how science works, what is known
of evolution.

Your ungrammatical "there are fossils and there are geology"
shows as plainly as if I referred to a hockey ball or basketball
goal line that you've not the least education in science /
evolution.

Of course it is appealing to say that them big scientists are
all just guessing and giving opinions. What a clever way to
avoid having to learn anything, and BIG BONUS points,
you get to know more than any scientist on earth! Coz
you know its all bs, and they dont!!

But like I said, it is all just to convince yourself. Those
with some education just roll their eyes. (see basketball
goalie)

Of course you have never seen a "cogent" explanation.
You never will; you've made it impossible for yourself.

You get to say what is "cogent", and nothing would be
because you already know and have god on your side.

You have never seen anything because you never looked or listened.

 

[Audie]

Really? From what I read from explanations of the dinosaur wipe-outs, most of the animals and plants were wiped out during the cataclysm that knocked out the dinosaurs.

You dont seem to have even bothered to read what little I wrote,
as your response is entirely irrelevant to it.

I certainly did not disagree with that most life forms were lost
at that time.

You asked a grade-school sort of question about why the dinos
did not re evolve, and I gave you a response directed to that.

(Why, btw, do you ask questions that could only bring back
answers that are what you dont like, speculation and opinions??)

 

[Audie]

The actual objective evidence we find in the world, is loads more reliable then written documents, you know that right?

Written documents can be wrong. But bones are what they are.



It would help if you would actually education yourself concering how the process of evolution works.
Clearly you aren't interested in that or you would have done it a long time ago.
Because of that, I can't consider your request for a "cogent explanation" to be sincere at all.

If you really wanted such an explanation, you'ld pick up a good book about evolutionary biology and study it. Then you'ld have your explanation.

No, we're not going to give you a course in evolutionary biology in a bunch of forum posts.

yup