Dinosaurs Evolved Into Birds!! Really??

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ But both Evolution and Gravity can be observable.

Just Gravity is quicker and evolution takes much longer I don't see your point. That guy in the video screw himself.
In one human lifetime you can observe certain types of insects evolve to adapt to a different type of environment.

that is micro evolution. We are talking about macro evolution.

While you and slartibarfast would like to argue in defense of Evolution, you are not doing a very good job at it.

The fact remains that there is overwhelming scientific evidence that supports the scientific theory of Evolution. There is no scientific evidence that supports young earth creationism.

[EFFECTIC DESIGNS]

^ well thats what I have been trying to say though.

There is 0 evidence to support a young 5000 year old earth. But there are mountains of evidence to support evolution, why would anyone chose not to believe in evolution?

I asked for alternative theories of how we came about other than evolution and for it to be backed up with some evidence but I cannot get any from anyone on this thread.

Its true you cannot observe evolution of dinosaurs but its kinda silly to assume just because you cannot observe it we must discard all the evidence in favor of creationism when there is 0 evidence of creationism except to take the word of it from some dude thousands of years ago.

[Habit7]

Except for stuff like published papers on lagerstatten that can make you lose your job.


Other than that, none.

[EFFECTIC DESIGNS]

Habit7 can I ask you a friendly question?

How old do you believe the earth is? don't have to be exact but an approximation.

[Slartibartfast]

Isn't macro evolution just a result of a lot of micro evolution taking place?

How is micro evolution biologically different from macro evolution? What biological process separates one from the other? Aren't both of them results from changes in he genetic code?

[EFFECTIC DESIGNS]

Isn't macro evolution just a result of a lot of micro evolution taking place?

How is micro evolution biologically different from macro evolution? What biological process separates one from the other? Aren't both of them results from changes in he genetic code?

There is 0 Biological evidence that prevents micro becoming macro. There is no reason to suggest that micro evolution should be given a separate platform from macro. Its like asking if a 2014 Gaming rig intel devils canyon will be faster and better than a 1985 MS DOS computer. Sure we can't know for sure till we put it to the test and "observe it" in action with the 1985 pc running Battlefield 4. But we all know it won't run it

Creationists just love to use micro and macro to discredit evolution by saying hey they are 2 totally separate things that has nothing in common. DNA sequencing proves evolution on the whole is a fact. No scientist in their right mind would go around looking for evidence to disprove evolution or creationism. What they look for is just plain evidence to see what is true and whats not and every single piece of the millions of evidence they found has pointed to evolution.

Not 1 has ever pointed to man being created perfect from dirt by magic.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

Except for stuff like published papers on lagerstatten that can make you lose your job.


Other than that, none.

pieces of fossil that are extraordinarily preserved becomes evidence that refutes all other evidence that the earth is billions of years old?

[Habit7]

Habit7 can I ask you a friendly question?

How old do you believe the earth is? don't have to be exact but an approximation.

Why do you like to bring personalities into this, this started off as a challenge to the origin of birds now it's what I think? I have made it plain what I think many times before about the age of the earth. But the age of the earth is a speculation made by you or me, there is no definitive odometer to determine who is absolutely right. We have evidence that I interpret as a Christian and evidence that you interpret as a secular humanist. It is highly unlikely we will come to the same conclusions even with the same evidence. I have my presuppositions you have yours, we can only hope to be tolerant and that we could convince one another.

But as Duane said, you and Slartibartfast aren't doing that great of a job. For example:

There is 0 Biological evidence that prevents micro becoming macro. There is no reason to suggest that micro evolution should be given a separate platform from macro.

Except for the lack of any genetic agent to DNA to gain additional information. Other than that, 0.

Plus, micro and macro evolution are terms out of popular biology nomenclature, not creationism.

[EFFECTIC DESIGNS]

Here is a proper source regarding this whole thing

"Contrary to claims by creationists however, macro and microevolution describe fundamentally identical processes on different time scales"

Futuyma, Douglas (1998). Evolutionary Biology. Sinauer Associates.

So there we have it, its the same thing just its obvious how eachother works and what the results are. Maybe we can put it this way, micro is 1990 computer and then 1991 computer maybe same 1990 with a new CPU.

Macro is a 2014 Gaming rig with core i7 extreme devils canyon

does that make sense now?

[Habit7]

Except for stuff like published papers on lagerstatten that can make you lose your job.


Other than that, none.

pieces of fossil that are extraordinarily preserved becomes evidence that refutes all other evidence that the earth is billions of years old?

No they form 1 of many, many which I personally shared with you since last year. But why bother...you will still say there is none.

Btw "extraordinary" wouldn't begin to describe what it would take for organic mater to be so preserved for +65 million years.

[EFFECTIC DESIGNS]

that you interpret as a secular humanist.

I am just stating what science states.

I have in noway ever claimed I am an Atheist and have never claimed there isn't a god
Its just my god is different from what you think and know a god to be. We all have different beliefs in God and different religion.

Just cause I like Dawkins does not mean I agree with every single thing he says you know. I have enormous respect for him because of the work he does for education and humanity.

[Habit7]

does that make sense now?

yes, you have opened my eyes

have in noway ever claimed I am an Atheist and have never claimed there isn't a god

Son, a secular humanist doesn't me that you are an atheist.

[EFFECTIC DESIGNS]

^ you have opened my eyes there also. I have much more respect for you now though, we won't agree on everything however rest assured I still respect your opinions on this matter.

You seem like a genuinely good person. So sorry for any offense I may have caused or sounded in the past it was never my intention.

[Habit7]

Nah man no offense

*bonx*

[EFFECTIC DESIGNS]

[TRAE]

Effective - if Dawkins is to be discredited what would be your position? every argument thus far has him quoting--- each of mine is out of the box not quoted by anyone


Duane- you are taking the meaning of words too seriously, you know very well what i am saying- i am sorry that i dont have time to make complete and well structured statements, work here is a but busy today

[TRAE]

^ But both Evolution and Gravity can be observable.

Just Gravity is quicker and evolution takes much longer I don't see your point. That guy in the video screw himself.
In one human lifetime you can observe certain types of insects evolve to adapt to a different type of environment.

that is micro evolution. We are talking about macro evolution.

While you and slartibarfast would like to argue in defense of Evolution, you are not doing a very good job at it.

The fact remains that there is overwhelming scientific evidence that supports the scientific theory of Evolution. There is no scientific evidence that supports young earth creationism.

Science is man made yes? we are fed what we are meant to be fed, saying that scientific evidence is overwhelming is like saying that the churches of late were right in finding and burning witches at the stake. In that age they had hard proof that the people were witches correct? we cant judge the findings of one century to be the truth, when in the past we have now seen the errors of that decade. do you agree with that Duane? according to science we are still a young race --- youth cannot entirely understand things that are above them... we see that everyday

[MG Man]

science is man made?
you remind me of that frothy stuff in the bowl.....

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

Habit7 can I ask you a friendly question?

How old do you believe the earth is? don't have to be exact but an approximation.

in the religion thread Habit7 said that the earth is 6,000-12,000 years old according to the Bible which he believes gives a literal account of the creation.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

Except for stuff like published papers on lagerstatten that can make you lose your job.


Other than that, none.

pieces of fossil that are extraordinarily preserved becomes evidence that refutes all other evidence that the earth is billions of years old?

No they form 1 of many, many which I personally shared with you since last year. But why bother...you will still say there is none.

Btw "extraordinary" wouldn't begin to describe what it would take for organic mater to be so preserved for +65 million years.

as I said then and earlier in this thread, if there was irrefutable scientific evidence that the earth was only 6000 years old then it would be mainstream science. It isn't and YECs have yet to give the evidence required

[bluefete]

Except for stuff like published papers on lagerstatten that can make you lose your job.


Other than that, none.

pieces of fossil that are extraordinarily preserved becomes evidence that refutes all other evidence that the earth is billions of years old?

And how do we arrive at this calculation of billions of years? Carbon dating? Tree dating?

So because a scientist put forward a theory of counting, it is so?

[meccalli]

What about the improbability of origin and evolution. There's been a lot of debate over entropy and the possibility of the sun having an influence on the thermodynamic laws to increase order, so lets forego that and think about the overarching concept that natural laws will not magically increase the odds of something highly improbable. One mathematician put it this way.

If a billion engineers were to type at the rate of one random character per second, there is virtually no chance that any one of them would, given the 4.5 billion year age of the Earth to work on it, accidentally duplicate a given 20-character improvement. Thus our engineer cannot count on making any major improvements through chance alone. But could he not perhaps make progress through the accumulation of very small improvements? The Darwinist would presumably say, yes, but to anyone who has had minimal programming experience this idea is equally implausible. Major improvements to a computer program often require the addition or modification of hundreds of interdependent lines, no one of which makes any sense, or results in any improvement, when added by itself. Even the smallest improvements usually require adding several new lines. It is conceivable that a programmer unable to look ahead more than 5 or 6 characters at a time might be able to make some very slight improvements to a computer program, but it is inconceivable that he could design anything sophisticated without the ability to plan far ahead and to guide his changes toward that plan.

He goes on to point out that if you were to uncover various versions of a software, each one performing a radically different function and with extremely large amounts of additional code. Its impossible to say that random changes would allow for this, given that random mutations do not add any genetic information as observed. Yet, evolutionist scientists continue on about transitional fossils. Yet every single one over the years that they've based an immense amount of work on, something always pops up on the radar that disproves by virtue of being much older with much better developed features than the one observed for which the study is based.

This also crops up the question of the basis of the fossil record and radioisotope dating. Despite all their accurate claims, radioisotopes when used to date(those other than c14), give differences by the millions of years, hardly accurate. Further than that, c14 does not posses such a long half life as the others to date back that far. So why is it that c14 is found in supposed billion year old fossils long after bone has gone and sedimentary rock left behind. What about that incident that further shakes c14's accuracy. The lake seal, known to be killed a few weeks before, dated the blood to 13,00 years. For continuity, the chekurovka mammoth that dated to 26,000 years while the preserved moss with it dated 5,600 years.
People defend this thing like a gold standard, yet there's so much problems all over the place. We have the fossil record that's found in extremely morphed strata, smoothly folded over up to 90 degrees without fracturing and fossils trapped in time. So much preservation relies on this rapid burial that they cling to prove why they have impossible preservation happening, yet no one considers the flood process and why we have oceanic fossils on the peaks of mountains. Don;t even mention those dinosaurs and modern man living together evidence found in ancient art, which significantly screws up the evolutionary timeline as well as the hypotheses for dinosaur extinction and why they ALL went before mammals developed dominance.

For your dating accuracy..

[meccalli]

What are your views on Christians doing the following
1 - Holding opposing views and beliefs although they are all "one and the same" (Eg. Some believe in intelligent design and some believe in intelligent evolution also some believe the earth is young and some believe the earth is old). How do you know who is right? If they all follow the same book, shouldn't they all believe the same thing?

2 - Jumping on the science bandwagon (i.e. changing their beliefs to fit the science of the day, like those that argue God created the big bang) If you take the bible literally and don't subject yourself to the teachings of science then I guess just and answer for the first one should be ok.

They should reassess their faith, since it wavers every time some scientists throw some fancy words at them, cutting and matching to suit and add some new thing to incorporate what isn't written so they can be accepted- obviously read their bible upside down if they can't stand up to rejection for their faith.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

Except for stuff like published papers on lagerstatten that can make you lose your job.


Other than that, none.

pieces of fossil that are extraordinarily preserved becomes evidence that refutes all other evidence that the earth is billions of years old?

And how do we arrive at this calculation of billions of years? Carbon dating? Tree dating?

So because a scientist put forward a theory of counting, it is so?

Because it is in a religious book it is so?

Dinosaurs are mostly from hundreds to tens of millions of years ago, not many are billions of years old.

When evidence from isotopes from surrounding rocks and volcanic ash, tree rings, even paleomagnetism and other forms of dating all match up, it gives clear evidence that the dating is accurate. i.e. Various forms of dating, comparison to chronology of other fossils and evolutionary progress all give cohesive results.

if you want to tell the speed of a car you can use a speedometer, a radar gun and GPS. If they all say the car was going at 50KM/h, tested again and also measuring the distance over time and still get 50KM/h, what is the speed the car was travelling? This is the scientific method.
If the owners manual for the car says that the car can only travel up to 45KM/h, do we discard all the scientific data and empirical evidence and go with the book?

Stop thinking of a scientist as a pastor. This is not someone with an opinion. Scientific evidence is tested, re-tested and peer reviewed. It is under heavy scrutiny as part of the scientific process.

[Habit7]

[as I said then and earlier in this thread, if there was irrefutable scientific evidence that the earth was only 6000 years old then it would be mainstream science. It isn't and YECs have yet to give the evidence required

there no irrefutable evidence for any dating theory especially for the ones tens of thousands of years, it is all theoretical.

Dinosaurs are mostly from hundreds to tens of millions of years ago, not many are billions of years old.

well according to the theory you are defending, none are billions of years old, but good job so far though.

When evidence from isotopes from surrounding rocks and volcanic ash, tree rings, even paleomagnetism and other forms of dating all match up, it gives clear evidence that the dating is accurate. i.e. Various forms of dating, comparison to chronology of other fossils and evolutionary progress all give cohesive results.

Hardly ever do dating methods match, especially since the ones you listed have very discordant dating intervals. Fossil dating is mostly relative to interpreted stratigraphic layers, it is not as exacting as you making it out to be.

Well at least you confident.

[EFFECTIC DESIGNS]

Except for stuff like published papers on lagerstatten that can make you lose your job.


Other than that, none.

pieces of fossil that are extraordinarily preserved becomes evidence that refutes all other evidence that the earth is billions of years old?

And how do we arrive at this calculation of billions of years? Carbon dating? Tree dating?

So because a scientist put forward a theory of counting, it is so?

Lets say the universe was really 5000 to i dunno 8000 years old?

How do you explain the other stars and galaxies millions of light years away which we can see with the naked eye or telescope? These are the ways scientists know how old our universe is, if it was thousands of years old we would never ever be able to see distant galaxies because it takes light millions of years to reach here.

[sMASH]

For all those that thing the earth is under 12000 years old, explain please provide some sort of explanation to contradict the common scientifically accepted age of the grand canyon.



Side note; one of my padnahs from asja co authored a paper for his phd in chemistry and was recently published.

Great acheivement.

[Slartibartfast]

What are your views on Christians doing the following
1 - Holding opposing views and beliefs although they are all "one and the same" (Eg. Some believe in intelligent design and some believe in intelligent evolution also some believe the earth is young and some believe the earth is old). How do you know who is right? If they all follow the same book, shouldn't they all believe the same thing?

2 - Jumping on the science bandwagon (i.e. changing their beliefs to fit the science of the day, like those that argue God created the big bang) If you take the bible literally and don't subject yourself to the teachings of science then I guess just and answer for the first one should be ok.

They should reassess their faith, since it wavers every time some scientists throw some fancy words at them, cutting and matching to suit and add some new thing to incorporate what isn't written so they can be accepted- obviously read their bible upside down if they can't stand up to rejection for their faith.

Thanks. I was just curious about you view on this. I gone now

[Habit7]

How do you explain the other stars and galaxies millions of light years away which we can see with the naked eye or telescope? These are the ways scientists know how old our universe is, if it was thousands of years old we would never ever be able to see distant galaxies because it takes light millions of years to reach here.

there are some models that would allow for this namely:

For all those that thing the earth is under 12000 years old, explain please provide some sort of explanation to contradict the common scientifically accepted age of the Grand Canyon.

These are stuff already trashed out in the Religion Thread and despite the succinct responses there are some who still stick their proverbial finger in their ears and say that there is no evidence.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

[as I said then and earlier in this thread, if there was irrefutable scientific evidence that the earth was only 6000 years old then it would be mainstream science. It isn't and YECs have yet to give the evidence required

there no irrefutable evidence for any dating theory especially for the ones tens of thousands of years, it is all theoretical.

Dinosaurs are mostly from hundreds to tens of millions of years ago, not many are billions of years old.

well according to the theory you are defending, none are billions of years old, but good job so far though.

When evidence from isotopes from surrounding rocks and volcanic ash, tree rings, even paleomagnetism and other forms of dating all match up, it gives clear evidence that the dating is accurate. i.e. Various forms of dating, comparison to chronology of other fossils and evolutionary progress all give cohesive results.

Hardly ever do dating methods match, especially since the ones you listed have very discordant dating intervals. Fossil dating is mostly relative to interpreted stratigraphic layers, it is not as exacting as you making it out to be.

so lets all believe the Bible's creation happened in literally 7 days and that dinosaurs and man walked the earth together because they were both created on the 6th day.

that's your logic.