Is There Evidence for Evolution? Show it to us.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423


I will never say that there is no possibility for a designer or no possibility of a human concurrent with a dinosaur. The probability distribution however is extremely low. And as the American lady in the advert says: "Where's the beef???"

Pardon me if you have already looked at these links, but here is a good collection of beef:

Dragon Art
Dragons in history

This is only the tip of the iceberg. I urge any scientist to look into this with an unbiased mind

But you didn't post science, you posted creationist propaganda sites. Art is NOT objective evidence.

Ahh yes... our free will is a gift, yet has been used as a curse. The way I see it is, we were given such an exemplary position, but have failed to fulfill destiny time and time again. We all have the capability to reverse this curse.

Ah yes, when in doubt make something up called "free will" and claim without it we wouldn't be able to make decisions. Sorry, free will doesn't need to be enabled, it's made up and all animals have "free will" also. Plus the bible contradicts itself there because adam definitely had free will to eat the apple before the fall. So when was this magical free will thing given to us?

From an evolutionary perspective, having the eating tube share the same passage as the breathing tube, makes little sense. Especially during infancy. The risk of choking could be completely eradicated if there were two isolated tubes for breathing and eating, and since there is no drawback if this were the case... you wonder how evolution could've let this fatal flaw slip through the cracks of natural selection.

But from a design perspective it makes sense? So you're saying that something that evolved to use the same tube for breathing and eating is not likely, but an all powerful designer intentionally making it that way is???

Once again you prove to us all that your sense of logic is completely warped. Evolution isn't about striving for perfection, it never has been. It's about what helps survival at the given time. Why did god give tons of other animals better vision than us? Created in his image? Sure thing, I guess god can't see very well then.

Choking was a consequence of defying Divine order, and was one of the first bodily weaknesses. Notice how child-birth became a thing only after this decision... this is because with the threat of dying now present, having children was required to persist the human race.

When in doubt, invoke imaginary concepts to back your argument. Yeah that's going to work. You have no clue about any fall, any free will or any god. You are completely guessing trying to rationalize your belief. Where is the hard evidence? Should I start quoting Return of the King and citing concepts from JRR Tolkien?

Why would they if they weren't eating food? poop implies decay. the pre-fall Eden was a place without death or decay.

LMAO. This is what happens when folks make things up. Their argument just gets worse and worse as they backtrack and backtrack further and further away from the original argument. Yeah, no creature on earth ate or pooped before the first humans. This is why they have found fossilized dinosaur droppings and bones of other animals in the stomachs of others. Do you even read what you are claiming here? The bible itself contradicts your argument because god told adam and eve they could eat from any tree EXCEPT the tree of knowledge. This implies that they were eating and pooping before the "fall" at least according to your bible.

a reply to: RealTruthSeeker

Mhm. Let me think. You are very aggressive. I must admit, I don't have any proof of evolution. So you are right. Let aggressiveness reign us all!

Now your God comes in and says, don't do it. I guess, I rather would talk to your boss.

originally posted by: Barcs

But you didn't post science, you posted creationist propaganda sites. Art is NOT objective evidence.

So you're mad I used a creationist source to cite a creationist argument? What science is required to realize these historians and artists are depicting dinosaurs? Show a child these Pictures, they will enlighten you.

Ah yes, when in doubt make something up called "free will" and claim without it we wouldn't be able to make decisions. Sorry, free will doesn't need to be enabled, it's made up and all animals have "free will" also. Plus the bible contradicts itself there because adam definitely had free will to eat the apple before the fall. So when was this magical free will thing given to us?

Free will was obviously there prior to the fall, I don't know why you think I claimed otherwise

But from a design perspective it makes sense? So you're saying that something that evolved to use the same tube for breathing and eating is not likely, but an all powerful designer intentionally making it that way is???

I already went over this, the flaw emerged when the human entered the fallen state.

Once again you prove to us all that your sense of logic is completely warped. Evolution isn't about striving for perfection, it never has been. It's about what helps survival at the given time. Why did god give tons of other animals better vision than us? Created in his image? Sure thing, I guess god can't see very well then.

I am perfectly content with my senses.

When in doubt, invoke imaginary concepts to back your argument. Yeah that's going to work. You have no clue about any fall, any free will or any god. You are completely guessing trying to rationalize your belief. Where is the hard evidence?

The evidence that evolution is not how the human developed is made clear by the fact dinosaurs are depicted and written about in history. You are refusing this evidence because it scares your obsolete world-view.

Should I start quoting Return of the King and citing concepts from JRR Tolkien?

The truth is best spoken in allegory, and JRR Tolkien's Magnum Opus (LOTR Series) does just that. The key to understanding the grand metaphor present in the series is the fact that Gandalf means "me".

LMAO. This is what happens when folks make things up. Their argument just gets worse and worse as they backtrack and backtrack further and further away from the original argument. Yeah, no creature on earth ate or pooped before the first humans.

You're still thinking from an a priori perspective... Material reductionist thinking won't help you out of the cave.

The bible itself contradicts your argument because god told adam and eve they could eat from any tree EXCEPT the tree of knowledge. This implies that they were eating and pooping before the "fall" at least according to your bible.

There are two types of "eating" as eluded to by the following verses:

John 4:32
John 6:49-51
Mark 8:17-21
Matthew 16:8-11

It would be convenient if they disambiguated this by using different words, but we are left to understand by context. Anyone confined to material perspectives will be incapable of ascertaining the greater spiritual truths.

a reply to: cooperton

Mind blown. Thank you.

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
a reply to: cooperton

Mind blown. Thank you.

Ya had to ask huh...?

I did some googling and found others with the same conclusions:

www.librarising.com...

I am aware that from a material reductionist thinking that this seems absolutely ridiculous... but there are much greater truths beyond the limitations of the material.

originally posted by: cooperton
I already went over this, the flaw emerged when the human entered the fallen state.

BS. You just made that up. You have nothing to validate such a claim. It's just one more convenient way for Religious folk to lie about things they couldn't possibly know.

I am perfectly content with my senses.

Nice for you, but that doesn't address the question.

The evidence that evolution is not how the human developed is made clear by the fact dinosaurs are depicted and written about in history. You are refusing this evidence because it scares your obsolete world-view.

So does that also mean Griffins and Vampires and centaurs are real too because they've been written about and depicted in history too.

There are two types of "eating" as eluded to by the following verses:

That's a stretch. Those are from the New Test. and you're using them to try and change the meaning of something in the Old Test. All written by different authors too hundreds of years later with an entirely different setting and culture. That's even looking past the fact that it's taking interpretation to a whole new level.

Religious people just make stuff up without any care in the world. String together scripture without any regard for context or meaning. Then wonder why everyone thinks you're full of it. You should be able to figure out why that is.

originally posted by: mOjOm
Religious people just make stuff up without any care in the world. String together scripture without any regard for context or meaning. Then wonder why everyone thinks you're full of it. You should be able to figure out why that is.

And we're the ones making leaps and bounds when it comes to things like evolution...

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer

And we're the ones making leaps and bounds when it comes to things like evolution...

Scientists have some kind of material evidence, experiment, data or something to help substantiate their claims. Doesn't mean they always get it right and when they're showed something else is correct they change.

Religion has nothing but stories, most of which can be shown to be total myth or contradictory. It's neither complete nor consistent nor is it accurate. Yet it's claimed to be the absolute truth without error.

Comparing the two is ridiculous.

originally posted by: cooperton
So you're mad I used a creationist source to cite a creationist argument? What science is required to realize these historians and artists are depicting dinosaurs? Show a child these Pictures, they will enlighten you.

I'm not upset, you just aren't offering anything of substance to the conversation. I'm trying to look at your argument from a logical perspective and can't do it because you think art counts as evidence and that religious propaganda over rides science because you see similarities to dinosaurs in art.

What about the dinosaur art that is created today? Do the drawings and sculptures today in text books and movies prove that man lives with dinosaurs now? Of course not, which is why there is no reason to assume that past art means THEY lived with dinosaurs THEN.

If ancient art proves dinosaurs were alive at that time, then modern art like Lord of the Rings, proves that we all currently live amongst hobbits, dwarves, wizards and elves. Sorry but you can't have it both ways. That is a prime example of creationist cherry picking and invoking double standards.

The best thing you can logically say about dinosaur art is that it may suggest ancient people may have had KNOWLEDGE of dinosaurs, not that they lived with them. A few million years of hominids living on earth, I'm sure they stumbled upon dinosaur fossils at one point or another. There are simply way too many assumptions involved in believing art means they lived together. Occam's razor rules that out easily.

I already went over this, the flaw emerged when the human entered the fallen state.

That doesn't answer my question. I know you BELIEVE this, but it's not backed by anything. Using the same tube to eat and breathe makes sense from an evolutionary perspective because it is more efficient to evolve that way rather than 2 separate tubes (which many animals have actually). It makes no sense at all from a designer perspective.

I am perfectly content with my senses.

That's good to know. I wear glasses. A large majority of folks over 40 need them as well through no fault of their own.

The truth is best spoken in allegory, and JRR Tolkien's Magnum Opus (LOTR Series) does just that. The key to understanding the grand metaphor present in the series is the fact that Gandalf means "me".

Nope. You have to take the books literally like you take the bible. Gandalf was a real wizard and JRR Tokien's books prove it. Art is proof in your eyes, so JRR tokien has proven wizards and elves exist and that we lived among them at the time it was written. He's also not the only one to write about those concepts, so they HAVE TO exist based on YOUR LOGIC.

There are two types of "eating" as eluded to by the following verses:

John 4:32
John 6:49-51
Mark 8:17-21
Matthew 16:8-11

According to JRRT there are multiple types of magic.

It would be convenient if they disambiguated this by using different words, but we are left to understand by context. Anyone confined to material perspectives will be incapable of ascertaining the greater spiritual truths.

I get that you have faith. This thread is about evidence for evolution. Are you going to address the evidence yet or just keep posting your perceived evidence for creation in the Evidence for Evolution thread?

Which dinosaur is this again?


Yes, dinosaurs breathed fire.

Ok, we'll go with that.


I guess this supports the argument of not having to eat or poop.


This proves that animal human hybrids exist!


Say it ain't so!

originally posted by: mOjOm

So does that also mean Griffins and Vampires and centaurs are real too because they've been written about and depicted in history too.

Dinosaurs aren't myths, they're real. Do you see the Dinosaur Pictures throughout history? How about this description of a LIVING brachiosaurus-like creature:

"Lo, I pray thee, Behemoth, that I made with thee: Grass as an ox he eateth.
Lo, I pray thee, his power [is] in his loins, And his strength in the muscles of his belly.
He doth bend his tail as a cedar tree, The sinews of his thighs are wrapped together,
His bones [are] tubes of brass, His bones [are] as a bar of iron."

Kind of amazing that this source can accurately describe a dinosaur that "doth bend his tail as a cedar tree". There is no other animal in history, besides a dinosaur, that is land roaming and has a tree the size of a Cedar Tree

What about the dinosaur art that is created today? Do the drawings and sculptures today in text books and movies prove that man lives with dinosaurs now?

This description of a brachiosaurus-like creature is not extrapolating an image from observing a fossil. "Sinew" indicates living tissue and can be used as a verb, also confirming that the animal the author is describing is alive. In other examples regarding sinew etymology, many of them extrapolate and confirm that "sinew" is referring to live flesh. "eateth" and "bend" are also present tense verbs, indicating movement.

I guess the true question would be what evidence would be enough to test your faith? Maybe if you told us we could focus on that area?

Speaking of faith, why would evolution not be an act of God? Why do we debate the "how" and not the "why"? Evolution is only about the how, it does not address the why or even the beginning of life. Evolution in simple terms is change... If one thinks humans never change then so be it, but that is what we are debating in whether life stays in a constant state or is in a constant change...It would seem weird if everything else in the universe was in a constant change except for life or just humans.

If one believes in intelligent design does the how really matter? Or more importantly would not ALL hows be the work of God?

a reply to: Barcs
You just can't take or understand a running or swimming joke can you . I haven't defended either creationism or evolution. I stated this: "why cannot specie formation: *creation/adaptation/evolution* be a combination of all of these potentials". Why is it EITHER OR (no imagination?). Lactose and wheat protein intolerance is on the upswing (proof the human is de-evolving? NOT). Lady Gaga is suing a human milk ice cream manufacturer for using "GAGA" in its brand's name. Forget cows milk loaded with pesky lactose properties; pasteurized and raw forms of "Mothers Milk" (remember) the Red Hot Chili Peppers break out CD rules; soon to be found on 'Whole Foods' shelves everywhere.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: vethumanbeing

I can't answer because I don't understand your question. If you can clarify, I will give it my best effort.

God won't reveal itself; tell us what we desperately want to know is all, *why are we here, who are we and where are we going*? Because of this reticence on ITS part to reveal itself in a manner we DEEM as believable enough we become edgy, soured and harpy-like in our insistence (want to know our status of being) so denied; devise or invent ways of explaining this system IT created to suit ourselves however ridiculous/stretched beyond normal comedic reasoning.

originally posted by: cooperton

"Lo, I pray thee, Behemoth, that I made with thee: Grass as an ox he eateth.
Lo, I pray thee, his power [is] in his loins, And his strength in the muscles of his belly.
He doth bend his tail as a cedar tree, The sinews of his thighs are wrapped together,
His bones [are] tubes of brass, His bones [are] as a bar of iron."

Kind of amazing that this source can accurately describe a dinosaur that "doth bend his tail as a cedar tree". There is no other animal in history, besides a dinosaur, that is land roaming and has a tree the size of a Cedar Tree

Kind of amazing that there has never been any creature with bones made of brass or of iron either. Was this a bionic android dinosaur too???

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: vethumanbeing

I can't answer because I don't understand your question. If you can clarify, I will give it my best effort.

God won't reveal itself; tell us what we desperately want to know is all, *why are we here, who are we and where are we going*? Because of this reticence on ITS part to reveal itself in a manner we DEEM as believable enough we become edgy, soured and harpy-like in our insistence (want to know our status of being) so denied; devise or invent ways of explaining this system IT created to suit ourselves however ridiculous/stretched beyond normal comedic reasoning.

That's something science can't answer. Best to consult your pastor or rabbi. On the other hand, our brain allows us to develop science and know more about the universe we live in. I guess for the purposes of religion, you could say you're always looking at God.

There's a lot of wild theories out there - we could be some alien's video game programmed and run by someone in another universe, or who had even created this universe for his/her/it's fun. We could be a figment of our own imaginations (we really can't prove that we exist).

It's okay to speculate. But the fact is we don't know. Fortunately we are developing higher power instruments like the large synoptic telescope. www.pressexaminer.com...

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: mOjOm

So does that also mean Griffins and Vampires and centaurs are real too because they've been written about and depicted in history too.

Dinosaurs aren't myths, they're real. Do you see the Dinosaur Pictures throughout history? How about this description of a LIVING brachiosaurus-like creature:

"Lo, I pray thee, Behemoth, that I made with thee: Grass as an ox he eateth.
Lo, I pray thee, his power [is] in his loins, And his strength in the muscles of his belly.
He doth bend his tail as a cedar tree, The sinews of his thighs are wrapped together,
His bones [are] tubes of brass, His bones [are] as a bar of iron."

Kind of amazing that this source can accurately describe a dinosaur that "doth bend his tail as a cedar tree". There is no other animal in history, besides a dinosaur, that is land roaming and has a tree the size of a Cedar Tree

What about the dinosaur art that is created today? Do the drawings and sculptures today in text books and movies prove that man lives with dinosaurs now?

This description of a brachiosaurus-like creature is not extrapolating an image from observing a fossil. "Sinew" indicates living tissue and can be used as a verb, also confirming that the animal the author is describing is alive. In other examples regarding sinew etymology, many of them extrapolate and confirm that "sinew" is referring to live flesh. "eateth" and "bend" are also present tense verbs, indicating movement.

He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together

Dinosaurs do not have stones, testicles, balls etc

originally posted by: Xtrozero
I guess the true question would be what evidence would be enough to test your faith? Maybe if you told us we could focus on that area?


Speaking of faith, why would evolution not be an act of God? Why do we debate the "how" and not the "why"? Evolution is only about the how, it does not address the why or even the beginning of life. Evolution in simple terms is change... If one thinks humans never change then so be it, but that is what we are debating in whether life stays in a constant state or is in a constant change...It would seem weird if everything else in the universe was in a constant change except for life or just humans.

If one believes in intelligent design does the how really matter? Or more importantly would not ALL hows be the work of God?

Regarding "how", I leaned towards evolution for a long time, and I did not dismiss this idea until my reading found a plethora of evidence indicating that early humans observed dinosaurs. This was the nail in the coffin for me. Regarding a "constant state", I don''t think we are currently in one, we are in a state where growth is necessary to awaken the mind to true reality.

originally posted by: mOjOm

Kind of amazing that there has never been any creature with bones made of brass or of iron either. Was this a bionic android dinosaur too???

Brass is a zinc-copper alloy, and both zinc and copper were found in dinosaur fossils: planetearth.nerc.ac.uk...

Iron is also a common component of bone.

originally posted by: Prezbo369

Dinosaurs do not have stones, testicles, balls etc

My quote did not say stones it said thighs. Use the literal translation, that is what is required to see exactly what the writer is trying to say. The word used is "thighs" in Young's literal translation

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: vethumanbeing

I can't answer because I don't understand your question. If you can clarify, I will give it my best effort.

God won't reveal itself; tell us what we desperately want to know is all, *why are we here, who are we and where are we going*? Because of this reticence on ITS part to reveal itself in a manner we DEEM as believable enough we become edgy, soured and harpy-like in our insistence (want to know our status of being) so denied; devise or invent ways of explaining this system IT created to suit ourselves however ridiculous/stretched beyond normal comedic reasoning.

But it seems he did not have issue revealing himself to someone who would be by today medicine most likely diagnosed as schizophrenic?!

Same with guy who made ark that we know would never be able to float or do what they claim it did...

So, if God is so secretive, why religions claim to know his will?????

How in the world you know how he built this rock if all evidence shows you are wrong and he does not look like a guy who likes to brag about his handy work??

originally posted by: cooperton
My quote did not say stones it said thighs. Use the literal translation, that is what is required to see exactly what the writer is trying to say. The word used is "thighs" in Young's literal translation

Youngs literal translation is probably one of the least used versions of the bible, do any churches use it? its translations can make little to no sense......but then you are a creationist so it fits the profile I guess.