Did Humans and Dinosaurs Coexist? Yes!

reply to post by nenothtu

Has anyone brought up the problem of the evolution of organs like eyeballs? What advantage is it to an organism to evolve a lens without concurrently evolving a retina? Of what Earthly use is a retina, without a lens to focus light on it? Obviously, two separate and simultaneous mutations would be required there, without any advantageous stimuli. Then there's the question of the other parts of the eye, such as the eyeball, the cornea, the iris, so on and so forth, that are no Earthly use alone, without the other parts. What are the odds that all of these mutations would spontaneously occur, all at once?

Your argument is a variation on the intelligent design tenet of "irreducible complexity". The eye is actually one of the most researched organs because it's homologous across such an enormous number of species. Here's just one of the myriad resources for understanding how the eye could have formed progressively: Evolution of the eye.

Originally posted by CalledOUT

So do you have a study for this? Sounds more like atheist fairy tales to me!

Huh? So you're saying that evidence is somehow related to atheism?

If I were religious, I'd be deeply offended by that. You've just tarred two thirds of the world population with your own ignorant brush.

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by CalledOUT

 

First we need to define an open system.

In the natural sciences an open system is one whose border is permeable to both energy and mass.[2] In physics a closed system, by contrast, is permeable to energy but not to matter.

Source

Now it is fairly obvious that the Sun is an open system. There is nothing surrounding it that prevents matter from entering it. Now the Sun then takes the atoms from this matter and fuses it into heavier atoms. This then releases a great amount of energy. So, as long as matter can enter into the Sun it has an unlimited supply of energy. This is simple physics that has been known for quite some time.

Okay, I agree with that. You made it sound like it magically just kept reproducing itself because the lack of atmosphere. So then let's use common sense again here.

The sun burns 4 billion kilograms of mass a second, so about 34.5 trillions kg a day. This seems like it'd be very hard to replace mass and fuel from space at that rate of burn off.
blogs.howstuffworks.com...

Originally posted by CalledOUT

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by CalledOUT

 

First we need to define an open system.

In the natural sciences an open system is one whose border is permeable to both energy and mass.[2] In physics a closed system, by contrast, is permeable to energy but not to matter.

Source

Now it is fairly obvious that the Sun is an open system. There is nothing surrounding it that prevents matter from entering it. Now the Sun then takes the atoms from this matter and fuses it into heavier atoms. This then releases a great amount of energy. So, as long as matter can enter into the Sun it has an unlimited supply of energy. This is simple physics that has been known for quite some time.

Okay, I agree with that. You made it sound like it magically just kept reproducing itself because the lack of atmosphere. So then let's use common sense again here.

The sun burns 4 billion kilograms of mass a second, so about 34.5 trillions kg a day. This seems like it'd be very hard to replace mass and fuel from space at that rate of burn off.
blogs.howstuffworks.com...

The size of the sun doesn't rely on the amount of matter within it.

Put simply, the sun balances two forces - gravity and heat (pressure). Gravity tries to make it smaller, heat tries to make it bigger. It naturally reaches a point of equilibrium. As the sun ages and hydrogen gets used up it begins to use helium as a fuel source, which 'burns' hotter - therefore making the sun expand as it ages.

Your basic understanding is flawed.

Originally posted by sacgamer25
But Evolution really doesn’t make any logical sense. In 6000 plus years of human history have we witnessed any animal give birth to something not of its kind. I’m not talking about animals of the same species creating mules. I am talking about a reptile giving birth to a mammal. The only evidence for evolution is the age that science gives to the universe and earth. I do believe in micro-evolution but macro-evolution is simply not provable. All of the science that dates the earth prior than 6000 years and dates the universe simply cannot be proven. By the way I am very educated and believed in evolution for most of my life.

You claim to be educated. You claim to have "believed" in evolution for most of your life.

Yet, what you posted is totally NOT evolutionary theory. You clearly have no idea what evolution is.

reply to post by sacgamer25


Before I get into showing why your claims about evolution are wrong, I would like to ask you one question. What is the mechanism that prevents microevolution from becoming macroevolution?

Now on to the bulk of my post. What you call macroevolution has been observed. In biology this is referred to as speciation. This occurs when samples from one species have accrued enough mutations that they are unable to breed with their original species, but they are able to breed and produce viable offspring with the members of their sample.

Observed Instances of Speciation
Some More Observed Speciation Events

reply to post by CalledOUT

Okay, mutations are not the same as Adaptions. You listed a number of ADAPTIONS. Go dictionary.com the difference, could help you. If you see a mutated kid that can barely walk (which is a common natural mutaion) It is a LITTLE different than if you see a giant ripped guy that works out every day. Evolutionists will never be able to see the difference....

Just because you don't understand how the things I listed are mutations doesn't mean they're not mutations, it just means you don't understand how they're mutations. Further, you seem to think that Dictionary.com (or any other dictionary) will support you in this ignorance. From Dictionary.com:

mu·ta·tion [myoo-tey-shuhn]
noun
1. Biology .
a. a sudden departure from the parent type in one or more heritable characteristics, caused by a change in a gene or a chromosome.
b. an individual, species, or the like, resulting from such a departure.
2. the act or process of changing.
3. a change or alteration, as in form or nature.

So all three definitions that stem from biology support my definition of mutation. Interesting, no? In the interest of full disclosure, I left out the fourth and fifth definitions because one derives from phonetics and the other from linguistics.

As for the sun, I'm PRETTY sure that when energy is used and sent out into space.... the star will shrink. It's not a tide in the ocean that comes back like atheists try to pin it against, it's blowing up and hitting all other planets with tons of released energy, which if that energy cannot be created or destroyed.... must have left the sun. Gas bubble may form creating variations is sizes and blow up sending massive amounts of energy into space, but that's still loss of massive amounts of energy into space. So unless that's a magic spring or replenish able energy that obviously no one here can produce... IT'S SHRINKING!!

But is it shrinking at the rate which is required to invalidate an Earth that is between four and five billion years old? You have zero evidence, other than an abstract from a paper that never saw publication and therefore no data, to support that claim.

As for abiogenesis, it's a mere theory like all evolution theory that obviously cannot be tested because it's not science.

No, abiogenesis is a hypothesis; evolution is a scientific theory. You should educate yourself as to the difference between the two before saying things that expose your ignorance on the subject. Evolution is testable and observable and it has made correct predictions, as any good scientific theory should. Abiogenesis is a hypothesis still essentially in its infancy, but the ability to generate the amino acids necessary to life from an environment like Earth's primordial atmosphere is certainly a good start.

And one human cell is so complicated that they still don't know the smallest particle that exists in one cell.

Can you explain what you mean by this? It seem to be meaningless drivel, and wrong meaningless drivel at that, given that we know the cell membrane is made up of phospholipids, which we also know how to synthesize.

creating proteins does not equate to creating life.

You're right but, again, it's a start in the right direction.

And if it did happen like that... don't think think there would be a shred of evidence that it still happens

Given how different the primordial atmosphere was from today's atmosphere, it's difficult to conceive of it happening now. Again, do some research on abiogenesis and you'll understand why a reducing atmosphere, like Earth's early atmosphere, was conducive to the formation of amino acids.

or at least replicatable in a lab controlled environment? buuut it's not, ever will be either.

Given that we just determined the structure of DNA in the last sixty years or so, you don't find it a little disingenuous to say that just because we haven't replicated it in a lab yet means we never will? There's a big difference between "haven't done it yet" and "will never be able to do it". What you're doing is the equivalent of saying that supersonic travel will never occur because the Wright Brothers couldn't do it.

which means it's NOT science.

I know this may shock and surprise you, but repeatability in a lab isn't a prerequisite for something being scientific.

As for radiometric dating, it could never be proven accurate simply because we would have to have a constant for C14 coming into our environment, and we do not.

If you understood the fundamentals of radiocarbon dating, you'd know this wasn't true -- the fact that the introduction of carbon isotopes isn't constant the whole reason why they generate calibration curves based on carbon content from specimens that can be dated independently of radiometric dating. Calibration curves eliminate the necessity for a constant rate of radiocarbon introduction. Of course, if you actually research radiocarbon dating, you would have known that.

And we would have to have consistent saturation of objects to C14 across the board, but it has been shown MANY TIMES OVER that it is VERY different for every object.

Feel free to provide a citation for that from a peer-reviewed published paper with data that we can all review.

I've read the arguments for C14, and they're pretty pathetic.

I think you just didn't understand them.

if the same object can show millions of years different aging with the same test... I THINK it's full of #.

Again, feel free to provide a citation for that from a peer-reviewed published paper with data that we can all review.

You are trying to save the Titanic, it's just not gonna happen bud.

I don't need to save the theory of evolution, it does that all on its own.

Who said I was a Christian?

I said pious. The fact that you were typing "h-m" and "H-m" instead of "him" and "Him" indicates that you're a theist of some kind, probably one of the Abrahamic flavors. Either way, the way you're willing to lie and misrepresent information is kind of appalling. How do you think your god would feel about that?

reply to post by nyk537


Great post! if i knew how to star and flag i would! This made me think, Maybe the part in revelations about the stars falling from the sky wasn't a profecy, but a look into the past, maybe he was seeing the dinosaurs being erased... but then again, wouldn't that have killed us? anyway, it just made me think of it, now i wish they could clone them or something. I be T-rex tastes like alligator... anyway though, before i get too off topic, i've always thought this was possible, and i've never trusted carbon dating. i seem to remember reading about tests they did on materials found at those fake towns at bomb test facilities that showed metal from a car dating over 300 million years... does anything in nature produce such radiation? like meteors and the like?

reply to post by CalledOUT

Okay, did they change? or did they get stronger adapting to a foreign stimulus? Have humans been recorded as becoming immune to certain poisons by adapting to them? Yes. did they turn into a butterfly or their offspring? no.

There's no genetic difference between a caterpillar and the butterfly it becomes, so how is that a case of mutation? A mutation is any change in the genomic sequence of an organism.

You got me! it can be proven false! But just because you can test something and prove it does not work... does not give it more clout.

No, but falsifiability, the ability to be tested in such a way that it can be proven wrong, makes it good science. Creationism is unfalsifiable because it relies on a supernatural explanation and therefore is not science.

And many people claim that this is how life came from a rock...

Again with the rock... no one is claiming that it came from a rock. If you would actually educate yourself as to what abiogenesis says and what the research has shown so far, you'd might be able to argue some points against it. But you're only exposing your own ignorance on the matter every time you repeat "abiogenesis says life came from a rock!"

so the claim is still a fairy tale, but I'll give you that proving it false could be called science.

It's a hypothesis that actually has some evidence behind it.

Otherwise, believing there's a God is science too, and I KNOW nobody on this forum will accept that.

How is the existence of God falsifiable?

Just saying that life is so complex we still haven't even fully understood a single cell.

"Don't fully understand yet" is different from "will never fully understand".

So how can we say it put itself together from a rock in the correct sequence?

See above for argument re: "rock".

Both are a profession of faith if you understand the meaning of the word. You can't prove it.. but you know it must be correct! So you live your life based on the belief = FAITH.

I don't think anyone here stated that they know abiogenesis is correct. It's simple the scientific explanation that, currently, has the most evidence to support it. An article of faith requires no evidence. In fact, if there were evidence, it would cease being an article of faith, no?

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by sacgamer25

 

Before I get into showing why your claims about evolution are wrong, I would like to ask you one question. What is the mechanism that prevents microevolution from becoming macroevolution?

Now on to the bulk of my post. What you call macroevolution has been observed. In biology this is referred to as speciation. This occurs when samples from one species have accrued enough mutations that they are unable to breed with their original species, but they are able to breed and produce viable offspring with the members of their sample.

Observed Instances of Speciation
Some More Observed Speciation Events

edit on18-8-2011 by Xcalibur254 because: (no reason given)

I would agree that a miniature terrier and a saint bernard cannot mate. but they are still the same species and will never go to a duck or even a cat. Again, micro evolution actually hinder macro evolution Read this!

creation.com...

reply to post by CalledOUT

So do you have a study for this? Sounds more like atheist fairy tales to me! I know you guys like to basically say, "well it's theoretically sound so it's got to be true although there no way to test or prove it, and another scientist with many letters behind his name reviewed it too, so it's true"

Maybe if you understood what is meant by a "closed system" on a thermodynamic level, you'd understand why he's stating, correctly, that the Sun is not a closed system. From Wikipedia:

In thermodynamics, a closed system can exchange energy (as heat or work), but not matter, with its surroundings.

We've seen things, such as comets, crash into the sun. We've seen solar flares and coronal mass ejections. These are examples of the Sun exchanging matter with its surroundings. Ergo, the Sun is not a closed system.

reply to post by CalledOUT


Actually a terrier and a Saint Bernard could mate. It would be a dangerous mating due to size differences, but still in the realm of possibility. And if you had looked at the links I had posted you would see that members of the same species can produce a different species. That is what you call macroevolution. However, if you want to deny that then answer my question. What mechanism prevents the changes of microevolution from becoming macroevolution?

Originally posted by GJPinks
reply to post by Ewok_Boba

 

The dark ages were actually the centuries that the masses were not allowed to read or hear the "actual word of God" meaning to read or heard the Bible. The only thing permitted was what the priests preached. They would take a little of the Bible and mix it with Church Doctrine. What the Priests or Pope said was the only "truth" allowed.

You're sure that is the real reason behind this label? Absolutely sure of this?

reply to post by CalledOUT

Well I would agree, but if you do the math and find out the percent it's actually correct, you will come to a number around .0006% correct most of the time. And I'm sure if the test could go negative, it would be smaller. So forgive me for not trusting it for dating much of anything accurately

This statement makes absolutely no sense. Please feel free to show your math and how you arrived at the conclusion that radiometric dating is only 0.0006% correct.

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by CalledOUT

 

So do you have a study for this? Sounds more like atheist fairy tales to me! I know you guys like to basically say, "well it's theoretically sound so it's got to be true although there no way to test or prove it, and another scientist with many letters behind his name reviewed it too, so it's true"

Maybe if you understood what is meant by a "closed system" on a thermodynamic level, you'd understand why he's stating, correctly, that the Sun is not a closed system. From Wikipedia:

In thermodynamics, a closed system can exchange energy (as heat or work), but not matter, with its surroundings.

We've seen things, such as comets, crash into the sun. We've seen solar flares and coronal mass ejections. These are examples of the Sun exchanging matter with its surroundings. Ergo, the Sun is not a closed system.

edit on 18/8/2011 by iterationzero because: (no reason given)

Yes, but that's not nearly fast enough to replace the energy/mass lost

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by CalledOUT

 

Okay, did they change? or did they get stronger adapting to a foreign stimulus? Have humans been recorded as becoming immune to certain poisons by adapting to them? Yes. did they turn into a butterfly or their offspring? no.

There's no genetic difference between a caterpillar and the butterfly it becomes, so how is that a case of mutation? A mutation is any change in the genomic sequence of an organism.

You misunderstood me. I meant, if they guy adapted to poison, it would not make him or his offspring a different species. and viruses can adapt to drugs and immune systems, but they will remain viruses. you can call it mutation, but adaption is a better description of what is going on, because it does not correlate to larger mutations to new species.

As for the Rock origins: Okay, well the theories change so much it's almost useless trying to keep up because atheist keep getting proven wrong and need to change their theories like a kid trying to get out of a bad lie. So educate me, if we did not come from rocks, what was to origin of life from?

reply to post by CalledOUT

I know this is their theory, but you cannot take adaptation like the many samples I have stated, and carry that into a new species.

Are you asserting that there are no instances of speciation that have been observed?

You say it can with tons of time.

It doesn't take as long as you think.

But actually, as adaption takes place, there become less and less information available to adapt, disprove macro evolution. "In other words, populations can change and adapt because they have a lot of information (variety) in their DNA ‘recipe’. But unless mutations can feed in new information, each time there is variation/adaptation, the total information decreases (as selection gets rid of the unadapted portions of the population, some information is lost in that population). Thus, given a fixed amount of information, the more adaptation we see, the less the potential for future adaptation." creation.com...

Mutations can "feed in new information" via several mechanisms: insertions, amplifications, duplications... and all of these have been observed occurring.

Pretty broad statement, might agree with you on somethings, but not to useful science which many atheist claim people that believe in a creator hate because they argue evolution.... which is science guessing that's been proven false. But hey, since an alternative has never been proven. So far we're right.

The theory of evolution hasn't been falsified to date. Even if someone managed to falsify it tomorrow, it still wouldn't automatically make creationism right because, at the end of the day, there's still zero objective evidence for it.

Whay can't you do it for both? Think outside of the box.

There is objective evidence to support abiogenesis as a possibility. There is no objective evidence for a creator. That's why.

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by CalledOUT

 

Well I would agree, but if you do the math and find out the percent it's actually correct, you will come to a number around .0006% correct most of the time. And I'm sure if the test could go negative, it would be smaller. So forgive me for not trusting it for dating much of anything accurately

This statement makes absolutely no sense. Please feel free to show your math and how you arrived at the conclusion that radiometric dating is only 0.0006% correct.

Sure! Living snails dated at 27,000 years old. greatshroudofturinfaq.com...

We'll say they were 5 years old, and that's generous for snails.

5 / 27000 = .00018518% accurate.

and to quote the original post:
"Even though the oldest of these samples are just over sixty-years old, the lab tests provided ages that ranged from 270,000 years to 3.5 million years old! That is a HUGE discrepancy! This type of testing is not an isolated incident by any means and goes to show how inaccurate the testing methods that scientists use really are. "

60 / 270,000 = .00022222% Correct

60/ 3,500,000 = .0000017% correct

But i forgot.... it's supposed to get more accurate when it's measures things billions of years old, even though that's what it measures everything at.....

reply to post by WhatAliens

Evolution can be cause by the following 4 things

Natural selection: yes some species become extinct and if all men preferred blonds over brunets would all women eventually be blond?

Genetic Drift: Very simple way to explain micro evolution. Nothing happening on the macro scale.

Mutation: I accept this as micro evolution with all the evidence that is currently available. Since all reproducing mutations still contain the basic makeup of the species that they have mutated from. Sill no frogs giving birth to birds.

Gene Flow: Probably the best at trying to justify evolution but only visible in plants and small organism. And I don’t see any bacteria walking around.

This leaves us with the possibility for evolution but does not mean the evolution from nothing to man could have or ever did happen.

If indeed this were to have hapened the fossil evidence should be available. Doesn't science rely on facts? Wouldn’t fossilized evidence on this scale be readily available? Don’t you think every scientist who believes in evolution over creation is looking for this link? Where is the fossil evidence? Show me fossil evidence that supports evolution as the foundation for all life and I will believe. Without the fossil evidence, which should be readily available if it was real, than it could not have happened. I base this on the evidence provided by science and scientific theory itself.

reply to post by CalledOUT


I guess you missed this at the bottom of the link you posted:

What this means in simpler terms is that the shells of the snails were formed from existing ancient material from which most of the carbon 14 had been depleted. It is an exception to the normal way carbon 14 is absorbed by living things. There is nothing wrong with carbon dating, per se. Riggs’ point was that what causes anomalies must be accounted for. To hold this example up as a reason to distrust carbon dating is completely bogus.

reply to post by sacgamer25


What transitional fossils are you interested in seeing? I can give you transitional fossils from fishes to mammals. I can also give you transitional fossils specifically for hominids.

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils
Fossil Hominids