It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

how would living dinosaurs disprove evolution

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 11:16 AM
link   
a quick question, ive seen several videos on youtube showing what may be evidence of dinosaurs living today and this disproves evolution according to them, but that does not sound right to me, all it does is disprove they went extinct. so i posted some comments on the videos and replys were that dinosaurs evolved into birds so living ones would disprove evolution, but that also makes no sense since birds just broke off from dinosaurs and both continued into the cretacious. but when i mentioned that i got no intelligant reply so could someone here please explain it a little better than, and try to enlighten me on this statement




posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 11:21 AM
link   
That's just it. It doesn't make a lick of sense, and that's why nobody can give you a reasonable response to your question.

The real explanation is that these people don't have even a high school understanding of evolution, and thus they have an over-simplified and wrong view of evolution. In this over-simplified and just-plain-wrong view, dinosaurs being alive today would indeed disprove evolution.

Problem is, though, that their understanding of evolution is totally wacked out.
edit on 24-9-2011 by AnIntellectualRedneck because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by AnIntellectualRedneck
 


thats what ive been thinking, is the people who gave that as a response, may not have understood evolution,or at least prehistoric life very well



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by connorromanow
 

It doesn't. Many creationists equate the fossil record with evolution without understanding that, even in the complete absence of a fossil record, there would be more than enough genetic evidence to support the theory of evolution. Heck, look at the simplest definition of evolution -- a change in allele frequency in a given population over time -- and the complete absence of references to fossils.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by connorromanow
a quick question, ive seen several videos on youtube showing what may be evidence of dinosaurs living today and this disproves evolution according to them, but that does not sound right to me, all it does is disprove they went extinct. so i posted some comments on the videos and replys were that dinosaurs evolved into birds so living ones would disprove evolution, but that also makes no sense since birds just broke off from dinosaurs and both continued into the cretacious. but when i mentioned that i got no intelligant reply so could someone here please explain it a little better than, and try to enlighten me on this statement


Surviving dinosaurs would in no way disprove evolution in the same that that chimps being around at the same time we are doesn't .. evolution is born from necessity and if a group of animals are split off from another group, the very same species can then branch into two radically different things over long periods of time depending on their surroundings and what is required to survive.. this is a simple fundamental part of evolution, the Galapagos islands demonstrated this beautifully..
edit on 24-9-2011 by miniatus because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 11:40 AM
link   
They think that evolution works the same was as some utility company plans- on a flat rate.

i.e. -"huuurrrrrr if we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys? durrrrrrrrrrrrr"



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by connorromanow
 

lol 'dinosaurs' do exist today
theyre all around you..just not the ones you see on jurrasic park
reptiles birds mammals fish the list goes on



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 11:41 AM
link   
In addition to what I said above, a friend of mine, a creationist.. argued that roaches and other insects are around that haven't changed in millions of years and he used THAT to try to disprove evolution.. the answer to that is simple, those creatures are surviving and efficient as they are currently, there's been no need for evolution to kick in.. survival of the fittest didn't need to apply because they were surviving just fine .. Evolution often seems to take an "If it's not broke, don't fix it" path .. not only that but evolution doesn't have to be physically noticeable, it can be on the genetic level .. perhaps a higher resistance to heat or cold
edit on 24-9-2011 by miniatus because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 11:45 AM
link   
right thanks to all who responded to this, i was just curious to see if anyone could actualy back some of the video claims



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 11:45 AM
link   
I just saw Lee Corso and Lou Holtz on television. Proof that dinosaurs do exist among us. They also make you question evolution.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by UniverSoul
 


i know i got two, of their descendents at my house right now, a noisy pair of them however



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by connorromanow
reply to post by UniverSoul
 


i know i got two, of their descendents at my house right now, a noisy pair of them however

dont let them eat you
we all know what dinosaurs can be like
or do we?



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by radosta
I just saw Lee Corso and Lou Holtz on television. Proof that dinosaurs do exist among us. They also make you question evolution.


I'd never question evolution, there's far too much evidence for it .. you could show me a colony of t-rex's living in the congo and I wouldn't be swayed because like I said above, evolution is out of necessity.. if you were to take two colonies of t-rex's and put them on opposite ends of the earth with different surrounds, different predators, food sources, diseases.. etc .. they would eventually branch off as different animals .. if one group was surviving in extreme cold they would probably evolve a way to tolerate that cold..
edit on 24-9-2011 by miniatus because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by UniverSoul
 


they like to bite, but they only ever once actualy broke the skin on my brothers fingers



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by connorromanow
 


Well first off it would make the already non existent Geological Column even worse off.

As when you find one of the extinct then not organisms in a level that is claimed to be millions of years old
how does one accept the column as accurate.

By the way the Column does not exist any where in the order it was said to be back in the 1700's.

Also most of the dating of fossils by evolutionist is done with the circular reasoning method.

You date the fossils by what layer of rock they were found in,...... and they date the rocks by what fossils they are in them.

Then they take the assumptive decay dating methods and run tests until they get a date that they like and say see it is millions of years old.

Secondly it also shows that macro evolution does not exist as here is an organism that has supposedly survived millions of years with out becoming something else.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by miniatus

Originally posted by radosta
I just saw Lee Corso and Lou Holtz on television. Proof that dinosaurs do exist among us. They also make you question evolution.


I'd never question evolution, there's far too much evidence for it .. you could show me a colony of t-rex's living in the congo and I wouldn't be swayed because like I said above, evolution is out of necessity.. if you were to take two colonies of t-rex's and put them on opposite ends of the earth with different surrounds, different predators, food sources, diseases.. etc .. they would eventually branch off as different animals .. if one group was surviving in extreme cold they would probably evolve a way to tolerate that cold..
edit on 24-9-2011 by miniatus because: (no reason given)

always question.
science is there to be improved apon
but your right evolution is necessity and the most logical answer we have today.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by connorromanow
reply to post by UniverSoul
 


they like to bite, but they only ever once actualy broke the skin on my brothers fingers

if there dogs thats how they play

edit on 24-9-2011 by UniverSoul because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 11:55 AM
link   
Here we go again.

Evoltution evidence evolves with the fossil finds............It is an idea that keeps getting expanded on as knowledge grows......


Science (from Latin: scientia meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.

en.wikipedia.org...


It builds and organizes......Not stick to one suggestion, myth or explanation. If a better clearer explanation comes out, it is added to the wealth of knowledge and used for further investigation.

People really do stick to the 1800's idea of evolution too much. The knowledge has expanded beyond a monkeys uncle.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by UniverSoul
 


they are parrots



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 


Airplanes and cars have similar parts like wheels, doors, engines............

Yet that does not make a car a plane or a plane a car.

They have completely different systems of steering, motion, engine performance.

Genetic information with similarity does not equate common decent.

It means that the designer found a system that works and used common ideas in other organisms.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join