how would living dinosaurs disprove evolution

reply to post by ACTS 2:38


well i will give you that our fossil record is so imcomplete due to that weve found somewhere between 5-10% of all fossils, so iguess there are several assumptions to based on the lack of the most effcient tecjnolgy, and fossil discovery, so i guess we could find something that complelty disproves it any day now, it will be hard to tell, but if something new comes up, there will probbaly be skeptisim from evolutionists this time

this older thread has the anti-evolution viewpoint in regards to living dinosaurs expressed within it:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

if you're interested

II Peter
[3] Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
[4] And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
[5] For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
[6] Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

Verse 4 is talking about Uniformitarianism beliefs of today.

Long slow un-seen processes created everything we see today from nothing.

Oh yea life was created from non life with out any intelligence what so ever.

Happenstance and random act of violence brought about all the life we see today.

Yet because it takes soooooooo looooooooong we can never see new organisms evolve.

Even when we drop large nuclear devises does a new organism happen?????

Originally posted by connorromanow
reply to post by UniverSoul

 

they are parrots

close enough

reply to post by connorromanow


How about all things are winding down and not Up as the evolutionary belief would have it.

How about that the Head of the Grand Canyon is higher in elevation then the Head of the river by almost 2000 feet.
So I guess the river flowed up hill for millions of years cutting the canyon.

How about the fact the sun is decaying and only millions of years ago the earth would have been to hot for life.

How about the fact we know more about the magnet decay of the earth (half life of 1500 years studied for 150 years now) at about 10% then we do about the decay rate of radioactive materials (half life of 50000 years studied for around 100 years) about .2%.
And since the earths magnet decay has been going down since first studied we can reverse the process and determine the strength in history.
less than a 100,000 years ago the earth would have been a magnetic star and life would not exist.

How about physical laws like angular momentum, over ten moons in our solar system revolve in the opposite direction, contrary to physical laws.

How about the fact the sun rotates slower then the planets revolving around it contrary to the physical laws and evolutionary belief that the planets collected and formed around the sun.

Originally posted by UniverSoul
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

Dinosaurs weren't reptiles, like Crocs, lizards, and turtles where there limbs are pointed outward and their bellies on the ground. Their limbs were under them like most animals today..
And sharks *fish* were around long before the dinos..

..unless that was a joke or sumthing I didn't catch.

But I am a believer that they weren't cold blooded like people think, and in the Cretaceous period, started growing feathers... and eventually the smaller ones evolved into birds...

I'm not leaning strongly either way because I believe there are examples of both evolutionism and creationism in our life. I won't even pretend to know which came first. I do know that the argument of the Bacterial Flagellum is interesting and shows just how amazing things really are at a microscopic level. It is the evolutionist's claim to proof of their theory. If your not familiar with it here is video explaining it.


I try to stay open minded on this subject because I will never claim I know for certain. What I do know is my life experiences have lead me to review both theories and I can't dismiss either one. I can't be certain that a being didn't create us long ago and we have been allowed to evolve to this point in time. Was this being responsible for the Earth and the stars? Maybe not.
Either way the question still comes to mind: What happened before that?
I just don't understand something coming from nothing.
How is either theory possible is what blows my mind.

One thing I never understood about that arguement, that a few things didn't evolve much recently means nothing did.

"Most things changed drastically over millions of years, but a few stayed rather similar. Therefore; everything stayed similar"

It's like flipping a coin and getting heads, then flipping a coin and getting tails, and using that to conclude it's one sided, only tails. It's a false dichotomy mixed with a strawman. First the strawman that evolution must "always happen visibly", followed by the false dichotomy that even one example of it not happening visibly means none of the cases did. If 99% of creatures changed drastically over the last hundred million years, and 1% much less drastically, that doesn't magically get rid of the other 99%. I don't see how anyone can follow that logic.


~
Ok, ACTS, I'll bite.

Originally posted by ACTS 2:38
Long slow un-seen processes created everything we see today from nothing.

Oh yea life was created from non life with out any intelligence what so ever.

Happenstance and random act of violence brought about all the life we see today.

Yet because it takes soooooooo looooooooong we can never see new organisms evolve.

Even when we drop large nuclear devises does a new organism happen?????

1. Evolution is very well seen. Both in modern day live animals, and undeniably in the fossil record. Just because it's a long process doesn't make it ridiculous.

Just 1 modern example

Quick briefing on the fossil record

Or, if you're trying to get at the big bang theory, your completely off topic. This is evolution. There actually is scientific evidence of matter "Coming from nothing for no reason", that could explain the origin of the universe. Others theorize that matter was always there. There's many different thoughts on universal origins amongst evolutionists. Simply because it's an unrelated theory., and has no place in an evolution discussion.

2. Please read about Abiogenesis and Exogenesis. You seem to brush either aside solely because you're trained to. All the tests we've done seem to indicate it's possible.

Here's a start

3. What are you even talking about? How about natural selection and environmental pressures?

Evolution is not about random chance

4. We've seen as much speciation as would be expected from only knowing about it for 150 years. On top of that, fossil record gives clear inclination of speciation, if you want to go back to that.

Prediction 5.6
Oberserved instances of speciation

5 A very grand misunderstanding.First, nuclear weapons kill organisms, not make them evolve. Though it could kill out the weaker ones and leave the more nuclear resistant ones, hypothetically, if any could survive in the first place. Like bacteria and virus evolve to survive our medications. Or, if you're trying to imply that added radiation would cause more mutations, there's actually such thing as too many mutations. Most of them are bad, and the carriers die out. You need a good rate that causes the good mutations to stay separate from the bad ones so they can pass on. There's also many other factors than radiation that affects mutations and survival. Again, that's if we weren't killing them with radiation in the first place, which disables evolution in the first place.

Evolved antibiotic resistance
Too many mutations
I'm assuming a don't need a source to prove that nukes kill things.

~
Please challenge with actual arguements. I don't find explaining intentional misunderstandings very mentally engaging.

It would not make the blinding bit of difference to proving or disproving evolution if dinosaurs were alive today...

Originally posted by liejunkie01
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.

Wrong. Anything that disagrees with the theory is swept under the carpet. The knowledge has not expanded, it has gone further down a dead end in bigger and bigger loops.

I'm not saying there's a better explanation, I don't believe the bible story either. But the evidence just doesn't really support evolution. Admitting that WE JUST DON'T KNOW is just impossible, apparently.

reply to post by TheLieWeLive


I don't lean either way, either. I lean a third way. Both camps in the evolution vs creationism are wrong. But I would say the bacterial flagellum and the irreducible complexity completely destroys evolution all by itself. Watch that video again.

reply to post by ACTS 2:38


As far as I know the suns getting hotter, and several hundred million years ago the sun was so weak that when the algea showed up and removed all the co2 the earth froze over atleast according to evidence we have

reply to post by ACTS 2:38

How about the fact we know more about the magnet decay of the earth (half life of 1500 years studied for 150 years now) at about 10% then we do about the decay rate of radioactive materials (half life of 50000 years studied for around 100 years) about .2%. And since the earths magnet decay has been going down since first studied we can reverse the process and determine the strength in history. less than a 100,000 years ago the earth would have been a magnetic star and life would not exist.

All your supposed facts have been soundly panned by real science.

There are several fatal errors in Thomas G. Barnes's work: 1. Barnes employs an obsolete model of the earth's interior. Today, no one doing serious work on the earth's magnetic field envisions its source as a free electrical current in a spherical conductor (the earth's core) undergoing simple decay. Elsasser's dynamo theory is the only theory today which has survived.

Link
This link also settles the majority of your false claims.

reply to post by CaptChaos

But I would say the bacterial flagellum and the irreducible complexity completely destroys evolution all by itself.

Except the bacterial flagellum has been shown to be reducible. Do you fact check any of the information you read on creationist websites?

reply to post by ACTS 2:38

Never mind all the off-topic ‘disproofs’ of evolution you have garnered from your readings in creationism: can you answer the OP question or are you just here to sow confusion?

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by CaptChaos

 

But I would say the bacterial flagellum and the irreducible complexity completely destroys evolution all by itself.

Except the bacterial flagellum has been shown to be reducible. Do you fact check any of the information you read on creationist websites?

Which bacterial flagellum are we talking anyway? There are many different types with their own evolutionary histories..