Evolution

[gasbanni]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nsZ6-t3pHY&feature=related


Started watching this.................

Ok if you watch it as far as the stripes on the skin................it would seem that the only reasonable explanation is that it was seen by who ever drew it

The stripes were dismissed as ridiculous and untrue eventually a fossil was found then using a Boeing scanning machine it revealed that that type of dinosaur had striped skin like a zebra !

How else ca this be explained other than the artist had seen one ?

Rational arguments please !

 

[joe-90]

It's simple. He's an American religious nutter.

No dinosaur fossil has been found above the KT boundary.

 

[EddieM]

It's simple. He's an American religious nutter.

No dinosaur fossil has been found above the KT boundary.

rubbish there's loads in the law courts and house of lords.

 

[Micilin]

It's simple. He's an American religious nutter.

No dinosaur fossil has been found above the KT boundary.

rubbish there's loads in the law courts and house of lords.

Evolution is a' Theory' at the moment, but it is the only theory that has sufficient evidence to make iit tenable.

I've not seen any proof as yet for a better theory

 

[gasbanni]

At about 4.10 minutes in there is a point that no one on here has attempted to explain. Unfortunately if anyone quotes Joe 90 that shows up in the quote.

So his explanation is he's a religious nutter, yep I agree however
how is the question answered ??

We have a petrograrh (however its spelt !) which shows a striped dinosaur
This was rubbbished for years and then boeings scanner reveals striped dinosaur skin.

How is this explained ?
The simplest explanation is that it was drawn from observation, but that flies in the face of contemporary scientific views and would undermine the theory of evolution.............

Further on in the videos there is the excavation of a jewish temple and digging down they found a carving of a t-Rex attacking a horse.
Again how is this explained.
They weren't discovered in the modern world till 1900.
to suggest the ancients found a few bones and could reconstruct how a T rex would look is a bit far fetched.

When you start looking in to it it isn't as clear cut as you would think,

Mount st Helens solidified lava dated as 2,000,000 years old yeah right !!!! so carbon dating is very accurate....no it aint !!

 

[matt1e]

At about 4.10 minutes in there is a point that no one on here has attempted to explain. Unfortunately if anyone quotes Joe 90 that shows up in the quote.

We have a petrograrh (however its spelt !) which shows a striped dinosaur
This was rubbbished for years and then boeings scanner reveals striped dinosaur skin.

How is this explained ?
The simplest explanation is that it was drawn from observation,

agreed

but that flies in the face of contemporary scientific views and would undermine the theory of evolution.............

How would it?
It certainly does nothing to prove the existence of a creator, only that some things now extinct may have been around later than they thought

 

[joe-90]

Then why are all the dinosaur bones found lower than the KT boundary?

How many dinosaurs would you need to form a breeding colony that lived for more than 65 million years until man turned up to see them?

Where are their bones?

Man has been around just 7 million years. Civilised man for just a few thousand. So how did the Dinos survive for 65 million years - unknown to science?

It didn't happen mate.

 

[EB1caneyeB]

Man has probably been around longer than anyone knows. Just didn't learn to draw till a few million years ago.
The earth had more scavengers then probably so there would be no human remains.

 

[breadnbutter]

God created evolution.
Let the heathens argue with that.

How did god evolve? when he was little, was he a baby god?
Where's mummy god and daddy god?

something i heard the other day

i scientist competes whith god.

ok god says, go and make man . so the scientist gathers up some dust from the ground.
god says nope, thats my dust, make your own. lol

 

[TriggerSlab]

It's a scientific question. You can't answer it using religion. Religion starts from the point of "this is the truth (because it's written in a book) - it's a matter of faith - we don't need proof"

Science on the other hand starts from a position of objective neutrality - and then tries to find evidence for the existence of something. The problem with creationism from a scientific perspective is that it says this:
The universe exists. It must have come from somewhere. Let's invent a supernatural being (that's even more complex than the universe). But let's not think about where this god might have come from...err...because God. It just isn't scientific. The hypothesis proposes the existence of something even more complex than the thing we're trying to explain, so in that sense the proposed solution (ie god) isn't helpful in answering the question "where did the universe come from?" The alternative explanation is unappealing to many people because it involves cosmology, complex maths and hard thinking. So they say: let's do god, that's nice and simple if you don't think too much.

Evolution on the other hand is simply the process by which genes change over time and by which the fittest members of a population are those most likely to survive and pass on their genes.

So Creationism and Evolution are really different things.

 

[joe-90]

Evolution on the other hand is simply the process by which genes change over time and by which the fittest members of a population are those most likely to survive and pass on their genes.

So Creationism and Evolution are really different things.

It doesn't mean fittest in the sense of just being a fast runner.

 

[TriggerSlab]

It doesn't mean fittest in the sense of just being a fast runner.

Right - we're not talking fit in (either of!) the Jessica Ennis senses!
We mean those best adapted to survival (and hence reproduction) in their specific environment.

 

[joe-90]

Yes. I should be called survival of the best suited.

 

[TriggerSlab]

That's a good point - we talk about "survival of the fittest" but it's a phrase that Darwin never used - he referred to "natural selection". The phrase "survival of the fittest" is an unfortunate one popularised (I think) by the philosopher Herbert Spencer.

Back to the Creationist issue. We're actually living through something of a golden age in cosmology and many of the things discovered over the last decade or so are starting to provide tentative answers to the question of where the universe came from. Lawrence Krauss' book A Universe From Nothing is a decent place to start - it's a written for general readers. Check out videos of him on YouTube for a good introduction to this stuff. Gross oversimplification - you can create a whole universe from nothing ie zero net energy and matter using just a little quantum weirdness because 'Nothing' is unstable. The universe is a weird place...

 

[breadnbutter]

i was an unbeliever once, and i used to try and imagine an end to space,
i imagined a wall,but then there has to be a end to that wall,and on and on my mind travelled,until i couldn't imagine an end to space.

same as the big bang, you got to go back to what started the big bang,then you got go back to what started the energy that started the bigbang. ect
in the end , you got to admit there is an intelligent force behind all this.

god has no beginning and has no end,he has always been god ,he never started, he wasent created. god was never born, or some energy that appeared. GOD IS

God said to moses, I AM WHAT I AM