Man and dinosaur coexisting

Loudmouth · Dec 21, 2015

JacksBratt said:
Thanks for that input. So, the next generation is sterile. This is the sort of thing we see as a genetic wall that would make evolution impossible. This is seen when trying to produce hybrid species in an attempt to make animals that would be superior alternatives to existing animals...... They can only go so far and then they hit the wall.

That's not how evolution works. "Superior alternatives" come about through mutations which are passed on to immediate descendants. Each generation of lion is fertile with the next, and they pass on new mutations each and every generation. No wall.

ecco · Dec 21, 2015

ecco1 said:
In other words, you believe GodDidIt and nothing can change your mind. So why are you even discussing the subject? Why not just say "I don't believe in evolution because I take a literal reading of Genesis and therefore I will disregard anything and everything science has to say on the subject"?

JacksBratt said:
So, in other words you would rather I believe it all happened on it's own, spontaneously, magically, from nothing, with no explanation as to how?

No! I really have no "rathers" about what you believe. I am just saying you should be forthright about why you believe as you do.

JacksBratt said:
And nothing could change my mind then?

It's highly unlikely. Your beliefs are tied to your belief in the Absolute Truth of Genesis. That probably won't change.

JacksBratt said:
The science of evolution is cracking at it's foundation.

People have been predicting the demise of evolution since Darwin proposed it. More people believe now than ever before. Even many Christians believe it. Just not the ones who stick to a literal reading of Genesis.

JacksBratt said:
It was a good story, but only a story and it has no Chapter one. You know? The one that starts "once upon a time" and tells how everything started. Yea, that one. Evolution kinda picks up after everything is hear and usurps it's way to being the "truth" somehow.

You mean abiogenesis. Heck, scientists cannot even agree on a precise definition of "LIFE". IMHO, it's just one constant evolution from atoms to molecules to amino acids to proteins to cells.

JacksBratt said:
Naw, I'll stick to the Biblical account that has it all layed out and is backed up by almost every culture on the earth having similar stories as to the origins of the earth, a huge flood, an all powerful creator etc, etc, etc. Not to mention scripture that predicted many things that came true and many more that are unfolding today.

Finally, an admission of the basis of your beliefs. It is not because science is wrong; It is because your biblical based beliefs are so deeply embedded.

Sure, every culture had creation stories. Attempts by early man, going back to before the time of writing, to try to explain what was then unanswerable - where did we come from. Since those early days, we have learned that the earth is not the center of all things. We have learned how to calculate the age of the earth using many different branches of science. We have learned that volcanoes erupt because of what is below the surface; not because some gods are angry.

JacksBratt said:
Soon science and the media will toss all that out and join the hive mind of the "alien's" seeding the earth and coming back to get us. Don't laugh, snicker or giggle, just check what's trending in movies and the internet and the media.

I don't usually laugh, snicker or giggle at people who believe in Genesis. However, I do laugh, snicker and giggle when they use nonsense to try to argue against all the branches of science that disprove Genesis.

ecco · Dec 21, 2015

Subduction Zone said:
It is still a bit of a sexist world and males come first. The Liger has a lion as a father, a Tion has a tiger as a father. A crocoduck, if it existed, would have a crocodile father and a duck mother.

Let's be honest, males will attempt to mate with anything closely resembling their own *kind. Truth be told, human males have extended those limits quite a bit.

* use any definition you care to

Subduction Zone said:
Also the offspring of Tigers and Lions have greatly reduced fertility and I do believe that the next generation is sterile or extremely close to it.

Not unlike horses + donkeys = mules.

ecco · Dec 21, 2015

justlookinla said:
Simply post your evidence, based on the scientific method, for everyone to see. Instead, you choose to make worthless and baseless claims.

Here you go again. As in so many threads on this general subject:

You ask for evidence.
You disregard the evidence.

I could write a simple computer program to post robo comments that would be indistinguishable from yours.

You've offered nothing of content to comprehend.
Your failure is indicated by you offering nothing more than a link and claim it's evidence, based on the scientific method.
You've continually made worthless and baseless claims that you had evidence based on the scientific method.
You've constantly failed to produce this evidence.
We both know from the beginning you didn't have this evidence but was instead making, as now, worthless and baseless claims.
That's because you have nothing, no evidence, nothing in spite of your repeated claim that you did.
The response from you will continue has been, and will continue to be, complete and total failure to offer evidence, based on the scientific method, for the 'how'.
There is no evidence, based on the scientific method, for the 'how' claim of Darwinist evolution.
You haven't given it, nobody else has given it and neither will anyone give it.
The evidence doesn't exist.
Give evidence, based on the scientific method for that claim.
So far, not a single person has fulfilled the request.
Because you've totally failed to offer the evidence you claimed you had, you now feign ignorance.
And the total failure by you to offer such evidence, based on the scientific method.
You haven't offered any but have instead evaded, quibbled and totally failed in your worthless and baseless claims. And will continue to fail.
No, you haven't. And you'll continue with your failure.
And still no evidence, based on the scientific method, for how humanity, as well as all life, was produced by only naturalistic mechanisms from an alleged single life form of long ago.
Continue with your failure.

PsychoSarah · Dec 21, 2015

JacksBratt said:
But their still bacteria. From what I understand our genetics is 90% similar to a cat, 80% to a cow and 50% to a banana. As a result "genetic variation" means little.

Genetic variation does matter, a lot. It means that only a small number of genes need to mutate for significant change. The fact that we have this much similarity to other animals just shows that evolution is more likely, not less. Also, I told you no on the bacteria thing. It is proof of concept: if we observe a bacterial genome change in a year by 10%, that is proof of concept for humans and cats having a shared ancestor, because it proves the genome can change by that much (although, I question that 90%, where did you get that number from?).

PsychoSarah · Dec 21, 2015

Subduction Zone said:
It is still a bit of a sexist world and males come first. The Liger has a lion as a father, a Tion has a tiger as a father. A crocoduck, if it existed, would have a crocodile father and a duck mother.

Also the offspring of Tigers and Lions have greatly reduced fertility and I do believe that the next generation is sterile or extremely close to it.

Would it be any less sexist really if the female name came first? Either way, one gender is coming first in the name. I think people need to not get hung up on minor things like that, it's just not worth the effort.

PsychoSarah · Dec 21, 2015

JacksBratt said:
Humans are a huge biological group. We have any number of races...... all ..... human.

Humans as a species actually have pathetic variation compared to many others. It's a consequence of being a fairly young species.

justlookinla · Dec 21, 2015

florida2 said:
How about you offer your critique of what's actually IN the link?

No, a claim was made that the evidence was in the link. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

We both know that the evidence for the 'how' of Darwinist evolution isn't in the link for such evidence does not exist. You'll not find it and neither will anyone else. It's just a favorite evasive tactic used in an attempt to hide the complete and total failure of anyone to offer the evidence, based on the scientific method, for the view that only naturalistic mechanisms produced humanity, as well as all life, from an alleged single life form of long ago.

justlookinla · Dec 21, 2015

ecco said:
Here you go again. As in so many threads on this general subject:

You ask for evidence.

You disregard the evidence.

Claims of evidence isn't evidence, do you understand that?

I could write a simple computer program to post robo comments that would be indistinguishable from yours.

Same goes for those who embrace the faith-based beliefs of Darwinist evolution. You will claim evidence, but when asked about evidence based on the scientific method for the 'how' of the production of humanity from an alleged single life form of long ago, you'll immediately began your evasive behavior....for the evidence does not exist. There will be post after post after post of evasion, but no evidence.

Simply look at this post of yours for a great example of a response....with no evidence but evasion.

You've offered nothing of content to comprehend.

Your failure is indicated by you offering nothing more than a link and claim it's evidence, based on the scientific method.

You've continually made worthless and baseless claims that you had evidence based on the scientific method.

You've constantly failed to produce this evidence.

We both know from the beginning you didn't have this evidence but was instead making, as now, worthless and baseless claims.

That's because you have nothing, no evidence, nothing in spite of your repeated claim that you did.

The response from you will continue has been, and will continue to be, complete and total failure to offer evidence, based on the scientific method, for the 'how'.

There is no evidence, based on the scientific method, for the 'how' claim of Darwinist evolution.

You haven't given it, nobody else has given it and neither will anyone give it.

The evidence doesn't exist.

Give evidence, based on the scientific method for that claim.

So far, not a single person has fulfilled the request.

Because you've totally failed to offer the evidence you claimed you had, you now feign ignorance.

And the total failure by you to offer such evidence, based on the scientific method.

You haven't offered any but have instead evaded, quibbled and totally failed in your worthless and baseless claims. And will continue to fail.

No, you haven't. And you'll continue with your failure.

And still no evidence, based on the scientific method, for how humanity, as well as all life, was produced by only naturalistic mechanisms from an alleged single life form of long ago.

Continue with your failure.

Now, take a little time to sit back and comprehend what you just wrote. And stop trying to pass off your Godless faith-based claims as fact.

ecco · Dec 21, 2015

justlookinla said:
Same goes for those who embrace the faith-based beliefs of Darwinist evolution. You will claim evidence, but when asked about evidence based on the scientific method for the 'how' of the production of humanity from an alleged single life form of long ago, you'll immediately began your evasive behavior....for the evidence does not exist. There will be post after post after post of evasion, but no evidence.

justlookinla said:
Simply look at this post of yours for a great example of a response....with no evidence but evasion.

OK, let's look at that post. Those were your words in response to people providing evidence in support of evolution. Here, I'll post them again.

You've offered nothing of content to comprehend.
Your failure is indicated by you offering nothing more than a link and claim it's evidence, based on the scientific method.
You've continually made worthless and baseless claims that you had evidence based on the scientific method.
You've constantly failed to produce this evidence.
We both know from the beginning you didn't have this evidence but was instead making, as now, worthless and baseless claims.
That's because you have nothing, no evidence, nothing in spite of your repeated claim that you did.
The response from you will continue has been, and will continue to be, complete and total failure to offer evidence, based on the scientific method, for the 'how'.
There is no evidence, based on the scientific method, for the 'how' claim of Darwinist evolution.
You haven't given it, nobody else has given it and neither will anyone give it.
The evidence doesn't exist.
Give evidence, based on the scientific method for that claim.
So far, not a single person has fulfilled the request.
Because you've totally failed to offer the evidence you claimed you had, you now feign ignorance.
And the total failure by you to offer such evidence, based on the scientific method.
You haven't offered any but have instead evaded, quibbled and totally failed in your worthless and baseless claims. And will continue to fail.
No, you haven't. And you'll continue with your failure.
And still no evidence, based on the scientific method, for how humanity, as well as all life, was produced by only naturalistic mechanisms from an alleged single life form of long ago.
Continue with your failure.

What was I evading? All I did was post your responses.

justlookinla said:
Now, take a little time to sit back and comprehend what you just wrote.

OK, I just sat back and contemplated what I wrote. I wrote the you dismiss any and all evidence supporting evolution. As evidence of that, I posted samples of your many responses.

justlookinla said:
And stop trying to pass off your Godless faith-based claims as fact.

My godless faith-based claim that you dismiss any and all evidence supporting evolution? Well, you do. Just look at your own words.

justlookinla · Dec 21, 2015

ecco said:
OK, let's look at that post. Those were your words in response to people providing evidence in support of evolution. Here, I'll post them again.

You've offered nothing of content to comprehend.

Your failure is indicated by you offering nothing more than a link and claim it's evidence, based on the scientific method.

You've continually made worthless and baseless claims that you had evidence based on the scientific method.

You've constantly failed to produce this evidence.

We both know from the beginning you didn't have this evidence but was instead making, as now, worthless and baseless claims.

That's because you have nothing, no evidence, nothing in spite of your repeated claim that you did.

The response from you will continue has been, and will continue to be, complete and total failure to offer evidence, based on the scientific method, for the 'how'.

There is no evidence, based on the scientific method, for the 'how' claim of Darwinist evolution.

You haven't given it, nobody else has given it and neither will anyone give it.

The evidence doesn't exist.

Give evidence, based on the scientific method for that claim.

So far, not a single person has fulfilled the request.

Because you've totally failed to offer the evidence you claimed you had, you now feign ignorance.

And the total failure by you to offer such evidence, based on the scientific method.

You haven't offered any but have instead evaded, quibbled and totally failed in your worthless and baseless claims. And will continue to fail.

No, you haven't. And you'll continue with your failure.

And still no evidence, based on the scientific method, for how humanity, as well as all life, was produced by only naturalistic mechanisms from an alleged single life form of long ago.

Continue with your failure.

What was I evading? All I did was post your responses.

You were evading simply giving the evidence asked for. As you've done in this post. And will do in the next one.

And the next one.

OK, I just sat back and contemplated what I wrote. I wrote the you dismiss any and all evidence supporting evolution. As evidence of that, I posted samples of your many responses.

As is common, you subtly attempt to change my request. I'm asking for evidence, based on the scientific method, for the Darwinist view that only naturalistic mechanisms produced humanity, as well as all life we observe today, from an alleged single life form of long ago. The evasive response will be to offer something about common ancestry and then claim evidence was offered. It wasn't. That wasn't the request.

You, nor anyone else has addressed the complete lack of evidence for the 'how' of Darwinist evolution.

My godless faith-based claim that you dismiss any and all evidence supporting evolution? Well, you do. Just look at your own words.

Here you go again attempting to subtly change the issue. The issue is about the 'how', the process claimed by Darwinists which produced humanity from an alleged single life form of long ago. All you have is a faith-based view, void of evidence, for the 'how'. You believe it was a Godless, willy-nilly process, but that's nothing but a personal view by you. It's not based on the scientific method.

BrriKerr · Dec 21, 2015

When are you people going to get it through your thick skulls? evidence is not evidence if they don't want it to be evidence.

Dr GS Hurd · Dec 21, 2015

JacksBratt said:
Humans are a huge biological group. We have any number of races...... all ..... human.

Just one error there, we are not a "huge biological group." We have very few populations that even satisfy the notion of races. In fact, Charles Darwin made that observation in 1871 when he wrote, "It may be doubted whether any character can be named which is distinctive of a race and is constant." (The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex London: John Murray, 1871.) In Darwin's 145 year old biological terminology a "race" was even more limited than "subspecies."

We are a hugely disruptive species. We permanently altered the biological and geological fate of our entire planet. That has already happened. We are now in the "Anthropocene" AKA the geological era of humans.

justlookinla · Dec 21, 2015

BrriKerr said:
When are you people going to get it through your thick skulls? evidence is not evidence if they don't want it to be evidence.

Who's denying evidence, based on the scientific method?

Subduction Zone · Dec 21, 2015

justlookinla said:
Who's denying evidence, based on the scientific method?

That would be you.

justlookinla · Dec 21, 2015

Subduction Zone said:
That would be you.

Now you're going to make your worthless and baseless claim of offering evidence, based on the scientific method, for the view that only naturalistic mechanisms produced humanity, as well as all life we observe today, from an alleged single life form of long ago, aren't you?

Subduction Zone · Dec 21, 2015

justlookinla said:
Now you're going to make your worthless and baseless claim of offering evidence, based on the scientific method, for the view that only naturalistic mechanisms produced humanity, as well as all life we observe today, from an alleged single life form of long ago, aren't you?

I am so sorry that you can't understand basic science.

justlookinla · Dec 21, 2015

Subduction Zone said:
I am so sorry that you can't understand basic science.

I understand your complete failure to offer evidence for the 'how' of Darwinist evolution. There is none, therefore you fail.

It's simple.

Subduction Zone · Dec 21, 2015

justlookinla said:
I understand your complete failure to offer evidence for the 'how' of Darwinist evolution. There is none, therefore you fail.

It's simple.

Wrong, I offered evidence that supported my claim. No one here seems to understand what you are demanding. If I demand that someone measure how tall purple is I would probably sound quite a bit like you.

The simple fact is that your side lost this debate over 100 years ago. I am merely trying to help others understand this theory.

justlookinla · Dec 21, 2015

Subduction Zone said:
Wrong, I offered evidence that supported my claim. No one here seems to understand what you are demanding. If I demand that someone measure how tall purple is I would probably sound quite a bit like you.

The simple fact is that your side lost this debate over 100 years ago. I am merely trying to help others understand this theory.

You didn't offer evidence, only a link, in response to my request for evidence, based on the scientific method, for the 'how' of Darwinist evolution. Links aren't evidence.

Try again.

Man and dinosaur coexisting

Contributor

Poster

Poster

Poster

Chaotic Neutral

Chaotic Neutral

Chaotic Neutral

Regular Member

Regular Member

Poster

Regular Member

Active Member

Newbie

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency