Whale with hooves

[anna ~ grace]

How did you do that?

I did a Duck Duck Go search for "whale with hooves".

 

[Subduction Zone]

so if i will take a sample that is far less then 50, 000 years i will always get an accurate result?

Any tool can be misused. That does not mean that the tool is not valid. All dating techniques have limitations. If one makes obvious errors, then one will get obvious mistakes. For example a bunch of creationists tried to "date" some dinosaur fossils with carbon dating. They did not tell the lab that they hired what they were dating. They appeared to use poor sampling techniques. They got results indicative of contamination and yet they dishonestly claimed it was evidence for "young dinosaurs". The problem was that if the dates were valid there still should have been some sort of consistency to them. They should have at the very least shown deeper fossils to be older and more shallow fossils to be younger. Instead their dates were all over the place. If the fossils were from a single event. Say a worldwide flood. Then they all should have had the same date. But if they were due to contamination due to sloppy work then those dates should be all over the place. Guess what kind of dates that they got?

 

[Subduction Zone]

We were taught evolution in school. Their take on it indicated that life originated in water as single cell life and then evolved into fish, which then evolved to have legs and became land animals. Which is why the idea looks backwards evolution as I was taught.

It looks as if you are assuming that there is a goal to evolution. There is not. There are simply results. So a population that thrives in the water may lose evolved traits as it readapts to its new home. The new environment may in effect "choose" which traits evolve since those that work best in that environment will be kept and modified and those that are unneeded will almost certainly be lost. Not because of one individual changing during its lifetime, but due to offspring that have those traits slightly more than their brothers and sisters that did not have that trait. They are more likely to pass on their traits and this will go on generation after generation.

 

[devin553344]

It looks as if you are assuming that there is a goal to evolution. There is not. There are simply results. So a population that thrives in the water may lose evolved traits as it readapts to its new home. The new environment may in effect "choose" which traits evolve since those that work best in that environment will be kept and modified and those that are unneeded will almost certainly be lost. Not because of one individual changing during its lifetime, but due to offspring that have those traits slightly more than their brothers and sisters that did not have that trait. They are more likely to pass on their traits and this will go on generation after generation.

What you're describing is adaptation I think not evolution. Are there witnessed examples of adaptation or evolution in recorded history?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What you're describing is adaptation I think not evolution. Are there witnessed examples of adaptation or evolution in recorded history?

Why do you think witnesses are necessary? It appears that you do not understand the scientific method.
And no, what was being described was evolution. "Adaptation" as you call it is merely evolution on a very small scale. Perhaps we need to go over the scientific method first.

 

[Brightmoon]

What you're describing is adaptation I think not evolution. Are there witnessed examples of adaptation or evolution in recorded history?

. This is why you don’t need to observe something to know it happened.
Picture this . It’s winter. You have a dog with wet fur and he’s asleep under the kitchen table. When you look outside you see tracks leading up to an away from the house and you see paw prints on your clean floor. Did you need to see the dog running around outside to KNOW that he’d been outside?

I always thought that Ken Ham’s “ Were you there?” nonsense was a good way to show that the person saying it was an unthinking ignoramus

Adaptations in a species are just successful natural selection or successful sexual selection, by the way

 

[devin553344]

. This is why you don’t need to observe something to know it happened.
Picture this . It’s winter. You have a dog with wet fur and he’s asleep under the kitchen table. When you look outside you see tracks leading up to an away from the house and you see paw prints on your clean floor. Did you need to see the dog running around outside to KNOW that he’d been outside?

I always thought that Ken Ham’s “ Were you there?” nonsense was a good way to show that the person saying it was an unthinking ignoramus

Adaptations in a species are just successful natural selection or successful sexual selection, by the way

Interesting view point. I follow the bible over science. I believe that is wise.

And for what it's worth evolution is just a theory. Nothing more

 

[Brightmoon]

Interesting view point. I follow the bible over science. I believe that is wise.

And for what it's worth evolution is just a theory. Nothing more

theories are overarching explanations for a group of related facts. What that means is that if you don’t have facts you CAN’T have a theory. The theories of evolution have facts that support them . Choosing an unverifiable fantasy over verified reality isn’t what I’d call wise .

(Yes, there is more than one theory of evolution)

 

[devin553344]

theories are overarching explanations for a group of related facts. What that means is that if you don’t have facts you CAN’T have a theory. The theories of evolution have facts that support them . Choosing an unverifiable fantasy over verified reality isn’t what I’d call wise .

(Yes, there is more than one theory of evolution)

It appears you believe in evolution over creationism? Am I correct in that deduction? Is that common for Episcopalians? Are Episcopalians taught that in church. I have never really got to know Episcopalian religion. Which is why I'm asking.

 

[Brightmoon]

Yes Episcopalians accept mainstream science. Lol We’re taught science in science classes not in church.

By the way the opposite of evolution is extinction not creationism. Organisms that don’t or can’t evolve to adapt to a constantly changing environment, go extinct . The environment WILL change due to plate tectonics.

 

[devin553344]

Yes Episcopalians accept mainstream science. Lol We’re taught science in science classes not in church.

Thanks, I wasn't aware of that. Now I am I also wasn't aware that evolution-ism was mainstream science.

An interesting fact is that evolutionism is apparently evolving with time: Evolutionism - Wikipedia

. Not sure they got it correct yet

 

[Brightmoon]

Don’t know whether you can read this or not but the acceptance of humans evolving over time among AAAS members is about 99%and in the general American public it’s about 65%. Yes evolution IS mainstream science !

This Pew survey is a little old as the number for creationism has probably dropped since this was done. As usual this is a photo , sorry. You’ll have to go to Pewresearch to get the original under the topic evolution

AAAS American Association for the Advancement of Science. They publish the research journal Science which is an internationally respected science journal

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Thanks, I wasn't aware of that. Now I am I also wasn't aware that evolution-ism was mainstream science.

An interesting fact is that evolutionism is apparently evolving with time: Evolutionism - Wikipedia

. Not sure they got it correct yet

Wow. Science changes to fit new evidence.
In other news: water is wet.

 

[Brightmoon]

Evolutionism - the weird creationist belief that scientists think evolution is a religious belief instead of the fact of nature that it is.

 

[pitabread]

And for what it's worth evolution is just a theory. Nothing more

The Theory of Evolution is an applied science. Companies have even filed patents based on it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thanks, I wasn't aware of that. Now I am I also wasn't aware that evolution-ism was mainstream science.

An interesting fact is that evolutionism is apparently evolving with time: Evolutionism - Wikipedia

. Not sure they got it correct yet

Do you realize that "evolution-ism" is a dishonest term? It implies that accepting reality is a religion. Scientists tend to be opposite of the religious. Scientists want to know while many of the religious only want to believe.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Interesting view point. I follow the bible over science. I believe that is wise.

And for what it's worth evolution is just a theory. Nothing more

Nice, you have lost the debate already. Gravity is just a theory, but I would not go jumping off of any cliffs.

 

[devin553344]

Nice, you have lost the debate already. Gravity is just a theory, but I would not go jumping off of any cliffs.

Interesting logic. Let's see... no, people don't jump off of cliffs because as children they fell, and they can clearly witness even as a child that things accelerate as they fall. These are concepts that can be learned by simply dropping things as a child, without the theory of gravity.

I think you should probably accept that a theory is simply a theory and nothing more. In fact a wise person once told me, a theory can never be proven. And presenting evolution as if it is fact is not true. It simply is not fact, it is a theory, fact and theory are different.

What I believe in is Jesus is the Christ and the resurrection of man. And I look forward to being in heaven with him some day

 

[Subduction Zone]

Interesting logic. Let's see... no, people don't jump off of cliffs because as children they fell, and they can clearly witness even as a child that things accelerate as they fall. These are concepts that can be learned by simply dropping things as a child, without the theory of gravity.

I think you should probably accept that a theory is simply a theory and nothing more. In fact a wise person once told me, a theory can never be proven. And presenting evolution as if it is fact is not true. It simply is not fact, it is a theory, fact and theory are different.

What I believe in is Jesus is the Christ and the resurrection of man. And I look forward to being in heaven with him some day

You continue to make the same errors. Gravity is "Just a theory". It is also a fact. Evolution is "just a theory"" It is also a fact. You clearly have no understanding of what a theory is in the science. In the sciences nothing outranks a theory.

 

[tyke]

These are concepts that can be learned by simply dropping things as a child, without the theory of gravity.

I see what the problem is here - like many other non scientific persons, they are confused by the use of the word "theory". In common parlance, everyday useage, theory does mean an idea or guess as to how something works or came about. It's different in science - a theory in science explains the facts. Take gravity for example, as has already been mentioned. If you jump off a cliff or tall building you will fall to the ground - a fact. Now the Theory of Gravity seeks to explain why that happens - why when you jump off a cliff you fall to the ground.

Hope that helps.