Why Evolution is True

[CabVet]

Thats the point that some dinos had feathers and they were not in the bird family.

Perhaps that's why they are called transitional, they have characters of both groups. Have you ever thought of that?

 

[CabVet]

Yes I have been debating and looking at all the evidence on both sides for a while now.

No, you have not. There is no evidence for creationism.

 

[stevevw]

Because there WEREN'T any birds at that point in time...!

It wasn't that because some of those dinos were not related on the bird line. They just happen to have feathers like birds as a feature.

What the hell do you think evolution is....!??

No I mean that the variation within a creature can mimic that of the features that evolution uses for transitions with other creatures and they are unrelated. So its hard to tell. Like a shark can have similar features to a dolphin yet they are not closely related.

The reason we share features with chimps is because those features "crossed over" via our common ancestor. The reason we share features with other mammals is because those features "crossed over" via the common ancestor of all mammals. The reason we share features with other vertebrates is because those features "crossed over" via the common ancestor of all vertebrates....

Or each creature could have been designed that way and all having some similar features because they had the same basic blue prints. When you make a living creature you dont make each completely different. They will all have some similar features and some will be closer to each other than others. Every living creature occupies a similar environment and Eco system and is living within the same food chain. If we were all made with different genetics and alien features then we couldn't be supporting each other and surviving within the same environment. So it stands to reason that every creature will have similar genetics to even be here on earth.

Good grief man...!

No God grief man.

 

[CabVet]

It wasn't that because some of those dinos were not related on the bird line. They just happen to have feathers like birds as a feature.

Yes, a happy coincidence that just so happens to support evolution. And you concluded that they were not related after carefully examining the evidence, including the way those feathers are formed, right?

 

[biggles53]

No I mean that the variation within a creature can mimic that of the features that evolution uses for transitions with other creatures and they are unrelated. So its hard to tell. Like a shark can have similar features to a dolphin yet they are not closely related.

You'd better explain what you mean by "related".... How can species be in "transition" and not be related...? By the way, what "similar features" do sharks and dolphins enjoy, other than living in the oceans...?

Or each creature could have been designed that way and all having some similar features because they had the same basic blue prints. When you make a living creature you dont make each completely different. They will all have some similar features and some will be closer to each other than others. Every living creature occupies a similar environment and Eco system and is living within the same food chain. If we were all made with different genetics and alien features then we couldn't be supporting each other and surviving within the same environment. So it stands to reason that every creature will have similar genetics to even be here on earth.

And isn't it just simply amazing that the "closeness" of those similarities just happens to EXACTLY match the pattern of relatedness predicted by the theory....!?

It's a miracle I tells ya...!

No God grief man.

No god grief...? Agree wholeheartedly...!

 

[stevevw]

Yes, a happy coincidence that just so happens to support evolution. And you concluded that they were not related after carefully examining the evidence, including the way those feathers are formed, right?

Thats the thing is that some will conclude that this must automatically be evidence of evolution. They will look at the similarities and pick them out from the bunch. But conveniently ignore the rest of the non similar things or even the other features that will relate to other creatures that are not in the same line of transitions.

In fact Darwin's tree of life is continually being contradicted and breaking the traditional links that have been made between species. For instance, species that in many regards appear to be quite similar, which evolutionists have placed on neighboring twigs of the evolutionary tree, are routinely found to have profound differences. On the other hand, species that are obviously quite different, which evolutionists have placed on distant limbs of the evolutionary tree, are often found to have profound similarities. And these various differences and similarities are found in every imaginable aspect of the species designs, ranging from the visible features of the adult form to the developing embryonic form to the underlying cellular and molecular structures. At this point, such cases are no longer exceptions and anomalies.

Bats and dolphins, despite their distance on the evolutionary tree of life, both possess an uncommon ability among mammals: echolocation. Now, scientists have discovered that the similarities go down to the genetic level as well as the physical --
Bats, Dolphins Made Many Of The Same Genetic Changes On Road To Echolocation: Study
"Uprooting the Tree of Life"
Charles Darwin wrong: Modern scientists debunk Darwin's 'Tree of Life' diagram - Buffalo Top News | Examiner.com

This also doesn't include the possibility of HGT in which genes can be passed sideways through cross breeding and viruses. So some of the features that maybe cited may not have come from natural selection.

 

[stevevw]

And isn't it just simply amazing that the "closeness" of those similarities just happens to EXACTLY match the pattern of relatedness predicted by the theory....!?

It's a miracle I tells ya...!

Is that right. So closeness of two creatures who are on distant branches of the tree shows evolution of those two creatures with each other. Its more like it shows that similarities alone dont prove evolution and that the way some have linked two creatures by visually matching those similarities is faulty.

 

[stevevw]

No, you have not. There is no evidence for creationism.

I am talking about how long I have been debating not whether any side is right or wrong. The only evidence we may have for creation is that we have complex and amazing design in living things. Just like we have amazing design when we see something made by man. Yet evolution says that this was all self creating and out of nothing. Its like having a room with nothing in it and then opening it years later to find a bunch of complex creatures running around. Its like throwing a billions letters up in the air and them falling into a book and writing out the whole series of encyclopedia Britannia. To me a creator who made us all is more believable than having such amazing things coming from nothing or self creating itself into the most fantastic living things that can think abstractly and even ask the question of who are we and where do we come from.

 

[stevevw]

Perhaps that's why they are called transitional, they have characters of both groups. Have you ever thought of that?

Some have jumped on the transitional camp a bit to fast. Just because they have some features from one another doesn't mean they are related. This can also happen with unrelated creatures. It is hard to tell esp when you are looking back at patchy fossils millions of years old without all their soft parts. A lot is left up to interpretation. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder as they say.

 

[szechuan]

I am talking about how long I have been debating not whether any side is right or wrong. The only evidence we may have for creation is that we have complex and amazing design in living things. Just like we have amazing design when we see something made by man. Yet evolution says that this was all self creating and out of nothing. Its like having a room with nothing in it and then opening it years later to find a bunch of complex creatures running around. Its like throwing a billions letters up in the air and them falling into a book and writing out the whole series of encyclopedia Britannia. To me a creator who made us all is more believable than having such amazing things coming from nothing or self creating itself into the most fantastic living things that can think abstractly and even ask the question of who are we and where do we come from.

The problem with your argument is that plenty of Scientists and Evolutionary Biologists also see the world as a Beautiful and Complex thing.

You don't need a God to have a purpose in life and to appreciate life. Many Scientists appreciate Humans and Life no matter where it comes from.

So what if you came from nothing? It doesn't make life ANY LESS significant. It doesn't make Human Life any less signifigant just because we were Evolved instead of Created.

You don't think Darwin appreciated the Complexity of Life?

You don't think that Hawking appreciates life? in his Documentary he has stated so many times about how beautiful and amazing life is. You don't need a creator to realize that.

The problem with Creationists is that they refuse to look at Facts, Science right now doesn't have all the answers but it's always updating.

Creationists who believe that the world is 6000 years old have no place in the world of Science as they refuse to look at facts.

Creation has absolutely no place in school for higher learning, it lacks critical thinking.

 

[stevevw]

The problem with your argument is that plenty of Scientists and Evolutionary Biologists also see the world as a Beautiful and Complex thing.

You don't need a God to have a purpose in life and to appreciate life. Many Scientists appreciate Humans and Life no matter where it comes from.

So what if you came from nothing? It doesn't make life ANY LESS significant. It doesn't make Human Life any less signifigant just because we were Evolved instead of Created.

You don't think Darwin appreciated the Complexity of Life?

You don't think that Hawking appreciates life? in his Documentary he has stated so many times about how beautiful and amazing life is. You don't need a creator to realize that.

The problem with Creationists is that they refuse to look at Facts, Science right now doesn't have all the answers but it's always updating.

Creationists who believe that the world is 6000 years old have no place in the world of Science as they refuse to look at facts.

Creation has absolutely no place in school for higher learning, it lacks critical thinking.

But what I am also talking about is how all this life can come from nothing. That in the beginning there was nothing. The chances of complex life forming in some pool is near impossible. Well really its impossible. This trying to discover how and why something can come from nothing is all about science trying to come up with an explanation on how ultimately things started. But they know deep down there is no answer. There can't be an answer.

Even as science gets close and personal with quantum physics they are scratching their heads and trying to reconcile what they are seeing. It doesn't fit the picture of the equations they have that make everything relate to cause and effect. So now they move onto other dimensions to make it have any sense. They have to move away from what we have always used to make sense of our reality into other realms to find the answers. Scientists are willing to consider some of the most way out hypothesis to account for what they are finding. Yet they wont consider the ultimate realm and dimension that is of God.

Why because they believe that somewhere out there in that other world is a logical equation that will make everything else fit and make some sense of it all. But what if this world and universe is all there is. What if what they have based all their calculations on is wrong. Will they then admit that maybe there is some sort of creator or intelligence behind things that makes our world so perfectly placed for life. That maybe there is a God who is so great that he has life itself as part of his essence.

No they wont because that means they have to give something up and thats their position in the scheme of things. That is to submit to a God and give up their position. By admitting there is a God means that mankind is no longer master of his own world. Its not just about truth its also about a battle of power and position. Mankind does not want to bow down to any God because he thinks he has all the answers.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

This trying to discover how and why something can come from nothing is all about science trying to come up with an explanation on how ultimately things started. But they know deep down there is no answer.

Wrong. They know there is an answer, they just don't know if they will uncover it or not. It is the creationist who desperately wants there to be no answer.

There cant be an answer.

There you are: the creationist viewpoint.

Even as science gets close and personal with quantum physics they are scratching their heads and trying to reconcile what they are seeing. It doesn't fit the picture of the equations they have that make everything relate to something that caused it to come about. So now they move onto other dimensions to make it have any sense. They have to move away from what we have always used to make sense of our reality into other realms to find the answers.

I've heard Krauss talk about a universe from nothing but can't say I really understood it. But the hypothesised beginning of life on Earth is much easier to follow. There are no real problems with life starting naturally on Earth, we have a good working hypothesis as to how it might have happened, but finding evidence to support the hypothesis is rather difficult, as you can imagine.

Yet they wont consider the ultimate realm and dimension that is of God.

Why would they? God isn't an answer. It's not even a useful idea.

Why because they believe that somewhere out there in that other world is a logical equation that will make everything else fit.

Whether it's an equation or not I don't know, but there is an answer.

But what if this world and universe is all there is.

We have no evidence that there is anything else.

Will they then admit that maybe there is some sort of creator or intelligence behind things that make our world so perfectly placed for life.

Well, life's has a pretty rough ride on this "perfectly placed world" so far. But I don't follow why you want to shoehorn an unevidenced, imaginary, unnecessary creator into the picture.

That maybe there is a God who is so great that he has life itself as part of his essence.

Because there is no evidence that would suggest your "maybe" was anything other than a personal fantasy.

No they wont because that means they have to give something up and thats their position in the scheme of things.

Oh yes? That position being an accidental, inconsequential, momentary blip on a planet orbiting one star in a galaxy of a hundred billion stars in a universe of hundreds of billions of galaxies. Yes, our position in the scheme of things is pretty important alright.

That is to submit to a God and give up their position.

Submit to a god? You haven't even got any evidence there is a god and already you want to submit to it. Talk about a perverse agenda...

By admitting there is a God means that mankind is no longer master of his own world.

The idea is meaningless. But one wonders why you are so keen to be submissive or subservient to an imaginary bully in the sky. What need is this desire fulfilling in you?

Its not just about truth its also about a battle of power and position.

Only in your mind, which seems obsessed with power and submission.

Mankind does not want to bow down to any God because he thinks he has all the answers.

Whereas it would appear that you are desperate for mankind to bow down before some imaginary deity and beg forgiveness for being so impertinent as to look for answers using the evidence of our own senses. How dare we? The sheer nerve of us trying to think for ourselves rather than spending our lives submitting to an invisible, unevidenced imaginary deity in the sky! We must apologise immediately for not just blindly, dumbly accepting that everything we don't yet understand must be because this invisible, unevidenced, imaginary deity did it. Maybe we should punish ourselves for our presumptuousness. Would you like that?

 

[szechuan]

But what I am also talking about is how all this life can come from nothing. That in the beginning there was nothing. The chances of complex life forming in some pool is near impossible. Well really its impossible. This trying to discover how and why something can come from nothing is all about science trying to come up with an explanation on how ultimately things started. But they know deep down there is no answer. There can't be an answer.

Let's just say life started from nothing. So what? Does that make life any less significant?

Even as science gets close and personal with quantum physics they are scratching their heads and trying to reconcile what they are seeing. It doesn't fit the picture of the equations they have that make everything relate to cause and effect. So now they move onto other dimensions to make it have any sense. They have to move away from what we have always used to make sense of our reality into other realms to find the answers. Scientists are willing to consider some of the most way out hypothesis to account for what they are finding. Yet they wont consider the ultimate realm and dimension that is of God.

Science gets updated the Bible doesn't.

Why because they believe that somewhere out there in that other world is a logical equation that will make everything else fit and make some sense of it all. But what if this world and universe is all there is. What if what they have based all their calculations on is wrong. Will they then admit that maybe there is some sort of creator or intelligence behind things that makes our world so perfectly placed for life. That maybe there is a God who is so great that he has life itself as part of his essence.

No, because it's the most Logical and Rational explanation. Who knows. Science is still working on it, sure there is a lot we don't know but we also figured quite a lot due to Science.

No they wont because that means they have to give something up and thats their position in the scheme of things.

I guess this is why Religious people tend to abandon logic and reason.

That is to submit to a God and give up their position.

And why should we be submissive to something that doesn't exist? We are on the top of the Food Chain, Enjoy.

By admitting there is a God means that mankind is no longer master of his own world.

No, by reasoning and logic, we are the masters of our own world.

Its not just about truth its also about a battle of power and position. Mankind does not want to bow down to any God because he thinks he has all the answers.

Ummm no the truth is that we are sick and tired of Illogical and Irrational and Unintelligent people trying to do a disservice to Evolution and Science because they clearly feel threatened by Answers that aren't easy to understand.

 

[TLK Valentine]

No they wont because that means they have to give something up and thats their position in the scheme of things.That is to submit to a God and give up their position.

You first -- submit to God and give up your position.

By admitting there is a God means that mankind is no longer master of his own world.

To not be a master of the world is to be a servant of it -- and there are plenty of people who don't take submission very well. And in point of fact, NOT submitting to the world has worked out pretty well for us so far.

Every scientific advance mankind as ever made from the beginning has made them more and more in control of their world, and less at the mercy of it.

• Fire provided warmth and light and freed us from the night.
• The spear and club helped transform us from prey to predator.
• Writing gave us the means to cheat time and pass on everything we had to future generations.
• The sail, the automobile, and the airplane filled in the blank spots on the map.
• Industrialization allowed us to build machines to do the work of a hundred men.
• The Internet has placed the sum total of human knowledge quite literally at your fingertips.

Why stop now?

Its not just about truth its also about a battle of power and position.

And you think mankind is going to abdicate its power and position because... you ask them to?

Mankind does not want to bow down to any God because he thinks he has all the answers.

If we had all the answers, we'd stop asking the questions. What mankind has is the means to find answers -- and we're not about to abandon it for a very simple reason... it works.

Show us your way is the better one, and we'll put it to the test. If it works, we'll use it instead -- or better still, use it in addition to what we already have.

 

[createdtoworship]

You have no idea what Dobzhansky meant, and I doubt you ever read a line he wrote outside of quote mines.

how do you know what I read and what I didn't. Are you a mind reader?

 

[dad]

Submit to a god? You haven't even got any evidence there is a god and already you want to submit to it.

The evidences are plentiful, and well known and have been known for a long time actually. Delirious denial is of no worth.

 

[dad]

Nope, because it's such a common parlor trick that even the Pharaoh's men were able to do it.

Exodus 7:11-12

Then Pharaoh also called the wise men and the sorcerers: now the magicians of Egypt, they also did in like manner with their enchantments.
For they cast down every man his rod, and they became serpents: but Aaron's rod swallowed up their rods.

Not all miracles are equal! Why do you think all Egypt capitulated and the hard hearted Pharoah surrendered unconditionally!!!!?

 

[szechuan]

The evidences are plentiful, and well known and have been known for a long time actually. Delirious denial is of no worth.

What evidence?

 

[szechuan]

how do you know what I read and what I didn't. Are you a mind reader?

People can tell if you've read something or not.

 

[dad]

What evidence?

What evidence do you have for last week? Delirious denial is of no value. Welcome to the year of our Lord, 2014.