Why evolution isn't scientific

[46AND2]

You show no evidence of understanding.



You do not understand science.



I gave specific and testable predictions for what we could see.

However, since you have been utterly incapable of describing this different state past in any useful way, I can't be more specific. Why don't you put your money where your mouth is and tell me what specifically was different about your different state past and we can work from there.



The way mass interacts with gravity and body size is well established. That's why bugs can have spindly legs compared to their body size while elephants can't.

Of course, if you actually knew how science works, you'd know this already, so this just further illustrates your complete lack of understanding when it comes to science.



Give examples.



Sharks, rays, bony fish, birds, insects, arachnids, amphibians, jellyfish, centipedes, millipedes, crocodiles, lizards and small mammals all existed prior to the KT boundary, and they all are exactly as we would expect if they were living in a world with the same laws that we have today. And that's not including plants.



There is a huge amount of evidence that birds evolved from dinosaurs.



Once again you make a claim. But you have totally failed to explain WHY flatworms disprove evolution.



And yet you claim the conditions WERE different and yet they looked basically the same.



Probably? Is this the best you've got? In other words you don't know. On what basis have you made this determination?



Modern toothless birds evolved in the Cretaceous, BEFORE the KT boundary. Hope, Sylvia (2002). "The Mesozoic Radiation of Neornithes". In Chiappe, Luis M.; Witmer, Lawrence M. Mesozoic Birds: Above the Heads of Dinosaurs. pp. 339–388. ISBN 0-520-20094-2.



Are childish insults the best you've got?

Seventh post in which you have been unable to provide any evidence for your claims.

heh. you must be talking to dad (muted). Didn't think he was still around.

 

[bhsmte]

by removing parts from both living\non-living things the system stop working. so by definition both are ic systems.

This is your scientific proof?

LOL

 

[bhsmte]

by this logic we cant ask "what if questions".

Your comment, is irrelevant to what science can test.

 

[xianghua]

This is your scientific proof?

LOL

can you show why its not true? do you realy believe that if we had a self replicating car it can evolve into an airplane in millions of years?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

can you show why its not true? do you realy believe that if we had a self replicating car it can evolve into an airplane in millions of years?

No, robot penguins would evolve into airplanes. Self-replicating cars would just go extinct due to an inability to adapt to a changing environment.

 

[dad]

I gave specific and testable predictions for what we could see.

You alluded to unspecific differences in bone structure we might see if gravity were somehow much greater or lesser.

You gave no details and it was basically a strawman argument because gravity on earth is really not an issue! We might look at the possibility that gravity at times may have been able to be greatly mitigated or impacted. Who knows? After all we don't really know if the moon was the same distance, or if planets or space bodies perhaps used to have orbits that affected earth..etc. Again, you do not know. Add that to the list of things science is truly in the dark about. Thanks for that.

However, since you have been utterly incapable of describing this different state past in any useful way, I can't be more specific. Why don't you put your money where your mouth is and tell me what specifically was different about your different state past and we can work from there.

Not only can science not describe nature as it was, but it has no clue whether nature was the same or different! The bible does describe the world in the past in some detail. The world described simply differs fundamentally in many ways from the world and nature of today.

It would be hypocritical to expect anyone to describe how God changed any forces or laws. The only thing that matters is whether He did change things. If He did, then the whole foundation and basis that science uses for all models of the far past and origins is laughably and fatally flawed.

The way mass interacts with gravity and body size is well established. That's why bugs can have spindly legs compared to their body size while elephants can't.

Maybe that is part of the reason birds today do not reach anywhere near the size some birds used to reach. But as explained gravity is really not an issue. We don't really know if there was any small difference or not. Looking at some ancient structures, it would make sense to me that gravity was somehow able to be reduced.

Give examples.

'Largest flying bird' identified


" This formidable predator may have had a wingspan of 36 feet—close to the size a small aircraft.."
Ancient Winged Terror Was One of the Largest Animals to Fly


" Quetzalcoatlus northropi evolved a ridiculous 40-foot wingspan, cinching the record for the largest flying animal to this day."

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/...gest-flying-dinosaur-was-a-four-winged-raptor

"
Several recent estimates put Quetzalcoatlus northropi at approximately 250kg.

Palaeontologists still have many questions about giant pterosaur flight. We don’t fully understand how they took off or what kind of flyers they were once in the air. Did they flap or soar? How long could they fly for? How did they land? In fact, some people still believe these giraffe-sized animals were too heavy to fly at all. "

Pterosaurs should have been too big to fly – so how did they manage it?

So science does not understand. If there were some aspect of nature in that day that was different, perhaps that would help the giants. We don't know. We do know they would not seem to make sense in this world today.

I look at an airplane that weighs 162 kgs. Then I wonder about some bird over 250 kgs!

"The Guinness World Record title of smallest and lightest turbofan-powered plane goes to the Bede BD-5, which has retained the honour since 1971 with its featherlight weight of 162.7 kg."

7 Extreme Planes: the Biggest, Smallest, Fastest and Slowest | Plane Finder

Sharks, rays, bony fish, birds, insects, arachnids, amphibians, jellyfish, centipedes, millipedes, crocodiles, lizards and small mammals all existed prior to the KT boundary, and they all are exactly as we would expect if they were living in a world with the same laws that we have today. And that's not including plants.

Speaking of crocodiles they found one up (fossil remains) in the arctic, so there again, we see things changed a lot!

With other creatures that are small and also exist today, the question arises..'if man shared an ancestor with the flatworm, why is it that we see the creatures unchanged since the dawn of time!?'

There is a huge amount of evidence that birds evolved from dinosaurs.

So what!!? I don't care if they did and then evolved in some cases BACK to birds! Fine with me. You see, the birds were created, and if dinos evolved from birds (and also into birds again later) all that would mean is that dinos were not created kinds but adaptations and evolved from created kinds! That would explain why none were in the ark also. God called the kinds into the ark. ( I suspect most dinos were extinct before the flood, but if any were still here, they would probably not have been invited)

Once again you make a claim. But you have totally failed to explain WHY flatworms disprove evolution.

As explained above, it is not that they disprove the theory of man evolving from a shared ancestor with flatworms, but it shows that the worms are unchanged since creation!

And yet you claim the conditions WERE different and yet they looked basically the same.

Not just conditions. In the former nature creatures could rapidly evolve and adapt for conditions. Nature itself was probably different. The laws that govern how atoms behave for example. The forces and laws that determine how DNA works. etc etc.

Modern toothless birds evolved in the Cretaceous, BEFORE the KT boundary. Hope, Sylvia (2002). "The Mesozoic Radiation of Neornithes". In Chiappe, Luis M.; Witmer, Lawrence M. Mesozoic Birds: Above the Heads of Dinosaurs. pp. 339–388. ISBN 0-520-20094-2.

In common English let me interpret that for you. Some (probably not original kind birds but adaptations from kinds) birds that could leave remains did leave fossils in that time. It is not that birds evolved from the sorts of birds we see fossilized in that time! The opposite is likely true, that the birds that evolved from the created kinds are possibly the sorts of birds that COULD fossilize!

 

[bhsmte]

can you show why its not true? do you realy believe that if we had a self replicating car it can evolve into an airplane in millions of years?

When in doubt, shift the burden of proof. LOL

The burden is on you, to demonstrate this proof, with a test that is falsifiable. Otherwise, it is only a claim, without proof.

 

[bhsmte]

can you show why its not true? do you realy believe that if we had a self replicating car it can evolve into an airplane in millions of years?

First, show me a self replicating car.

You see, i deal in well evidenced reality, not fantasy.

 

[xianghua]

First, show me a self replicating car.

You see, i deal in well evidenced reality, not fantasy.

so what about a self replicating robot (penguin)? do you think that a robot can evolve st epwise from a self replicating moleule?

 

[bhsmte]

so what about a self replicating robot (penguin)? do you think that a robot can evolve st epwise from a self replicating moleule?

Show me one.

 

[Speedwell]

so what about a self replicating robot (penguin)? do you think that a robot can evolve st epwise from a self replicating moleule?

Perhaps you can first tell us the difference between a self-replicating robot penguin and a real penguin.

 

[pitabread]

so what about a self replicating robot (penguin)?

Are you still claiming that penguins are robots?

 

[Kylie]

You alluded to unspecific differences in bone structure we might see if gravity were somehow much greater or lesser.

It was not unspecific. I made specific statements about how the sizes of the bones and the bone density would change in differing levels of gravity.

You gave no details and it was basically a strawman argument because gravity on earth is really not an issue!

Gravity was not an issue? Are you saying that gravity is not one of the things that changed?

We might look at the possibility that gravity at times may have been able to be greatly mitigated or impacted.

And by an amazing coincidence, gravity was mitigated by the EXACT amount required to produce life forms that look exactly like what we would expect to see if the laws hadn't changed at all. Are you going to keep invoking coincidence to support your preposterous claims?

Who knows?

So you don't know? This is all just a guess?

So lemme get this straight...

You are insisting that we take your guess seriously, despite the fact that there is no evidence for your DSP idea, you can't specify what laws were different, you can't specify HOW they were different, you are incapable of proposing any mechanism for such a change, you can't explain why things from before the alleged change fit with present laws... And you expect us to take you seriously?

After all we don't really know if the moon was the same distance, or if planets or space bodies perhaps used to have orbits that affected earth..etc. Again, you do not know. Add that to the list of things science is truly in the dark about. Thanks for that.

If the moon was at a different distance, then we would see fossil indications of different tidal effects. Yet there are no indications at all that the moon's distance from earth has been changing in any way other than the way we already know it is.

Not only can science not describe nature as it was, but it has no clue whether nature was the same or different!

You keep making this claim. Maybe one day you will surprise us all and post some evidence to support it.

The bible does describe the world in the past in some detail. The world described simply differs fundamentally in many ways from the world and nature of today.

So you've just decided that the Bible MUST be literally true and you've come up with a fanciful idea to try to explain it.

It would be hypocritical to expect anyone to describe how God changed any forces or laws. The only thing that matters is whether He did change things. If He did, then the whole foundation and basis that science uses for all models of the far past and origins is laughably and fatally flawed.

And if he didn't, then your whole thing collapses like the flimsy house of cards that it is.

Maybe that is part of the reason birds today do not reach anywhere near the size some birds used to reach. But as explained gravity is really not an issue. We don't really know if there was any small difference or not. Looking at some ancient structures, it would make sense to me that gravity was somehow able to be reduced.

Wow, you sure do like shooting yourself in the foot, don't you?

Literally five seconds on Google was enough to tell me that the largest flying bird ever was Argentavis. It's size has not been able to be precisely measured, since the single specimen we have of its arm is damaged, but current estimates put it between 5 to 6.5 meters. Even so, its weight would have been only about 70 kilograms or so, about the same as an adult person (and a fairly light adult at that - for a point of comparison, my husband is high nineties).

But the bit that completely destroys your argument is the fact that it lived between 9 million and 6.8 million years ago.

Now, if - as you claim - the present laws came into effect at the time of the KT boundary, then this bird was living in the present state! The KT boundary was 65 million years ago - so when these birds appeared, it had already been the present state for more than 55 million years! Thus, these massive birds prove that such large flying creatures could exist in the present state! No past state required!

And just to hammer that final nail into the coffin, ALL of these massive birds are built according to present state laws of aerodynamics. We NEVER find any of these birds with structures that don't make sense according to present scientific understanding.

'Largest flying bird' identified

Once again, this bird lived 25 million years ago - well into the present state.

" This formidable predator may have had a wingspan of 36 feet—close to the size a small aircraft.."
Ancient Winged Terror Was One of the Largest Animals to Fly


" Quetzalcoatlus northropi evolved a ridiculous 40-foot wingspan, cinching the record for the largest flying animal to this day."

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/...gest-flying-dinosaur-was-a-four-winged-raptor

And funnily enough, the body plans for these creatures, ratios of wing length to body size, etc, are all EXACTLY what we'd expect to see if they were flying in a sky that operated according to our current laws of nature.

"
Several recent estimates put Quetzalcoatlus northropi at approximately 250kg.

Palaeontologists still have many questions about giant pterosaur flight. We don’t fully understand how they took off or what kind of flyers they were once in the air. Did they flap or soar? How long could they fly for? How did they land? In fact, some people still believe these giraffe-sized animals were too heavy to fly at all. "

Pterosaurs should have been too big to fly – so how did they manage it?

So science does not understand. If there were some aspect of nature in that day that was different, perhaps that would help the giants. We don't know. We do know they would not seem to make sense in this world today.

Did you even bother to read the article? It answers many of your questions. Of course, you like to quote mine, and take the fact that there are a few people who disagree and pretend that means that science has no idea at all. That's not very honest, is it?

I look at an airplane that weighs 162 kgs. Then I wonder about some bird over 250 kgs!

"The Guinness World Record title of smallest and lightest turbofan-powered plane goes to the Bede BD-5, which has retained the honour since 1971 with its featherlight weight of 162.7 kg."

7 Extreme Planes: the Biggest, Smallest, Fastest and Slowest | Plane Finder

Wow, it seems like you are being deliberately deceptive here. Your source says, "...that 10–11 m wingspans and masses of 200–250 kg are the most reliable upper estimates of known pterosaur size."

UPPER ESTIMATES.

That means that they could have been lower. But here you are claiming that all the animals weighed about 250.

I mean, I could say that the upper limits on the weight of a person can be 300 to 400 kilos ( there have been several people who have weighed over 600 kilos - more than half a ton). But the average weight of an adult is about 60-80 kilos. Now, of course, we are unlikely to see such a large discrepancy in the wild between the average size and the maximum size, but it will still be there, and it is rather dishonest for you to present the maximum size as an average size.

And once again, I will point out that the body structure of all these massive flying creatures fits exactly with what we would expect if the laws of aerodynamics were the same back then as they are today.

Speaking of crocodiles they found one up (fossil remains) in the arctic, so there again, we see things changed a lot!

It's called plate tectonics, I thought everyone knew about that. We literally have lots of evidence to explain why there were reptiles there - different atmosphere had created a greenhouse effect, raising temperatures.

With other creatures that are small and also exist today, the question arises..'if man shared an ancestor with the flatworm, why is it that we see the creatures unchanged since the dawn of time!?'

Because they are well adapted to the niche they inhabit and the selective pressures that would drive them to evolve and change have not changed much for a very long time. If there are no changes in selective pressures, then once an organism is well adapted, it isn't going to change much.

Honestly, I don't know how you expect to be able to have a discussion about evolution when it is clear that you lack even basic knowledge about it.

So what!!? I don't care if they did...

And that's the problem right there, isn't it? You've just admitted that you don't care about what the evidence shows, you are just going to deny everything that disagrees with your preconceived ideas. That is the literal definition of "closed-minded".

...and then evolved in some cases BACK to birds! Fine with me. You see, the birds were created, and if dinos evolved from birds (and also into birds again later) all that would mean is that dinos were not created kinds but adaptations and evolved from created kinds! That would explain why none were in the ark also. God called the kinds into the ark. ( I suspect most dinos were extinct before the flood, but if any were still here, they would probably not have been invited)

Did you even bother to read what I wrote?

I never said that dinosaurs evolved from birds.

I said that birds evolved from dinosaurs.

As explained above, it is not that they disprove the theory of man evolving from a shared ancestor with flatworms, but it shows that the worms are unchanged since creation!

I've dealt with this.

Not just conditions. In the former nature creatures could rapidly evolve and adapt for conditions.

If the animals were changing so much, why are you making such a big deal about how flatworms have not changed at all?

So seem to be see-sawing wildly between to contradictory ideas:

1. Flatworms haven't evolved at all, so evolution is bunk!
2. Animals could evolve much more rapidly than they do today!

You seem incapable of keeping your own story straight and instead just pick and choose your position about this based on whatever you are saying at the time. Your inconsistency points out the fatal flaw in your entire argument.

Nature itself was probably different.

Different how? Be specific.

The laws that govern how atoms behave for example.

In what way were these laws different? What were the differences in the way atoms behaved compared with how they behave today?

The forces and laws that determine how DNA works. etc etc.

In what way were these laws different? What were the differences in the way DNA worked compared with how it works today?

In common English let me interpret that for you. Some (probably not original kind birds but adaptations from kinds) birds that could leave remains did leave fossils in that time. It is not that birds evolved from the sorts of birds we see fossilized in that time! The opposite is likely true, that the birds that evolved from the created kinds are possibly the sorts of birds that COULD fossilize!

Right, so the birds we have today did NOT evolve from the modern looking birds that fossilized.

But they just coincidentally evolved to look just like they had evolved from the fossilized birds.

Once again, you need to rely on coincidence.

And, I'm going to point out that despite all the claims you've made, you've been unable to present any evidence to support your position. This makes the eighth such post. I'll admit that you did try to present evidence, but you said the evidence was regarding an animal from the different state past, yet I showed that it was actually from the present state - according to what you said in post 1399.

Your arguments continue to fail.

 

[dad]

It was not unspecific. I made specific statements about how the sizes of the bones and the bone density would change in differing levels of gravity.

Yeah 'if gravity were a lot stronger the legs would be thicker, if it was weaker..skinnier' Hahaha

Gravity was not an issue? Are you saying that gravity is not one of the things that changed?

How would I know if it changed?? How would we know if there was some other force that countermanded or balanced gravity in those former times? Why would it matter either way? Do you feel some compulsion to pretend you know what you do not know?

And by an amazing coincidence, gravity was mitigated by the EXACT amount required to produce life forms that look exactly like what we would expect to see if the laws hadn't changed at all. Are you going to keep invoking coincidence to support your preposterous claims?

Strawman. Who cares if it was the same or a little different either way? The fossils would not tell us that. You kidding?

You are insisting that we take your guess seriously, despite the fact that there is no evidence for your DSP idea, you can't specify what laws were different, you can't specify HOW they were different, you are incapable of proposing any mechanism for such a change, you can't explain why things from before the alleged change fit with present laws... And you expect us to take you seriously?

You propose that when we do not know we should believe whatever godless nonsense someone might have on offer? Science doesn't know and the bible weighs in (as does history) in favor of big differences.

If the moon was at a different distance, then we would see fossil indications of different tidal effects. Yet there are no indications at all that the moon's distance from earth has been changing in any way other than the way we already know it is.

Let's see some data for the pre KT era? You got yourself into that mess, now let's see the goods.

So you've just decided that the Bible MUST be literally true and you've come up with a fanciful idea to try to explain it.

There is no question whether the bible is true. What, you decided it must be false and decided to invent strange stories?

Literally five seconds on Google was enough to tell me that the largest flying bird ever was Argentavis. It's size has not been able to be precisely measured, since the single specimen we have of its arm is damaged, but current estimates put it between 5 to 6.5 meters. Even so, its weight would have been only about 70 kilograms or so, about the same as an adult person (and a fairly light adult at that - for a point of comparison, my husband is high nineties).

The flying creatures I linked to make that look like donald duck's baby.

But the bit that completely destroys your argument is the fact that it lived between 9 million and 6.8 million years ago.

Not at all. You see what you date anywhere from billions to millions to tens of thousands of years is actually only thousands of years ago in actual reality time. (ART)

Now, if - as you claim - the present laws came into effect at the time of the KT boundary, then this bird was living in the present state!

Ah, yes, the bird you cite probably was. But maybe it was born in the former one! The dino type flying creatures I cited were pre present nature.

The KT boundary was 65 million years ago - so when these birds appeared, it had already been the present state for more than 55 million years! Thus, these massive birds prove that such large flying creatures could exist in the present state! No past state required!

The reality of the timing is that the flood was, say, 4500 years ago and the nature change over a century after that. ALL your imaginary same state past dated religious imaginary years fit into THAT time frame. The period after the KT, till now was less than 4500 years. Just like the rapid separation of continents was in that timeframe! Your imaginary years claim hundreds of millions of years for it!!! That is how bad your religious dates are.

And just to hammer that final nail into the coffin, ALL of these massive birds are built according to present state laws of aerodynamics. We NEVER find any of these birds with structures that don't make sense according to present scientific understanding.

Flying creatures existed since creation week. There was still air you know! What does NOT make sense here is how the flying giants got off the ground if nature was as now!

Did you even bother to read the article? It answers many of your questions. Of course, you like to quote mine, and take the fact that there are a few people who disagree and pretend that means that science has no idea at all. That's not very honest, is it?

They use maybes to speculate how, in this nature, such giants could get off the ground. This was all admitted to be unknown. In other words the played the game of 'let's look at all possible wild scenarios based on this present nature laws that could possibly allow the giants to get up up and away'

Wow, it seems like you are being deliberately deceptive here. Your source says, "...that 10–11 m wingspans and masses of 200–250 kg are the most reliable upper estimates of known pterosaur size."

UPPER ESTIMATES.

That means that they could have been lower. But here you are claiming that all the animals weighed about 250.

The article I referred to and quoted was this

"
"
Several recent estimates put Quetzalcoatlus northropi at approximately 250kg.

Palaeontologists still have many questions about giant pterosaur flight. We don’t fully understand how they took off or what kind of flyers they were once in the air. Did they flap or soar? How long could they fly for? How did they land? In fact, some people still believe these giraffe-sized animals were too heavy to fly at all. "

Pterosaurs should have been too big to fly – so how did they manage it?

Let's be honest.

And once again, I will point out that the body structure of all these massive flying creatures fits exactly with what we would expect if the laws of aerodynamics were the same back then as they are today.

What did you think creatures that flew would look like, no wings!!? Now when they talk about some bird needing to climb a hill or something and jump off to be able to fly, and never be able to land and feed...my eyebrows go up a little.

It's called plate tectonics, I thought everyone knew about that. We literally have lots of evidence to explain why there were reptiles there - different atmosphere had created a greenhouse effect, raising temperatures.

Your religious theory is called that, and it also involves the plates moving in the same way. However your religious models all sit upon the foundation of same nature past based dates as to when this happened.

Because they are well adapted to the niche they inhabit and the selective pressures that would drive them to evolve and change have not changed much for a very long time. If there are no changes in selective pressures, then once an organism is well adapted, it isn't going to change much.

Yet in recent news we see such creatures under a lake in the arctic!! You think nothing much changed there?
"
Tardigrades And Crustaceans Beneath The Icy Lake
Researchers with the Subglacial Antarctic Lakes Scientific Access (SALSA) project found the remains during a mission to drill into the Mercer subglacial lake.

Scientists found the carcasses of the small animals, which ranged in size from 0.1 mm to 1.5 mm, after inspecting mud from an instrument lowered into the lake's icy waters. The mud contained remnants of algae that lived here millions of years ago, when Antarctica was much warmer.

It also contained the remains of tardigrades, also called "water bears," eight-legged creatures known to be capable of surviving in extreme environments.

Researchers also found a plant or fungus, a shrimp-like crustacean, and another shelled organism with delicate hairs."

Bodies Of Tardigrades, Crustaceans Found In Antarctica's Lake Mercer

I never said that dinosaurs evolved from birds.

I said that birds evolved from dinosaurs.

Yes, your fantasy is known.
Others claim something else.

Example:
"The general and long-held belief that raptors and other ground-dwelling dinosaurs eventually became birds is brought into question by the research, which Ruben says offers sound evidence that birds eventually became certain types of dinosaurs. For instance, the velociraptor so prominent in Jurassic Park might actually have been a flightless bird."

Study questions current evolutionary beliefs about birds

If the animals were changing so much, why are you making such a big deal about how flatworms have not changed at all?

If a flatworm is supposed to be the oldest living ancestor of man, why are they still the same now as near the time of creation??

Flatworms Are Oldest Living Ancestors To Those Of Us With Right And Left Sides, Researchers Report In Science

1. Flatworms haven't evolved at all, so evolution is bunk!
2. Animals could evolve much more rapidly than they do today!

Why imagine tens of thousands of evolving steps from a flatworm to man when we see flatworms are the same!?

Different how? Be specific.

In ways that allowed man to live 1000 years for example.

In what way were these laws different? What were the differences in the way atoms behaved compared with how they behave today?

Yes! If the radioactive decay we see today was not responsible for all the ratios, it had to be different.

In what way were these laws different? What were the differences in the way DNA worked compared with how it works today?

Modern DNA does not allow us to live 1000 years, nor does it accommodate lightning fast evolving.

But they just coincidentally evolved to look just like they had evolved from the fossilized birds.

No. The reason they stared to appear in the fossil record along with man and other animals is not because they evolved. The reason is likely that they stated to be able to leave fossilized remains! They were here since week one as was man.

 

[Kylie]

Yeah 'if gravity were a lot stronger the legs would be thicker, if it was weaker..skinnier' Hahaha

Care to explain why you don't see this as valid? After all, in the present state, body mass and limb dimensions share a very clear and definite relationship. If animals from an alleged different past state have bodies that exactly fit this relationship, it shows that gravity was not different.

Once again, you show that you have nothing more than childish insults in response to a well-reasoned line of logic.

How would I know if it changed??

By asking yourself, "If gravity HAD changed, what would we expect to see?" And one of the answers is, "We would expect to see animals with limbs much thicker than we would expect to see, which would be an indication that gravity was stronger, or we would expect to see animals with limbs much thinner than we would expect to see, which would be an indication that gravity was weaker."

And yet, you seem incapable of realizing this (although I suspect that you DO realise this and the only reason you ignore it is because the answer only serves to illustrate that the past state was the same as the present state.

How would we know if there was some other force that countermanded or balanced gravity in those former times? Why would it matter either way? Do you feel some compulsion to pretend you know what you do not know?

Because it's inventing something for which there is no evidence and which makes no difference whatsoever.

I can say that since yesterday, gravity has increased so it is now 9 times stronger. However, there is some new force which exactly balances it so that there is no possible way to tell the difference.

What then is the point of making this assumption? It accomplishes absolutely nothing. Have you ever heard of occam's razor? I suggest you learn what it is and then apply it.

Strawman. Who cares if it was the same or a little different either way? The fossils would not tell us that. You kidding?

No, that is not a strawman. The only way you can support your claim is to invoke a coincidence. There is no getting around it. You've even said so yourself, when you said there could have been a force which exactly counterbalanced any change in gravity.

At this point, you're just throwing around words in an attempt to look impressive.

You propose that when we do not know we should believe whatever godless nonsense someone might have on offer? Science doesn't know and the bible weighs in (as does history) in favor of big differences.

No, I propose that when we do not know, we don't just go around arbitrarily making things up. And that is exactly what you are doing.

Let's see some data for the pre KT era? You got yourself into that mess, now let's see the goods.

It's not up to me to answer your questions. If you want to claim that things were different, it is up to you to support that claim.

All you have been able to do is:

"Things were different!"

"Prove that they were different."

"Nuh uh, you have to prove they weren't different! You can't do it! So I'm right!"

There is no question whether the bible is true.

There's your problem. You've decided that an old book is more accurate than reality.

What, you decided it must be false and decided to invent strange stories?

No, I decided that reality is NOT false and I follow the evidence where it leads me.

The flying creatures I linked to make that look like donald duck's baby.

Irrelevant.

Not at all. You see what you date anywhere from billions to millions to tens of thousands of years is actually only thousands of years ago in actual reality time. (ART)

Irrelevant. It lived AFTER the KT boundary, whatever nonsense date you want to give it. The bird was a present state creature! Your point is destroyed.

Ah, yes, the bird you cite probably was. But maybe it was born in the former one! The dino type flying creatures I cited were pre present nature.

This is ridiculous.

Are you suggesting that an animal that was born in a time when the laws of nature were completely different would be able to survive having every law of nature change when the animal itself did NOT change?

The reality of the timing is that the flood was, say, 4500 years ago and the nature change over a century after that. ALL your imaginary same state past dated religious imaginary years fit into THAT time frame. The period after the KT, till now was less than 4500 years. Just like the rapid separation of continents was in that timeframe! Your imaginary years claim hundreds of millions of years for it!!! That is how bad your religious dates are.

Irrelevant. The animal is STILL younger than the KT boundary so it was from the PRESENT state! Your claims fail completely!

Flying creatures existed since creation week. There was still air you know! What does NOT make sense here is how the flying giants got off the ground if nature was as now!

How do you know there was air? If the laws of nature changed, then maybe the laws which governed the way electron, protons and neutrons are held together in atoms were different and oxygen and nitrogen atoms couldn't form.

They use maybes to speculate how, in this nature, such giants could get off the ground. This was all admitted to be unknown. In other words the played the game of 'let's look at all possible wild scenarios based on this present nature laws that could possibly allow the giants to get up up and away'

How typical that you think that ideas in science are either 100% verified or the equivalent of something somebody thought up while drunk.

The article I referred to and quoted was this

"
"
Several recent estimates put Quetzalcoatlus northropi at approximately 250kg.

And you didn't read the bit that said: "masses of 200–250 kg are the most reliable upper estimates..."

Palaeontologists still have many questions about giant pterosaur flight. We don’t fully understand how they took off or what kind of flyers they were once in the air. Did they flap or soar? How long could they fly for? How did they land? In fact, some people still believe these giraffe-sized animals were too heavy to fly at all. "

Pterosaurs should have been too big to fly – so how did they manage it?

See the word FULLY there? It means that while we don't know every single detail, we aren't completely in the dark about it. Once again, you pretend that science is something made up by drunk guys if it doesn't have every single answer. You really have no idea how science works at all.

Let's be honest.

I am. I've yet to see intellectual honesty from you, however. You refuse to support your claims with evidence, you resort to childish insults to dismiss claims and evidence you don't like, you misrepresent the sources your present... If you want honesty, then stop doing these things.

What did you think creatures that flew would look like, no wings!!? Now when they talk about some bird needing to climb a hill or something and jump off to be able to fly, and never be able to land and feed...my eyebrows go up a little.

What are you going on about? When did I ever say that they would have no wings?

If you actually bothered to read and comprehend my post, I said that there are certain rules that govern how a flying thing has to be put together with the laws of aerodynamics that are in effect today. If the wing is such and such a size, it can lift this much, for example. All birds, bats, insects and planes that exist today follow these rules. And all the animals in the fossil record follow these rules as well. You have absolutely no explanation for why the body structure of fossil animals follows present state rules of aerodynamics if the rules DID NOT APPLY when the animal was alive! You have failed utterly!

Your religious theory is called that, and it also involves the plates moving in the same way. However your religious models all sit upon the foundation of same nature past based dates as to when this happened.

Is that the best argument you have against plate tectonics? That's so terrible it's not even worth my time.

Yet in recent news we see such creatures under a lake in the arctic!! You think nothing much changed there?

Tell me, what changes do you expect to see? You have no idea what you are talking about.

Yes, your fantasy is known.
Others claim something else.

For example, the people who don't even bother to read my posts to see what I'm actually saying...

Example:
"The general and long-held belief that raptors and other ground-dwelling dinosaurs eventually became birds is brought into question by the research, which Ruben says offers sound evidence that birds eventually became certain types of dinosaurs. For instance, the velociraptor so prominent in Jurassic Park might actually have been a flightless bird."

Study questions current evolutionary beliefs about birds

Earliest dromaeosaurs - 167 million years ago.

Earliest birds - (Archaeopteryx is one of the earliest creatures to display bird-like traits) 150 million years ago.

If a flatworm is supposed to be the oldest living ancestor of man, why are they still the same now as near the time of creation??

Flatworms Are Oldest Living Ancestors To Those Of Us With Right And Left Sides, Researchers Report In Science

Because the pressures which they face have remained fairly unaltered in that time, hence there has been little or nothing driving them to change much.

Why is this a complicated concept for you?

Why imagine tens of thousands of evolving steps from a flatworm to man when we see flatworms are the same!?

Because you have no idea how evolution works, and you have no idea what you are talking about. I would try to educate you, but honestly, we both know it would be a waste of my time, so I'm not going to bother.

In ways that allowed man to live 1000 years for example.

And what specific changes were there that allowed people to live for 1000 years? Funnily enough, despite the fact I asked you to be specific about what the changes were, you didn't mention a single change!

Yes! If the radioactive decay we see today was not responsible for all the ratios, it had to be different.

And I asked you to describe those differences. You seem incapable of basic English comprehension.

Modern DNA does not allow us to live 1000 years, nor does it accommodate lightning fast evolving.

Once again, you seem utterly incapable of understanding the questions I am asking.

I am not asking you to say things were different.

I am asking you to describe what the differences are.

No. The reason they stared to appear in the fossil record along with man and other animals is not because they evolved. The reason is likely that they stated to be able to leave fossilized remains! They were here since week one as was man.

And you provide not a shred of evidence to support this claim, or any of the others you have made in your posts. This is the eighth post in which your claims have been utterly unsupported.

Your posts are full of grandiose claims, but they are all for show, apparently.

I'll tell you what. Let's see just how convincing each of us have been. I propose we start a poll, in which people can choose whether they think your different state past idea has any merit, or whether they think my counter arguments have demonstrated that your DSP idea is flawed. What do you say? Shall we see who has been more convincing?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

can you show why its not true? do you realy believe that if we had a self replicating car it can evolve into an airplane in millions of years?

The extent to which an imaginary object can evolve into another imaginary object, is only restricted by your imagination.

That's kind of the thing with imaginary things. Anything goes insofar as you can imagine it.

But off course, none of it relates to actual reality.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

so what about a self replicating robot (penguin)? do you think that a robot can evolve st epwise from a self replicating moleule?

I'ld have to study a self-replicating robot penguin before I'ld be able to answer that question.

So please show us a self-replicating robot penguin.

 

[Kylie]

so what about a self replicating robot (penguin)? do you think that a robot can evolve st epwise from a self replicating moleule?

Oh, are we doing this again?

 

[xianghua]

Show me one.

a penguin is a biological self replicating robot.

 

[xianghua]

Are you still claiming that penguins are robots?

are you still claiming that they arent?