Did we re-evolve after the comet that killed all the dinosaurs?

[Stripe]

No. Unlike biblical literalists, scientists deal with probabilities and uncertainty.

Uh ... people who take the bible literally can deal with probabilities and uncertainty ...

I've been dealing to you all thread :banana:

 

[koban]

Still waiting to hear your theory of why all the dinosaurs disappeared?

 

[Stripe]

Still waiting to hear your theory of why all the dinosaurs disappeared?

I'll not give it here:
1. You already know my answer and are simply baiting me,
2. You show little interest in agreeing with me when you agree with what I say.
3. This thread is about what evolutionists believe. It is common practice for evolutionists to try and change the subject under these circumstances.

 

[Neverfox]

I guess he thinks he's making a point. If he was a student of mine, I'd fail him.

His point was that no it's doen't explain it all. No one said it did.

I know this is a hard concept to grasp but science uses observable, testable principles to think about questions that no one can answer with 100% certainty, like what happened to the dinosaurs. But we at least have those basic principles that we can put together and build from. Scientists don't claim to have the answer to everything. But they also don't accept the answers with the least supporting evidence or built on the least likely synergy of basic principles.

Everyday our brains make probablistic decisions using the knowledge we have obtained to date. If we always made decisions with 100% certainty we be paralyzed with doubt. But when we make decisions based on the best systhesis of knowledge, we usually make the right decision. We also aren't afraid to integrate new knowledge when it makes the picture more clear.

Creationists insist on calling that out as the sham of science when it's the best most consistent way to respond to the world around you. I can only assume you must be jealous of our ability to think about difficult questions like dinosaurs without resorting to faith.

 

[koban]

I'll not give it here:
1. You already know my answer and are simply baiting me,

Indeed I don't. I would like to hear your single theory for why all the dinosaurs disappeared.

2. You show little interest in agreeing with me when you agree with what I say.

When you take a misconception and run it into a 22 page thread, expect disagreement.

3. This thread is about what evolutionists believe.

The "evolutionist" (feel free to substitute "mainstream science") position has been clearly stated a number of times. The OP and your attempt to run with the thread are a distortion of that. That should be clear by now.

It is common practice for evolutionists to try and change the subject under these circumstances.

No, I just think we've beat to death the whole "How could an asteroid kill all the dinosaurs?" misconception, especially when it was cleared up with post #3 and even better in post #21.






So be a man Stipe, step up to the plate and share with all of us: what is your single theory for the extinction of all the dinosaurs?




Unless you want to continue beating to death a misconception?

 

[griffinsavard]

No one is the final authority on evolution, because that's not how science works.

Well then, if I want to make observations about the theory then don't tell me I'm out of place. I am theorizing just like everybody else is.

:chuckle: What other strategy is there?

atrol:

I will see it if Creationism or Intelligent Design slips into schools.

Intelligent Design could be an alternative THEORY. You guys act as though you are the final authorities on what happened

No one's telling you the Universe came from nothing. Your assertions are illusions.

What a crock. I still remember the day in science class when I read the Bing Bang theory.



1 - THE BIG BANG THEORY

The Big Bang theory has been accepted by a majority of scientists today. It theorizes that a large quantity of nothing decided to pack tightly together,—and then explode outward into hydrogen and helium. This gas is said to have flowed outward through frictionless space ("frictionless," so the outflowing gas cannot stop or slow down) to eventually form stars, galaxies, planets, and moons. It all sounds so simple, just as you would find in a science fiction novel. And that is all it is.

WHAT IT IS ALL ABOUT

The originators—*George Lemaitre, a Belgian, struck on the basic idea in 1927; and *George Gamow, *R.A. Alpher, and *R. Herman devised the basic Big Bang model in 1948. But it was *Gamow, a well-known scientist and science fiction writer, that gave it its present name and then popularized it (*Isaac Asimov, Asimov’s New Guide to Science, 1984, p. 43). Campaigning for the idea enthusiastically, he was able to convince many other scientists. He used quaint little cartoons to emphasize the details. The cartoons really helped sell the theory.

The theory—According to this theory, in the beginning, there was no matter, just nothingness. Then this nothingness condensed by gravity into a single, tiny spot; and it decided to explode!

That explosion produced protons, neutrons, and electrons which flowed outward at incredible speed throughout empty space; for there was no other matter in the universe.

As these protons, neutrons, and electrons hurled themselves outward at supersonic speed, they are said to have formed themselves into typical atomic structures of mutually orbiting hydrogen and helium atoms.

Gradually, the outward-racing atoms are said to have begun circling one another, producing gas clouds which then pushed together into stars.

These first stars only contained lighter elements (hydrogen and helium). Then all of the stars repeatedly exploded. It took at least two explosions of each star to produce our heavier elements. Gamow described it in scientific terms: In violation of physical law, emptiness fled from the vacuum of space—and rushed into a superdense core, that had a density of 1094gm/cm2 and a temperature in excess of 1039 degrees absolute. That is a lot of density and heat for a gigantic pile of nothingness! (Especially when we realize that it is impossible for nothing to get hot. Although air gets hot, air is matter, not an absence of it.)

Where did this "superdense core" come from? Gamow solemnly came up with a scientific answer for this; he said it came as a result of "the big squeeze," when the emptiness made up its mind to crowd together. Then, with true scientific aplomb, he named this solid core of nothing, "ylem" (pronounced "ee-lum"). With a name like that, many people thought this must be a great scientific truth of some kind. In addition, numbers were provided to add an additional scientific flair: This remarkable lack-of-anything was said by Gamow to have a density of 10 to the 145th power g/cc, or one hundred trillion times the density of water!

Then all that packed-in blankness went boom!

Wrong again Eman :box:

 

[Emanresu56]

Well then, if I want to make observations about the theory then don't tell me I'm out of place. I am theorizing just like everybody else is.

That's good. I didn't tell you that you were out of place, however.

Intelligent Design could be an alternative THEORY. You guys act as though you are the final authorities on what happened

We do not act as those we are the final authorities, but there is no evidence for Intelligent Design, thus it is not taught in schools, nor is it accepted by the scientific community at large.

What a crock. I still remember the day in science class when I read the Big Bang theory.

I bet you weren't willing to actually learn about it.

The Big Bang theory has been accepted by a majority of scientists today. It theorizes that a large quantity of nothing decided to pack tightly together,—and then explode outward into hydrogen and helium. This gas is said to have flowed outward through frictionless space ("frictionless," so the outflowing gas cannot stop or slow down) to eventually form stars, galaxies, planets, and moons. It all sounds so simple, just as you would find in a science fiction novel. And that is all it is.

Do you know what the conditions were like when the Universe was created? Scientists have an idea.

The originators—*George Lemaitre, a Belgian, struck on the basic idea in 1927; and *George Gamow, *R.A. Alpher, and *R. Herman devised the basic Big Bang model in 1948. But it was *Gamow, a well-known scientist and science fiction writer, that gave it its present name and then popularized it (*Isaac Asimov, Asimov’s New Guide to Science, 1984, p. 43). Campaigning for the idea enthusiastically, he was able to convince many other scientists. He used quaint little cartoons to emphasize the details. The cartoons really helped sell the theory.

That's great, portraying him as a scammer. Why can't we at least be respectable?

The theory—According to this theory, in the beginning, there was no matter, just nothingness. Then this nothingness condensed by gravity into a single, tiny spot; and it decided to explode!

Massive oversimplification.

That explosion produced protons, neutrons, and electrons which flowed outward at incredible speed throughout empty space; for there was no other matter in the universe.

Nothing wrong here.

As these protons, neutrons, and electrons hurled themselves outward at supersonic speed, they are said to have formed themselves into typical atomic structures of mutually orbiting hydrogen and helium atoms.

Nothing wrong, as far as I can tell.

Gradually, the outward-racing atoms are said to have begun circling one another, producing gas clouds which then pushed together into stars.

Again, nothing wrong. Simply the conversion of energy.

These first stars only contained lighter elements (hydrogen and helium). Then all of the stars repeatedly exploded. It took at least two explosions of each star to produce our heavier elements. Gamow described it in scientific terms: In violation of physical law, emptiness fled from the vacuum of space—

What does that mean? "emptiness fled from the vaccuum of space"...? I would like to know where you are getting this information. And I hope it's from a credible source.

and rushed into a superdense core, that had a density of 1094gm/cm2 and a temperature in excess of 1039 degrees absolute. That is a lot of density and heat for a gigantic pile of nothingness! (Especially when we realize that it is impossible for nothing to get hot. Although air gets hot, air is matter, not an absence of it.)

You're confusing "nothingness" with "empty space".

Where did this "superdense core" come from? Gamow solemnly came up with a scientific answer for this; he said it came as a result of "the big squeeze," when the emptiness made up its mind to crowd together.

It didn't "make up its mind to crowd together", it condensed together because of gravity.

Then, with true scientific aplomb, he named this solid core of nothing, "ylem" (pronounced "ee-lum"). With a name like that, many people thought this must be a great scientific truth of some kind. In addition, numbers were provided to add an additional scientific flair: This remarkable lack-of-anything was said by Gamow to have a density of 10 to the 145th power g/cc, or one hundred trillion times the density of water!

Ylem:

Ylem is a term which was used by George Gamow, Ralph Alpher and their associates in the late 1940's for a hypothetical original substance or condensed state of matter, which became subatomic particles and elements as we understand them today. It reportedly comes from an obsolete Middle English philosophical word that Gamow came across while thumbing through a dictionary, which means something along the lines of "primordial substance from which all matter is formed", and derives from the Greek hylem, "matter". Restated, the Ylem is what "thing" Gamow, et al, presumed to exist immediately after the Big Bang. Along with the ylem, there were assumed to be a large number of high-energy photons present, which we would still observe today as the cosmic microwave background radiation.

 

[fool]

Are we all set here then?
Were there any other questions?

 

[koban]

Are we all set here then?
Were there any other questions?

Well, if Stipe is done chasing his tail, I'm still waiting for his answer to this:

So be a man Stipe, step up to the plate and share with all of us: what is your single theory for the extinction of all the dinosaurs?

 

[lucybelle]

Are we all set here then?
Were there any other questions?

Oooh! Me! I've got one!

You know, I have yet to get a satisfactory answer from an evolutionist on why humans are the only species that clothe themselves. Why do you suppose that is?

(Oh - and no fair saying it was to protect ourselves against the environment because if we truely evolved, our skin would have stepped up to that challenge all on it's own - like a monkey.)

 

[SUTG]

You know, I have yet to get a satisfactory answer from an evolutionist on why humans are the only species that clothe themselves. Why do you suppose that is?

(Oh - and no fair saying it was to protect ourselves against the environment because if we truely evolved, our skin would have stepped up to that challenge all on it's own - like a monkey.)

It probably was to protect ourselves from the environment. The earliests instances were using animal skins, etc. which would help keep warm and dry, I'd imagine.

Why sit around and wait to evolve when you can just throw on a dead animal skin?

 

[laughsoutloud]

Why clothes?

Keep in mind that quite a few cultures wear few or no clothes.

Other animals cover themselves with mud for protection - which is, to be fair, a kind of clothing.

Other adaptations (like skin coloring and relative hairiness) vary quite a lot as well.

If a by-product of a big brain is the ability to fashion tools (think of clothing as a tool to keep warm - and we are not the only too-making animals), then we would have eliminated the need to evolve any other adaptation to climate, and natural selection would not favor any particular change.

Of course, answer the other question - what changes, since the Flood, could possible account for the racial and other differences between people? Can evolution really work so quickly to create both a 6 foot tall blond Norwegian and a San bushman?

 

[laughsoutloud]

Why does there have to be one theory to explain why all dinosaurs disappeared? Why can't an asteroid strike be a cause, along with climate change, volcanism, etc?

We know the dinosaurs disappeared, we know some catastrophic event occurred around the same time as a great die-off (not only of dinosaurs). Wait, could it have been a world-wide flood 2500 years ago? No, data doesn't support this.

Unlike creationism, science does not have to dogmatically stick to a single answer - the only reason this comes up is that one of the main defenses of creationism is to attack science, under the assumption, it seems, that the main alternative to the steroid theory of dinosaur death is the Flood. Unfortunately for creationists, it does not work that way. What ever explanation for the death of dinosaurs, it will have to fit known facts. If the asteroid theory bites the dust, it bite4s the dust. The flood ideas was disproved long ago, and criticizing modern efforts to describe what happened in past geologic ages will not change that fact.

 

[griffinsavard]

Why clothes?

Keep in mind that quite a few cultures wear few or no clothes.

Other animals cover themselves with mud for protection - which is, to be fair, a kind of clothing.

Other adaptations (like skin coloring and relative hairiness) vary quite a lot as well.

If a by-product of a big brain is the ability to fashion tools (think of clothing as a tool to keep warm - and we are not the only too-making animals), then we would have eliminated the need to evolve any other adaptation to climate, and natural selection would not favor any particular change.

Of course, answer the other question - what changes, since the Flood, could possible account for the racial and other differences between people? Can evolution really work so quickly to create both a 6 foot tall blond Norwegian and a San bushman?

Well, I have a few questions for you lol, please explain the respond to the following arguments for YE creationism...

Actually, there are many evidences that our world is quite young. Here are some of them:

First we shall consider EVIDENCE FROM THE STARS that the universe itself is quite young:

I - STAR CLUSTERS There are many star clusters in the universe. Each one is a circular ball composed of billions upon billions of stars, each with its own orbit. Because the orbits are elliptical, they have a tendency to be interlocking. An extremely large circular star cluster, with similar stellar orbits within it is found at the center of each saucer-shaped island universe. Evidence indicates that each of these giant packs of stars is moving in a certain direction. Science tells us that some of these clusters with their stars are moving so rapidly that it should be impossible for them to remain together if the universe were, very old.

2 - LARGE STARS Some stars are so enormous in diameter that it is thought that they could not have existed for even a few million years, otherwise their initial larger mass would have been impossibly large. These massive stars radiate energy very rapidly some as much as 100,000 to 1 million times more rapidly than our own sun. On the hydrogen basis of stellar energy, they could not have contained enough hydrogen to radiate at such fast rates for long ages, because their initial mass would have had to be far too gigantic.

3 - HIGH-ENERGY STARS Some stars are radiating energy so intensely that they could not possibly have survived for a long period of time. This includes the very bright 0 and B class stars, the Wolf-Rayert stars, and the P Cygni stars. Radiation levels of 100,000 to 1 million times as much as our own sun is emitted by these stars! Yet, by the standard solar energy theory, they do not contain enough hydrogen to perpetuate atomic fusion longer than approximately 50,000 to 300,000 years.

4 - BINARY STARS Many of the stars in the sky are binaries: two stars circling one another. But many of these binary systems point us to a young age for the universe.

"Many such pairs consist of two very different types of stars, one theoretically very old and the other young. How could this be if they had to evolve together in order to form a pair? Such problems have frustrated theorists in their efforts to understand how binary stars could have evolved. Perhaps the great age of stars is a fiction." Robert E. Kofahl, Evolution Refuter (1980), p. 128.

5 - HYDROGEN IN UNIVERSE According to one theory of solar energy, hydrogen is constantly being converted into helium as stars shine. But hydrogen cannot be made by converting other elements into it. *Fred Hoyle, a leading astronomer, maintains that, if the universe were as old as Big Bang theorists contend, there should be little hydrogen in it. It would all have been transformed into helium by now. Yet stellar spectra reveal an abundance of hydrogen in the stars, therefore the universe must be youthful.

I'll be waiting, I got plenty more once your done with these. :wave2:

 

[PlastikBuddha]

Well, I have a few questions for you lol, please explain the respond to the following arguments for YE creationism...

Actually, there are many evidences that our world is quite young. Here are some of them:

First we shall consider EVIDENCE FROM THE STARS that the universe itself is quite young:

I - STAR CLUSTERS There are many star clusters in the universe. Each one is a circular ball composed of billions upon billions of stars, each with its own orbit. Because the orbits are elliptical, they have a tendency to be interlocking. An extremely large circular star cluster, with similar stellar orbits within it is found at the center of each saucer-shaped island universe. Evidence indicates that each of these giant packs of stars is moving in a certain direction. Science tells us that some of these clusters with their stars are moving so rapidly that it should be impossible for them to remain together if the universe were, very old.

2 - LARGE STARS Some stars are so enormous in diameter that it is thought that they could not have existed for even a few million years, otherwise their initial larger mass would have been impossibly large. These massive stars radiate energy very rapidly some as much as 100,000 to 1 million times more rapidly than our own sun. On the hydrogen basis of stellar energy, they could not have contained enough hydrogen to radiate at such fast rates for long ages, because their initial mass would have had to be far too gigantic.

3 - HIGH-ENERGY STARS Some stars are radiating energy so intensely that they could not possibly have survived for a long period of time. This includes the very bright 0 and B class stars, the Wolf-Rayert stars, and the P Cygni stars. Radiation levels of 100,000 to 1 million times as much as our own sun is emitted by these stars! Yet, by the standard solar energy theory, they do not contain enough hydrogen to perpetuate atomic fusion longer than approximately 50,000 to 300,000 years.

4 - BINARY STARS Many of the stars in the sky are binaries: two stars circling one another. But many of these binary systems point us to a young age for the universe.

"Many such pairs consist of two very different types of stars, one theoretically very old and the other young. How could this be if they had to evolve together in order to form a pair? Such problems have frustrated theorists in their efforts to understand how binary stars could have evolved. Perhaps the great age of stars is a fiction." Robert E. Kofahl, Evolution Refuter (1980), p. 128.

5 - HYDROGEN IN UNIVERSE According to one theory of solar energy, hydrogen is constantly being converted into helium as stars shine. But hydrogen cannot be made by converting other elements into it. *Fred Hoyle, a leading astronomer, maintains that, if the universe were as old as Big Bang theorists contend, there should be little hydrogen in it. It would all have been transformed into helium by now. Yet stellar spectra reveal an abundance of hydrogen in the stars, therefore the universe must be youthful.

I'll be waiting, I got plenty more once your done with these. :wave2:

What makes you think the current generation of stars has anything to do with how old the universe is? That's like looking an old lady and saying that the world couldn't be more than 90-100 years old. Stars are born, stars die, the universe goes on. Your "points" are based on false assumptions.
As for hydrogen I'd be interested in knowing how you know how much there was to begin with, and since not all hydrogen is even in stars why ALL of it would have been converted into helium by any particular time. It IS the most abundant element in the universe after all.

 

[bybee]

Knight:Hey evolutionists..."

Knight:Hey evolutionists..."

Hey evolutionists I have a question. Did we re-evolve after the comet that killed all the dinosaurs? I was watching some show tonight on the Discovery Channel and it was about all the ways the earth could/might come to an end. One of the "ways" they described was if a large comet struck the earth which could wipe out all life on earth, and they repeatedly discussed the comet that supposedly wiped out all the dinosaurs millions of years ago. They stated that only microscopic life could have survived such an event.

Therefore do they believe that the life we see today basically re-evolved after this alleged comet? Or was this show simply overstating the case? I had never heard such a thing before and it sounds a bit ridiculous.

I had this conversation with my minister a while ago. The dinosaurs seemed to evolve along the lines of becoming ever more efficient predators. At a certain point, those creatures who were not meat eaters had no chance of survival. I've wondered if God had to destroy this line of life because there was no hope that anything good could come of it? Now, I wonder if humanity hasn't reached the same point. We have been given the example of how we ought to live but, we continue on our self absorbed, self-indulgent way.

 

[laughsoutloud]

bybee writes

The dinosaurs seemed to evolve along the lines of becoming ever more efficient predators.

??? Dinosaurs covered a wide range of ecological niches, carnivore and plant-eater, land and water-based, small and large in size...

Greater fitness does not necessarily mean more predatory - a more efficient killer could run out of prey, or grow too fast to support itself... it is more complicated than just the idea that you get "better" at some trait - "better" is in context of the environment (including other plants and animals).

 

[PlastikBuddha]

I had this conversation with my minister a while ago. The dinosaurs seemed to evolve along the lines of becoming ever more efficient predators. At a certain point, those creatures who were not meat eaters had no chance of survival.

Prey evolves right along with the predators.

 

[laughsoutloud]

Well, I have a few questions for you lol, please explain the respond to the following arguments for YE creationism...

Actually, there are many evidences that our world is quite young. Here are some of them:

First we shall consider EVIDENCE FROM THE STARS that the universe itself is quite young:

I - STAR CLUSTERS There are many star clusters in the universe. Each one is a circular ball composed of billions upon billions of stars, each with its own orbit. Because the orbits are elliptical, they have a tendency to be interlocking. An extremely large circular star cluster, with similar stellar orbits within it is found at the center of each saucer-shaped island universe. Evidence indicates that each of these giant packs of stars is moving in a certain direction. Science tells us that some of these clusters with their stars are moving so rapidly that it should be impossible for them to remain together if the universe were, very old.

2 - LARGE STARS Some stars are so enormous in diameter that it is thought that they could not have existed for even a few million years, otherwise their initial larger mass would have been impossibly large. These massive stars radiate energy very rapidly some as much as 100,000 to 1 million times more rapidly than our own sun. On the hydrogen basis of stellar energy, they could not have contained enough hydrogen to radiate at such fast rates for long ages, because their initial mass would have had to be far too gigantic.

3 - HIGH-ENERGY STARS Some stars are radiating energy so intensely that they could not possibly have survived for a long period of time. This includes the very bright 0 and B class stars, the Wolf-Rayert stars, and the P Cygni stars. Radiation levels of 100,000 to 1 million times as much as our own sun is emitted by these stars! Yet, by the standard solar energy theory, they do not contain enough hydrogen to perpetuate atomic fusion longer than approximately 50,000 to 300,000 years.

4 - BINARY STARS Many of the stars in the sky are binaries: two stars circling one another. But many of these binary systems point us to a young age for the universe.

"Many such pairs consist of two very different types of stars, one theoretically very old and the other young. How could this be if they had to evolve together in order to form a pair? Such problems have frustrated theorists in their efforts to understand how binary stars could have evolved. Perhaps the great age of stars is a fiction." Robert E. Kofahl, Evolution Refuter (1980), p. 128.

5 - HYDROGEN IN UNIVERSE According to one theory of solar energy, hydrogen is constantly being converted into helium as stars shine. But hydrogen cannot be made by converting other elements into it. *Fred Hoyle, a leading astronomer, maintains that, if the universe were as old as Big Bang theorists contend, there should be little hydrogen in it. It would all have been transformed into helium by now. Yet stellar spectra reveal an abundance of hydrogen in the stars, therefore the universe must be youthful.

I'll be waiting, I got plenty more once your done with these. :wave2:

I'll note that these arguments do not converge on any particular date; unlike the current estimates for the age of the universe and earth, which are supported by a number of unrelated lines of evidence.

Again, the strongest argument against these as being evidence for a young earth is that give incompatible dates (and certainly not a 6,000 year old date).

A theory may end up being refined or revised - but that does not mean that creationism is thereby demonstrated. The data (even the data you offer) does not support a 6,000 year old universe / earth.

Finally, just a few notes:
1 Star clusters should not be able to stay together...
That is not what I read:
"Open clusters are regions a few tens of light years across which contain hundreds or thousands of stars, all of which formed at about the same time, usually within the last few hundred million years. As they orbit around the Galaxy, other stars, which are not members of the cluster, can pass through the cluster, slightly disturbing the motions of the cluster members. Occasionally, this results in one or more cluster stars being ejected from the cluster; and over long periods of time, the clusters fall apart, their stars scattered all around the path they followed, while they were orbiting as a group.
Since most open clusters are young, they are found primarily in the disk of the Galaxy, where they form out of the gas and dust in the spiral arms. Because of this distribution, they are often called galactic clusters. The Sun must have formed in such a cluster, 4.5 billion years ago; but since such clusters only last a few hundred million years at most, the Sun must have been going around the Galaxy on its own for more than 90% of its life.
...
But unlike the open clusters, the globulars are scattered around the outside of the galaxy, in the halo, where there are very few stars to pass through them, and a typical globular contains hundreds of thousands of stars, and some even contain millions of stars, so their own gravity is very large, and quite capable of holding them together, even were they to pass right through the galaxy."
Plus, keep reading about dark energy, dark matter-- it means we are still learning. Again, even if current understanding is wrong, the shape, sped, etc of star clusters do not support everything having started off 6,000 years ago.

2- Young stars - these are a problem for what reason? Stars are thought to be a wide range of ages... so why can't some be young? Why can't are current ideas be inadequate to understand everything we see? Astronomy is a relatively young science, and we are observing and learning. If we see something that seems "impossible" it means we revise out theories. But still, these "young" stars are not identical, and therefore do not support the idea that they were created 6,000 years ago.

3- These are generally viewed as younger stars, and they can be seen in various stages of their life-cycle - indicating that they did not all start out at the same point in time, so they don't support a young universe. Contrary to your assertion that they are viewed as astronomical impossibilities, these stars are being studied, and generating both interest and new ideas. - though I admit, the idea that they are 6,000 years old is not one of them.

4 - Binary stars - nothing since 1980 on this, eh> Well, I can think of one answer - they formed separately, then got caught when one came under the gravitational pull of the other. I am sure there are lots of other suggestions.

5 - "according to one theory" enough said, right? Hoyle is a dissenting voice (and notice nobody Expelled him). But he has also not convinced folks. From Wikipedia:
"Quasi-steady state cosmology (QSS) was proposed in 1993 by Fred Hoyle, Geoffrey Burbidge, and Jayant V. Narlikar as a new incarnation of steady state ideas meant to explain additional features unaccounted for in the initial proposal. The theory suggests pockets of creation occurring over time within the universe, sometimes referred to as minibangs, mini-creation events, or little bangs. After the observation of an accelerating universe, further modifications of the model were done.[citation needed] Mainstream cosmologists who have reviewed QSS have pointed out flaws and discrepancies with observations left unexplained by proponents."

Note that this is noting like creationism - it is just a criticism of existing ideas - or in other words, science.

According to one interpretation of Genesis, the earth is 6,000 years old, but we know that is wrong, because not only is there no data to support it, but criticism of current understanding of the universe only helps to improve the model - none of the criticisms given above give a 6,000 year-old date, and none of them even give the same date; they are simply criticisms (many of them outdated) of our current understanding.

 

[laughsoutloud]

First, complexity does come through design. If you walked into a car dealer and said wow, what a complex piece of machinery and then said I bet the car just evolved you would be looked at like an idiot. You are trying to say the same thing about evolution. The world is filled with design. Everything from the foods we eat to the sexual side of life. If you are going to tell me that chance mutations produced the complex bodily organs for reproduction I will have to call you an idiot.
Second, the Creator did come to this earth. But seeing we don't like our little deceptive theories to be unmasked we crucified him.
Third, God communicates to us through complexity and simplicity. God uses many ways to communicate to us so your argument is not sufficient.





Too bad the science textbooks dont make the distinction between theory and fact. Anyways to say that an asteroid hit the earth is no great discovery. To say that it killed the dinosaurs and from this event dinosaurs became birds is not testable.





Its called free agency





Maybe the truth?




You started with mutations which is micro-evolution and then went into cross species which is macro-evolution. At least that is the way I understood it. Its best to define what evolution you are talking about when your not brainwashing the school children with it. A few of us on here do not fall for ambiguity in words.





"Darwin made a mistake sufficiently serious to undermine his theory. And that mistake has only recently been recognized as such . . One organism may indeed be `fitter' than another . . This, of course, is not something which helps create the organism, . . It is clear, I think that there was something very, very wrong with such an idea." "As I see it the conclusion is pretty staggering: Darwin's theory, I believe, is on the verge of collapse." *Tom Bethell, "Darwin's Mistake," Harper, February 1976, pp. 72, 75.
"Evolution cannot be described as a process of adaptation because all organisms are already adapted. . Adaptation leads to natural selection, natural selection does not necessarily lead to greater adaptation." *Richard Lewontin, "Adaptation," in Scientific American, September, 1978.
"Natural selection operates essentially to enable the organisms to maintain their state of adaptation rather than to improve it." "Natural selection over the long run does not seem to improve a species' chances of survival, but simply enables it to 'track,' or keep up with, the constantly changing environment." *Ibid.


"The Darwin-Wallace theory of natural selection assumed 'useful' variations would become established in a population, while all others would be eliminated. But some naturalists insisted that many traits in plants and animals had no demonstrable positive or negative advantagethey were non-adaptive or 'neutral.' . ."The 20th-century synthesis of Darwinism with Mendelian genetics renewed interest in the possibility of neutral traits, especially among population geneticists. By 1932, geneticist J.B.S. Haldane had concluded 'that innumerable characters [of animals and plants] show no sign of possessing selective value, and moreover, these are exactly the characters that enable a taxonomist to distinguish one species from another [appearance factors]. " *R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), pp. 325-326.






Well I highly doubt it but to make it in a lab requires? Did I hear you say intelligence?





I will rebound the question. But this being theory than to predict that the mutations were around the same they are now would be reasonable. Again for mass mutations wouldn't you need a lot of transitional fossils? Wouldn't these fossils show 'big' change? The evidence suggest about the same amount of mutations have occured.





Here we go the Messiah of evolution: Time
What is amazing is that you think all these amazing creatures came from nothing. Now, that is amazinggggggggggg.





We have gathered bones from everywhere in the earth. Our collection of them is extensive. Are there the many transitional fossils needed? NO
You need transitional fossils because of the mutations, I thought you said you studied this? :banned:






Because you call it science and put it in the school books. Just because you evolutionists want to jump like monkeys from one branch to the other in micro and macro evolution doesn't mean that you can dismiss the origins of your theory. From the very definitions of mutations and natural randomness you gave me above you need transitional fossils. You are talking about cross-species. If you say that dinosaurs became birds and then you say why do you expect transitional fossils. You fall into the same trap that the leap of faith Christians fall into...:down:




I don't even know what you mean by that statement. :shut:

So it must be easy for you to give us a list of things that were designed, and things that evolved? Help us understand complexity - what is too much for evolution, and how is this measured?

You know that we have found all sorts of transitional fossils; Tetrapod evolution is just one that has been in the new recently:

A Firm Step From Water to Land

The concept of ‘missing links’ has a powerful grasp on the imagination: the rare transitional fossils that apparently capture the origins of major groups of organisms are uniquely evocative. But the concept has become freighted with unfounded notions of evolutionary ‘progress’ and with a mistaken emphasis on the single intermediate fossil as the key to understanding evolutionary transitions. Much of the importance of transitional fossils actually lies in how they resemble and differ from their nearest neighbours in the phylogenetic tree, and in the picture of change that emerges from this pattern.

We raise these points because on pages 757 and 764 of this issue1,2 are reports of just such an intermediate: Tiktaalik roseae, a link between fishes and land vertebrates that might in time become as much of an evolutionary icon as the proto-bird Archaeopteryx. Several specimens have been found in Late Devonian river sediments on Ellesmere Island in Nunavut, Arctic Canada. They show a flattened, superficially crocodile-like animal, with a skull some 20 centimetres in length. The body is covered in rhombic bony scales, and the pectoral fins are almost-but-not-quite forelimbs; these contain robust internal skeletons, but are fringed with fin rays rather than digits. Tiktaalik goes a long way — but not quite the whole way — towards filling a major gap in the picture of the vertebrate transition from water to land.

It has long been clear that limbed vertebrates (tetrapods) evolved from osteolepiform lobefinned fishes3, but until recently the morphological gap between the two groups remained frustratingly wide. The gap was bounded at the top by primitive Devonian tetrapods such as Ichthyostega and Acanthostega from Greenland, and at the bottom by Panderichthys, a tetrapod-like predatory fish from the latest Middle Devonian of Latvia (Fig. 1). Ichthyostega4 and Acanthostega5 retain true fish tails with fin rays but are nevertheless unambiguous tetrapods with limbs that bear digits6. Panderichthys7 is vaguely crocodile-shaped and, unlike the rather conventional osteolepiform fishes farther down the tree, looks like a fish–tetrapod transitional form. The shape of the pectoral fin skeleton and shoulder girdle are intermediate between those of osteolepiforms nd tetrapods, suggesting that Panderichthys was beginning to ‘walk’, but perhaps in shallow water rather than on land8.