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

[SUTG]

If a scientist were to try to convince you that tiny purple monkeys built his house, you'd have nothing but incredulity for a reason to not believe him.

Well, no, you'd have a lot more than incredulity. You'd have the facts that no-one's ever seen a tiny purple monkey, no-one's ever seen a bunch of monkeys build a house, and the fact that he hasn't offered any evidence to support his claim.

 

[PaulMcNabb]

How did the meteor make it through the Water Canopy? :chuckle:

Next time I visit the prison, I'll ask him. Oh, wait! That was the ice layer... :chuckle:

 

[laughsoutloud]

To me personal incredulity is really meaningful. Its just the kind of stuff griffin posted that makes me wonder about the sanity of evolutionists. How can you say that stuff evolved with a straight face? If a scientist were to try to convince you that tiny purple monkeys built his house, you'd have nothing but incredulity for a reason to not believe him. Do you need more? Sure, you cant use it to prove he's wrong, but its still meaningful for many things.

The difficulty comes when you use your own personal ability to understand reality as the measure of what is possible. Consider an illusionist. Their job is to make you believe in magic. But they are fakes. Even knowing how it is done, the evidence of your senses is that what you see is "real."

How long is a million years? It defies imagination. Now consider hundreds of millions, billions of years. There is enough time for all sorts of things to happen. Consider the lottery - the chances of any one player winning the lottery are astronomical - but on a regular basis, someone wins big money. Every big winner defies impossible odds - and wins. Think about the implication of that. It doesn't mean that it makes sense for YOU to play the lottery - but improbably unlikely events happen all the time.

So what are the chances that you could get a gland to reduce surface tension to develop by chance? First, the aim was not a gland to reduce surface tension - it just happened. By chance, something series of mutations, or genetic drift gave some members of this population the ability to walk on water, and it made them better at surviving then the other members of the population, and over a long period of time, this adaptation became widespread in the population- because more of the population with the adaptation survived to reproduce than those without the adaptation.

Second, if this adaptation never came along, the birds would not walk on water. This is not an example of teleology, but of diversity. Birds survive without walking on water, the result of a lucky fluke is that these birds developed the ability to walk on water. If you ask the question, "how could blind chance have designed this feature" it seems unlikely - if you ask, "could a series of lucky flukes have resulted in this adaptation?" the answer, given millions of years, is, "why not?"

 

[GuySmiley]

Well, no, you'd have a lot more than incredulity. You'd have the facts that no-one's ever seen a tiny purple monkey, no-one's ever seen a bunch of monkeys build a house, and the fact that he hasn't offered any evidence to support his claim.

What if he showed you an experiment he ran, where monkeys did build something resembling a storage shed? Its not exactly a house, and the monkeys arent tiny and purple, but its the basics. I'd still be incredulous, and I think rightly so. It think the analogy fits evolution. We hear of all kinds of experiments that aren't really evolution, I mean like a duck turning into an elephant*, but its the basics. But still I'm incredulous. I can't prove anything, but I just can't buy what they are selling.

*example used only for humor's sake, well, maybe to be a little annoying too.

 

[dan1el]

The stars are just my starting point for evidence. Unlike evolutionists who always stay somewhere around the middle to the end of their process. Why I like Christianity is because it starts with the beginning. "In the beginning"

Don't worry there is plenty more to come :cheers:

Too bad it's a lie, eh? :\

Universe/ earth. Here is my theory. In Genesis it say heaven, singular, in the KJV. God created the heaven and earth in Genesis. Now you assume heaven means the entire universe. Is that what the Scriptures teach?

1Ki 8:27 But will God indeed dwell on the earth? behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded?

Neh 9:6 Thou, [even] thou, [art] LORD alone; thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all [things] that [are] therein, the seas, and all that [is] therein, and thou preservest them all[the real origin of the laws of gravity, etc.]; and the host of heaven worshippeth thee.

Huh?

Their are quite a few assumption stated in what you wrote

1. 'all of which formed at about the same time' which seems to contradict how evolution usually works
2. 'and over long periods of time, the clusters fall apart' is astronomy is still young science this is theory
3.' where they form out of the gas and dust in the spiral arms.' has this ever been observed? This is a guess
4. '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.' complete guess :down:

1: Are you talking about biological evolution?
2: ... What?
3: Have you ever seen a mountain form?
4: We know enough about the Universe to make reasonable simulations.

(I would also suggest you read up about the difference between “their” and “there” (and probably “they're” too).)

Then why hasn't any formed lately?

Why do you assume none have?

(It's “haven't”, by the way.)

contradicts your above statement...'all of which formed at about the same time'

Contradicts your above statement...'all formed together', 'even if these groups pass through another galaxy they hold together'

What he said earlier applies to the specific case he was talking about.

 

[GuySmiley]

The difficulty comes when you use your own personal ability to understand reality as the measure of what is possible. Consider an illusionist. Their job is to make you believe in magic. But they are fakes. Even knowing how it is done, the evidence of your senses is that what you see is "real."

How long is a million years? It defies imagination. Now consider hundreds of millions, billions of years. There is enough time for all sorts of things to happen. Consider the lottery - the chances of any one player winning the lottery are astronomical - but on a regular basis, someone wins big money. Every big winner defies impossible odds - and wins. Think about the implication of that. It doesn't mean that it makes sense for YOU to play the lottery - but improbably unlikely events happen all the time.

So what are the chances that you could get a gland to reduce surface tension to develop by chance? First, the aim was not a gland to reduce surface tension - it just happened. By chance, something series of mutations, or genetic drift gave some members of this population the ability to walk on water, and it made them better at surviving then the other members of the population, and over a long period of time, this adaptation became widespread in the population- because more of the population with the adaptation survived to reproduce than those without the adaptation.

Second, if this adaptation never came along, the birds would not walk on water. This is not an example of teleology, but of diversity. Birds survive without walking on water, the result of a lucky fluke is that these birds developed the ability to walk on water. If you ask the question, "how could blind chance have designed this feature" it seems unlikely - if you ask, "could a series of lucky flukes have resulted in this adaptation?" the answer, given millions of years, is, "why not?"

A creationist giving a class I attended used this example. Think of a barrel full of ping pong balls in the middle of the room. And we put a bomb at the bottom. When we set off the bomb, all the ping pong balls fly around the room. What are the chances the ping pong balls will all bounce around the room, and every one of them will end up back in the barrel? Not much chance at all. But what if we do that experiment 10,000,000 times? You can imagine that it will happen once. But really it never will. The point is that you can imagine things happening given enough chances that really wont ever happen. Yeah I know, again, I'm only incredulous, but thats just me.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

Your argument does not fit the context. Everybody observes everything through their own worldview. My points were evidence for a young earth. I am a creationist and viewed it in this manner. Your position is different then mine so you understood what I wrote wrong... :nono:

I understood what you wrote based on our observations of the cosmos. We can see stars in all stages of development from proto-stars in neubulae to the remnants of stars like novae and neutron stars. It isn't just wild speculation. This is not the crop of the stars that was formed during the Big Bang.

 

[SUTG]

What if he showed you an experiment he ran, where monkeys did build something resembling a storage shed? Its not exactly a house, and the monkeys arent tiny and purple, but its the basics.

He'd still have to do quite a bit mroe to convince me. Still no purple monkeys, and still no monkeys building a house. In this case, your incredulity would be warranted.

I'd still be incredulous, and I think rightly so. It think the analogy fits evolution. We hear of all kinds of experiments that aren't really evolution, I mean like a duck turning into an elephant*, but its the basics. But still I'm incredulous. I can't prove anything, but I just can't buy what they are selling.

There is just too much evidence for evolution, and other science, for me to deny. Sure, it seems fantastic, but you can raise questions about it and test it to refine the ideas. Think of your television set, for example. You plug a wire into a recepticle in the wall. This causes all of these really tiny particles to fly around in the wire at 186,000 miles per second. While they are doing that, they are also drifting through the wire at a much slower speed. So, by the time you've watched a single episode of Seinfeld, any particular electron has moved an inch or two down the wire, but it took a path of 335 million miles inside the wire to get there! We can be incredulous about this, but we can test it and see if it is true. And the rest of the TV set does just that; if electricity and electrons didn't behave at least somewhat like we've determined they do, you would have missed that episode of Seinfeld.

 

[koban]

A creationist giving a class I attended used this example. Think of a barrel full of ping pong balls in the middle of the room. And we put a bomb at the bottom. When we set off the bomb, all the ping pong balls fly around the room. What are the chances the ping pong balls will all bounce around the room, and every one of them will end up back in the barrel? Not much chance at all. But what if we do that experiment 10,000,000 times? You can imagine that it will happen once. But really it never will.

I'm not sure what his basis for making this claim is? If the odds against winning the lottery are 10 million to one, would you (or he) claim that it really never will be won?

 

[GuySmiley]

He'd still have to do quite a bit mroe to convince me. Still no purple monkeys, and still no monkeys building a house. In this case, your incredulity would be warranted.

There is just too much evidence for evolution, and other science, for me to deny. Sure, it seems fantastic, but you can raise questions about it and test it to refine the ideas. Think of your television set, for example. You plug a wire into a recepticle in the wall. This causes all of these really tiny particles to fly around in the wire at 186,000 miles per second. While they are doing that, they are also drifting through the wire at a much slower speed. So, by the time you've watched a single episode of Seinfeld, any particular electron has moved an inch or two down the wire, but it took a path of 335 million miles inside the wire to get there! We can be incredulous about this, but we can test it and see if it is true. And the rest of the TV set does just that; if electricity and electrons didn't behave at least somewhat like we've determined they do, you would have missed that episode of Seinfeld.

I see what you are saying, but I see evidence for evolution such as bacteria that can now eat nylon, and then I'm supposed to accept that front legs can move around the a creatures backs and sprout feathers to become wings, by natural selection! Too big a leap for me.

Do the electrons in AC actually drift a few inches while moving back and forth? Hmmm.

 

[ThePhy]

...then I'm supposed to accept that front legs can move around the a creatures backs and sprout feathers to become wings, by natural selection! Too big a leap for me. …

Disregarding the terribly imprecise way you described the idea of the evolutionary development of wings, what is unreasonable about it?

 

[griffinsavard]

I understood what you wrote based on our observations of the cosmos. We can see stars in all stages of development from proto-stars in neubulae to the remnants of stars like novae and neutron stars. It isn't just wild speculation. This is not the crop of the stars that was formed during the Big Bang.

Just because you see all this stuff and theorize about it now you still don't have a good theory for the beginning. The Big Bang is just ridiculous! The foundation of your knowledge is nothing compressed together into a small dot and then somehow nothing ignited it and it exploded. After nothing exploded it spread and after a long, long, long time it formed everything we see. I don't think in reality you can actually say that nothing made everything. The statement contradicts itself. :guitar:

 

[griffinsavard]

Disregarding the terribly imprecise way you described the idea of the evolutionary development of wings, what is unreasonable about it?

Then how did blind termites build their massive structures with air conditioning? Do you know how small the head of a termite is? Its brain couldn't be bigger than a seed. How did it figure out being blind to build air conditioning? :banana:

 

[PlastikBuddha]

Just because you see all this stuff and theorize about it now you still don't have a good theory for the beginning.

So? Does not knowing everything bother you so much? Human knowledge doesn't encompass everything and most likely never will.

The Big Bang is just ridiculous!

I find it considerably less ridiculous than "fiat lux".

The foundation of your knowledge is nothing compressed together into a small dot and then somehow nothing ignited it and it exploded.

Whereas your's is that some invisible dude who has always been there snapped his fingers and everything sprang into instant existance. I'll stick with science.

After nothing exploded it spread and after a long, long, long time it formed everything we see.

That's what our observations indicate.

I don't think in reality you can actually say that nothing made everything. The statement contradicts itself. :guitar:

Because you are focused on the "nothing" part of it. If it makes you feel better to believe that God planted the seed of creation, which then exploded to form matter, energy, time, and space, feel free. The Big Bang is the theory that best explains what we see today, however.

 

[griffinsavard]

So? Does not knowing everything bother you so much? Human knowledge doesn't encompass everything and most likely never will.

Your entire understanding of what brought all this about is nothing and no intelligence. I see something all around me and alot of it is intelligent. Then I look at the natural world and everything has a cause. So, its more reasonable to believe that something which is intelligent made all this then what you say which is nothing and unintelligent made all this.

I find it considerably less ridiculous than "fiat lux".

ibid.

Whereas your's is that some invisible dude who has always been there snapped his fingers and everything sprang into instant existance. I'll stick with science.

Your origin theory is not science. You can't lump the beginning of life together with evolutionary process and call it science. In the origin of life you stand as a philosopher.

1. a person who offers views or theories on profound questions in ethics, metaphysics, logic, and other related fields.

That's what our observations indicate.

From your side of the playing field

Because you are focused on the "nothing" part of it. If it makes you feel better to believe that God planted the seed of creation, which then exploded to form matter, energy, time, and space, feel free. The Big Bang is the theory that best explains what we see today, however.

I don't mix the Big Bang theory taught by philosophers with the literal and historical Bible. I will stick with the Word. :sheep:

The Big Bang theory is ludicrous like I said before...:wazzup:

 

[laughsoutloud]

A creationist giving a class I attended used this example. Think of a barrel full of ping pong balls in the middle of the room. And we put a bomb at the bottom. When we set off the bomb, all the ping pong balls fly around the room. What are the chances the ping pong balls will all bounce around the room, and every one of them will end up back in the barrel? Not much chance at all. But what if we do that experiment 10,000,000 times? You can imagine that it will happen once. But really it never will. The point is that you can imagine things happening given enough chances that really wont ever happen. Yeah I know, again, I'm only incredulous, but thats just me.

But evolution is not the ricochet of ping pong balls. The aim is not to get the balls back in the barrel (evolution does not have a specific end in mind). Plus, it does not all happen at once (like an explosion)

So rather than one highly improbably outcome, think of it as many, many possible outcomes, one after another. Now add a selection mechanism (a reason to prefer one outcome to another) - this is natural selection (so it is not totally random). This would be saying that it is not possible for a person to jump from New York to San Francisco. This is true, but given the right incentives, it is very possible to walk from New York to San Francisco - it would just take a while. Fortunately, we have had billions of years.

Are you different from your parents? Yes. That's evolution (random mutation / changes / genetic drift). Are you better at anything than the folks around you? If that trait (inherited from your parents, perhaps) is important, then you survive and reproduce, passing that trait on.

So natural selection simply means that those best suited to an environment survive in greater numbers. Over time (lots and lots of time), these changes add up.

 

[laughsoutloud]

Then how did blind termites build their massive structures with air conditioning? Do you know how small the head of a termite is? Its brain couldn't be bigger than a seed. How did it figure out being blind to build air conditioning? :banana:

Because the termites who built it without air conditioning (whatever you mean by that) were out-competed, or got found and eaten more often, or were more prone to disease. One group of termites started building mounds with AC - by accident. They survived better, and so reproduced more.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

Your entire understanding of what brought all this about is nothing and no intelligence.

What's you obsession with nothing? A singularity is not "nothing" and that's about as far back as the Big Bang theory can go.

I see something all around me and alot of it is intelligent.

Do you suppose what you see around you is representative of the universe throughout time and space?

Then I look at the natural world and everything has a cause. So, its more reasonable to believe that something which is intelligent made all this then what you say which is nothing and unintelligent made all this.

Except you still have the uncaused cause, God. But that's OK because it's God, right? Sound and rational thinking there, sport.

ibid.

Caveat emptor

Your origin theory is not science.

Says Mr. Man-in-the-sky. :rotfl:

You can't lump the beginning of life together with evolutionary process and call it science.

That's right. Those are two completely seperate things. Glad you're catching on.

In the origin of life you stand as a philosopher.

I do love me some sophy, but science has a slightly higher standard of proof.

1. a person who offers views or theories on profound questions in ethics, metaphysics, logic, and other related fields.

Like biology? :rotfl:

From your side of the playing field

It doesn't really matter where you stand, bub. Unless it's with a bag over your head.

I don't mix the Big Bang theory taught by philosophers with the literal and historical Bible. I will stick with the Word. :sheep:

I'm sure. Just don't be surprised when people don't you seriously.

The Big Bang theory is ludicrous like I said before...:wazzup:

You can keep on saying it till your tongue falls out. That doesn't make it so.

 

[ThePhy]

Then how did blind termites build their massive structures with air conditioning? Do you know how small the head of a termite is? Its brain couldn't be bigger than a seed. How did it figure out being blind to build air conditioning? :banana:

My question was directed towards your disbelief in wing evolution. Can you stick to a single line of thought long enough to see if it is credible? Why do you disbelieve in the evolution of wings?

 

[griffinsavard]

But evolution is not the ricochet of ping pong balls. The aim is not to get the balls back in the barrel (evolution does not have a specific end in mind). Plus, it does not all happen at once (like an explosion)

So rather than one highly improbably outcome, think of it as many, many possible outcomes, one after another. Now add a selection mechanism (a reason to prefer one outcome to another) - this is natural selection (so it is not totally random). This would be saying that it is not possible for a person to jump from New York to San Francisco. This is true, but given the right incentives, it is very possible to walk from New York to San Francisco - it would just take a while. Fortunately, we have had billions of years.

Are you different from your parents? Yes. That's evolution (random mutation / changes / genetic drift). Are you better at anything than the folks around you? If that trait (inherited from your parents, perhaps) is important, then you survive and reproduce, passing that trait on.

So natural selection simply means that those best suited to an environment survive in greater numbers. Over time (lots and lots of time), these changes add up.

Traits passing through inheritance? Perhaps is just theory. Can you prove Lamarckism?

"[August Weismann's experiment in cutting the tails off generations of mice to disprove Lamarck's theory:] His critique on this point is authoritative and has never been refuted." *Jean Rostand, The Orion Book of Evolution (1960), p.64.


How can traits be passed? Hebrews have circumcised their children for thousands of years and you don't see one being born circumcised do ya? :kookoo: