Dinosaurs are fake and leads to atheism!

[marke]

Darwin may have written a book about the Origin of the Species but he understood neither origins nor species.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1096-0031.2010.00311.x#:~:text=He%20doubted%20the%20existence%20of,called%20''species''.&text=Many%20have%20said%20that%20Darwin,both%20theoretically%20sound%20and%20practical.

Mystery of mysteries: Darwin and the species problem Marc Ereshefsky*

Darwin offered an intriguing answer to the species problem. He doubted the existence of the species category as a real category in
nature, but he did not doubt the existence of those taxa called ‘‘species’’. And despite his scepticism of the species category, Darwin
continued using the word ‘‘species’’. Many have said that Darwin did not understand the nature of species. Yet his answer to the
species problem is both theoretically sound and practical. On the theoretical side, Darwins answer is confirmed by contemporary
biology, and it offers a more satisfactory answer to the species problem than recent attempts to save the species category. On the
practical side, Darwins answer frees us from the search for the correct theoretical definition of ‘‘species’’. But at the same time it
does not require that we banish the word ‘‘species’’ from biology as some recent sceptics of the species category advocate.
The Willi Hennig Society 2010.

Is a zebra a member of the horse species? There really is no answer that evolutionists can all agree on.

Early American evolutionists had the evolution of the horse completely wrong, as was demonstrated in a very elaborate horse evolution display in the American Museum of Natural History in New York. As new evidence was uncovered old theories, like Darwin's 'Tree of Life', were felled by facts that debunked the myths.

What’s happened to the horse?

Creation or evolution? It makes a big difference! Over 10,000 trustworthy articles. Evidence for biblical creation.

creation.com

My research has left me troubled. Why do science textbooks continue to use the horse as a prime example of evolution, when the whole schema is demonstrably false? Why do they continue to teach our kids something that is not scientific?

Dr Niles Eldredge, curator of the American Museum of Natural History, has said:

‘I admit that an awful lot of that [imaginary stories] has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs [in the American Museum] is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable …’.2

I agree.

 

[Jefferson]

Despite my PhD and published research.

"Professing to be wise, they became fools," (Romans 1:22)

 

[Skeeter]

What you think is irrelevant.

If so then why did you ask me to explain my thinking?

 

[Skeeter]

"Professing to be wise, they became fools," (Romans 1:22)

I did not profess to be wise. I simply could not resist to respond to Righty when he claimed that I know nothing of science. Did it give him pause about his own ability to accurately assess the abilities of an opponent. Not at all. Righty's reponses are largely knee-jerk and canned. He does very little thinking on his own.

 

[Skeeter]

Sure, it is complicated and convoluted to figure out how coordination of structures could occur.

Structures evolve together rather than one and then another. In tandem coordinated function makes more sense. Also, consider previous substrates needed for development but no longer necessary after.

Similar questions to yours from the opposite angle present a quandary over why a designer would create inefficient and cumbersome systems when obviously more efficient designs seemingly exist.

Why is a rabbit's digestive system so unseemly?*

Rabbits are hid-gut fermenters making double digestion necessary. So, they eat their poop. Other mammals ferment closer to the front avoiding such a practice. I can see how Right Divider finds this perfectly reasonable. Others have pause.

Why is the organ of sight encumbered by a backwards design?*

Light must pass through cells and nerves create a blind spot. Cameras never include such obstructions. Neurons in front of the photoreceptors, rather than behind them does not make intuitive sense. Some have explained how it can actually help. It is best understood as a quirk of evolution that further adapted so it is not a complete disaster.

These things seem the result of a bottom-up process rather than a top down one.

The observation that certain structures have odd configurations that could be explained by the sequence of environmental changes rather than a predetermined design is not absolute proof there is no designer but it is analogous to questions about coordination of function.

 

[Right Divider]

If so then why did you ask me to explain my thinking?

Don't tell me what you think. Tell me what you can prove scientifically.

 

[marke]

Structures evolve together rather than one and then another. In tandem coordinated function makes more sense. Also, consider previous substrates needed for development but no longer necessary after.

Rabbits are hid-gut fermenters making double digestion necessary. So, they eat their poop. Other mammals ferment closer to the front avoiding such a practice. I can see how Right Divider finds this perfectly reasonable. Others have pause.

Light must pass through cells and nerves create a blind spot. Cameras never include such obstructions. Neurons in front of the photoreceptors, rather than behind them does not make intuitive sense. Some have explained how it can actually help. It is best understood as a quirk of evolution that further adapted so it is not a complete disaster.

The observation that certain structures have odd configurations that could be explained by the sequence of environmental changes rather than a predetermined design is not absolute proof there is no designer but it is analogous to questions about coordination of function.

Evolutionists attribute their ability to think to the miraculous development of the thinking process by ignorant animals in their family tree lineage.

 

[Clete]

Wrong. Your pompous conclusionary declarations mean nothing.

As do yours, hyprocrite!

It cannot be said that Speciation has been clearly observed in the lab, but evolution involving a clear adaptation to the environment that is not directed by intelligence per se has been observed in the lab and documented in the field.

That IS NOT evolution!

I know that evolutionists call it evolution but, as you so eloquently stated, their "pompous conclusionary declarations mean nothing."

I find it easier if you just say it like this...

Saying it doesn't make it so!

There are those who say that the Civil War was not caused by slavery. They say that we cannot confirm or deny whether slaves liked their lot in life because no slaves can be asked about it now. Of course both contentions are preposterous. Inference is a powerful tool in history and science. Inference draws conclusions by indirect evidence. A convergence of indirect evidence is in many circumstances more compelling than direct evidence that is not corroborated.

All true and equally irrelevant.

You emphatically declare evolution without a designer is impossible because we cannot see speciation in the lab.

I am only repeating Darwin - in so many words.

We do not need to see it in a lab to be confident in our conclusions.

Lab results are used to either confirm or falsify a hypothesis and there hasn't been ANY lab result that lends an ounce of clear evidence that speciation will ever occur! There are experiments that have been running for DECADES where thousands upon thousands of generations of bacteria (the very simplest forms of life that according to evolutionary theory should be the most susceptible to evolutionary changes) are put into conditions which should drive such changes more rapidly and while adaptation has occurred, speciation has NOT. Not even close.

In fact, there's not even been a single occurrence of NEW information being added to DNA. Most, if not all, of the genetically based adaptations that have occurred have to do with either turning functions on (i.e. stuff that was already there but dormant) or a breaking of pre-existing systems that happen to cause a useful change. Usually, such changes while allowing for a different ability in one direction, cause problems in another, resulting in the original version having what would be the real evolutionary advantage outside the lab. In other words, such changes are always downgrades, not improvements. In short, nothing has ever been observed in any lab anywhere ever that would have turned out to be "evolution".

You are in the same position as a slavery apologist trying to weaken the case against you using false criticism and slippery logic. You need to demonstrate the existence of a designer. The fossil record should show some evidence of one. A watch designer is evidenced by a record of the mechanism whereby the watch was made, tools, materials, habitations of the designer, and bones of the designer (or other structures) in graves or elsewhere. The watch itself is not good enough evidence especially if there are demonstrable mechanisms by which it would be formed without a designer.

That is laughably idiotic! Any sufficiently complex machine is not merely evidence of a designer, it is positive PROOF of it.

This is a first, by the way. You are literally the first person I have ever encountered with the temerity to admit to the belief that watches could theoretically have happened by accident.

Stunning!

You are truly your own worst enemy.

Pointing to a designer is no explanation at all because by doing so you push us into a conundrum of infinite regress. Who made the designer? Invocation of the supernatural with no evidence at that point is no better than invoking it at the outset. You might have just said humans jumped out of the dirt by supernatural forces we can never understand.

This is a philosophical question that argues against YOUR position, not mine and does so from a several different directions!

Christianity is the ONLY worldview that has a perfectly rational answer to this age old philosophical question! The ONLY ONE, Skeeter! Atheists, in particular, can't even open their mouths in any dispute on this question without defeating their own position by uttering the first intelligible syllable in any argument that they attempt to present. They forfeit the debate by showing up to debate it!

Not only that, but forget about infinite regress! Evolution can't get past one single iteration of egress by postulating even a conceptually sound hypothesis regarding how life got past the starting line. Evolutionists cannot take a single step of egress before they end up staring God right in the face!

Stop your smug conclusionary stance and present some evidence.

Don't be a hypocrite.

Clete

 

[Skeeter]

Don't tell me what you think. Tell me what you can prove scientifically.

This is a discussion forum. My understanding of evolution is imperfect as is our best understanding of evolution. I share my thoughts and show support of varying weight. You share your thoughts totally unsupported by evidence. God is a first cause is a thought devoid of evidence. It is not even an extrapolation because there is no evidence for it what-so-ever. You believe it because in your mind because it must be.

 

[Yorzhik]

I do not see what your commentary has to do with the main intent of the study. Here, the study looked at whether an earlier study that claimed to witness a speciation event involving bacteria was sound in its conclusions. This study saw similar adaptation over a shorter period. The first was 15 years. Adaptation occurred in both studies. They differed on whether to consider the adaptation a point of speciation. Please see my comment to Clete regarding slavery.

It doesn't matter what study you use, so far they all have the same conclusion. Every increase in fitness found so far has been at the expense of some other function. In other words, the DNA of a child organism has, so far, always been a subset of the DNA of the parent.

I say "so far" because someday we may find what you are claiming. But until then, intelligent design is borne out by the evidence and you are shown to have blind faith in common descent despite the evidence.

 

[Clete]

It doesn't matter what study you use, so far they all have the same conclusion. Every increase in fitness found so far has been at the expense of some other function. In other words, the DNA of a child organism has, so far, always been a subset of the DNA of the parent.

I say "so far" because someday we may find what you are claiming. But until then, intelligent design is borne out by the evidence and you are shown to have blind faith in common descent despite the evidence.

Precisely!

 

[Clete]

This is a discussion forum. My understanding of evolution is imperfect as is our best understanding of evolution. I share my thoughts and show support of varying weight. You share your thoughts totally unsupported by evidence. God is a first cause is a thought devoid of evidence. It is not even an extrapolation because there is no evidence for it what-so-ever. You believe it because in your mind because it must be.

You should learn to be more consistent!

You said to me, "Inference is a powerful tool in history and science."

It's just as powerful in philosophy.

 

[Skeeter]

That IS NOT evolution!

I know that evolutionists call it evolution but, as you so eloquently stated, their "pompous conclusionary declarations mean nothing."

Semantics will not save you.

In biology, evolution is the change in the characteristics of a species over several generations and relies on the process of natural selection. This has been observed and demonstrated in the lab. Sorry that you do not like that.

Lab results are used to either confirm or falsify a hypothesis and there hasn't been ANY lab result that lends an ounce of clear evidence that speciation will ever occur! There are experiments that have been running for DECADES where thousands upon thousands of generations of bacteria (the very simplest forms of life that according to evolutionary theory should be the most susceptible to evolutionary changes) are put into conditions which should drive such changes more rapidly and while adaptation has occurred, speciation has NOT. Not even close.

It would be grand to see speciation in the lab, but we do not have that kind of time. Individual humans do not live long enough. We can make observations, hypotheses, and conclusions based on the snap-shot we have of the current array of species. Is the fact that some species can mate but rarely produce sterile young mean anything to you? Mules and Zebroids exist. Are they evidence of a grand designer? OR do they fit nicely into the theory of speciation??

In fact, there's not even been a single occurrence of NEW information being added to DNA. Most, if not all, of the genetically based adaptations that have occurred have to do with either turning functions on (i.e. stuff that was already there but dormant) or a breaking of pre-existing systems that happen to cause a useful change. Usually, such changes while allowing for a different ability in one direction, cause problems in another, resulting in the original version having what would be the real evolutionary advantage outside the lab. In other words, such changes are always downgrades, not improvements. In short, nothing has ever been observed in any lab anywhere ever that would have turned out to be "evolution".

That is simple because most mutations are neutral or harmful. You need larger population and time for mutations to show their positive potential. People with Cystic Fibrosis are protected against cholera.

That is laughably idiotic! Any sufficiently complex machine is not merely evidence of a designer, it is positive PROOF of it

Because you say so? Try to sort out the difference between evidence and a conclusion. And realize when you cannot think of a demonstrable explanation, it does not mean you can point to one that feels good to you. It means you don't know.

This is a first, by the way. You are literally the first person I have ever encountered with the temerity to admit to the belief that watches could theoretically have happened by accident.

Stunning!

You are truly your own worst enemy.

Of course I said no such thing. There is evidence of a designer in the case of watches. There is a demonstratable method to achieve a watch via a designer. Not so with a God and living things. I thought this was too obvious to mention.

This is a philosophical question that argues against YOUR position, not mine and does so from a several different directions!

Sounds interesting. Why don't you explain how?

Christianity is the ONLY worldview that has a perfectly rational answer to this age old philosophical question! The ONLY ONE, Skeeter! Atheists, in particular, can't even open their mouths in any dispute on this question without defeating their own position by uttering the first intelligible syllable in any argument that they attempt to present. They forfeit the debate by showing up to debate it!

You a biased Xtian. A Muslim would say something similar.

Not only that, but forget about infinite regress! Evolution can't get past one single iteration of egress by postulating even a conceptually sound hypothesis regarding how life got past the starting line. Evolutionists cannot take a single step of egress before they end up staring God right in the face!

Abiogenesis is an issue. I do not think we have a solid explanation of how this occurred. We have some interesting hypotheses and some diffuse evidence. Our understanding will sharpen over time. I would rather say we don't know than insert a completely unsupported answer.

We do not need to know everything to know something. Evolution is well supported by the fossil record, lab studies of bacteria, and genetic studies.

 

[Stripe]

Evolution is the change in the characteristics of a species over several generations.

Evolution is the idea that all life is descended from a single common ancestor population by means of random mutations and natural selection.

That is what YECs argue against.

Darwinists cannot defend the theory, so they define the debate out of existence by saying that evolution is "change."

Also, "species" is a vague and malleable word that is next to useless in a scientific context. I once heard a lady tell the world with a straight face that birds singing a different song was "speciation."

 

[Skeeter]

It doesn't matter what study you use, so far they all have the same conclusion. Every increase in fitness found so far has been at the expense of some other function. In other words, the DNA of a child organism has, so far, always been a subset of the DNA of the parent.

It is when the increase in function outweighs the deficit when we see real population change. It takes more time than any living lab team has. There are more extinct species than extant species.

I say "so far" because someday we may find what you are claiming.

I am glad you are open to evidence.

But until then, intelligent design is borne out by the evidence and you are shown to have blind faith in common descent despite the evidence.

We do not have to settle. We cant test hypotheses using the fossil record and living populations to support or reject notions of speciation using inference.

 

[Skeeter]

You should learn to be more consistent!

You said to me, "Inference is a powerful tool in history and science."

It's just as powerful in philosophy.

This is entirely consistent. We discuss what we believe and show why. I value evidence. I also value when people are tentative in their beliefs when they have no evidence.

 

[Idolater]

...It would be grand to see speciation in the lab, but we do not have that kind of time....

In other words it's not demonstrated because it's basically not demonstrable. 'Convenient.'

There is evidence of a designer in the case of watches. There is a demonstratable method to achieve a watch via a designer. Not so with a God and living things.

Nor with evolution, as you've just confessed above.

You're arguing against yourself.

I thought this was too obvious to mention.

Abiogenesis is an issue. I do not think we have a solid explanation of how this occurred.

Yes.

Evolution is well supported by the fossil record, lab studies of bacteria, and genetic studies.

The Resurrection of Christ is actually way better supported than evolution is, and it requires way less compounded improbabilities to be true.

And we do understand evidence supporting the Resurrection to be tantamount to evidence for God, although I have 'run into' one person who argued that even if the Resurrection is true, that doesn't necessarily mean that God is real. So whatever that's worth.

 

[Skeeter]

In other words it's not demonstrated because it's basically not demonstrable. 'Convenient.'

Nor with evolution, as you've just confessed above.

Speciation and evolution are related but different concepts. Evolution is demonstrated in the lab and in the field without issue. Speciation hs been hard. A few labs claim to have observed it but appear not to have held up to scrutiny by other labs.

The Resurrection of Christ is actually way better supported than evolution is, and it requires way less compounded improbabilities to be true.

There is about a one third chance that Jesus was even a historic person (Richard Carrier, PhD.) Most Bible Scholars currently believe he existed, but they believe Moses or Noah were entirely fictional. There is growing evidence that Jesus will be next. They know this by hypothesizing about Bible inconsistencies and comparing stories and evidence among nearby cultures.

 

[Right Divider]

This is a discussion forum.

Indeed it is.

My understanding of evolution is imperfect as is our best understanding of evolution.

Since GtY is not true, no actual understanding of it is possible.

I share my thoughts and show support of varying weight.

You show your opinions, but support... not so much.

You share your thoughts totally unsupported by evidence.

Complete nonsense.

God is a first cause is a thought devoid of evidence.

False.

It is not even an extrapolation because there is no evidence for it what-so-ever.

False.

You believe it because in your mind because it must be.

False.

 

[Idolater]

Speciation and evolution are related but different concepts. Evolution is demonstrated in the lab and in the field without issue. Speciation hs been hard. A few labs claim to have observed it but appear not to have held up to scrutiny by other labs.

There is about a one third chance that Jesus was even a historic person (Richard Carrier, PhD.)

He's vehemently Antichrist so this is actually just more evidence in support that He indeed did walk the earth. I compliment him for honesty and integrity because I can't find a PhD in a relevant field who appears to wish more that He never existed.

[Edit: iow Carrier (with honesty and integrity) admits that there is a significant chance that Jesus really lived, in spite of him apparently wishing with all his heart that He did not.]

Most Bible Scholars currently believe he existed

Most scholars period, believe He existed.

, but they believe Moses or Noah were entirely fictional. There is growing evidence that Jesus will be next.

No there isn't.

They know this by hypothesizing about Bible inconsistencies and comparing stories and evidence among nearby cultures.

"They guess this" is what you meant to say, I'm sure.