If Evolution

[jaybird]

if we came from monkeys why do we still have monkeys?

 

[Stripe]

if we came from monkeys why do we still have monkeys?

Easy. We didn't come from monkeys.

I love the simple questions. :thumb:

Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app

 

[Greg Jennings]

A shark, a "living fossil" because remains have been dated back 80 million years.

Really, 80 million years without change.

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-41928537

I'd ask you to read a little more closely if I thought you were interested in reality here. If you did, you'd know that "virtually no change" doesn't mean "no changes at all." It just means that, in terms of physical appearance, the animal was well-adapted to its environment and therefore did not need to change to survive. The sharks of millions of years ago are still very different genetically from what we see today. For example, there aren't 50 foot great whites anymore.

But don't let facts get in the way. I'll leave you to your games now

 

[Greg Jennings]

if we came from monkeys why do we still have monkeys?

Answer me this: what causes a species to evolve?

 

[jaybird]

Answer me this: what causes a species to evolve?

environment?

 

[Greg Jennings]

environment?

Yes. A species changes in response to environmental pressure (most often).

So if a shark species is already well-suited to life in an particular ocean habitat after millions of years of evolving to fit it, why would you expect it to change again for no reason? Unless its environment changes, there is no pressure on the species to change

 

[jaybird]

how does evolution go against the bible? if the Lord created a bird, and put into the bird a natural ability to adapt to its environment (grow a longer beak to catch fish) how is that beyond the Lords creating ability?

 

[jaybird]

Yes. A species changes in response to environmental pressure (most often).

So if a shark species is already well-suited to life in an particular ocean habitat after millions of years of evolving to fit it, why would you expect it to change again for no reason? Unless its environment changes, there is no pressure on the species to change

do we not have "likes" here?
did scientist ever figure out how sharks sleep?

 

[CherubRam]

I'd ask you to read a little more closely if I thought you were interested in reality here. If you did, you'd know that "virtually no change" doesn't mean "no changes at all." It just means that, in terms of physical appearance, the animal was well-adapted to its environment and therefore did not need to change to survive. The sharks of millions of years ago are still very different genetically from what we see today. For example, there aren't 50 foot great whites anymore.

But don't let facts get in the way. I'll leave you to your games now

If a carbon-14 date supports a theory, then it is added to the text. And if it does not fit what is expected, then it is thrown out.

When something of known age is carbon dated, it doesn’t work. When something of unknown age is carbon dated, it is assumed to work.

Dino bone that were not identified as such were carbon dated between 6 to 16 thousand years old.

Carbon dating is accurate for about 2500 years.

 

[Greg Jennings]

do we not have "likes" here?
did scientist ever figure out how sharks sleep?

Similar to how whales, cows, and horses sleep. They sleep in short bursts rather than in long stretches, and they are not totally out. Kind of half asleep

 

[Greg Jennings]

If a carbon-14 date supports a theory, then it is added to the text. And if it does not fit what is expected, then it is thrown out.

When something of known age is carbon dated, it doesn’t work. When something of unknown age is carbon dated, it is assumed to work.

Dino bone that were not identified as such were carbon dated between 6 to 16 thousand years old.

Carbon dating is accurate for about 2500 years.

Carbon dating is accurate up to 70,000 years.

Using it to try and date something OLDER than that will result in a faulty test, as the half-life for C14 is 5,700 years and it is simply not possible to measure beyond that point. Dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago. There is no C14 left in their bones to provide a sample with.

There are other, equally reliable dating methods that measure on the order of millions and billions, not mere thousands, of years also. Those methods are used when the flora and fauna in the rock layer cannot tell us the full story

 

[6days]

Carbon dating is accurate up to 70,000 years.

Carbon-14 (C-14) dating of multiple samples of bone from 8 dinosaurs found in Texas, Alaska, Colorado, and Montana revealed that they are only 22,000 to 39,000 years old.

Members of the Paleochronology group presented their findings at the 2012 Western Pacific Geophysics Meeting in Singapore, August 13-17, a conference of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) and the Asia Oceania Geosciences Society (AOGS).

Since dinosaurs are thought to be over 65 million years old, the news is stunning - and more than some can tolerate. After the AOGS-AGU conference in Singapore, the abstract was removed from the conference website by two chairmen because they could not accept the findings.Unwilling to challenge the data openly, they erased the report from public view without a word to the authors. When the authors inquired, they received this letter:...... http://www.newgeology.us/presentation48.html

"Unknown conditions in the past can't be calibrated for...
(Strength / weakness of solar rays, earths magnetic field, global floods etc)

The global flood would have drastically effected the ratio....
-With all vegetation dead...much buried starting to form coal and oil...
The C14 would increase at this time relative to the C12.
Also effecting the ratio at this time would be volcanic activity around the earth emitting lots of CO2 without the normal C14

Creationist researchers figure that Preflood oganisms although only 4500 years old would C14 date somewhere near 40,000 years.
(Brown, R.H./ Creation Research Society Quarterly/ 'Correlation of C-14 age with real time')"

 

[6days]

how does evolution go against the bible? if the Lord created a bird, and put into the bird a natural ability to adapt to its environment (grow a longer beak to catch fish) how is that beyond the Lords creating ability?

That a bird can adapt to various environments using its pre-existing genetic information is totally consistent with God's Word.

What does go against the Bible is that creatures can become a different kind..... that God created using a process of suffering, death and extinctions to create. Common ancestry beliefs are ant-Biblical and pseudoscience.

 

[jaybird]

Similar to how whales, cows, and horses sleep. They sleep in short bursts rather than in long stretches, and they are not totally out. Kind of half asleep

i guess that means they sleep as long as they can hold their breath? i remember reading about this many years ago and thought it was interesting.

 

[patrick jane]

i guess that means they sleep as long as they can hold their breath? i remember reading about this many years ago and thought it was interesting.

Welcome to TOL jaybird with the lower case i's !!! :wave2:

 

[jaybird]

That a bird can adapt to various environments using its pre-existing genetic information is totally consistent with God's Word.

What does go against the Bible is that creatures can become a different kind..... that God created using a process of suffering, death and extinctions to create.

both would be examples of evolution, so it sounds like limited evo would in fact sync with the bible

Common ancestry beliefs are ant-Biblical and pseudoscience.

whats ancestry belief?
pseudoscience has got to the point that any idea out side the inner circle of nainstream academia is not even considered.

 

[jaybird]

Welcome to TOL jaybird with the lower case i's !!! :wave2:

thanks for the welcome PJ!

the "i's" i like to keep myself humble. that was the virtue of Moses was it not? haha

 

[jaybird]

Carbon dating is accurate up to 70,000 years.

Using it to try and date something OLDER than that will result in a faulty test, as the half-life for C14 is 5,700 years and it is simply not possible to measure beyond that point. Dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago. There is no C14 left in their bones to provide a sample with.

There are other, equally reliable dating methods that measure on the order of millions and billions, not mere thousands, of years also. Those methods are used when the flora and fauna in the rock layer cannot tell us the full story

i like the precession dating. it seems to be very accurate. but you dont always have a structure to line up with the heavens.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Carbon-14 (C-14) dating of multiple samples of bone from 8 dinosaurs found in Texas, Alaska, Colorado, and Montana revealed that they are only 22,000 to 39,000 years old.

Members of the Paleochronology group presented their findings at the 2012 Western Pacific Geophysics Meeting in Singapore, August 13-17, a conference of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) and the Asia Oceania Geosciences Society (AOGS).

Since dinosaurs are thought to be over 65 million years old, the news is stunning - and more than some can tolerate. After the AOGS-AGU conference in Singapore, the abstract was removed from the conference website by two chairmen because they could not accept the findings.Unwilling to challenge the data openly, they erased the report from public view without a word to the authors. When the authors inquired, they received this letter:...... http://www.newgeology.us/presentation48.html

"Unknown conditions in the past can't be calibrated for...
(Strength / weakness of solar rays, earths magnetic field, global floods etc)

The global flood would have drastically effected the ratio....
-With all vegetation dead...much buried starting to form coal and oil...
The C14 would increase at this time relative to the C12.
Also effecting the ratio at this time would be volcanic activity around the earth emitting lots of CO2 without the normal C14

Creationist researchers figure that Preflood oganisms although only 4500 years old would C14 date somewhere near 40,000 years.
(Brown, R.H./ Creation Research Society Quarterly/ 'Correlation of C-14 age with real time')"

As explained before, you can't get an accurate result from a sample with inadequate C14 to be measured. If you date a Dino bone with that method, then you will run the test three times and get three different ages for the sample. That's not accurate or precise, and that's likely why your buddies had their study rejected

Feel free to provide a credible source that supports your claims, please

 

[Greg Jennings]

i guess that means they sleep as long as they can hold their breath? i remember reading about this many years ago and thought it was interesting.

For whales yes I think that's right. Sharks don't breathe air