@almansoori999 You personally? Probably not. Science some day. Perhaps. But you can put a few (<200) amino acids together to create self-replicating molecules, and if you wait 3.5 billion years for that to evolve, then all evidence points to the conclusion that life could evolve from that.
Hypothesis - A supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation. Show me the Money~
@dreigel411Vin It's better than throwing up our arms and screaming "GAWD DID IT!", kiddie. :)
At least we're being humble, admitting we don't know everything, and then proceed to actually try and figure it out. You're the exact opposite, just like every other creationist.
Provide an acceptable piece of evidence for the existence of God and own up to your own Burden of Proof, or GTFO.
@TheCircusReject Throwing up our arms??? lol....Science every day proves the Bibile more and more. It has stated for thousands of years God made the universe out of nothing.....then ...wow..Hey I think the universe came from nothing...Blind your are totally Blind! Goodbye
@BreakingBenjaminAWSM So you are objective when the findings of Piltdown man, Nebraska man, Orce man and even Lucy was proven false and in Piltdown man cause fraudulent. You’re familiar with the the Yale DNA hybridization scandal correct? You have heard of the Archaeoraptor?
@dreigel411Vin What are you talking about? Even if half of what you said is true. That does not generalise into the entire scientific community. That is just ignorance in itself.
@BreakingBenjaminAWSM If you would, as I said, put away your assumptions and do some fact checking you might be a little less inclined to call someone an idiot.
So is it just as ignorant to generalize the entire creationist community by a few that say “GAWD dun it, and you’re going to Hell?”
If you think it isn’t then you sir are the idiot and a lemming.
@dreigel411Vin When did I ever stated that I generalise the creationist community? It was just my opinion that you were an idiot for you showed no evidence and made irrational claims. I don't think you can be making those statements without being atleast a bit hypocritical. Also I've never seen any evidence of Lucy being a hoax. The other statements you made are old news and have been long put-aside. Please offer some evidence before making these claims. Anyway I'm off.
@BreakingBenjaminAWSM yep, man not trying to insult or be argumentative but as soon as someone says “I believe in God" they are labeled an idiot. Just start thinking for yourself man.
@dreigel411Vin I don't think that at all. I am absolutely fine with people believing in a god/s. I used to believe at one point myself and have plenty of friends who also believe in a god. The thing I find silly are all the religious stories which don't add up to years upon years of scientific observation and testing. When you claim those to be true without sufficient evidence is when I get picky.
@BreakingBenjaminAWSM So if I said that love does not exist because there is no scientific evidence, how would you respond? I have 3 children, all I have to do is look at them and know love exist. But I can’t prove it..take care man.
@dreigel411Vin If you have no dopamine in your brain you cannot experience happiness or love. Dopamine is a chemical which emits pleasure in lay-mans terms. I am not-well informed enough at this section of biology to go into depth but I hope to become more informed in my second year of college.
@BreakingBenjaminAWSM Scientifically we have theories that people accept has fact correct. Ie…evolution, relativity..etc..so theoretically speaking if I could reproduce the chemical reaction that produces love while looking at a 300 pound hairy fat man I would fall in love…good luck at school! Im out!
@dreigel411Vin Ok first of all you have to understand what a scientific theory is and what a scientific fact is. Gravity is a fact and the principle explaining it is the theory. The same rules apply to Evolution and Relativity and so far they have not been proved wrong yet.
@dreigel411Vin That’s pot calling the kettle black isn’t?...lol. excuse me while I go have a chemical reaction before I look at this donut I’m about to eat.
@dreigel411Vin Fair enough. None the less I would suggest being a bit more open-minded. Believe what you want to believe but remember that doesn't necessarily make you right. Gather evidence before making your conclusion on matters. Anyway I'm off. Might chat tomorrow.
@BreakingBenjaminAWSM... not too sure....but I think that's what I was tryin to say to you..:). And when you're in class, ask a lot of questions, like is this fact or an assumption? What from? Where from? Was this the same a million years ago? how do we know this remember the definition of fact.
@BreakingBenjaminAWSM I promise I did not search this out. I listen to this guy a couple of times a week. Listen if you dare - and be objective and not angry.
w w w (dot) truthforlife./broadcasts/2012/01/18/responding-to-persecution-part-one-/
after truthforlife add org to the url....can't post a link on here.
@dreigel411Vin Anyway I'm not going to feed your argumentative behavior. It seems you are just looking for a debate and have jumped straight to the conclusion that I'm here to debate Evolution with you. You'll have to find someone a bit more well-informed than I. For I do not want to misrepresent anything and confuse you further.
@TheCircusReject ....ok ok you got me....."universe dun it"..now that we got that cleared up. You are nothing, you came from nothing, you mean nothing, you will end up as nothing. Sounds like you are the one that will GTFO..have fun.
@iwontreadyourreply Isn't it interesting, then, that science doesn't claim to know anything for absolutely sure, yet theists claim to know everything for absolutely sure.
IGNORANCE! How can you think for a second that this is 'plausible' explanation of how life was created? Why do people always think of the most silly and unimaginable things when the truth is never more than a few meters away.... YES THE BIBLE. Even the scientific Occam Razor would suggest that divine creation is much simpler and probable explanation than your fancy bullocks...... By the way this is purely sarcastic and i regret for not trollin all the way :P
Could someone direct me to evidence of Early Earth Conditions? I am trying to write a paper, and I am scraping the buckets bottom for this info...I need solid proof, not fluffy speculation.
@TheSleepChamber It depends on how detailed you want the information
You can start with ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1664683/
This paper is good for your purpose because it specifies how well the various topics are understood, from just a little, to a lot. Check out the numerous links for more details on particular topics. All of what's known is based on our knowledge of planet formation, so it's all "solid proof", but some parts of the early environment are more well understood than others.
@BreakingBenjaminAWSM Yes, of course. Is it ever any other way? Notice he didn't answer my question, but proceeded to make more unfounded assertions. You'd think these people would understand how much education they'd need to even comprehend the answers they are given. But, alas, that's rarely the case. "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence..."
@HarshColby and how do you get self replicating molecules? Do you really believe that these molecules could just go ahead and self replicate till they get to a human in even 1 trillion years? See, if you bothered to pay attention to what people were saying about evolution, you would not be talking about self replicating molecules and would know the odds are impossible in any reasonable time frame. Of course you are free to believe in such miracles =/
@semitope Do you have the education and experience to seriously question trained biologists? I don't care much what "people" say about evolution. I care what trained biologists say about evolution. Yes, I've listened.
How did you calculate these odds you're speaking about? Odds calculation requires a numerator (the number of successful cases) divided by the number of total cases. What calculation are you using. (Because, of course, you can't just make up numbers and claim they're accurate.)
@HarshColby I have a brain I am capable of using to assess what I am being told on both sides. You guys keep talking about qualifications. Yes I have a science background, but that does not all of a sudden give me the right to think for myself. I will always have that. Anyway, I am not making this up myself. I simply follow more knowledgeable people on the issue. rsternberg . net for one. I am sure you are aware of the major ID proponets, the guys who wrote "what Darwin got wrong" etc etc.
@semitope Brains, IQ, and education are not the same thing. I didn't imply you're not smart enough to figure it out. But it's clear you have no education on this subject or you wouldn't be saying the sorts of things you're saying. And given that evolution has apparently been explained to you, and you're still making these sorts of comments, strongly implies that you're not actually interested in understanding why all biologists accept evolution.
@HarshColby listen to yourself for a minute and get your head out your ass. "You don't agree so you must not know" Come on and do better than that. There are complex reasons why it appears that most (not all) biologists accept evolution, not least of which the fact that they would not have a job if they didn't appear to, in many cases. You also cannot dismiss the numerous scientists who object to the theory openly from all fields of science. Atheists and theists alike.
@HarshColby SO far all you have given me is "you don't understand it" and "a lot of scientists agree with it". That the majority of people accept the current paradigm is not strange and is expected. Even when they cannot support the theory with evidence they still say it happened. It takes some many years to even begin to look at the evidence and reject the theory. The philosophy that many adhere to also makes the theory compelling to them.
@semitope You're making bullshit claim by no researchers and who's got their head up their ass? Do you want to have a conversation about science or are you just going to start throwing mud and hope that makes your case for you?
All knowledgeable researchers accept the evidence for evolution. It's the people without a clue that question it. Why is that?
Please answer my questions about where you get your beliefs, and stop making unsupported claim after unsupported claim. Your opinion is noted.
@semitope No. My argument is that you've made very incorrect claims.
I looked at your references. Not a single paper published in a peer reviewed journal. Only one was even a scientific paper at all, and it was written by Meyer, not Sternberg. If you're going to claim scientific papers, please present scientific papers, not opinion pieces. Is there any science supporting your claim that early evolution is unlikely? Where is the scientific paper you're using to support this claim?
@HarshColby exactly. You do not want science unless it agrees with you. They aren't scientists unless they agree with you no matter their sources or the information. Meyer, sternberg, johnson etc are scientists and their work i showed you. There are books you can go read from other scientists. You know the information is out there, you just don't want it. Those pictures from Johnson's book should also give you an idea of the situation and why some scientists won't speak out.
@semitope So, I should just take your word for things? You don't need to justify or support your opinions? Why should I reject all scientific research and believe your made up claims?
Why would you call your made up crap "science" in the first place? If you call non-researched, non-reviewed, non-supported baseless assertions "science", then you must be using a new definition I'm not aware of.
Yes, I care a lot about verifiable science. I don't care for your fantasies however.
@HarshColby I didn't not ask you to do that. I am trying to get you to NOT do that for anyone. Go read up what evolutionists and those who do not agree are actually saying rather than what you heard. None of what this guy says is actually valid beyond hypothesis with no evidence and impossible scientifically. Go find your own info and think for yourself
@semitope There isn't anyone showing any credible challenge against evolution. Find a credible source and I'll read it. I have no need to read opinion pieces and non-scientific musings on the subject. In order to think for yourself, you'd have to learn about evolution first. Do so, then we can talk about it. But since you've come to your conclusions without any significant understanding of the subject, you're not thinking for yourself at all. You're just rejecting without understanding.
@semitope So you've dropped your claim that credible biologists support you?
Richard Sternberg is not a credible biologist. He hasn't published a single paper in any science journal. All credible biologists disagree with his biased opinion. Why do you pick the one (or very very few) people that agree with your pre-conceived notions, while compleltely ignoring 1000's of credible biologists that base their opinions on actual research?
It's not "impossible" just because some bozo says so.
@HarshColby i really don't get you guys at all. Are you just not thinking? Have you ever taking a philosophy class? I haven't but its quite obvious some of you need to do some classes on how to think and how to look at the things you say. He has 2 PhDs and has published over 30 times in journals, has written books and a million other things. His arguments are completely valid and have yet to be adequately dealt with, BUT he must not be credible since he disagrees with you. COME ON.
@semitope Making stuff up and not being able to support claims with demonstrable facts is not "thinking". That's "imagination". Demonstrating that your claims are true, IS thinking. Perhaps you need a class in critical thinking? (No need to start personal insults because we can both play that game if you want, but it detracts from the conversation)
His PhD doesn't mean shit if he can't support his claims. Sternberg has not supported his claims, except with opinion. Even PhD-holders can be crazy.
@HarshColby He supports his claims quite well. The problem is that you don't have a clue about this issue but blindly believe everything you are told about evolution and have been brainwashed to consider anyone against it less than credible.
@semitope If he supports them so well, why is it that all biologists say he doesn't support them at all? Why are the only ones agreeing with him religious fanatics?
I use research by many people to guide what I will believe. When all the research says evolution is a fact, then evolution is a fact. Feel free to refute the research and show where each and every one of the 305314 peer reviewed papers is wrong.
What do you use to reliably separate fact from fiction? What if Sternberg is just lying?
@semitope My question was "What if he's lying?" What proven-reliable method would you use to know if he is?
You also claim "evolutionists" (why use a made up word?) have nothing. Well, what proven-reliable method are you using to make this claim? I see 305314 peer reviewed papers based on observation of the facts. That's quite a bit more than "nothing". Otoh, Sternberg does not have ANY papers supporting his opinion. In fact, many of the papers show he's wrong. Why believe him in this case?
@HarshColby its easy to tell if someone is "lying" by the responses others who are aware of the topic provide. It is also easy to know if someone is lying by actually reading what they say. btw I do not accuse the majority of people who buy evolution of lying. There are a few people like PZ myers who misrepresents things then says he was simplifying it, but most simply accept the little actual evidence provided and some like you follow them even in the face of falsification.
@semitope You already read PZ's comments, so you know research-based comments already. And you've already said you're going to ignore PZ's comments.
You can't tell if people are lying just by reading what they say. If you're not an expert in that field, then you can't tell. I asked for a reliable method.
A little evidence is better than no evidence at all. It's much better than believing despite the evidence.
Name your favorite Sternberg claim, and I'll find a refutation based on the research.
@HarshColby I do not follow sternberg. Why would i have his claims? I have seen what each side has to say, me linking to him is just to give a source for the information. I could go and find all the research papers that guys like him refer to for their comments but who here would understand them? I asked you for the research showing him wrong, where is it?
@HarshColby you'd do well to consider if guys like PZ myers would still be supporting their position even if they knew the evidence was not on their side. I think they would. Many have already admitted to accepting evolution not because of the evidence but in spite of it. I think he would continue defending the position because he thinks it simply had to be that way. It's not only a religious worldview that affects what you do, atheists can be zealots
@semitope If you're just going to make up shit, then there's really no point in talking. It's just way too easy for you to load up post after post with so much unsupported and demonstrably incorrect bullshit, that I don't have the time or inclination to bother trying to correct your absurd views of reality.
Sternberg is a quack, and you can't tell the difference because you don't have a clue about biology. You just accept bullshit because people tell you to.
@semitope pick one thing and demonstrate that it is incorrect. Go ahead. All you have done is bash a double phd and other scientist simply because they disagree with you. As if disagreement is not part of and healthy for science. How do wrong theories such as evolution hope to be changed with attitudes that are counter to science?
@semitope Showing evolution is true. It's been observed. Sternberg ignores the research and preaches his bs to an audience that can't tell he's stating mere opinion. If he had any research backing up his claims, he'd publish it. He can't, of course, because science requires evidence. Religious opinion can't show any evidence.
Sternberg is lying and you can't tell, so it does seem to work quite well for him. PZ doesn't misrepresent Sternberg. PZ has the research to back up his statements.
@HarshColby evolution has been observed yet when you get down to the details, evolutionists will tell you that because of the time, its impossible to observe in our lifetime. Sometimes you say its fact and observed, other times, when scientifically challenged, you fall back on it cannot be observed. Which is it? You are saying all this being a layman, but scientists are quite aware of how weak the position is and use less certain terms than you. Those papers do not show what you say at all
@semitope Evolution has been observed. I never said otherwise. Do you need examples?
Where you're confusing religious propaganda with facts is when you think there's a stopping point where no further changes can happen to DNA. Why do you think this? Name the mechanism that stops evolution, and name the place where it stops
I don't respond to long lists of bs. It would take pages of posts to correct all your mistakes, so make your point short
Sternberg is either ignorant or lying. Take your pick.
@HarshColby "Sternberg is lying and you can't tell, so it does seem to work quite well for him." ? says who? your subjective uninformed, brainwashed opinion? PZ Myers lies deliberately. He lies and says he was just simplifying it. Brainwashing his audience with simplified lies. The research and logic do not back up myers claims. You call on guy a liar because you don't agree and another that is confirmed lying is trustworthy to you?
@HarshColby There are many more btw. It's hard for scientists to come out and say something in this atmostphere. apparently many other scientists are as hardheaded as you and don't try to understand why they do certain things. You can go look up the scientists who question the theory. If you keep at it I will have to go find more of them.
definitions
"credible biologist" - agrees with u
"not credible biologist" - doesn't agree with you.
and you think this is an intelligent position. smh
@semitope We're using different definitions of "credible".
Credible biologist: One that has published peer-reviewed papers. (This means one that cannot get by with making stuff up, must support his views with demonstrable facts, not opinion.)
Not credible biologist: One that doesn't have his idea well enough grounded to get into peer reviewed science journals.
My opinion is irrelevant. Your opinion is irrelevant. The only thing that counts is the claims can be shown to be true.
@HarshColby Those are the sources I use to provide support for what I have come to believe from my own assessment of the theory. Evolution is only valid if you must believe it, i.e. you are an atheist or some form of materialist. Otherwise, the evidence is simply not there and the whole thing is quite silly. Sternberg did probabilities on it I think, there are other mathematicians as well.
@semitope Link a scientific source to your claim that early evolution is as unlikely as you say. What numbers were used? Where did those numbers come from? This is how science is done. Simply asserting that something is unlikely is not using much brain power, nor is it science. Why is it, for example, that you are unable or unwilling to answer my questions? If you have done the research, then the answers should be known to you, and you should be able to explain your claims in scientific terms.
@semitope Sternberg is not a published scientist. Why would you accept his opinion based on no research, while rejecting scientists' opinion based on 100's of thousands of research papers? Sure, there are always a few nuts that make bogus claims. Some of them are even scientists, but why reject modern research when you have no educational basis for determining who's numbers are correct. When in doubt, shouldn't you provisionally accept the scientific consensus rather than fringe claims?
@jeffsemore Non-chickens with non-chicken-eggs evolved over millions of years, becoming more and more chicken-like and chicken-egg-like with each generation until they were so close to what we'd now call a chicken and a chicken egg that we call them chickens and chicken eggs. Neither came first.
And indeed they must be very common! Even meteorites are full of amino acids(and water, by the way), so one would almost think it weird if complex, self,self replicating molecules didn't arise following hundreds of millions of years of Earth being bombarded with that stuff in all sorts of locations!
@winterstellar But their experiments were under the topic of Abiogenesis. My question is how can inorganic matters like soil and water evolve into an amoeba or protozoa?
@kratos3443 Water is organic, most of the soil is probably organic too. Look up the difference between organic and inorganic/synthetic chemistry in wiki. The distinction is simply whether molecules consist of oxygen, hydrogen and/or carbon, which make them organic or not.. In chemistry it does not mean "living/non-living or anything: ) And the answer to your question is:Through hundreds of millions of years of "trial and error". You know why I put trial and error in brackets, it was all random.
@winterstellar I-e no "God" or supernatural anything was "trying anything or "guiding" anything, it was just chemistry, conditions that happened to be beneficial at places, millions of places over hundreds of millions of years, that eventually led to self replicating molecules, bubbles/membranes ever more complex chemistry until we had single-cellular successful life, it happened maybe many places, maybe one, but anyway some single-celled life is our earliest ancestor, our great-great-great-gran
@winterstellar "self replicating molecules, bubbles/membranes ever more complex chemistry until we had single-cellular successful life, it happened MAYBE many places,MAYBE one, but anyway some single-celled life is our earliest ancestor, our great-great-great-gran"
It is clear that you are also resorting in guesses and intuition. How would a single cell become mollusk, then fish, then human? That was only a hypothesis, what was your main "evidence" to conclude that it is a "fact?"
@kratos3443 That's not how evolution happened. It didn't make sudden jumps from cell to an entire mollusk. Didn't this video just show you how single cells evolved into multicellular organisms?
It is reasonable to think that life must have had a beginning - since we have good evidence that at one time it did not exist.
It is also reasonable to think that that origin must have been chemical in nature - since life is chemical in nature, and since there are no good alternative hypotheses that are testable.
So unless you can provide some alternative, I suggest this is the way to proceed for now.
@kratos3443 THrough mutations, through slow evolution over tens, hundreds of thousand of years, millions, tens of millions, hundreds of millions of years and so on. Evolution has been going on for 4 billion years on Earth and if you don't want "guesswork", look up a biology, pallaeonthology, zoology, chemistry, physics-book or scientific paper. See why everybody in science treat evolution as fact and even use evolution in practice,observe evolution,make correct predictions,get the same results--
@winterstellar -- #2--independently of eachother, how the millions of fossils all tell the same story, along with archaeology, geology, physics and other related sciences..how scientists now manage to make synthetic, functioning, multiplying new life-forms in labs(One of the dozens of teams working on making life, on copying the abiogenesis we know must have happened, on hundreds of related subjects, is J Craig Venter's team, they made the first man-made life-form. Guess they're "gods"now, eh?:)
@winterstellar Not even a single fly was able to create by the scientists.
"J Craig Venter's team, they made the first man-made life-form. Guess they're "gods"now, eh?:)"
No they did not. Instead, they copied an existing genome from the simple bacterium Mycoplasma mycoides. Still, not a man-made life.
Instead of spending millions of dollars for research, just feed hungry people in the world and don't blame God for it which is also the factor why athiesm was practiced.
@winterstellar Neither of those books you have mentioned will deny the existence of God.
If you were a spiritual-oriented and you read those books, you will just amaze how God manipulated matters to create life. And the likeness of the species is still not convincing for me bec. a Designer has patterns of his designs.
Scinece books do fail, but bible will never do. As time goes by, many scientific principles were proved wrong but prophecies in the bible always happen, that was the signature
@kratos3443 A circle (or sphere if you insist) which you can seen in its entirety from a tall tree or mountain, I might add. What kind of sphere fits this description?
The Hebrew language lacked a specific term for sphere as well as terminology for infinite space. But i will give you another verse that proves they meant it "sphere"
Amos 9:6) “The One who builds His UPPER CHAMBERS in the heavens And has founded His VAULTED DOME over the earth, He who calls for the waters of the sea And pours them out on the face of the earth, The LORD is His name.” (NASB)
@ThePsychoReturns Bec. ball is not a shape anymore, it's more of an object.
The word used in hebrew which is "chug" it means circle, or sphere or shape of a ball. They lacked the specific term. Even in my native language we do not have a counter-part word for sphere. When we say "bilog" it means either flat, shape of the ball, sphere, etc.. .
@kratos3443 It says "over the earth" over the land which means it encompasses all the soil in the earth. If you say "flat" then the soil below has no vaulted dome roof. But it says "over the earth."
@winter "We know how reptiles became mammals and how long it took, and that it happened over hundreds of millions of years millions and millions of generations..."
Yuo don't have direct observation to say that. let me first cross examine you; A reptile is a carnivore, a mammal could be herbivore, frugivores, or omni, etc.. how the moron reptile learned to eat grass for it to change its digestive system?
@winter what can you say about the Miller-Urey experiment? they failed to prove that life could exist by their own manipulation, Pasteur have proven that organisms could not spwan in non-living. Those experiment are meant for proving evolution yet they failed, then how come these people still die hard fans of darwin.. .That's the biases iam talking about.
@kratos3443 Miller-Urey showed that amino acids, the building blocks of life were quite likely to have been common. The point wasn't to create life in a test tube. Pasteur showed that life would not spontaneously arise in that exact situation, and we would all agree it can't. That does not rule out any other experiment. To say that one experiment proves the results of all possible experiments isn't very scientific of you.
The experiments weren't biased, but your characterization of them is.
@kratos3443 These experiments were not intended to prove evolution. Evolution is already supported by scientific evidence and is accepted by real science. The point of the experiment was to to replicate the building blocks of life, which was successful. Claiming an experiment is a failure because it did not do what it was never intended to do is like saying evolution is false because it does not describe the big bang. (Irony purposeful)
This is such a legendary video. It puts all those arse and balls people that think there is a god to shame. Go suck on your fat fantasy worlds christians because you are all crack.
@wnterstellar Don't you think that scientists were having biases? In psychology we humans are prone to have biases even in research and experiments.
So if others aredoing antithesis, which means they are still working to make sure that evolution is true it is only a temporary fact for you.
The missing link can not find anymore, because there is no such thing! then you are declaring that the theory is true? they are making haste conclusion with chains of intuition.
@kratos3443 Yeye, all the hundreds of thousands of scientists peer-reviewing various work are biased. They're all in on a secret war against "Jeebus" and "The Supernatural". HEy, I think even the reason why not a single shred of evidence for anything supernatural is ever found is that they all have to swear an evil oath in university on hidind or destroying any evidence they may find, all the millions of scientists swear that oath, hehe. (and regarding the dribble further down here:
@winterstellar Regarding the dribble: We know how reptiles became mammals and how long it took, and that it happened over hundreds of millions of years millions and millions of generations, not in some sppeeded up cartoon version like the creatards like to make moronic straw-men "arguments" about: )
@winterstellar "supernatural" Science does not explain ALL phenomenon in the world, you knew that there are things that are beyond the reach of science for study. Don't rely on it too much, spiritual could be studied through spirit more than matter.
I don't see that mutation is enough proof for evolution theory. Although i do believe that mutation is beneficial BUT it is LIMITED only for one specie, for example as humans settle life in cold places, their nosetrils became narrower but those that lived in hot places have wider. that's the limit. You can not change mammal from reptile through mutation.alteration of genes in complex will only result to failure of an organism, even a slight change such as trisomy21
@kratos3443 Read biology books, visit natural history museums, go to lectures on science or biology/evolution at universities or colleges, watch this whole series of videos and other series made by scientists here on YouTube, and I'm positive you'll learn very much that will give you a better basis on which to choose whether to go with modern science or anvcient religion.. In my opinion, since science gathers more proof every day and never find any proof going against evolution, you may rethink.
@winterstellar I already did. The building blocks of evolution is MUTATION. and i doubt that. As i believed altering of genes will cause disorders, for you to change reptile to mammals it will take too much alterations which seems impossible. The mentally retarded people were caused by abnormal alteration in genes.
Of course if you will believe it comes from a truth, the hebrew religion never contradicts science. I am sure scientists knew that sci princiles and theories were changing.
@BreakingBenjaminAWSM Bec many questions is not yet answered in evolution theory. where is the missing link? If the evolution theory is a fact why every period(precambrain, palaeozoic, etc..) in earth has mass extinction? and how will the reptile accept to eat grass to evovle in a mammal?
@kratos3443 You shouldn't be asking atheists. You should be asking biologists. Atheism is about one topic: the lack of belief in a god or gods. Evolutionary biologists study evolution. These two are not mutually exclusive, but to specifically ask atheists, rather than asking those knowledgeable in biology is asking the wrong set of people. There are theist and non-theist biologists. Both understand and accept that evolution is a fact.
@HarshColby "You shouldn't be asking atheists. You should be asking biologists. Atheism is about one topic: the lack of belief in a god or gods"
Why did I ask atheists and not specifically biologists? Because in this particular site, most were atheists, and not professional scientists (i think), and if i will ask biologist, you just said that there are still theists scientists, and being an atheist, it came from their belief from scientific principles which i assumed they confidently knew.
Most atheists have some confidence in the scientific method and in the results it produces. Many of them have some understanding of these principles and findings, but such understanding is not *required*, anymore than you using a computer means you require an understanding of the quantum mechanics involved in CPU design. Nor does atheism even require that such confidence exists. In the end, atheism is the rejection of theistic claims - for *whatever* reason.
@kratos3443 Whether theist or not, acceptance of the evidence for evolution comes form understanding the evidence. Theists accept science because of their acceptance of scientific principals, just like atheists. Theism may cause some people to reject science in specific cases (where it shows religious documents to be wrong), but atheists have no reason to do so.
You shouldn't assume all atheists understand biology. Some do, and some don't, so the accuracy of the information you get will vary.
@kratos3443 There will always be a "missing link". As soon as we fill in the missing link it opens up two more missing links. And as soon as we fill in those missing links, four more missing links will show. Do you see how that works? Ok say over many years meat is becoming less and less of a commodity. Over the course the reptile will start eating other things to gain nutrition as well as meat. The reptile will adapt to it's environment through a process known as natural selection.
@BreakingBenjaminAWSM So do you accept the idea that reptiles before ate grass? Let say your prehistoric alligator, it has sharper canines, gastric juices that functions to digest bones, feathers, etc. , and shorter intestines. Those are the traits of a carnivore. I will accept that principle of adaptation in the env't for the mean time, so my next question is; would a carnivore forced to eat other food like plants? - bec. that was your idea based on your response.
@kratos3443 It is my understanding that a carnivore can become an omnivore and eventually a herbivore in the right conditions if it has to, over hundreds - thousands of generations through the process of natural selection.
@kratos3443 I would also like to point out that my previous post was related to the best of my knowledge so confirm it with a credible and trustworthy site on reptile evolution before taking my word for it. Needless to say this should be done with any knowledge you are given.
@BreakingBenjaminAWSM You could read that in almost all books concerning evolution that mammals actually came from reptiles, there are also prehistoric animals featuring the combination of a reptile and mammal.
[missing link] Creationist red herring. There are no "missing links" any more than the lack of daily photographs of Bush represent a problem for his adulthood.
[extinctions] Perfectly consistent with evolution. When the environment changes, those populations that can't survive, don't, and do not pass genes on to progeny. Those that can survive, do, and pass along their genes.
[grass] They don't. It's a gradual progression as populations evolve.
@HarshColby I believe that all dinosaurs died, but how would those organisms will continue to evolve in present day birds? (that's what i mean)..
I am setting an example of the carnivore, is it possible that a carnivore will evolve in a herbivore? or if humans will eat raw flesh, would their digestive system undergo evolution? or they will not survive as well?
@kratos3443 All the dinosaurs didn't die. Only the populations that survived would evolve. With significant environmental changes (atmospheric changes caused by an asteroid impact) would have hastened the rate of evolution in those that survived, and 65M years is a very long time.
Carnivore species that can't digest plants at all would die without meat, and not pass on genes. Species that had some ability to digest plants, would survive and the most able individuals would pass on the best genes.
@HarshColby They were fried in seconds, hours. THat's what the newest and commonly accepted science shows conclusively. Only creatures underground , under enough water, in buried eggs,under things that offered protection, survuved. All the matter that back down to Earth at 5 miles/sec created a surface tempeerature of a 1000 degrees, but just a foot underground the temperature was 30 degrees celsius. Anything that couldn't cover, fried. THis is the consensus in 2010/2011, and well confirmed. : )
@winterstellar Worldwide fireball? Can you show a link which says this. Afaik, most agree the evidence suggests it was airborne ash and debris spread by winds, lowering the sun's radiation, and in turn reducing the vegetation making it harder for large, cold blooded animals to survive.
@HarshColby Oh yes, that will be no problem. Programs on this new knowledge have recently been on both BBC and NAT GEO, "fireball", well the energi during the "big fry" was something like 60 000 watts per square meter, so it would be like being ona "fireball" anywhere on Earth as the wildfires spread world-wide. And the heat from the thrown-up material was SO intense already before they
hit Earth that thiings like plants crumbled, dried and died even long before the fires were set off by cont
@HarshColby No, this is ancient knowledge know, wrong, geologists, physicists, palaeontologists have worked together to find the answer that fits all the world-wide evidence. Forget "Nuclear winter" or strarving to death because of lack of food, think instewant incineration of everything not being able to findor not happen to already have shelter. Every aspect has been tested and found to fit perfectly with the new knowledge. Science moves quickly, you know, huge breakthroughs are commonplace: )
@winterstellar In my quick research, I see that's one of the possible current explanations. There are many current ideas which are consistent with the data. I still see a lot of researches talking about greenhouse and global cooling being brought on by the asteroid or volcanic activity. I'll look some more.
@HarshColby REalize this: THe asteroid experts agree, NASA has been there with vessel confirming which asteroids we're dealing with, the lunar geologists agree. the eart geologist involved here all agree, palaeontologists agree, paleobotanists agree, this theory is the first that explains ev erything almost, gives all the answers the scientists have been scratching their heads over for deccades. Trust me, this is no wild hunch or hypothesis, everything NASA and the others have tested, checks out
@HarshColby THis is fresh yet, but it's spreading almost like the wildfires 65 million years in the scientific commun ity now, it looks like the enigma, the mystery, is no more now. Personally I believe this will be accepted to the level of being taught as just as much a fact as for instance even evolution is in highschool textbooks in informed, modern parts of the world.ly looks like "the bullseye theory, THE explananation this time! Hehe, and obviously one YouTuber is a VERY excited fan,hehe:)
@HarshColby BY the way, we even know which asteroid the pieces that made this disaster cane from. It was a collision between two asteroids 160 mn years ago. that shreddede one of them into smaller pieces(one the "culprit" here, and 40 million years before the dinos snuffed it, the MOon was hit by a small piece, still making a 3-4 mile deep and quite wide, very visible crater on the Moon. Tests have been made close to the remnants in space, on the Moon and on Earth confirming it was THE asteroide
@HarshColby And regarding sources, from Nat Geo, NASA, science mags it will be easy, even from wikipedia it should be easy now. REad up on it, ditch your old textbooks, the mystery IS solved and explained now, and it will enter the curriculums it still isn't in. Everybody who has been envolved from NASA to geologists palaeontolgists , are really exited now over finally having solved one of the most important riddles in those sciences: )
@HarshColby Again, they were all fried almost instantly, the big animals and the small out in the open. Since they know the chemistry and comnposition of the asteroid piece in question, they have also confirmed that this new, probably scenario does fit perfectly with that kind of asteroid and with the particular asteroid and the pieces of it. THe reason it took so long before it hit, was the very gentle pull gravity had on it every time it passed outside Earth's orbit, closer and closer.Read up!
@HarshColby Birds in covered eggs, in burrows, caves, survived, but nothing to big to get down under ground or similar. It all went very quickly, much more quickly than was believed before. 1000 degrees was what surface animals would have to "cope with", hehe- : )
@HarshColby THe only dinosaurs that werent birds that survived, would be ones that happened to find a cave or something and stay there ubitil they could emerge again, but the numbers of such dinos were too low too maintain a species. That why only birds, small mammals, fish, repyiles, amfibians survived in large enough numbers to evolde on. Birds are the only dinos today:)
so if i bring a bunch of lipids + dna , make a cell, then i can create life?
almansoori999 1 day ago
@almansoori999 You personally? Probably not. Science some day. Perhaps. But you can put a few (<200) amino acids together to create self-replicating molecules, and if you wait 3.5 billion years for that to evolve, then all evidence points to the conclusion that life could evolve from that.
HarshColby 1 day ago
Hypothesis - A supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation. Show me the Money~
dreigel411Vin 2 weeks ago
@dreigel411Vin It's better than throwing up our arms and screaming "GAWD DID IT!", kiddie. :)
At least we're being humble, admitting we don't know everything, and then proceed to actually try and figure it out. You're the exact opposite, just like every other creationist.
Provide an acceptable piece of evidence for the existence of God and own up to your own Burden of Proof, or GTFO.
TheCircusReject 2 weeks ago
@TheCircusReject Throwing up our arms??? lol....Science every day proves the Bibile more and more. It has stated for thousands of years God made the universe out of nothing.....then ...wow..Hey I think the universe came from nothing...Blind your are totally Blind! Goodbye
dreigel411Vin 2 weeks ago
You're an idiot.
BreakingBenjaminAWSM 1 week ago
@BreakingBenjaminAWSM..... and you're a lemming
dreigel411Vin 1 week ago
Comment removed
BreakingBenjaminAWSM 1 week ago
@BreakingBenjaminAWSM But of course, scientifically speaking, you throw out all presumptuous notions and only analyze the known facts correct?
Fact: something that actually exists; reality; truth
You must first remove all presumptions when analyzing data, if you don’t. it is merely an opinion.
dreigel411Vin 1 week ago
@dreigel411Vin Yes and I do. When I analyse data I use a non-bias opinion and check up on the credibility of the sources.
BreakingBenjaminAWSM 1 week ago
@BreakingBenjaminAWSM So you are objective when the findings of Piltdown man, Nebraska man, Orce man and even Lucy was proven false and in Piltdown man cause fraudulent. You’re familiar with the the Yale DNA hybridization scandal correct? You have heard of the Archaeoraptor?
This is Science?
dreigel411Vin 1 week ago
@dreigel411Vin What are you talking about? Even if half of what you said is true. That does not generalise into the entire scientific community. That is just ignorance in itself.
BreakingBenjaminAWSM 1 week ago
@BreakingBenjaminAWSM If you would, as I said, put away your assumptions and do some fact checking you might be a little less inclined to call someone an idiot.
So is it just as ignorant to generalize the entire creationist community by a few that say “GAWD dun it, and you’re going to Hell?”
If you think it isn’t then you sir are the idiot and a lemming.
Have a great day!:)
dreigel411Vin 1 week ago
@dreigel411Vin When did I ever stated that I generalise the creationist community? It was just my opinion that you were an idiot for you showed no evidence and made irrational claims. I don't think you can be making those statements without being atleast a bit hypocritical. Also I've never seen any evidence of Lucy being a hoax. The other statements you made are old news and have been long put-aside. Please offer some evidence before making these claims. Anyway I'm off.
BreakingBenjaminAWSM 1 week ago
@BreakingBenjaminAWSM BreakingBenjamin...great band btw..:)
dreigel411Vin 1 week ago
@dreigel411Vin Well atleast there's something we agree on.
BreakingBenjaminAWSM 1 week ago
@BreakingBenjaminAWSM yep, man not trying to insult or be argumentative but as soon as someone says “I believe in God" they are labeled an idiot. Just start thinking for yourself man.
dreigel411Vin 1 week ago
@dreigel411Vin I don't think that at all. I am absolutely fine with people believing in a god/s. I used to believe at one point myself and have plenty of friends who also believe in a god. The thing I find silly are all the religious stories which don't add up to years upon years of scientific observation and testing. When you claim those to be true without sufficient evidence is when I get picky.
BreakingBenjaminAWSM 1 week ago
@BreakingBenjaminAWSM So if I said that love does not exist because there is no scientific evidence, how would you respond? I have 3 children, all I have to do is look at them and know love exist. But I can’t prove it..take care man.
dreigel411Vin 1 week ago
@dreigel411Vin That's different, Love is a chemical reaction which occurs in the brain. it has been tested and observed.
BreakingBenjaminAWSM 1 week ago
@BreakingBenjaminAWSM But what causes the chemical reaction, it is a bi-product of love, you don't have a chemical reaction first...lol
dreigel411Vin 1 week ago
@dreigel411Vin If you have no dopamine in your brain you cannot experience happiness or love. Dopamine is a chemical which emits pleasure in lay-mans terms. I am not-well informed enough at this section of biology to go into depth but I hope to become more informed in my second year of college.
BreakingBenjaminAWSM 1 week ago
@dreigel411Vin And I'm afraid you have to have the chemical reaction to experience love. So yes technically the reaction does come first.
BreakingBenjaminAWSM 1 week ago
@BreakingBenjaminAWSM Wow you really are confused...good luck
dreigel411Vin 1 week ago
@dreigel411Vin Why do you say that?
BreakingBenjaminAWSM 1 week ago
@BreakingBenjaminAWSM Scientifically we have theories that people accept has fact correct. Ie…evolution, relativity..etc..so theoretically speaking if I could reproduce the chemical reaction that produces love while looking at a 300 pound hairy fat man I would fall in love…good luck at school! Im out!
dreigel411Vin 1 week ago
@dreigel411Vin Ok first of all you have to understand what a scientific theory is and what a scientific fact is. Gravity is a fact and the principle explaining it is the theory. The same rules apply to Evolution and Relativity and so far they have not been proved wrong yet.
BreakingBenjaminAWSM 1 week ago
@BreakingBenjaminAWSM ok you are getting way of base here
dreigel411Vin 1 week ago
@dreigel411Vin That’s pot calling the kettle black isn’t?...lol. excuse me while I go have a chemical reaction before I look at this donut I’m about to eat.
dreigel411Vin 1 week ago
@dreigel411Vin If that was supposed to be mockery it was a very poor attempt. In which case I would suggest you head back to school.
BreakingBenjaminAWSM 1 week ago
@BreakingBenjaminAWSM NO!!! went to school for over 17 years of my life...done with that...
dreigel411Vin 1 week ago
@dreigel411Vin Fair enough. None the less I would suggest being a bit more open-minded. Believe what you want to believe but remember that doesn't necessarily make you right. Gather evidence before making your conclusion on matters. Anyway I'm off. Might chat tomorrow.
BreakingBenjaminAWSM 1 week ago
@BreakingBenjaminAWSM... not too sure....but I think that's what I was tryin to say to you..:). And when you're in class, ask a lot of questions, like is this fact or an assumption? What from? Where from? Was this the same a million years ago? how do we know this remember the definition of fact.
dreigel411Vin 1 week ago
@BreakingBenjaminAWSM I promise I did not search this out. I listen to this guy a couple of times a week. Listen if you dare - and be objective and not angry.
w w w (dot) truthforlife./broadcasts/2012/01/18/responding-to-persecution-part-one-/
after truthforlife add org to the url....can't post a link on here.
dreigel411Vin 1 week ago
@dreigel411Vin You seem to be mocking matters you don't understand.
BreakingBenjaminAWSM 1 week ago
@dreigel411Vin Anyway I'm not going to feed your argumentative behavior. It seems you are just looking for a debate and have jumped straight to the conclusion that I'm here to debate Evolution with you. You'll have to find someone a bit more well-informed than I. For I do not want to misrepresent anything and confuse you further.
BreakingBenjaminAWSM 1 week ago
@BreakingBenjaminAWSM lol....i'm not the confused one.
dreigel411Vin 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dreigel411Vin No I just prefer to analyse evidence rather than accept things unquestioningly.
BreakingBenjaminAWSM 1 week ago
@TheCircusReject ....ok ok you got me....."universe dun it"..now that we got that cleared up. You are nothing, you came from nothing, you mean nothing, you will end up as nothing. Sounds like you are the one that will GTFO..have fun.
dreigel411Vin 1 week ago
How did it become a double strand and Why?
dreigel411Vin 2 weeks ago
How did RNA replicate? and Why?
dreigel411Vin 2 weeks ago
Produce results, or everything you are saying is rubbish and all of the data that has been compiled is useless.
dreigel411Vin 2 weeks ago
It takes a great deal of faith for one to believe they know how life actually began, no matter what they believe. No one is absolutely sure.
iwontreadyourreply 3 weeks ago
@iwontreadyourreply Isn't it interesting, then, that science doesn't claim to know anything for absolutely sure, yet theists claim to know everything for absolutely sure.
HarshColby 3 weeks ago
IGNORANCE! How can you think for a second that this is 'plausible' explanation of how life was created? Why do people always think of the most silly and unimaginable things when the truth is never more than a few meters away.... YES THE BIBLE. Even the scientific Occam Razor would suggest that divine creation is much simpler and probable explanation than your fancy bullocks...... By the way this is purely sarcastic and i regret for not trollin all the way :P
PEACE
TheDorkling 3 weeks ago
People like potholer54 give me hope for humanity.
BreakingBenjaminAWSM 3 weeks ago
SCIENCE RULES!!!!
Thinkdeep420 3 weeks ago
Could someone direct me to evidence of Early Earth Conditions? I am trying to write a paper, and I am scraping the buckets bottom for this info...I need solid proof, not fluffy speculation.
TheSleepChamber 1 month ago
@TheSleepChamber It depends on how detailed you want the information
You can start with ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1664683/
This paper is good for your purpose because it specifies how well the various topics are understood, from just a little, to a lot. Check out the numerous links for more details on particular topics. All of what's known is based on our knowledge of planet formation, so it's all "solid proof", but some parts of the early environment are more well understood than others.
HarshColby 1 month ago
what joke. He applied evolution to molecules? Talk about evolution did it. No scientist does that
semitope 1 month ago
@semitope Replication and selection are the two criteria for evolution. Which is missing from self-replicating molecules?
HarshColby 1 month ago
@HarshColby Don't worry about his guy. He has no idea what he is talking about.
BreakingBenjaminAWSM 1 month ago
@BreakingBenjaminAWSM Yes, of course. Is it ever any other way? Notice he didn't answer my question, but proceeded to make more unfounded assertions. You'd think these people would understand how much education they'd need to even comprehend the answers they are given. But, alas, that's rarely the case. "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence..."
HarshColby 1 month ago
@HarshColby and how do you get self replicating molecules? Do you really believe that these molecules could just go ahead and self replicate till they get to a human in even 1 trillion years? See, if you bothered to pay attention to what people were saying about evolution, you would not be talking about self replicating molecules and would know the odds are impossible in any reasonable time frame. Of course you are free to believe in such miracles =/
semitope 1 month ago
@semitope Do you have the education and experience to seriously question trained biologists? I don't care much what "people" say about evolution. I care what trained biologists say about evolution. Yes, I've listened.
How did you calculate these odds you're speaking about? Odds calculation requires a numerator (the number of successful cases) divided by the number of total cases. What calculation are you using. (Because, of course, you can't just make up numbers and claim they're accurate.)
HarshColby 1 month ago
@HarshColby I have a brain I am capable of using to assess what I am being told on both sides. You guys keep talking about qualifications. Yes I have a science background, but that does not all of a sudden give me the right to think for myself. I will always have that. Anyway, I am not making this up myself. I simply follow more knowledgeable people on the issue. rsternberg . net for one. I am sure you are aware of the major ID proponets, the guys who wrote "what Darwin got wrong" etc etc.
semitope 1 month ago
@semitope Brains, IQ, and education are not the same thing. I didn't imply you're not smart enough to figure it out. But it's clear you have no education on this subject or you wouldn't be saying the sorts of things you're saying. And given that evolution has apparently been explained to you, and you're still making these sorts of comments, strongly implies that you're not actually interested in understanding why all biologists accept evolution.
HarshColby 1 month ago
@HarshColby listen to yourself for a minute and get your head out your ass. "You don't agree so you must not know" Come on and do better than that. There are complex reasons why it appears that most (not all) biologists accept evolution, not least of which the fact that they would not have a job if they didn't appear to, in many cases. You also cannot dismiss the numerous scientists who object to the theory openly from all fields of science. Atheists and theists alike.
semitope 1 month ago
@HarshColby SO far all you have given me is "you don't understand it" and "a lot of scientists agree with it". That the majority of people accept the current paradigm is not strange and is expected. Even when they cannot support the theory with evidence they still say it happened. It takes some many years to even begin to look at the evidence and reject the theory. The philosophy that many adhere to also makes the theory compelling to them.
semitope 1 month ago
@semitope You're making bullshit claim by no researchers and who's got their head up their ass? Do you want to have a conversation about science or are you just going to start throwing mud and hope that makes your case for you?
All knowledgeable researchers accept the evidence for evolution. It's the people without a clue that question it. Why is that?
Please answer my questions about where you get your beliefs, and stop making unsupported claim after unsupported claim. Your opinion is noted.
HarshColby 1 month ago
@HarshColby lol. I was going to ask if you would even accept the sources, and you showed u wouldn't.
Sternberg is not published? double PhD? LOL. Curriculum vitae of Dr. R. Sternberg bit . ly/uhVJYX
some sources
Why the situation is what it is : bit . ly/sT44AL
self replicating molecules etc bit . ly/sIz7hl
bit . ly/tkgq5O bit . ly/tIiWR5 bit . ly/uT6AKB
you exposed yourself with your comment about sternberg
semitope 1 month ago
@HarshColby your argument is still that they have no clue because they don't agree with you.
semitope 1 month ago
@semitope No. My argument is that you've made very incorrect claims.
I looked at your references. Not a single paper published in a peer reviewed journal. Only one was even a scientific paper at all, and it was written by Meyer, not Sternberg. If you're going to claim scientific papers, please present scientific papers, not opinion pieces. Is there any science supporting your claim that early evolution is unlikely? Where is the scientific paper you're using to support this claim?
HarshColby 1 month ago
@HarshColby exactly. You do not want science unless it agrees with you. They aren't scientists unless they agree with you no matter their sources or the information. Meyer, sternberg, johnson etc are scientists and their work i showed you. There are books you can go read from other scientists. You know the information is out there, you just don't want it. Those pictures from Johnson's book should also give you an idea of the situation and why some scientists won't speak out.
semitope 1 month ago
@HarshColby I didn't expect you would accept anything not from a typical darwinist or information counter to what you want to believe. Its expected
semitope 1 month ago
@semitope So, I should just take your word for things? You don't need to justify or support your opinions? Why should I reject all scientific research and believe your made up claims?
Why would you call your made up crap "science" in the first place? If you call non-researched, non-reviewed, non-supported baseless assertions "science", then you must be using a new definition I'm not aware of.
Yes, I care a lot about verifiable science. I don't care for your fantasies however.
HarshColby 1 month ago
@HarshColby I didn't not ask you to do that. I am trying to get you to NOT do that for anyone. Go read up what evolutionists and those who do not agree are actually saying rather than what you heard. None of what this guy says is actually valid beyond hypothesis with no evidence and impossible scientifically. Go find your own info and think for yourself
semitope 1 month ago
@semitope There isn't anyone showing any credible challenge against evolution. Find a credible source and I'll read it. I have no need to read opinion pieces and non-scientific musings on the subject. In order to think for yourself, you'd have to learn about evolution first. Do so, then we can talk about it. But since you've come to your conclusions without any significant understanding of the subject, you're not thinking for yourself at all. You're just rejecting without understanding.
HarshColby 1 month ago
@HarshColby Neo-Darwinism Vs. Whale Evolution - Part 2 - Richard Sternberg - Video bit . ly/t3D6ND
some more on why its impossible
semitope 1 month ago
@semitope So you've dropped your claim that credible biologists support you?
Richard Sternberg is not a credible biologist. He hasn't published a single paper in any science journal. All credible biologists disagree with his biased opinion. Why do you pick the one (or very very few) people that agree with your pre-conceived notions, while compleltely ignoring 1000's of credible biologists that base their opinions on actual research?
It's not "impossible" just because some bozo says so.
HarshColby 1 month ago
@HarshColby i really don't get you guys at all. Are you just not thinking? Have you ever taking a philosophy class? I haven't but its quite obvious some of you need to do some classes on how to think and how to look at the things you say. He has 2 PhDs and has published over 30 times in journals, has written books and a million other things. His arguments are completely valid and have yet to be adequately dealt with, BUT he must not be credible since he disagrees with you. COME ON.
semitope 1 month ago
@semitope Making stuff up and not being able to support claims with demonstrable facts is not "thinking". That's "imagination". Demonstrating that your claims are true, IS thinking. Perhaps you need a class in critical thinking? (No need to start personal insults because we can both play that game if you want, but it detracts from the conversation)
His PhD doesn't mean shit if he can't support his claims. Sternberg has not supported his claims, except with opinion. Even PhD-holders can be crazy.
HarshColby 1 month ago
@HarshColby He supports his claims quite well. The problem is that you don't have a clue about this issue but blindly believe everything you are told about evolution and have been brainwashed to consider anyone against it less than credible.
semitope 1 month ago
@semitope If he supports them so well, why is it that all biologists say he doesn't support them at all? Why are the only ones agreeing with him religious fanatics?
I use research by many people to guide what I will believe. When all the research says evolution is a fact, then evolution is a fact. Feel free to refute the research and show where each and every one of the 305314 peer reviewed papers is wrong.
What do you use to reliably separate fact from fiction? What if Sternberg is just lying?
HarshColby 1 month ago
@HarshColby because you think the only ones agreeing with him are religious fanatics and that all biologists don't agree with him.
you think wrong, but feel free to live in your dream world
semitope 1 month ago
@HarshColby Sternberg.. lying? based on the responses I have seen to what are the objections to evolution, not likely. Evolutionists have nothing
semitope 1 month ago
@semitope My question was "What if he's lying?" What proven-reliable method would you use to know if he is?
You also claim "evolutionists" (why use a made up word?) have nothing. Well, what proven-reliable method are you using to make this claim? I see 305314 peer reviewed papers based on observation of the facts. That's quite a bit more than "nothing". Otoh, Sternberg does not have ANY papers supporting his opinion. In fact, many of the papers show he's wrong. Why believe him in this case?
HarshColby 1 month ago
@HarshColby its easy to tell if someone is "lying" by the responses others who are aware of the topic provide. It is also easy to know if someone is lying by actually reading what they say. btw I do not accuse the majority of people who buy evolution of lying. There are a few people like PZ myers who misrepresents things then says he was simplifying it, but most simply accept the little actual evidence provided and some like you follow them even in the face of falsification.
semitope 1 month ago
@HarshColby show me a paper that shows he is wrong. since there are many
semitope 1 month ago
@semitope You already read PZ's comments, so you know research-based comments already. And you've already said you're going to ignore PZ's comments.
You can't tell if people are lying just by reading what they say. If you're not an expert in that field, then you can't tell. I asked for a reliable method.
A little evidence is better than no evidence at all. It's much better than believing despite the evidence.
Name your favorite Sternberg claim, and I'll find a refutation based on the research.
HarshColby 1 month ago
@HarshColby I do not follow sternberg. Why would i have his claims? I have seen what each side has to say, me linking to him is just to give a source for the information. I could go and find all the research papers that guys like him refer to for their comments but who here would understand them? I asked you for the research showing him wrong, where is it?
semitope 1 month ago
@HarshColby you'd do well to consider if guys like PZ myers would still be supporting their position even if they knew the evidence was not on their side. I think they would. Many have already admitted to accepting evolution not because of the evidence but in spite of it. I think he would continue defending the position because he thinks it simply had to be that way. It's not only a religious worldview that affects what you do, atheists can be zealots
semitope 1 month ago
@semitope If you're just going to make up shit, then there's really no point in talking. It's just way too easy for you to load up post after post with so much unsupported and demonstrably incorrect bullshit, that I don't have the time or inclination to bother trying to correct your absurd views of reality.
Sternberg is a quack, and you can't tell the difference because you don't have a clue about biology. You just accept bullshit because people tell you to.
There's an alternative: learn.
HarshColby 1 month ago
@semitope pick one thing and demonstrate that it is incorrect. Go ahead. All you have done is bash a double phd and other scientist simply because they disagree with you. As if disagreement is not part of and healthy for science. How do wrong theories such as evolution hope to be changed with attitudes that are counter to science?
semitope 1 month ago
@semitope You can't disprove something that has no evidence to begin with...
BreakingBenjaminAWSM 1 month ago
@HarshColby 305314 papers showing what?
semitope 1 month ago
@semitope Showing evolution is true. It's been observed. Sternberg ignores the research and preaches his bs to an audience that can't tell he's stating mere opinion. If he had any research backing up his claims, he'd publish it. He can't, of course, because science requires evidence. Religious opinion can't show any evidence.
Sternberg is lying and you can't tell, so it does seem to work quite well for him. PZ doesn't misrepresent Sternberg. PZ has the research to back up his statements.
HarshColby 1 month ago
@HarshColby evolution has been observed yet when you get down to the details, evolutionists will tell you that because of the time, its impossible to observe in our lifetime. Sometimes you say its fact and observed, other times, when scientifically challenged, you fall back on it cannot be observed. Which is it? You are saying all this being a layman, but scientists are quite aware of how weak the position is and use less certain terms than you. Those papers do not show what you say at all
semitope 1 month ago
@semitope Evolution has been observed. I never said otherwise. Do you need examples?
Where you're confusing religious propaganda with facts is when you think there's a stopping point where no further changes can happen to DNA. Why do you think this? Name the mechanism that stops evolution, and name the place where it stops
I don't respond to long lists of bs. It would take pages of posts to correct all your mistakes, so make your point short
Sternberg is either ignorant or lying. Take your pick.
HarshColby 1 month ago
@HarshColby "Sternberg is lying and you can't tell, so it does seem to work quite well for him." ? says who? your subjective uninformed, brainwashed opinion? PZ Myers lies deliberately. He lies and says he was just simplifying it. Brainwashing his audience with simplified lies. The research and logic do not back up myers claims. You call on guy a liar because you don't agree and another that is confirmed lying is trustworthy to you?
semitope 1 month ago
@HarshColby There are many more btw. It's hard for scientists to come out and say something in this atmostphere. apparently many other scientists are as hardheaded as you and don't try to understand why they do certain things. You can go look up the scientists who question the theory. If you keep at it I will have to go find more of them.
definitions
"credible biologist" - agrees with u
"not credible biologist" - doesn't agree with you.
and you think this is an intelligent position. smh
semitope 1 month ago
@semitope We're using different definitions of "credible".
Credible biologist: One that has published peer-reviewed papers. (This means one that cannot get by with making stuff up, must support his views with demonstrable facts, not opinion.)
Not credible biologist: One that doesn't have his idea well enough grounded to get into peer reviewed science journals.
My opinion is irrelevant. Your opinion is irrelevant. The only thing that counts is the claims can be shown to be true.
HarshColby 1 month ago
@HarshColby Those are the sources I use to provide support for what I have come to believe from my own assessment of the theory. Evolution is only valid if you must believe it, i.e. you are an atheist or some form of materialist. Otherwise, the evidence is simply not there and the whole thing is quite silly. Sternberg did probabilities on it I think, there are other mathematicians as well.
semitope 1 month ago
@semitope Link a scientific source to your claim that early evolution is as unlikely as you say. What numbers were used? Where did those numbers come from? This is how science is done. Simply asserting that something is unlikely is not using much brain power, nor is it science. Why is it, for example, that you are unable or unwilling to answer my questions? If you have done the research, then the answers should be known to you, and you should be able to explain your claims in scientific terms.
HarshColby 1 month ago
@semitope Sternberg is not a published scientist. Why would you accept his opinion based on no research, while rejecting scientists' opinion based on 100's of thousands of research papers? Sure, there are always a few nuts that make bogus claims. Some of them are even scientists, but why reject modern research when you have no educational basis for determining who's numbers are correct. When in doubt, shouldn't you provisionally accept the scientific consensus rather than fringe claims?
HarshColby 1 month ago
so did this evolutional theory deduce ..which came first..the chicken or the egg?
jeffsemore 1 month ago
@jeffsemore Non-chickens with non-chicken-eggs evolved over millions of years, becoming more and more chicken-like and chicken-egg-like with each generation until they were so close to what we'd now call a chicken and a chicken egg that we call them chickens and chicken eggs. Neither came first.
HarshColby 1 month ago
what is this hypothesis/theory called?
idiotmanproductions 1 month ago
@idiotmanproductions abiogenesis.
HarshColby 1 month ago
@HarshColby thanks
idiotmanproductions 1 month ago
But nighty night from me now, it's late here!
winterstellar 1 month ago
And indeed they must be very common! Even meteorites are full of amino acids(and water, by the way), so one would almost think it weird if complex, self,self replicating molecules didn't arise following hundreds of millions of years of Earth being bombarded with that stuff in all sorts of locations!
winterstellar 2 months ago
@winterstellar But their experiments were under the topic of Abiogenesis. My question is how can inorganic matters like soil and water evolve into an amoeba or protozoa?
kratos3443 2 months ago
@kratos3443 Water is organic, most of the soil is probably organic too. Look up the difference between organic and inorganic/synthetic chemistry in wiki. The distinction is simply whether molecules consist of oxygen, hydrogen and/or carbon, which make them organic or not.. In chemistry it does not mean "living/non-living or anything: ) And the answer to your question is:Through hundreds of millions of years of "trial and error". You know why I put trial and error in brackets, it was all random.
winterstellar 2 months ago
@winterstellar I-e no "God" or supernatural anything was "trying anything or "guiding" anything, it was just chemistry, conditions that happened to be beneficial at places, millions of places over hundreds of millions of years, that eventually led to self replicating molecules, bubbles/membranes ever more complex chemistry until we had single-cellular successful life, it happened maybe many places, maybe one, but anyway some single-celled life is our earliest ancestor, our great-great-great-gran
winterstellar 2 months ago
@winterstellar "self replicating molecules, bubbles/membranes ever more complex chemistry until we had single-cellular successful life, it happened MAYBE many places,MAYBE one, but anyway some single-celled life is our earliest ancestor, our great-great-great-gran"
It is clear that you are also resorting in guesses and intuition. How would a single cell become mollusk, then fish, then human? That was only a hypothesis, what was your main "evidence" to conclude that it is a "fact?"
kratos3443 2 months ago
@kratos3443 That's not how evolution happened. It didn't make sudden jumps from cell to an entire mollusk. Didn't this video just show you how single cells evolved into multicellular organisms?
BreakingBenjaminAWSM 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
« guesses and intuition »
It is reasonable to think that life must have had a beginning - since we have good evidence that at one time it did not exist.
It is also reasonable to think that that origin must have been chemical in nature - since life is chemical in nature, and since there are no good alternative hypotheses that are testable.
So unless you can provide some alternative, I suggest this is the way to proceed for now.
XGralgrathor 2 months ago
@kratos3443 THrough mutations, through slow evolution over tens, hundreds of thousand of years, millions, tens of millions, hundreds of millions of years and so on. Evolution has been going on for 4 billion years on Earth and if you don't want "guesswork", look up a biology, pallaeonthology, zoology, chemistry, physics-book or scientific paper. See why everybody in science treat evolution as fact and even use evolution in practice,observe evolution,make correct predictions,get the same results--
winterstellar 2 months ago
@winterstellar -- #2--independently of eachother, how the millions of fossils all tell the same story, along with archaeology, geology, physics and other related sciences..how scientists now manage to make synthetic, functioning, multiplying new life-forms in labs(One of the dozens of teams working on making life, on copying the abiogenesis we know must have happened, on hundreds of related subjects, is J Craig Venter's team, they made the first man-made life-form. Guess they're "gods"now, eh?:)
winterstellar 2 months ago
@winterstellar Not even a single fly was able to create by the scientists.
"J Craig Venter's team, they made the first man-made life-form. Guess they're "gods"now, eh?:)"
No they did not. Instead, they copied an existing genome from the simple bacterium Mycoplasma mycoides. Still, not a man-made life.
Instead of spending millions of dollars for research, just feed hungry people in the world and don't blame God for it which is also the factor why athiesm was practiced.
kratos3443 1 month ago
@winterstellar Neither of those books you have mentioned will deny the existence of God.
If you were a spiritual-oriented and you read those books, you will just amaze how God manipulated matters to create life. And the likeness of the species is still not convincing for me bec. a Designer has patterns of his designs.
Scinece books do fail, but bible will never do. As time goes by, many scientific principles were proved wrong but prophecies in the bible always happen, that was the signature
kratos3443 1 month ago
@kratos3443 The people who wrote the bible said that the Earth was flat. The bible is wrong.
ThePsychoReturns 1 month ago
@ThePsychoReturns Nope. It was the english translation that said circle but in original language it means "sphere"
kratos3443 1 month ago
@kratos3443 A circle (or sphere if you insist) which you can seen in its entirety from a tall tree or mountain, I might add. What kind of sphere fits this description?
HarshColby 1 month ago
@HarshColby A pizza? Not a globe, that's for sure, hehe!
winterstellar 1 month ago
@kratos3443 Nope. The word for "sphere" was not used. The word for "disk" was.
ThePsychoReturns 1 month ago
@ThePsychoReturns I have studied semitic languages at university ages ago, and it is the word for "disk", yes. : )
winterstellar 1 month ago
@ThePsychoReturns @winterstellar
The Hebrew language lacked a specific term for sphere as well as terminology for infinite space. But i will give you another verse that proves they meant it "sphere"
Amos 9:6) “The One who builds His UPPER CHAMBERS in the heavens And has founded His VAULTED DOME over the earth, He who calls for the waters of the sea And pours them out on the face of the earth, The LORD is His name.” (NASB)
i hope that you got an idea.
kratos3443 1 month ago
@kratos3443 You can't have a dome covering a flat surface?
HarshColby 1 month ago
@kratos3443 They used the hebrew word for "ball" elsewhere in the bible. Why did they use the word for "disk" instead?
Your verse proves my point.
ThePsychoReturns 1 month ago
@ThePsychoReturns Bec. ball is not a shape anymore, it's more of an object.
The word used in hebrew which is "chug" it means circle, or sphere or shape of a ball. They lacked the specific term. Even in my native language we do not have a counter-part word for sphere. When we say "bilog" it means either flat, shape of the ball, sphere, etc.. .
kratos3443 1 month ago
@kratos3443 If they meant "sphere", why did they say that there was a dome covering the Earth?
By the way, there is no dome covering the Earth. So the bible is wrong there, too.
ThePsychoReturns 1 month ago
@kratos3443 It says "over the earth" over the land which means it encompasses all the soil in the earth. If you say "flat" then the soil below has no vaulted dome roof. But it says "over the earth."
kratos3443 1 month ago
@kratos3443 So they didn't have a word for the concept of "around" either? Why say "over the earth" if they meant "around the earth"?
HarshColby 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
water is not organic. the term organic refers to complex hydrocarbons.
XGralgrathor 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@winter "We know how reptiles became mammals and how long it took, and that it happened over hundreds of millions of years millions and millions of generations..."
Yuo don't have direct observation to say that. let me first cross examine you; A reptile is a carnivore, a mammal could be herbivore, frugivores, or omni, etc.. how the moron reptile learned to eat grass for it to change its digestive system?
kratos3443 2 months ago
@winter what can you say about the Miller-Urey experiment? they failed to prove that life could exist by their own manipulation, Pasteur have proven that organisms could not spwan in non-living. Those experiment are meant for proving evolution yet they failed, then how come these people still die hard fans of darwin.. .That's the biases iam talking about.
kratos3443 2 months ago
@kratos3443 Miller-Urey showed that amino acids, the building blocks of life were quite likely to have been common. The point wasn't to create life in a test tube. Pasteur showed that life would not spontaneously arise in that exact situation, and we would all agree it can't. That does not rule out any other experiment. To say that one experiment proves the results of all possible experiments isn't very scientific of you.
The experiments weren't biased, but your characterization of them is.
HarshColby 2 months ago
@kratos3443 These experiments were not intended to prove evolution. Evolution is already supported by scientific evidence and is accepted by real science. The point of the experiment was to to replicate the building blocks of life, which was successful. Claiming an experiment is a failure because it did not do what it was never intended to do is like saying evolution is false because it does not describe the big bang. (Irony purposeful)
coolgreyoneabby 2 months ago
This is such a legendary video. It puts all those arse and balls people that think there is a god to shame. Go suck on your fat fantasy worlds christians because you are all crack.
HanorMaan 2 months ago
@wnterstellar Don't you think that scientists were having biases? In psychology we humans are prone to have biases even in research and experiments.
So if others aredoing antithesis, which means they are still working to make sure that evolution is true it is only a temporary fact for you.
The missing link can not find anymore, because there is no such thing! then you are declaring that the theory is true? they are making haste conclusion with chains of intuition.
kratos3443 2 months ago
@kratos3443 Yeye, all the hundreds of thousands of scientists peer-reviewing various work are biased. They're all in on a secret war against "Jeebus" and "The Supernatural". HEy, I think even the reason why not a single shred of evidence for anything supernatural is ever found is that they all have to swear an evil oath in university on hidind or destroying any evidence they may find, all the millions of scientists swear that oath, hehe. (and regarding the dribble further down here:
winterstellar 2 months ago
@winterstellar Regarding the dribble: We know how reptiles became mammals and how long it took, and that it happened over hundreds of millions of years millions and millions of generations, not in some sppeeded up cartoon version like the creatards like to make moronic straw-men "arguments" about: )
winterstellar 2 months ago
@winterstellar "supernatural" Science does not explain ALL phenomenon in the world, you knew that there are things that are beyond the reach of science for study. Don't rely on it too much, spiritual could be studied through spirit more than matter.
kratos3443 2 months ago
I don't see that mutation is enough proof for evolution theory. Although i do believe that mutation is beneficial BUT it is LIMITED only for one specie, for example as humans settle life in cold places, their nosetrils became narrower but those that lived in hot places have wider. that's the limit. You can not change mammal from reptile through mutation.alteration of genes in complex will only result to failure of an organism, even a slight change such as trisomy21
kratos3443 2 months ago
@kratos3443 Read biology books, visit natural history museums, go to lectures on science or biology/evolution at universities or colleges, watch this whole series of videos and other series made by scientists here on YouTube, and I'm positive you'll learn very much that will give you a better basis on which to choose whether to go with modern science or anvcient religion.. In my opinion, since science gathers more proof every day and never find any proof going against evolution, you may rethink.
winterstellar 2 months ago
@winterstellar I already did. The building blocks of evolution is MUTATION. and i doubt that. As i believed altering of genes will cause disorders, for you to change reptile to mammals it will take too much alterations which seems impossible. The mentally retarded people were caused by abnormal alteration in genes.
Of course if you will believe it comes from a truth, the hebrew religion never contradicts science. I am sure scientists knew that sci princiles and theories were changing.
kratos3443 2 months ago
@kratos3443 Oh Mr Kratos! You don't even understand the basic concepts of evolution, yet you feel qualified to lecture on it. Silly Kratos!
BreakingBenjaminAWSM 2 months ago
@BreakingBenjaminAWSM Bec many questions is not yet answered in evolution theory. where is the missing link? If the evolution theory is a fact why every period(precambrain, palaeozoic, etc..) in earth has mass extinction? and how will the reptile accept to eat grass to evovle in a mammal?
answer, all atheists in this forum.
kratos3443 2 months ago
@kratos3443 You shouldn't be asking atheists. You should be asking biologists. Atheism is about one topic: the lack of belief in a god or gods. Evolutionary biologists study evolution. These two are not mutually exclusive, but to specifically ask atheists, rather than asking those knowledgeable in biology is asking the wrong set of people. There are theist and non-theist biologists. Both understand and accept that evolution is a fact.
HarshColby 2 months ago
@HarshColby "You shouldn't be asking atheists. You should be asking biologists. Atheism is about one topic: the lack of belief in a god or gods"
Why did I ask atheists and not specifically biologists? Because in this particular site, most were atheists, and not professional scientists (i think), and if i will ask biologist, you just said that there are still theists scientists, and being an atheist, it came from their belief from scientific principles which i assumed they confidently knew.
kratos3443 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
« from scientific principles »
Most atheists have some confidence in the scientific method and in the results it produces. Many of them have some understanding of these principles and findings, but such understanding is not *required*, anymore than you using a computer means you require an understanding of the quantum mechanics involved in CPU design. Nor does atheism even require that such confidence exists. In the end, atheism is the rejection of theistic claims - for *whatever* reason.
XGralgrathor 2 months ago
@kratos3443 Whether theist or not, acceptance of the evidence for evolution comes form understanding the evidence. Theists accept science because of their acceptance of scientific principals, just like atheists. Theism may cause some people to reject science in specific cases (where it shows religious documents to be wrong), but atheists have no reason to do so.
You shouldn't assume all atheists understand biology. Some do, and some don't, so the accuracy of the information you get will vary.
HarshColby 2 months ago
@kratos3443 There will always be a "missing link". As soon as we fill in the missing link it opens up two more missing links. And as soon as we fill in those missing links, four more missing links will show. Do you see how that works? Ok say over many years meat is becoming less and less of a commodity. Over the course the reptile will start eating other things to gain nutrition as well as meat. The reptile will adapt to it's environment through a process known as natural selection.
BreakingBenjaminAWSM 2 months ago
@BreakingBenjaminAWSM So do you accept the idea that reptiles before ate grass? Let say your prehistoric alligator, it has sharper canines, gastric juices that functions to digest bones, feathers, etc. , and shorter intestines. Those are the traits of a carnivore. I will accept that principle of adaptation in the env't for the mean time, so my next question is; would a carnivore forced to eat other food like plants? - bec. that was your idea based on your response.
kratos3443 2 months ago
@kratos3443 It is my understanding that a carnivore can become an omnivore and eventually a herbivore in the right conditions if it has to, over hundreds - thousands of generations through the process of natural selection.
BreakingBenjaminAWSM 2 months ago
@kratos3443 I would also like to point out that my previous post was related to the best of my knowledge so confirm it with a credible and trustworthy site on reptile evolution before taking my word for it. Needless to say this should be done with any knowledge you are given.
BreakingBenjaminAWSM 2 months ago
@BreakingBenjaminAWSM You could read that in almost all books concerning evolution that mammals actually came from reptiles, there are also prehistoric animals featuring the combination of a reptile and mammal.
kratos3443 2 months ago
@kratos3443 But, to answer your question, imo:
[missing link] Creationist red herring. There are no "missing links" any more than the lack of daily photographs of Bush represent a problem for his adulthood.
[extinctions] Perfectly consistent with evolution. When the environment changes, those populations that can't survive, don't, and do not pass genes on to progeny. Those that can survive, do, and pass along their genes.
[grass] They don't. It's a gradual progression as populations evolve.
HarshColby 2 months ago
@HarshColby I believe that all dinosaurs died, but how would those organisms will continue to evolve in present day birds? (that's what i mean)..
I am setting an example of the carnivore, is it possible that a carnivore will evolve in a herbivore? or if humans will eat raw flesh, would their digestive system undergo evolution? or they will not survive as well?
kratos3443 1 month ago
@kratos3443 All the dinosaurs didn't die. Only the populations that survived would evolve. With significant environmental changes (atmospheric changes caused by an asteroid impact) would have hastened the rate of evolution in those that survived, and 65M years is a very long time.
Carnivore species that can't digest plants at all would die without meat, and not pass on genes. Species that had some ability to digest plants, would survive and the most able individuals would pass on the best genes.
HarshColby 1 month ago
@HarshColby They were fried in seconds, hours. THat's what the newest and commonly accepted science shows conclusively. Only creatures underground , under enough water, in buried eggs,under things that offered protection, survuved. All the matter that back down to Earth at 5 miles/sec created a surface tempeerature of a 1000 degrees, but just a foot underground the temperature was 30 degrees celsius. Anything that couldn't cover, fried. THis is the consensus in 2010/2011, and well confirmed. : )
winterstellar 1 month ago
@winterstellar And of course it also explains why thewildfires were global, why the ash layer is global. : )
winterstellar 1 month ago
@winterstellar Worldwide fireball? Can you show a link which says this. Afaik, most agree the evidence suggests it was airborne ash and debris spread by winds, lowering the sun's radiation, and in turn reducing the vegetation making it harder for large, cold blooded animals to survive.
HarshColby 1 month ago
@HarshColby Oh yes, that will be no problem. Programs on this new knowledge have recently been on both BBC and NAT GEO, "fireball", well the energi during the "big fry" was something like 60 000 watts per square meter, so it would be like being ona "fireball" anywhere on Earth as the wildfires spread world-wide. And the heat from the thrown-up material was SO intense already before they
hit Earth that thiings like plants crumbled, dried and died even long before the fires were set off by cont
winterstellar 1 month ago
@HarshColby No, this is ancient knowledge know, wrong, geologists, physicists, palaeontologists have worked together to find the answer that fits all the world-wide evidence. Forget "Nuclear winter" or strarving to death because of lack of food, think instewant incineration of everything not being able to findor not happen to already have shelter. Every aspect has been tested and found to fit perfectly with the new knowledge. Science moves quickly, you know, huge breakthroughs are commonplace: )
winterstellar 1 month ago
@winterstellar *instant incineration* DAmn, I'm SO tired I make typos in every other sentence it seems!:)
winterstellar 1 month ago
@winterstellar In my quick research, I see that's one of the possible current explanations. There are many current ideas which are consistent with the data. I still see a lot of researches talking about greenhouse and global cooling being brought on by the asteroid or volcanic activity. I'll look some more.
HarshColby 1 month ago
@HarshColby REalize this: THe asteroid experts agree, NASA has been there with vessel confirming which asteroids we're dealing with, the lunar geologists agree. the eart geologist involved here all agree, palaeontologists agree, paleobotanists agree, this theory is the first that explains ev erything almost, gives all the answers the scientists have been scratching their heads over for deccades. Trust me, this is no wild hunch or hypothesis, everything NASA and the others have tested, checks out
winterstellar 1 month ago
@HarshColby THis is fresh yet, but it's spreading almost like the wildfires 65 million years in the scientific commun ity now, it looks like the enigma, the mystery, is no more now. Personally I believe this will be accepted to the level of being taught as just as much a fact as for instance even evolution is in highschool textbooks in informed, modern parts of the world.ly looks like "the bullseye theory, THE explananation this time! Hehe, and obviously one YouTuber is a VERY excited fan,hehe:)
winterstellar 1 month ago
@HarshColby BY the way, we even know which asteroid the pieces that made this disaster cane from. It was a collision between two asteroids 160 mn years ago. that shreddede one of them into smaller pieces(one the "culprit" here, and 40 million years before the dinos snuffed it, the MOon was hit by a small piece, still making a 3-4 mile deep and quite wide, very visible crater on the Moon. Tests have been made close to the remnants in space, on the Moon and on Earth confirming it was THE asteroide
winterstellar 1 month ago
@HarshColby And regarding sources, from Nat Geo, NASA, science mags it will be easy, even from wikipedia it should be easy now. REad up on it, ditch your old textbooks, the mystery IS solved and explained now, and it will enter the curriculums it still isn't in. Everybody who has been envolved from NASA to geologists palaeontolgists , are really exited now over finally having solved one of the most important riddles in those sciences: )
winterstellar 1 month ago
@HarshColby Again, they were all fried almost instantly, the big animals and the small out in the open. Since they know the chemistry and comnposition of the asteroid piece in question, they have also confirmed that this new, probably scenario does fit perfectly with that kind of asteroid and with the particular asteroid and the pieces of it. THe reason it took so long before it hit, was the very gentle pull gravity had on it every time it passed outside Earth's orbit, closer and closer.Read up!
winterstellar 1 month ago
@winterstellar *probably final, correct scenario* typo-demon again!: (
winterstellar 1 month ago
@HarshColby Birds in covered eggs, in burrows, caves, survived, but nothing to big to get down under ground or similar. It all went very quickly, much more quickly than was believed before. 1000 degrees was what surface animals would have to "cope with", hehe- : )
winterstellar 1 month ago
@HarshColby THe only dinosaurs that werent birds that survived, would be ones that happened to find a cave or something and stay there ubitil they could emerge again, but the numbers of such dinos were too low too maintain a species. That why only birds, small mammals, fish, repyiles, amfibians survived in large enough numbers to evolde on. Birds are the only dinos today:)
winterstellar 1 month ago