Evidence for God from Science

Jbuza wrote:Hey if you want to believe in evolution based on some teeth, than go to to it, since you all know that zoologists are infallible.

What is ludicrous is saying that a zoologist can tell you what an animal looked like based on his teeth. At least the mechanic has observed the actual car the fender goes on.

I never said there was no such thing as a dinosaur, but I am clear their is a jackass as I have observed one.

A Zoologist bases their conclusions on living animals.

Jbuza wrote:

We've only been around for a few thousand years, hardly enough time to see serious changes in animals.

Which is why I say that evolution is not based on observations, and is a belief not a science.

it is based on observations, but many of the claims are merely conjecture, not fact, i'll admit that much. we observe cells changing and adapting to their environment, but we haven't been observing long enough to determine if complex organisms do the same. it would be logical to assume that this was so, based on the fact there there are, and have been, a large variety of organisms made of different cells which all share basic characteristics and are all formed from the 'blueprints' of dna.

Jbuza wrote:Mice appear to be the same regardless of environment. The mouse's DNA ensures that.

they appear the same, but they are as different as you are from me. their dna is similar, but it is not the same. two mice's dna will be a lot more similar than a mouse and a squirrel's dna, but its still slightly different. since small changes in dna occur through recombination and a few mutations every time an organisms reproduces, then over a few million years, that organism's offspring will change drastically unless there is some outside force preventing it (which we have not observed and which there is absolutely no evidence for). changes do not occur in an organisms cells (except for cancer). they only occur in germ cells. in meiosis, recombination of genes causes small trait changes and mutations in the order of the dna adds new information to the genes.

Jbuza wrote:And yet in spite of all the mutations that some say are happening all the time, we observe stability.

i simply do not see this stability that you observe. i see constant change which is happening too slow for many people to notice. tiny trait changes and reorganizations that occur in each generation so that we never notice the change. its like when your hair grows out. you don't really notice the change because it is slow and creeps up on you, but someone you havent seen in a while will notice a big difference because he is comparing two very different things.

Jbuza wrote:Oh is that so. Perhaps I should just accept theories that run contrary to the world that I observe.

or perhaps you shouldn't jump to conclusions. perhaps you should realize that any theory we come up with is not going to be completely true and that every idea we have has a fallacy. there are always more accurate ways of describing the world around us. maybe you should listen to every theory that you can, so that you can get a larger picture of the universe instead of only listening to yourself.

Jbuza wrote:How about a spider trapped in amber from “20,000,000 years ago” that is the same as one commonly found today.
http://www.atsnn.com/story/174330.html

if you were listening to what i was saying, maybe you could've figured this one out for yourself. mutations and changes occur in every new generation, but only the ones that are advantageous or help the organism survive better will be passed on. arthropods are one of gods most perfect designs through evolution because they survive so well. changes still occur, but they are so few and so unimportant because the organism does so well at surviving and reproducing without change. the organisms have developed such that their genes do not recombine as dramatically as those of other organisms and their dna is not as susceptible to mutations. those born with mutations or abnormal characteristics are more likely to die from them without reproducing. newborn offspring of arthropods have one of the highest deathrates among animals, too, so changes are much harder to pass on.

Jbuza wrote:there are many many observations like this one.
Sorry I'm too bored with the futility of showing the others, if you want to believe evolution in spite of it being contrary to what we observe, go to it. I'm done till I find something at least interesting to talk about.

i'll continue to believe evolution as i see it despite of what you observe. its ok with me if all you want to talk about is the bible, but i won't let it warp my sense of reality.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Jbuza wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Jbuza wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote: No Sir.

Hey that must be one of the few dozen verified dinos. What is the name of this one?

????I haven't a clue what you are talking about.
It's a mammal.
Look at the dentition. And if you don't see it then you need to go do more research on animal physiology.
Not a dinosaur.
Just like a car expert can tell you what car a certian fender came from, a zoologist can tell you what animal a tooth came from.

OK then what is this mammal. And are you saying that these fossils are categorized by their teeth? Yeah I'll bet those are the same zoologists that have been turning crocodiles into dinosaurs based on teeth.

No it's a mammal based on its teeth.
It's an ungulate based on it's foot.
It's a horselike animal based on it's skull.

So what are you trying to say, that you do not want to tell me the name of the creature, or that it has features in common with som eother animals? I suppose it has eyes and aliver too.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Jbuza wrote:Hey if you want to believe in evolution based on some teeth, than go to to it, since you all know that zoologists are infallible.

What is ludicrous is saying that a zoologist can tell you what an animal looked like based on his teeth. At least the mechanic has observed the actual car the fender goes on.

I never said there was no such thing as a dinosaur, but I am clear their is a jackass as I have observed one.

A Zoologist bases their conclusions on living animals.

Well I can assure you that a mechanic wouldn't know what the fender to a '57 chevy looks like if he only ever saw current cars, so I guess your analogy is poor.

Zenith wrote:

Jbuza wrote:

We've only been around for a few thousand years, hardly enough time to see serious changes in animals.

Which is why I say that evolution is not based on observations, and is a belief not a science.

it is based on observations, but many of the claims are merely conjecture, not fact, i'll admit that much. we observe cells changing and adapting to their environment, but we haven't been observing long enough to determine if complex organisms do the same. it would be logical to assume that this was so, based on the fact there there are, and have been, a large variety of organisms made of different cells which all share basic characteristics and are all formed from the 'blueprints' of dna.

Jbuza wrote:Mice appear to be the same regardless of environment. The mouse's DNA ensures that.

they appear the same, but they are as different as you are from me. their dna is similar, but it is not the same. two mice's dna will be a lot more similar than a mouse and a squirrel's dna, but its still slightly different. since small changes in dna occur through recombination and a few mutations every time an organisms reproduces, then over a few million years, that organism's offspring will change drastically unless there is some outside force preventing it (which we have not observed and which there is absolutely no evidence for). changes do not occur in an organisms cells (except for cancer). they only occur in germ cells. in meiosis, recombination of genes causes small trait changes and mutations in the order of the dna adds new information to the genes.

Jbuza wrote:And yet in spite of all the mutations that some say are happening all the time, we observe stability.

i simply do not see this stability that you observe. i see constant change which is happening too slow for many people to notice. tiny trait changes and reorganizations that occur in each generation so that we never notice the change. its like when your hair grows out. you don't really notice the change because it is slow and creeps up on you, but someone you havent seen in a while will notice a big difference because he is comparing two very different things.

Jbuza wrote:Oh is that so. Perhaps I should just accept theories that run contrary to the world that I observe.

or perhaps you shouldn't jump to conclusions. perhaps you should realize that any theory we come up with is not going to be completely true and that every idea we have has a fallacy. there are always more accurate ways of describing the world around us. maybe you should listen to every theory that you can, so that you can get a larger picture of the universe instead of only listening to yourself.

Jbuza wrote:How about a spider trapped in amber from “20,000,000 years ago” that is the same as one commonly found today.
http://www.atsnn.com/story/174330.html

if you were listening to what i was saying, maybe you could've figured this one out for yourself. mutations and changes occur in every new generation, but only the ones that are advantageous or help the organism survive better will be passed on. arthropods are one of gods most perfect designs through evolution because they survive so well. changes still occur, but they are so few and so unimportant because the organism does so well at surviving and reproducing without change. the organisms have developed such that their genes do not recombine as dramatically as those of other organisms and their dna is not as susceptible to mutations. those born with mutations or abnormal characteristics are more likely to die from them without reproducing. newborn offspring of arthropods have one of the highest deathrates among animals, too, so changes are much harder to pass on.

Jbuza wrote:there are many many observations like this one.
Sorry I'm too bored with the futility of showing the others, if you want to believe evolution in spite of it being contrary to what we observe, go to it. I'm done till I find something at least interesting to talk about.

i'll continue to believe evolution as i see it despite of what you observe. its ok with me if all you want to talk about is the bible, but i won't let it warp my sense of reality.

Great happy for you.

Jbuza wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:A Zoologist bases their conclusions on living animals.

Well I can assure you that a mechanic wouldn't know what the fender to a '57 chevy looks like if he only ever saw current cars, so I guess your analogy is poor.

I guess you have a point because cars change over time.

However I thought your contention was that animals do not change over time.
So If I found a horselike tooth on an animal, I would be incorrect in assuming it came from a horselike animal?

A tooth like everything else on an organism is different from one animal to the next. A human intestine for instance is roughly similar to but not the same as a horse's intestine.

Hey, I found a transitional form! I found one!

What is it anyway?

It's the transition of the duck into the beaver, or maybe the beaver into the duck?

Mystical wrote:Hey, I found a transitional form! I found one!

What is it anyway?

It's the transition of the duck into the beaver, or maybe the beaver into the duck?

It's a mammal.
=)
I know you're joking.

A transitional form between a duck and a beaver would look more like a reptile.

This reptile would have given rise to therapsids (mammal like reptiles) and archosaurs. The archosaurs would go onto to be dinosaurs etc...

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Jbuza wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:A Zoologist bases their conclusions on living animals.

Well I can assure you that a mechanic wouldn't know what the fender to a '57 chevy looks like if he only ever saw current cars, so I guess your analogy is poor.

I guess you have a point because cars change over time.

However I thought your contention was that animals do not change over time.
So If I found a horselike tooth on an animal, I would be incorrect in assuming it came from a horselike animal?

A tooth like everything else on an organism is different from one animal to the next. A human intestine for instance is roughly similar to but not the same as a horse's intestine.

/exec:Sarcasm.cfg
Now come on Bgood, you're stretching here aren't you? I mean forensic science hasn't been proven to be accurate at all. I mean really there is no proof. It's not like a criminal has ever been caught using forensics, or a mutilated human form has ever been rebuilt and identified by family through forensics??? Where is your proof of such unadulterated speculation?
/exit:Sarcasm.cfg

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Jbuza wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:A Zoologist bases their conclusions on living animals.

Well I can assure you that a mechanic wouldn't know what the fender to a '57 chevy looks like if he only ever saw current cars, so I guess your analogy is poor.

I guess you have a point because cars change over time.

However I thought your contention was that animals do not change over time.
So If I found a horselike tooth on an animal, I would be incorrect in assuming it came from a horselike animal?

A tooth like everything else on an organism is different from one animal to the next. A human intestine for instance is roughly similar to but not the same as a horse's intestine.

Well let me qualify that some animals change because they die out, that is they become extinct. I do realize that their are variation among breeding groups. IT would be akin to you finding a wire on the ground and claiming to know what the car looked like it came from. And there probably aren't as many variations of wire used on cars as their are variations on teeth used in animals.

This is the same group that drew dinosaurs based on teeth from a subspecies of crocodile, perhaps you skipped the link, or just dismissed the excerpt.

Sorry but I don't think they can tell the shape of a creature based on a tooth or single bone, especially when the creature doesn't exist anymore. It certianly isn't science, but an imaginative art.

Mastriani wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Jbuza wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:A Zoologist bases their conclusions on living animals.

Well I can assure you that a mechanic wouldn't know what the fender to a '57 chevy looks like if he only ever saw current cars, so I guess your analogy is poor.

I guess you have a point because cars change over time.

However I thought your contention was that animals do not change over time.
So If I found a horselike tooth on an animal, I would be incorrect in assuming it came from a horselike animal?

A tooth like everything else on an organism is different from one animal to the next. A human intestine for instance is roughly similar to but not the same as a horse's intestine.

/exec:Sarcasm.cfg
Now come on Bgood, you're stretching here aren't you? I mean forensic science hasn't been proven to be accurate at all. I mean really there is no proof. It's not like a criminal has ever been caught using forensics, or a mutilated human form has ever been rebuilt and identified by family through forensics??? Where is your proof of such unadulterated speculation?
/exit:Sarcasm.cfg

/schmuck

Yes well the person rebuilding the human has probably seen one, haven't they.

/end schmuck

Jbuza wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Jbuza wrote: Well I can assure you that a mechanic wouldn't know what the fender to a '57 chevy looks like if he only ever saw current cars, so I guess your analogy is poor.

I guess you have a point because cars change over time.
However I thought your contention was that animals do not change over time.
So If I found a horselike tooth on an animal, I would be incorrect in assuming it came from a horselike animal?
A tooth like everything else on an organism is different from one animal to the next. A human intestine for instance is roughly similar to but not the same as a horse's intestine.

Well let me qualify that some animals change because they die out, that is they become extinct. I do realize that their are variation among breeding groups.

Why is that if DNA is stable? What is causing these variations???

Jbuza wrote:IT would be akin to you finding a wire on the ground and claiming to know what the car looked like it came from. And there probably aren't as many variations of wire used on cars as their are variations on teeth used in animals.

You're correct there are more variations of teeth than there are variations of wires. Thus nullifying your analogy.

Jbuza wrote:This is the same group that drew dinosaurs based on teeth from a subspecies of crocodile, perhaps you skipped the link, or just dismissed the excerpt.

Sorry, what excerpt, and what link??

Just how did they come to the conclusion that it was a crocodile then? Also are you saying that scientists should be infallible?
Or are you saying that they should not have corrected a mistake?
How were they able to determine that it was a crocodile tooth?

Jbuza wrote:Sorry but I don't think they can tell the shape of a creature based on a tooth or single bone, especially when the creature doesn't exist anymore. It certianly isn't science, but an imaginative art.

We're not talking about a single bone here, we have a complete skeleton. You asked me what kind of dinosaur it was and I replied it was a mammal. Does this ring a bell?


They can tell it was a mammal and a horse like one at that by examining dentition etc. The animal may no longer exist but this fossil certainly does.

Jbuza wrote:

/schmuck

Yes well the person rebuilding the human has probably seen one, haven't they.

/end schmuck

Seen a human, yes. Seen the human they are rebuilding, no. Often times forensics depends on other known variables. How much weight a skeletal frame can support in relation to individual bone structures, mass and density. General depths/thickness of tissue with respect to specific anatomical areas. Type/size of teeth in relation to jawbones, jaw muscle structure.

Although it is not 100% accurate, 100% of the time, it is still highly reliable for representing visually what the best form would be from previous or like entities. In the case of the fossil image provided by Bgood, the Perissodactyla in question is likely to carry most of the same characteristics for the above mentioned variables. Recreating such for visual representation will be within an acceptable margin of error to any discerning individual.

Nice placement on the schmuck, I concur.

Bgood Wrote
Why is that if DNA is stable? What is causing these variations???

I am not proposing that offspring are clones of their parents. Neither am I arguing against the known fact that individuals have unique recombination of DNA. What I have stated is that there is stable information in the DNA that causes offspring to be the same kind as the parent. Observations show this.
-------------------------
Bgood
You're correct there are more variations of teeth than there are variations of wires. Thus nullifying your analogy.

Right sorry let me rephrase it would be more difficult to identify what a dinosaur looked like based on a tooth or a few bone fragments than it would be to identify what a car looked like based on a piece of wire.
-------------------------
Bgood
Sorry, what excerpt, and what link??

Whoops sorry it was in the flood and ark thread
Revueltosaurus skeleton unearthed at Petrified Forest upsets dinosaur tale
June 24, 2005

The animal, one ofmany creatures from the Late Triassic known only from their teeth, was thought to be an ancestor of the plant-eating ornithischian dinosaurs like Stegosaurus and Triceratops, which roamed the world millions of years later in the Jurassic and Cretaceous periods.

The fact that this presumed dinosaur, Revueltosaurus callenderi, is instead a crocodile ancestor does not merely disappoint rockhounds, who sell the abundant teeth as “dinosaur teeth,” but it also throws into question the identity of other presumed dinosaur ancestors known only from teeth, which includes all Late Triassic ornithischians outside South America.

“Because the teeth look like those we know from herbivorous ornithischians, people assigned them to the dinosaurs,” said Randall Irmis, a graduate student in the Department of Integrative Biology and the Museum of Paleontology at UC Berkeley. “We think we've shown that you can't rely on the dentition to determine what is an early dinosaur, which casts doubt on all the ornithischians from the Triassic of North America.”
//www.brightsurf.com/news/headlines/view. ... leID=20248

-------------------
Bgood
Just how did they come to the conclusion that it was a crocodile then? Also are you saying that scientists should be infallible?
Or are you saying that they should not have corrected a mistake?
How were they able to determine that it was a crocodile tooth?

I am saying that identifying dinosaurs based on a tooth or bone are even a few bone fragments certianly isn't convincing evidence.
---------------------


Are you going to tell me the name or do I ask a third time in vain?
Similar teeth does not a horse make.
----------------------

Mastriani wrote: Although it is not 100% accurate, 100% of the time, it is still highly reliable for representing visually what the best form would be from previous or like entities. In the case of the fossil image provided by Bgood, the Perissodactyla in question is likely to carry most of the same characteristics for the above mentioned variables. Recreating such for visual representation will be within an acceptable margin of error to any discerning individual.

It is a long ways from rebuilding a dinosaur based on an entire skeleton to rebuilding one based on a tooth.

Mastriani wrote: Nice placement on the schmuck, I concur

I knew you would see it as a compliment, schmuck.