Question about evolution....

by 106 replies
127
From a strictly scientific/philosophic point of view.

I've never heard of how Darwin addresses dinosaurs.
Where do they fit in Darwins theory?
#off topic forum
  • Ummm,

    They evolved from something else? :p

    Terra
  • Since the first dinosaur bones were discovered (or at least recognized as fossilized bones) during his lifetime, there wasn't much known about them yet, so they probably didn't really have much impact on his thinking since they didn't have much to go on about the animals yet.
    • [ 3 ] Thanks
    • [1] reply
    • Banned
      This.

      Dinosaurs were about the only kind of life Darwin didn't at some point study in detail, but his theories were enormously useful toward the interpretation of the dinosaur fossils gradually discovered all over the place in the late 19th Century. He did, later in his life (after the publication of his famous works) make some comments about dinosaurs in the general context of how partial and difficult to interpret the fossil evidence was, at that time.

      This man has written a lot about this subject.

      It's still a slightly controversial subject: there are still (dwindling numbers of) people - not scientists! - who claim that humans and dinosaurs were actually alive at the same time. I think they and their friends probably hang out here.
      • [ 3 ] Thanks
      • [1] reply
  • Dinosaurs were not able to evolve quickly enough to adapt to the dramatic climate changes brought on by a meteor striking the earth 65 million years ago.

    Cockroaches were.
    • [ 1 ] Thanks
  • Do you mean "Why aren't they here today?"..or
    "Where did they evolve from?"

    The answers are easy to find.
    I should say here that every single detail of the evolutionary history of the Earth and life on it is readily available in biology books, encyclopedias, natural history courses, and the like.

    Every single "missing link" has been found, there are no real gaps. Every possible step in the evolutionary track has fossil records now. Every natural history museum is full of the fossil proof.

    Every fossil discovery supports every other discovery. The only reason it's still called a theory is that is is so universal in science, and that it can be applied to so many different subjects. Every biologist, paleontologist, geologist, and anthropologist has evolution as a strong tent pole in their studies.

    Through carbon dating, ice core samples, and fossil records, the entire chronology of Earths history has been mapped.


    There is no debate. There are just people who haven't studied how it works.

    And the information isn't being kept from us either. Every week on The Science Channel, The Discovery Channel, and The National Geographic Channel, there are plenty of documentaries about the evolutionary history of life on Earth.
    • [ 1 ] Thanks
    • [2] replies
    • Uhhhhhh.....

      Would you care to elaborate and answer the OP?
    • Oh my.....Sorry Claude but you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. we must be careful not to lie by overstatement. Only on a marketing board would you get away with such an over the top wrong statement. Its not even about denying evolution its that many many paleontologists and evolutionary biologists would take serious objection to the idea that the work they still engage in has somehow been settled. We have countless gaps in our knowledge and many "missing links. Just in the Cambrian alone we have many questions still unanswered.

      What you wrote there is really just from a TOTALLY uninformed mindset. You really do need to go beyond watching Television programs and you will get a much better perspective of where the real science is. Science continues it is not anywhere near concluded in evolutionary biology.

      What you just stated is science fiction.
    • Banned
      [DELETED]
  • Banned
    Duh..., dinosaurs came from dinosaur eggs, lmao!
    • [ 1 ] Thanks
    • [1] reply
    • DAMMIT!
      It's always the obvious one.
      "Can't see the forest for trees" kinda thing.:p
      • [1] reply
  • Claude,

    It's impossible to stereotype you.

    An atheist who can stomach Joel Olsteen. I'm a "not atheist" and I can't put up with the guy for five minutes.

    I have an even more controversial debate to have with you...

    Wooster rhymes with rooster.
    • [1] reply
    • David: I'm a marketer, and so is Joel Olsteen. The product isn't important to me, the methodology is. It's why I can listen to FOX News and MSNBC without tearing out my hair. In presidential debates, I study the structure of the argument, and the way it's presented. Some of these guys are very well coached.

      Wooster actually has a different pronunciation. I can't think of a word that rhymes with it. The "oo" is pronounced more like the "u" in "Fun".

      We have a street named Beal Avenue, that's pronounced "Bell". Weird.
      • [ 1 ] Thanks
      • [2] replies
    • Banned
      [DELETED]
  • lcombs,

    I wonder what the "theory" is about dinosaurs....

    I've studied evolution for years...... It is one of the rare places in "science" where there are so many gaps... and leaps of faith... They are downright religious....

    They claim to have "all the facts." Yet, when challenged about specific gaps.... They waffle....

    That is why it referred to as a "theory."

    My favorite story was a "missing link." It turned out to be an arthritic ape... :rolleyes:

    I'm still waiting for the evolutionists to explain the Woodpecker...

    All The Best,

    Rich Beck BCIP, MCSD, MCIS
  • I think the universe and nature are thinking entities functioning much like the human brain does. I don't know why Monty Python's Flying Circus came to mind as I was writing that.
  • Banned
    What brought you worried about dinosaurs and Darvin at Warrior Forum. Well the Darwins' theory says survival of the Fittest. His rules applied on whole biosphere in general and not dependent on the Dinisaurs in specific.
  • Mike - you over-reached in your answer to my (and other) posts. All I said is ya might not want to use thanks count as validation.

    I will agree that Claude got heated and made a comment that was truly beneath him (about nobody liking you). We all do that now and again. Sorry, Claude - I've got to give him this one.

    But all your chastising over my statement about ratio is likewise uncalled for.

    The fact is - no matter who "likes" us or doesn't - there are times that we say things that people agree with enough to thank us for making the point even if they find us generally repulsive. I'm a complete wench and people thank me when I make a valuable point.

    You see Kurt, Tim, and I go at each other? You ever seen the thanks we sometimes lay on each other? It happens. Get used to it.
  • Well........
    Judging from the responses I've read,
    I have come to the conclusion that Darwin's theory
    is flawed and therefore moot.
    Darwin did not address the Dinosaurs.
    Let alone the time between the Dinosaurs demise and the
    'beginning' of evolution as he supposes.
    • [1] reply
    • Brilliant deduction my dear Les!

      Terra
      • [1] reply
  • Claude was responding to what could easily be interpreted as a belligerent and condescending message with such words as "you don't know what you're talking about." Is he supposed to turn the other cheek or respond politely to that? Claude came across someone insulting him while punching a straw-man and basically said that he didn't want to hang-out with that dude. Is that wrong?

    (BTW I am a theist who generally prefers the company of atheists who do, after all, tend to be smart)
    • [1] reply
    • Mike was responding to what easily could be and was a condescending message of how irrational theists are based on OUTRAGEOUSLY false information which happens to be a subject that to his knowledge should not even be a discussion on this forum.

      There is no ""after all". That is an opinion in many circumstances contradicted by the facts. It can go either way based on your sampling. In mine it is the reverse. My condolences to you but it can be rectified by widening your sphere.

      P.S. and on the subject - Yes - like it or not anyone who claims the fossil record is complete with all gaps filled in most definitely does not know what he is talking about. No palaeontologist or evolutionary biologists makes such an outrageous claim. Don't believe me? - Ask one or Google it.. Its by no means a denial of evolution. Its just waaaay out of the truth. IF you imply there is information in books that people are too uninformed to read and then make whoppingly false statements about what are in them then you should expect to hear that you do not know what you are talking about (especially when you are implying some who disagree with you are uneducated). There was also not even the whiff of a strawman. Claude's message was exactly what I claimed it to be. I could take several quotes and prove it but it is not the subject of this thread.
      • [1] reply
  • GADZOOKS PEOPLE!

    There's an INCREDIBLE amount of time and energy being wasted
    playing the "he said, she said" game.

    Jeezle Pete, give it a rest!
    Wait....
    I've got a better idea.
    somebody start a Waaaaaambulance thread.
    • [ 1 ] Thanks
    • [2] replies
    • Mike,

      I'm tiring of going on a merry go round ride with you. Again, you're being worse than a sophist, you're being a casuist.

      I'll answer your question you think I am avoiding, then I'm done.

      How? Rather easily it would appear.

      Terra
      • [1] reply
    • Larry,

      Who is Pete? I must be missing some posts in my version of this thread. :p

      Oh, and don't whaaa me!

      To my fragile little ego that depends on being liked by everybody, that would be a whammy!

      Terra
  • I believe it was along the lines of 'Good Morning Mr Dinosaur, how are you today?'

    Dan
    • [ 2 ] Thanks
    • [1] reply
    • Depends on the dinosaur I think. If it was a Spinosaurus it may of been more along the lines of "Oh s**t" and "RUN".
      • [ 2 ] Thanks
      • [2] replies
  • Can't remember who said back there that ALL (or most) were men of religion? Um.....yeah they were - until it was no longer necessary to be faith based to ensure the ruler wouldn't kill you for disbelief. They were not only men of religion - they were men of the particular religion their ruler proclaimed people had to believe in. Descartes, while a philosopher and not a scienctist, wrote a thesis that completely trumped the commanded perception of god and spent just as long disclaiming how the theory was not a deviation from commanded thought as to actually give his theory.

    ............because back then when someone said "don't lose your head over [a new idea, discovery, etc.], they were speaking literally, not figuratively.

    Today some scientists hold religion and some don't. Simple as that.

    You can't use a scientists faith as a point in anything they do scientifically if they were under orders of a King not to think otherwise under threat of death.:rolleyes: We will never know what some of these guys actually knew scientifically or believed religiously because they had to juggle around their laws to stay safe.
    • [1] reply
    • As fine a piece of conspiracy nonsense as I have ever read from you Sal. Devoid of any evidence and constructed entirely out of a supposition. Just one question. What would they all have abandoned their religion for? Darwinism? in some cases centuries after they were dead?

      No you just have no grasp of history. Many of them went above and beyond in the expression of their faith that they never needed to in order to keep their heads and many of them had no fear of losing their heads at all.

      May we argue that few scientists embrace ID because it would be professional suicide? So we will never know what they would really think? and therefore "We will never know what some of these guys actually knew scientifically or believed religiously because they had to juggle around their statements to stay employed." ?

      Now if I say - "just absolute poor poor reasoning assuming a non true faith for all/most theist scientist in history" will I hear again about condescension? Alas since I fear not the claims of condescension -

      Poor poor reasoning.

      BY the way....do you guys know something about the rules of not debating religion on this forum that I don't? Is it that defending theism is what is off the table but attacking theism is? Or isn't it just a general prohibition? Seem many of you who have been around longer think its the former and since you have been longer might even be right. I don't know but no matter what you keep raising the issue of religion, theists and theism.

      and for those who think evolution is automatically atheistic - wrong - there are many that embrace both evolution and theism.
      • [1] reply
    • [DELETED]
  • Nonsense Sal when you state

    you are directly stating that they were religious until they were not in fear of their life.

    You are bashing hard but trying to claim you are not and YOU most certainly are arguing religion. This has gotten to the point of total dishonesty. Claiming you are just arguing that all their "faith" was forced but not arguing about religion is so paper thin a rolling ant would rip it to shreds.
    • [2] replies

    • You are twisting the hell out of everything I say. I didn't say they ACTUALLY believed the forced faith - they had to at least FAKE it or they'd be killed. We have no way of knowing which of these early scientists actually HELD the faith and which did not. Now stop that crap. It's getting annoying.
      • [1] reply
    • Mike,

      Just two things.

      First, there are some things you really need to learn about yourself. Believe it or not, everyone has blind spots.

      Secondly, you need to just get over yourself. Do not think more highly of yourself than you ought. Pssst! That's in the Bible.

      Face it, you are not the end all on every single topic in the world although I'm quite confidant you would like to debate that.

      And for the record, Sal did not say everyone claimed to be a theist so as not to lead to their head rolling across the floor. She said "some" did and we'll never know their true thoughts.

      Remember?

      Please try to get along with us other kids in the lounge, or leave our playground.

      Terra
  • [DELETED]
  • About to block the first person I ever blocked. Should have known you'd twist a bit of personal info, too.

    Frankly - I don't see enough signs of intelligence for you to bother ME anymore either, Mark. I rescind my apology. I really no longer give a rat's ass if I'm rude to you. I will keep what I really think at this point in check "gods" don't hit me with lightning. I will also rescind my atheism when YOU are.
Join the discussion

Next Topics on Trending Feed