Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,313

    Giant, Round Prehistoric Turtle Discovered

    "A newfound giant turtle that lived 60 million years ago in what is now northwestern South America would have been more than a mouthful for a neighboring predator, the world's largest snake Titanoboa."

    http://www.livescience.com/21544-gia...titanoboa.html
    Never trust anything you are afraid to question ~

    To know oneself is to know the universe...


    Live Fully...Love Extravagantly...For the sake of Goodness

    Be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. Matt.10:16

    Come let us reason together...Isa.1:18
    ********************************
    My new Blog site: God and Butterfly

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by Rose View Post
    "A newfound giant turtle that lived 60 million years ago in what is now northwestern South America would have been more than a mouthful for a neighboring predator, the world's largest snake Titanoboa."

    http://www.livescience.com/21544-gia...titanoboa.html
    Very cool!

    60 million years ago ...
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Rose View Post
    "A newfound giant turtle that lived 60 million years ago in what is now northwestern South America would have been more than a mouthful for a neighboring predator, the world's largest snake Titanoboa."

    http://www.livescience.com/21544-gia...titanoboa.html

    Not that much different in size to the late turtle named Georg which died win the Galappgos Islands recently. George was only 100 years old when he died, and despite all attempts to get George to mate with other turtles, no eggs produced an offspring. So if scientists could not preserve the line of ancestry for George it shows the problems Evolution has in overcoming the vast number of problems that the theory does not consider.

    Here is a linkg to a newspaper article about the turtle named George.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...s-age-100.html


    David

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Not that much different in size to the late turtle named Georg which died win the Galappgos Islands recently. George was only 100 years old when he died, and despite all attempts to get George to mate with other turtles, no eggs produced an offspring. So if scientists could not preserve the line of ancestry for George it shows the problems Evolution has in overcoming the vast number of problems that the theory does not consider.

    Here is a linkg to a newspaper article about the turtle named George.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...s-age-100.html


    David
    Hey there David,

    I don't follow your logic. How does the fact that scientists could not get George to successfully mate show any problem with Evolution?

    I get the impression you still do not understand the difference between the THEORY of Evolution and the FACT of Evolution. In science, theories are developed to explain facts. If there were no facts, there would be nothing for the theories to explain. The Theory of Evolution explains the fact of Evolution just like the Theory of Gravity explains the fact of gravity.

    It strikes me as very odd for you to throw out non-specific attacks on a modern science supported by thousands upon thousands of observations. You wouldn't do that in any other field of science like chemistry or neuroscience would you?

    All the best,

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Hey there David,

    I don't follow your logic. How does the fact that scientists could not get George to successfully mate show any problem with Evolution?

    I get the impression you still do not understand the difference between the THEORY of Evolution and the FACT of Evolution. In science, theories are developed to explain facts. If there were no facts, there would be nothing for the theories to explain. The Theory of Evolution explains the fact of Evolution just like the Theory of Gravity explains the fact of gravity.

    It strikes me as very odd for you to throw out non-specific attacks on a modern science supported by thousands upon thousands of observations. You wouldn't do that in any other field of science like chemistry or neuroscience would you?

    All the best,

    Richard
    Hello Richard

    Theories have to be proved before a theory is true. Before a theory is developed there can be lots of hypotheses. The definition of hypothesis (for the benefit of readers) is; a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts.

    Evolution cannot be proven just as Creation cannot be proven. We have many facts, but facts do not provide the complete evidence required for proof.

    Here is one dictionary definition for the word "theory"; a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

    God has said there is only one way to prove God exists, "who else can tell you a thing before it happens", but since you deny all of God's prophecies which by definition are future events, you reject the evidence, hence there is no way you can prove to yourself that God exists.

    I am open to reason, but I have not had evidence presented to me to make me believe the theory of Evolution is proven.

    I expect we are at a stalemate, so there is no need to respond to each others statements like the one I have made about George; let others respond as they see fit.

    All the best,

    David
    Last edited by David M; 08-15-2012 at 03:52 AM.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Hello Richard

    Theories have to be proved before a theory is true. Before a theory is developed there can be lots of hypotheses. The definition of hypothesis (for the benefit of readers) is; a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts.

    Evolution cannot be proven just as Creation cannot be proven. We have many facts, but facts do not provide the complete evidence required for proof.

    Here is one dictionary definition for the word "theory"; a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

    God has said there is only one way to prove God exists, "who else can tell you a thing before it happens", but since you deny all of God's prophecies which by definition are future events, you reject the evidence, hence there is no way you can prove to yourself that God exists.

    I am open to reason, but I have not had evidence presented to me to make me believe the theory of Evolution is proven.

    I expect we are at a stalemate, so there is no need to respond to each others statements like the one I have made about George; let others respond as they see fit.

    All the best,

    David
    Hey there David,

    From what you wrote, I get the impression you still don't understand the difference between theory and fact. The theory of evolution was developed to explain the fact of evolution. Your assertion that "evolution can't be proven" shows that you don't understand the difference between theory and fact ... or that you deny the fact of evolution. But for that to be true, you must deny a LOT of established science, such as the fossil evidence, the geological ages, and DNA. Is this what is going on? Do you deny that there is a fossil record that shows that organisms that lived a long time ago were different than those that lived more recently? If so, then we are indeed at at a "stalemate" because that would mean that you are rejecting reality.

    It is fascinating that you keep bringing up "prophecy" as proof of God but have never been able to show even one supernatural prophecy in the Bible.

    And your comment that unfulfilled prophecies are some kind of proof makes no sense at all. You said:
    ... since you deny all of God's prophecies which by definition are future events, you reject the evidence, hence there is no way you can prove to yourself that God exists
    All prophecies are not "future events." If that were true, they would prove NOTHING. They were only future at the time they were given and before they were fulfilled. You can't use unfulfilled prophecies to prove anything.

    You have never shown that I reject any verifiable evidence for anything. You make many false assertions about what I think and believe and then refuse to answer. I think this is because you know that I can prove you are wrong.

    And of course you never even answered my question about why George presents some sort of "problem" for evolution.

    Finally, you said:
    I am open to reason, but I have not had evidence presented to me to make me believe the theory of Evolution is proven.
    I have presented a mountain of evidence. You simply reject it because it contradicts your religious dogmas. And worse, your comment indicates yet again that you don't understand the difference between the theory of evolution and the fact of evolution that it is meant to explain. This was the WHOLE POINT of my post, yet you didn't understand it! I have never said that the "theory" of evolution was proven. I told you that the "theory" could be anything (natural selection, Intelligent Design, space aliens, "God did it", or whatever). But whatever the theory might be, the theory is intended to explain the FACT of evolution.

    So if we are at a stalemate, it is entirely one-sided. I see no stalemate at all. I have logic and facts on my side and there is not a single fact that I have "rejected" whereas you reject all facts that contradict your dogmas that you get from your private interpretation of an old book that contains many demonstrable errors.

    All the best,

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Good morning Richard

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Hey there David,

    From what you wrote, I get the impression you still don't understand the difference between theory and fact. The theory of evolution was developed to explain the fact of evolution. Your assertion that "evolution can't be proven" shows that you don't understand the difference between theory and fact ... or that you deny the fact of evolution. But for that to be true, you must deny a LOT of established science, such as the fossil evidence, the geological ages, and DNA. Is this what is going on? Do you deny that there is a fossil record that shows that organisms that lived a long time ago were different than those that lived more recently? If so, then we are indeed at at a "stalemate" because that would mean that you are rejecting reality.
    Evolution is not a fact for many people including scientists. You can say it is fact and there are bound to be those who will agree with you, but that still does not mean it is fact. There are a lot of facts, but put together do not prove evolution. I have tried to examine the age of the earth and the fossil record as Creation steprs occurring over a long period of time. I am prepared at this moment to concede the earth is old, but I remain to be convinced that the dating methods used are accurate and reliable. Scientist can always come back and claim something new which modifies former thinking so, I reserve the right to be skeptical until I am convinced.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    It is fascinating that you keep bringing up "prophecy" as proof of God but have never been able to show even one supernatural prophecy in the Bible.

    And your comment that unfulfilled prophecies are some kind of proof makes no sense at all. You said:
    ... since you deny all of God's prophecies which by definition are future events, you reject the evidence, hence there is no way you can prove to yourself that God exists
    All prophecies are not "future events." If that were true, they would prove NOTHING. They were only future at the time they were given and before they were fulfilled. You can't use unfulfilled prophecies to prove anything.
    You have never shown that I reject any verifiable evidence for anything. You make many false assertions about what I think and believe and then refuse to answer. I think this is because you know that I can prove you are wrong.
    I am not referring to prophecies that have not been fulfilled and remain future. There are many prophecies that were given thousands of years ago which have been fulfilled, but you do not accept these prophecies. The evidence put forward is rejected by you claiming it is not verifiable. Just as you remain as unconvinced about prophecy, which you say is not verifiable, I remain unconvinced about Evolution and the many things which are not verifiable.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    And of course you never even answered my question about why George presents some sort of "problem" for evolution.
    Given eons of time nothing is impossible for Evolution so from your point of view I can see why you say there is no problem for evolution. George dying off and leaving no offspring is trending towards extinction which scientists cannot reverse. Scientists, in this instance, have not been able to give Evolution a helping hand.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Finally, you said:
    I am open to reason, but I have not had evidence presented to me to make me believe the theory of Evolution is proven.
    I have presented a mountain of evidence. You simply reject it because it contradicts your religious dogmas. And worse, your comment indicates yet again that you don't understand the difference between the theory of evolution and the fact of evolution that it is meant to explain. This was the WHOLE POINT of my post, yet you didn't understand it! I have never said that the "theory" of evolution was proven. I told you that the "theory" could be anything (natural selection, Intelligent Design, space aliens, "God did it", or whatever). But whatever the theory might be, the theory is intended to explain the FACT of evolution.
    Any evidence you have put forward to support Evolution has been challenged by others on this forum and has not been accepted by them and the evidence you have presented has not convinced me. Evolution is NOT the fact that you claim it is and a swing away from Evolution to Creation is going on albeit not greatly publicized. Many scientists do not hold with Evolution, so it is not fact by any means. I have not given up on looking at Creation over a long period of time and including God as the intelligent designer to have created "steps in Creation" that Evolution cannot explain. So, if you are holding to the view that intelligent design might have been involved, then we might continue speculating along those lines attempting to unify creation and what is seen as evolution, or else this conversation is going nowhere.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    So if we are at a stalemate, it is entirely one-sided. I see no stalemate at all. I have logic and facts on my side and there is not a single fact that I have "rejected" whereas you reject all facts that contradict your dogmas that you get from your private interpretation of an old book that contains many demonstrable errors.
    I do not reject Evolution because of dogma. Evolution is not the fact you claim it is. I can say you have as much dogma as you claim I do, so as long as you keep making that assertion, I shall have to tediously remind you have your own dogma. Making statements about dogma should be dropped if you want to proceed to have a discussion.

    All the best,

    David
    Last edited by David M; 08-15-2012 at 11:50 AM.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Good morning Richard

    Evolution is not a fact for many people including scientists. You can say it is fact and there are bound to be those who will agree with you, but that still does not mean it is fact. There are a lot of facts, but put together do not prove evolution. I have tried to examine the age of the earth and the fossil record as Creation steprs occurring over a long period of time. I am prepared at this moment to concede the earth is old, but I remain to be convinced that the dating methods used are accurate and reliable. Scientist can always come back and claim something new which modifies former thinking so, I reserve the right to be skeptical until I am convinced.
    Good afternoon David,

    It looks like you still do not understand the difference between the THEORY of evolution and the FACT of evolution. The THEORY of evolution is an attempt to explain the FACT of evolution. If there were no FACT of evolution, there would be nothing to explain.

    If you deny that evolution is a fact, then you are denying a huge body of generally accepted scientific evidence relating to the FACT that organisms have EVOLVED over time. It doesn't matter what THEORY you think best explains the FACT of evolution. The problem is that you are rejecting the FACTS that have been established by modern science. It is no different than if you insisted the earth is flat. The only thing you would prove by casting doubt upon science is that you reject facts that are contrary to your dogmas.

    So what are you skeptical about? Do you deny that life has been on the earth for over a billion years? Do you deny that the fossil record shows organisms in older fossils are different than organisms in newer fossils? Do you deny that DNA gives evidence of common descent? These FACTS are called "evolution." If you do not deny these FACTS then you cannot deny the FACT of evolution.

    As for "skepticism" - I am constantly amazed that you are skeptical about science (which is supported by a lot of evidence) and not skeptical at all about the Bible (which every rational person is very skeptical about).

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    I am not referring to prophecies that have not been fulfilled and remain future. There are many prophecies that were given thousands of years ago which have been fulfilled, but you do not accept these prophecies. The evidence put forward is rejected by you claiming it is not verifiable. Just as you remain as unconvinced about prophecy, which you say is not verifiable, I remain unconvinced about Evolution and the many things which are not verifiable.
    Your assertion is false. I have never rejected any evidence for fulfilled prophecies. The real problem is that you constantly assert that there are fulfilled prophecies, but have never been able to support your assertion with any facts. And the one time you tried, it became instantly clear that you had no evidence, so you quit the conversation and have never tried again. Therefore, you have confirmed my point that there are no verifiable fulfilled prophecies and you confirm it again every time you make that assertion without giving any evidence.

    There is absolutely NO EQUIVALENCE whatsoever between my rejection of unverified assertions about "fulfilled prophecies" and your rejection of strongly verified modern science. For you to suggest such an equivalence is absurd.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    And of course you never even answered my question about why George presents some sort of "problem" for evolution.
    Given eons of time nothing is impossible for Evolution so from your point of view I can see why you say there is no problem for evolution. George dying off and leaving no offspring is trending towards extinction which scientists cannot reverse. Scientists, in this instance, have not been able to give Evolution a helping hand.
    The fact that species go extinct is not any kind of "challenge" to evolution in any way at all. Your comment makes no sense.

    You still do not understand what the word "evolution" means. We are not talking about with THEORY explains the FACT of evolution (natural select, Intelligent Design, space aliens, "God did it", whatever). We are talking about the FACT OF EVOLUTION which is the FACT that the kinds of organisms changed over time - trilobites, dinosaurs, rabbits ... why can't you understand this fact that I've explained over and over again?

    And your assertion that "nothing is impossible for Evolution" given enough time is both absurd and irrelevant. It is absurd because there probably are things that could not evolve no matter how much time is given. And it is irrelevant because evolution doesn't necessarily require any time if God did it. Again, you are confusing the THEORY of evolution with the FACT of evolution. You really need to address this point. It is a fundamental misunderstanding that is greatly confusing the conversation.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Any evidence you have put forward to support Evolution has been challenged by others on this forum and has not been accepted by them and the evidence you have presented has not convinced me.
    I have never seen any serious challenge to any evidence for evolution presented in this forum. On the contrary, essentially ALL OPPOSITION to evolution presented on this forum has come directly or indirectly from intellectually corrupt Creationist websites. You have absolutely no justification for you rejection of the unified body of modern science that includes biology, chemistry, physics, geology and evolution other than your religious dogmas. Simple as that.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Evolution is NOT the fact that you claim it is and a swing away from Evolution to Creation is going on albeit not greatly publicized. Many scientists do not hold with Evolution, so it is not fact by any means. I have not given up on looking at Creation over a long period of time and including God as the intelligent designer to have created "steps in Creation" that Evolution cannot explain. So, if you are holding to the view that intelligent design might have been involved, then we might continue speculating along those lines attempting to unify creation and what is seen as evolution, or else this conversation is going nowhere.
    Your "steps in Creation" is just a way to explain the FACTS that are normally called "evolution." If you think "God did it" then you have asserted a THEORY of evolution to explain the FACTS of evolution.

    Intelligent Design is just another THEORY to explain the same set of facts explained by the Theory of Evolution. It is merely a "Theory of Evolution" that says "God did it."

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    I do not reject Evolution because of dogma. Evolution is not the fact you claim it is. I can say you have as much dogma as you claim I do, so as long as you keep making that assertion, I shall have to tediously remind you have your own dogma. Making statements about dogma should be dropped if you want to proceed to have a discussion.
    You still do not understand the difference between THEORY and FACT in a scientific context.

    And yes, you can say anything you want. But that wouldn't make it true. I have good reasons to say that you reject evolution because it contradicts your dogmas. You have no good reason to say that about me because I have no dogmas to defend.

    All the best,

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •