Dinosaurs Evolved Into Birds!! Really??

[sMASH]

Bluefete, care to us educate us on what is really going on here? Something can't be shiite just for what it doesn't explain, otherwise all science would be crap. So I'm guessing that you have an alternative explanation. Care to share it with us?

^^you wont get one unless it was posted on the dailymail.co.uk website..

Here is my basic problem. If dinosaurs evolved into birds, did birds and dinosaurs exist at the same time?

The scientists keep telling us that one species dies out as another evolves but is that really so?

How does one explain co-existence within the evolutionary realm?

When u cooking meat in a pot, do all the pieces finish cook at the same time, or do some cook qnd some don't and u hagenuk to keep turning the pot ?


Not allllllllllllllllllLllllll dinosaurs turned into birds. Only some. And some of those continue to live

[bluefete]

But tell me what the cow, cat and dog evolved from.

The answer to all of that is very simple they all came from one single cell Organism. This is where life on the whole came from and it supported by mountains of evidence.

It all originated from what is known as Abiogenesis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Abiogenesis or biopoiesis[2] is the natural process of life arising from non-living matter such as simple organic compounds

Help me out here. Doesn't organic contain life of some sort?

So how the heck can science say that natural life arose from non-living matter? Isn't that the preserve of Genesis in the Bible?

[bluefete]

Bluefete, care to us educate us on what is really going on here? Something can't be shiite just for what it doesn't explain, otherwise all science would be crap. So I'm guessing that you have an alternative explanation. Care to share it with us?

^^you wont get one unless it was posted on the dailymail.co.uk website..

Here is my basic problem. If dinosaurs evolved into birds, did birds and dinosaurs exist at the same time?

The scientists keep telling us that one species dies out as another evolves but is that really so?

How does one explain co-existence within the evolutionary realm?

When u cooking meat in a pot, do all the pieces finish cook at the same time, or do some cook qnd some don't and u hagenuk to keep turning the pot ?


Not allllllllllllllllllLllllll dinosaurs turned into birds. Only some. And some of those continue to live

So evolution is highly selective? That explains how humans evolved into a higher form than other creatures?

[kjaglal76v2]

if we're a product of evolution, are we still evolving?

[bluefete]

LOL


I don't know what the hymnal has over that Church of St. Dawkins but science is yet to prove something coming from nothing. Prior to evolution the leading secular explanation for nature was Spontaneous Generation. This was proven false but it seems that all we have just done is push it back prior. The Big Bang doesn't explain something from nothing, its starts off with preexisting something that explodes into an organised everything.

In one unicellular organism there is more complexity than New York City. There is no evidence of inorganic chemicals becoming an organic animate cell.

Science tells us that every body in motion must have a source that set in motion. Every reaction must of a cause. Therefore the search for this unmoved mover, uncaused cause will produce an infinite regress unless it terminates with an eternal, immaterial being. The argument of who that being is carries us into theology thus science chooses to be secular.

Why is it when you question evolution the white knights of science make the discussion religious and not admit at least that the theory may be lacking in that particular area in question?

Buefete, please do not comment if you did not do the necessary reading up. Everything you said here is wrong. Read "A Universe From Nothing" by Lawrence Krauss. He shows proof of the big bang and how matter can be "created" while still obeying the laws of thermodynamics (i.e. the net energy is a system cannot change to put it very simply). It is way to long to explain here. He summarised it and it ended taking an entire book to explain.

As for previous theories of science being proven false... D'oh. That's what science is. As it is right now, science welcomes others to prove theories false. In fact, some people win Nobel prizes for proving theories false. As far as lacking in certain areas, science is well aware of where it's knowledge is lacking (yes including in the topic of evolution) and constantly tries to find out more to fill in those gaps in knowledge. Again, that is how science works. That is what science is. That is the mindset you have to get into before you start science in school.

TL:DR Please read before you comment.

Matter can be created from what - Nothing? Or preexisting matter? Is it that matter has always existed?

If we are strictly scientific, the very existence of the big bang requires some form of matter for that explosion. Unless you are God.

[bluefete]

if we're a product of evolution, are we still evolving?

So they say. Here is what we are supposed to look like 100,000 years from now:



http://respiratorytherapycave.blogspot. ... years.html

Saturday, February 8, 2014

What will humans look like 100,000 years from now?



This represents the human transformation scientists envision will occur
over the next 100,000 years.

Parmy Olson, writing for Forbe's, wrote an article back in June reporting one designer's depiction of what humans might look 100,000 years from now. Whether or not you believe in evolution this is quite interesting.

She said there was a time in the past where human evolution was put into hyper drive, and a similar such event may occur in the near future. She wrote:

We've come along way looks-wise from our homo sapien ancestors.

Between 800,000 and 200,000 years ago, for instance, rapid changes in Earth climate coincided with a tripling in the size of the human brain and skull, leading to a flattening of the face. But how might the physiological features of human beings change in the future, especially as new, wearable technology like Google Glass change the way we use our bodies and faces?

Artist and researcher Nickolay Lamm has partnered with a computational geneticist to research and illustrate what we might look like 20,000 years in the future, as well as 60,000 years and 100,000 years out. His full, eye-popping illustrations are at the bottom of this post.



This is what I envision people will look like 400,000 years from now.

The features of the human body will change due natural adjustments our bodies make to the elements of our planet, and the rays of the sun, and also to technological advancements. She wrote:

Lamm says this is "one possible timeline," where, thanks to zygotic genome engineering technology, our future selves would have the ability to control human biology and human evolution in much the same way we control electrons today.

Lamm speaks of "wresting control" of the human form from natural evolution and bending human biology to suit our needs. The illustrations were inspired by conversations with Dr. Alan Kwan, who holds a PhD in computational genomics from Washington University.

Kwan based his predictions on what living environments might look like in the future, climate and technological advancements.

One of the big changes will be a larger forehead, Kwan predicts - a feature that has already expanding since the 14th and 16th centuries. Scientists writing in the British Dental Journal have suggested that skull-measurement comparisons from that time show modern-day people have less prominent facial features but higher foreheads, and Kwan expects the human head to trend larger to accommodate a larger brain.

Kwan says that 60,000 years from now, our ability to control the human genome will also make the effect of evolution on our facial features moot. As genetic engineering becomes the norm, "the fate of the human face will be increasingly determined by human tastes," he says in a research document.

Eyes will meanwhile get larger, as attempts to colonize Earth's solar system and beyond see people living in the dimmer environments of colonies further away from the Sun than Earth. Similarly, skin will become more pigmented to lesson the damage from harmful UV radiation outside of the Earth's protective ozone. Kwan expects people to have thicker eyelids and a more pronounced superciliary arch (the smooth, frontal bone of the skull under the brow), to deal with the effects of low gravity.

The remaining 40,000 years, or 100,000 years from now, Kwan believes the human face will reflect "total mastery over human morphological genetics. This human face will be heavily biased towards features that humans find fundamentally appealing: strong, regal lines, straight nose, intense eyes, and placement of facial features that adhere to the golden ratio and left/right perfect symmetry," he says.

Eyes will seem "unnervingly large" -- as least from our viewpoint today -- and will feature eye-shine and even a sideways blink from the re-introduced plica semilunaris to further protect from cosmic ray effects.

There will be other functional necessities: larger nostrils for easier breathing in off-planet environments, denser hair to contain heat loss from a larger head -- features which people may have to weigh up against their tastes for what's genetically trendy at the time. Instead of just debating what to name a child as new parents do today, they might also have to decide if they want their children to carry the most natural expression of a couple's DNA, such as their eye-color, teeth and other features they can genetically alter.

Excessive Borg-like technological implants would start to become untrendy, though, as people start to increasingly value that which makes us look naturally human. That "will be ever more important to us in an age where we have the ability to determine any feature," Kwan says.

Wearable technology will still be around, but in far more subtle forms. Instead of Google Glass and iWatch, people will seek discrete implants that preserve the natural human look - think communication lenses (a technologically souped up version of today's contacts) and miniature bone-conduction devices implanted above the ear. These might have imbedded nano-chips that communicate to another separate device to chat with others or for entertainment.

The bird's eye view of human beings in 100,000 years will be people who want to be wirelessly plugged in, Kwan says, but with minimal disruption to what may then be perceived as the "perfect" human face.

I find this article interesting, because I've read a ton of books about aliens, alien abductions, and such because I have a science fiction trilogy I've been working on. One of the themes that is consistent throughout all these books is that people on different parts of the planet, people who never even met, described the same aliens. My theory is that this occurred because they were describing what we humans would look like in the future.

Other books speculate that in order for an intelligent life-form to evolve, it would have to be an animal that is not small, or one that could easily run away and hide, like a rodent. It could not be a bird that could fly away. It could not be a strong and powerful animal like a lion or Tiger or bear, and it could not be a large intimidating animal like an elephant or rhinoceros.

It had to be some creature that had to make adjustments to survive changes in his environment, and it had to be a creature who could learn to walk on two legs, like a human.

Anyway, this is the kind of stuff that can stimulate the imagination. What do you think?

[Slartibartfast]

Matter can be created from what - Nothing? Or preexisting matter? Is it that matter has always existed?

If we are strictly scientific, the very existence of the big bang requires some form of matter for that explosion. Unless you are God.

It's been years since I read the book but I remember Krauss had proven that it matter could come from nothing. And when he said nothing he meant no matter, no space, no time. Absolutely nothing iirc. I really can't remember the specifics but it's a interesting read. He showed that nothing is unstable and something will manifest. It is also possible that it has happened millions or billions of times before, and it is also possible that this is the first time it happened. He explains how certain universal constants make it possible for a universe to exist without fizzing out without ever creating life. It's a summary of his work and it's still over 200 pages long so please excuse me if I get some things wrong. You really have to read it.

He shows that there is information on the history of the universe up to less than a second after it's creation. During that initial spark, none of the classical laws of physics that we hold on so dearly to hold true. It's more in the realm of quantum physics which is another basket case by itself.

TL:DR There is a concrete theory for the big bang as well as empirical proof to back it up. Of course there are unknowns as this is a relatively new branch of science. The same goes for evolution.

BTW that article is an interesting read and certainly a possibility although an extremely slim possibility IMO.

[X2]

I still want to know how Duane can doubt that humans and dinosaurs lived together when there is clear evidence of the Flintstones ON VIDEO... riding and enslaving dinosaurs.

With sound and in colour too eh Duane... don't be faking...


Also... people still have cell phones without touchscreen or internet access.... while there ARE phones with internet access and touchscreens all about the place... product evolution... and co-existence... PROOF POSITIVE that anything is possible.

[EFFECTIC DESIGNS]

I know Ken Ham says Humans and Dinosaurs lived and worked and played together just like the Flintstones.
But also remember Ken Ham has a mental disorder and he believes Bill Nye is not a real scientist because Bill Nye "only" has a masters degree in mechanical engineering.

Ken Ham has claimed Mechanical Engineering degree is a poetry degree and has nothing to do with science. So again understand its difficult to take the word of a mentally challenged person seriously when he says the world is 5000 years old and we lived as friends and played together with Dinosaurs.

So when they asked Ken Ham how in gods name did he come up with that he said its his belief and his faith that Mechanical Engineering is a poetry major.

My 2 cents.

With that said I will return to this topic in a few months.

[Habit7]

I wish if ppl would not bring in personalities and talking heads or referencing ideas in books that they can't even articulate.

Discuss the science or stay silent, if you believe that scientifically something can come from nothing then explain how. Just because someone got a publisher to print their views don't make it true.

[Slartibartfast]

Yeah habit7 I agree with you there which is why you realise I hardly ever state my proof as "because he said so" and I often give small analogies to make it easier for those not into science to understand.

The only exception I have made to this is the book written by Krauss and that is a very special case. It's the only book of its kind because the science is cutting edge. Also keep in mind you need to have multiple degrees to begin to understand the concepts that explain the big bang. So forgive me if I can't provide an anecdote in this one case. However the book is there for you to read and it has a good outline of the theories.

What I don't understand is that when I show you the proof, you don't bother to look at it and then you come back to say scientists have no proof. And then on top of that you offer no alternative other than "God did it" even though history shows that the number of things attributed to God has be dwindling over the past centuries making the argument that God did it as an inadequate argument on its own. And just because something can't be explained right now doesn't mean God did it either and yet that is the only other "proof" that you offer.

And then to trump all of these baseless assertions is the call to have faith in the lack of evidence. It's like you are saying you don't want to know the truth so that you can continue to believe what you believe to be true.

Then there are those that say truth is relative based on belief... It is literally impossible to argue with someone that believes that because they are basically admitting to rejecting reality to hold on to their belief.

OK, so bluefete and Habit, without using God or Jesus as talking heads or the Bible as reference, explain an alternative theory to the big bang and evolution.

No more sidestepping the question. Not a link to any article. Just explain it in your own words. All this talk and I heard no alternatives from either of you as yet.

[bluefete]

Yeah habit7 I agree with you there which is why you realise I hardly ever state my proof as "because he said so" and I often give small analogies to make it easier for those not into science to understand.

The only exception I have made to this is the book written by Krauss and that is a very special case. It's the only book of its kind because the science is cutting edge. Also keep in mind you need to have multiple degrees to begin to understand the concepts that explain the big bang. So forgive me if I can't provide an anecdote in this one case. However the book is there for you to read and it has a good outline of the theories.

What I don't understand is that when I show you the proof, you don't bother to look at it and then you come back to say scientists have no proof. And then on top of that you offer no alternative other than "God did it" even though history shows that the number of things attributed to God has be dwindling over the past centuries making the argument that God did it as an inadequate argument on its own. And just because something can't be explained right now doesn't mean God did it either and yet that is the only other "proof" that you offer.

And then to trump all of these baseless assertions is the call to have faith in the lack of evidence. It's like you are saying you don't want to know the truth so that you can continue to believe what you believe to be true.

Then there are those that say truth is relative based on belief... It is literally impossible to argue with someone that believes that because they are basically admitting to rejecting reality to hold on to their belief.

OK, so bluefete and Habit, without using God or Jesus as talking heads or the Bible as reference, explain an alternative theory to the big bang and evolution.

No more sidestepping the question. Not a link to any article. Just explain it in your own words. All this talk and I heard no alternatives from either of you as yet.

Why must there be a non-God aspect as an alternative to evolution and the big bang? I still say that Krauss fellow is playing smart with foolishness.

All he is doing is trying to put some clothes on what was clearly stated in the Bible as the origin of things.

As I reflect on the postings in here, it is incredible that big, hard back men who claim that there is no God can only parrot theories that inevitably come right back to the existence of a creator.

The concept of something from nothing speaks clearly to that and if you are fair you will admit that Krauss has no clue about what he is writing.

Krauss cannot explain the existence of matter from nothing in a scientific way. That is why scientists shy away from giving explanations as to WHAT caused the big bang.

They know if they go there that their entire theory will unravel. Duane has avoided this point for a long time. The best they can come up with is that they do not know.

The only alternative to evolution is the existence of a creator. There is nothing else.

Why is the ostrich made up the way it is? Which dinosaur did it come from? The ostrich cannot fly but it has wings. So, logically, it evolved out of flying. Come on, now.

You know that the evolutionary concept to explain variety is utter rubbish!

One single cell organism from the bottom of the ocean is the cause of all the different varieties of life on earth. Really???

So the fishie walked onto land, lost its fins and evolved into what first? A lizard? Then what did the lizard evolve into? A dinosaur? Then the dinosaur evolved into a bird. Then the bird evolved into an ape? Then the ape into a cow? And the cow into a human?

Truly? And big, intelligent people believe this and choose to belittle those who see the orderliness in a created universe?

So, there is no order to anything in a random universe that made itself.

The earth just happened to position itself at the exact distance from the sun to allow the formation of life. Something we have been unable to find anywhere else in space.

So all our lives are a waste of time because of the randomness with which we ended up here.

Randomly Live. Randomly Die. That's it.

[Slartibartfast]

So no alternative then. How about a timeline at least? For reference purposes.

Oh and what exactly did Krauss say that you find to be foolishness. Do you know his book is about what caused the big bang? Scientists never shied away from it. The said they didnt know and that they were currently trying to figure it out. And now they have a theory... outlined in the book.

So now that you are done lying to yourself, hows about that alternative meng. I'll count that as sidestep no.1

[bluefete]

So no alternative then. How about a timeline at least? For reference purposes.

Oh and what exactly did Krauss say that you find to be foolishness. Do you know his book is about what caused the big bang? Scientists never shied away from it. The said they didnt know and that they were currently trying to figure it out. And now they have a theory... outlined in the book.

So now that you are done lying to yourself, hows about that alternative meng. I'll count that as sidestep no.1

You want an alternative, as ridiculous as it might sound?

The universe was always there. No beginning and no end. How about that? It cannot be disproved because we do not even understand the concept of 'dark matter'.

[bluefete]

BTW - Why is everyone shying away from my fishie? The dino-fish. The coelacanth.

What are you afraid of?

[Slartibartfast]

You want an alternative, as ridiculous as it might sound?

The universe was always there. No beginning and no end. How about that? It cannot be disproved because we do not even understand the concept of 'dark matter'.

This is wrong. It has been disproved and this has nothing to do with dark matter.

We know for sure there was a beginning because the universe is expanding. So even though there are things scientists are trying to find out about the big bang, scientists know for sure that this universe did not always exist. So that alternative is definitely wrong.

That was proven decades ago and the expansion of the universe can be observed through powerful telescopes today looking at the redshift (google it, it is basically just the doppler effect for visible light) of observable stars.

What was the issue with the dino-fish. I skimmed through the article but I didn't realised there was a question there.

[Slartibartfast]

Ok I read over the article. It has some interesting points that illustrate evolution that I have not seen before. Some of the comments also explain things that I didn't know about (like how fishes may have made the transition to land) so thanks for that.

Good find! What was it that you wanted to know about this?

[meccalli]

Coelacanth was once thought to be our early ancestor lol. In fact, alot of researchers still think they are :/. Yunno, over billions of years, its lobe like limbs in response to an excessive amount of competition in seas, lead to its journeying into shallow estuaries and then onto land to give us amphibious tetrapods and so on. But surprise, africans been hacking em up for years and enjoying our tasty extinct predecessors. And yes I know science is supposed to continually revise and throw out, getting closer to an accurate hypothesis with every step. But it always seems like, they find some old fossil with related features to some known phyla and instantly draw profound conclusions that's published as the end all and be all. Coelacanth and now Archaeopteryx falls into that, what about the Rex soft tissue, it survives 68 million years and because they found some iron it- 68 million years of time evades it. To me, that shakes everything evolution is based on, specifically, Time needed.

[EFFECTIC DESIGNS]

Bluefete let us not question Mr Krauss ok? none of us here are in any position to question him just trust me on this. Unless anyone of us are willing to challenge him on this debate something from nothing we will look like fools. None of us here has a Phd in Physics from MIT.

Now behold the great krauss

Lawrence Krauss

Krauss received undergraduate degrees in mathematics and physics with first class honours at Carleton University (Ottawa) in 1977, and was awarded a Ph.D. in physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1982.[5][6]

[Slartibartfast]

You guys need to read more. The following are the list of problems with your statement.

Coelacanth was once thought to be our early ancestor lol.

Related to our ancestors maybe. They provide a possible explanation of that "missing link" between sea dwelling fish and land dwelling mammals that you guys love to ask about

In fact, alot of researchers still think they are :/. Yunno, over billions of years, its lobe like limbs in response to an excessive amount of competition in seas, lead to its journeying into shallow estuaries and then onto land to give us amphibious tetrapods and so on. But surprise, africans been hacking em up for years and enjoying our tasty extinct predecessors. Coelacanth and now Archaeopteryx falls into that,...

Ok then. This doesn't prove or disprove anything so I will ignore it unless you want to elaborate.

And yes I know science is supposed to continually revise and throw out, getting closer to an accurate hypothesis with every step. But it always seems like, they find some old fossil with related features to some known phyla and instantly draw profound conclusions that's published as the end all and be all.

You had me up to the "end all be all" part. But that is how science works. If is sounds frustrating, that's because it is. Some scientists could dedicate their whole lives to something that is disproved right after they die. But even the wrong answers provide insight as long as the questions are always asked. Science improves/ changes its answers depending on new evidence as it comes to light.

Let me give you an example. Watch an episode of Law and Order, you will see for the first 45 mins (including ads) they go after the wrong suspects, all evidence points to the wrong person, they are sure the wrong person did it. However, in the end, when new evidence or theories come to light, they realise who the actual perpetrator was. The perp was the same person all along, regardless of how right they thought they were or how much time they spent following the wrong person.

That is why science must remain humble. All evidence points to these theories right now. An overwhelming amount of evidence. So scientists are 99.9% sure that it is right. But that does not rule out the possibility of it being disproved later.

what about the Rex soft tissue, it survives 68 million years and because they found some iron it- 68 million years of time evades it. To me, that shakes everything evolution is based on, specifically, Time needed.

Yes, that is correct. They have the mechanisms behind it that have been proven and used in different applications for years now. It is just that this has recently been realised. This is a case of science expanding its understanding. I don't understand why that shakes everything evolution based. They discovered that soft tissue can last millions of years under certain conditions. That means if they dated something just because of the presence of soft tissue alone, then they will have to revise those estimates to make what ever it is seem older. Also, they would use another method to double check the age anyway, so that is unlikely to happen

[EFFECTIC DESIGNS]

bluefete to understand how Krauss knows the big bang came from nothing which is in reality something you first need to understand basic things like this below. These are the basic things that affect us in everyday life.

[Habit7]

The only exception I have made to this is the book written by Krauss and that is a very special case. It's the only book of its kind because the science is cutting edge. Also keep in mind you need to have multiple degrees to begin to understand the concepts that explain the big bang. So forgive me if I can't provide an anecdote in this one case. However the book is there for you to read and it has a good outline of the theories.

If you can't articulate it don't reference it. Someone else could equally reference a book that outrightly proves creationism but equally claim that it is difficult to explain it anecdotally. That is the logical fallacy of appeal to authority, science factually states that something cannot come from nothing, despite what Krass may theorize.

You are not offering proof, referencing books and theories are not proof. They may be based on factual, observable phenomena but it is interpreted through a worldview that produces a conclusion. We both see an organized vast universe and I have no choice but to infer that there must be an intelligent powerful creator. You look at the same universe and first exclude any possibility of creator (no reason why) and infer that it must of have occurred by nothing becoming an organized everything. You are working with no more proof than I am.

Whether Greeks were wrong about the source of lightening is as irrelevant as how scientists were wrong about spontaneous generation. I don't argue from a point of "God did it" position, I claim that the God of the Bible did it, and I am capable of defending that claim as I have prior in the religion thread.

But here we move totally off the topic of whether dinosaurs evolved into birds, which I showed that the evidence for such was sketchy, and heading directly towards religion. Which again whenever in threads someone questions evolution ppl automatically start bashing religion.

[EFFECTIC DESIGNS]

Someone else could equally reference a book that outrightly proves creationism.

WTF

No book can outrightly prove creationism simply because its not real. To prove creationism is real you need evidence not belief in faith. IF you try to find evidence on creationism you will automatically find evidence that disproves creationism.

The earth is not 5000 years old. The gravity of that miscalculation is the equivalent of believing North America is 10 yards wide.

my 2 cents.

[meccalli]

Related to our ancestors maybe. They provide a possible explanation of that "missing link" between sea dwelling fish and land dwelling mammals that you guys love to ask about

Yes, that's why i wrote the second part so i wouldn't have to go into semantics for you to get what i meant. They believe we have early fish origins so there.

You had me up to the "end all be all"

Isn't that what evolution is today? If the scientists don't treat it like that, the majority of its defenders sure do believe it to be exactly that.

Yes, that is correct. They have the mechanisms behind it that have been proven and used in different applications for years now. It is just that this has recently been realised. This is a case of science expanding its understanding. I don't understand why that rules shakes everything evolution based. They discovered that soft tissue can last millions of years under certain conditions. That means if they dated something just because of the presence of soft tissue alone, then they will have to revise those estimates to make what ever it is seem older. Also, they would use another method to double check the age anyway, so that is unlikely to happen

Do you know about the ostrich blood test, they saturated it in iron and it lasted 2 years in stable temperature with some degradation. They say T rex haemoglobin allowed for this to occur upon death via chelation processes, yet 2 years had an impact on an artificially induced process in stable conditions. They must've had rex in a lab for 68 million years(wow) if they're saying is right. I can't wrap my head around that time for blood to survive in such conditions. But they're the pros.....what they say goes.

[Habit7]

Equation for the proof of creationism

I win

Please lock the thread, this discussion is obviously over

[EFFECTIC DESIGNS]

^ that is not equation for proof of creationism, this is rubbish actually. lol

[Slartibartfast]

The theories have been articulated. I am not a leading scientist so my inability to inarticulate one scientific matter is no justification to say it isn't true. And someone can't just as easily provide proof for creationism, otherwise you would have done it by now.

Also, you are correct that science states something cannot come from nothing, but that does not take into account quantum mechanics which is an entire branch of physics by itself.

Proof here -----> Background radiation is proof of the big bang and observable red shift of neighboring stars is proof that the universe is expanding and therefore had an origin. It is also proof of how old the universe it <----- Proof here

Krauss has all of the relevant anecdotes and references to proof in his book. I didn't memorise the book and I have a lot of other books to read before I go back to read that a second time.

This comment is more of about my personal scientific expertise than it is about the actual discussion. Still no comment on alternative theories that have not already been disproved.
I will count this as sidestep no.2

[EFFECTIC DESIGNS]

Yes this is true Quantum physics changes everything.

Here is an example of it so you all will better understand why something comes from nothing in the quantum world its really simple guys.

This easily sums up everything you need to know on why Krauss is right. Something comes from nothing in the quantum world

[Slartibartfast]

Related to our ancestors maybe. They provide a possible explanation of that "missing link" between sea dwelling fish and land dwelling mammals that you guys love to ask about

Yes, that's why i wrote the second part so i wouldn't have to go into semantics for you to get what i meant. They believe we have early fish origins so there.

You had me up to the "end all be all"

Isn't that what evolution is today? If the scientists don't treat it like that, the majority of its defenders sure do believe it to be exactly that.

Yes, that is correct. They have the mechanisms behind it that have been proven and used in different applications for years now. It is just that this has recently been realised. This is a case of science expanding its understanding. I don't understand why that rules shakes everything evolution based. They discovered that soft tissue can last millions of years under certain conditions. That means if they dated something just because of the presence of soft tissue alone, then they will have to revise those estimates to make what ever it is seem older. Also, they would use another method to double check the age anyway, so that is unlikely to happen

Do you know about the ostrich blood test, they saturated it in iron and it lasted 2 years in stable temperature with some degradation. They say T rex haemoglobin allowed for this to occur upon death via chelation processes, yet 2 years had an impact on an artificially induced process in stable conditions. They must've had rex in a lab for 68 million years(wow) if they're saying is right. I can't wrap my head around that time for blood to survive in such conditions. But they're the pros.....what they say goes.

What was the hypothesis of this test and what was the conclusion. If you read the article on the dinosaur soft tissue, you will see that it wasn't blood that was found and they believe it was preserved partly because it was buried quickly (possible what killed it) in sedimentary whose pore spaces wicked away some of the microbes that contribute to decay. Hardly similar conditions I would think.

Still no alternatives. Sidestep No. 3

Equation for the proof of creationism

I win

Please lock the thread, this discussion is obviously over

*sigh* Sidestep No. 4 and a call to end the discussion without any proper response.

I agree. This thread could lock. You guys obviously don't have a response.

[EFFECTIC DESIGNS]

I only hearing creation talk and belief in it without any form of evidence but to take the word of the pope based on hearsay. I find this unacceptable in my book.

Here is the proof as to why something can come from nothing this image is an idea of quantum mechanics if you understand it then you would understand Krauss, its perfectly explained and simplified. This is why to argue with Krauss we would look like idiots.