Study: Dinosaur demise didn't spur species

AP via Yahoo! ^ | 3-28-07 | MALCOLM RITTER

[Elsie]

Liddle ol' lady who?


Oooops!


Your name is Yokel; NOT YODEL!!!

[Elsie]

Walking into my stable and seeing a T-Rex munching on my horse would be distressing.

'Specially to the HORSE!!

[bvw]

My, how quickly equilibrium is punctuated.

[Elsie]

A friend of mine has a son that had an Indian friend at school.

They were talking one day and the Indian mentioned that to him, cows were sacred.

My friend's son pondered that a bit and then said, "I don't see how that can be, for we EAT them!"


(I never heard what the response was.)

[Elsie]

"We thought..

you wuz...

a TOAD!"


(From the greatest movie ever!)

[Elsie]

"You could do a little research!"

[bvw]

Bingo!

[Elsie]

First, you cannot calculate the probability of events whose details are unknown...

True, but sure hasn't stopped gobs of folks from doing it all the time!

---

Somehow the

Unknown * A Long Time = Evolution

is always trotted out.

[Elsie]

Are you trying to let the air out of an argument? ;^)

[doc30]

Of course Evolution is wrong. And of course, its faithful will simply revise it and pretend that its been right all along.

No. This is the way science operates. As time passes and more work is done, things come into better focus. Same thing happens in chemistry and physics. Science is not static as you make it out to be.

[doc30]

I don't know what you guys think is so whacked about believing that dinosaurs were still around a few thousand years ago.

Because there is no reason to believe that. No evidence of dinosaurs from a few thousand years ago. No evidence of dinosaurs living with modern animals. But there is evidence that they lived over 65 million years ago. That's where we find their remains. No remains have ever been found that are younger than that, let alone in modern times. Evolution, particulary paleotology, predicts that dinosaur remains will not be found in more recent sediments.

[Southack]

"No. This is the way science operates. As time passes and more work is done, things come into better focus. Same thing happens in chemistry and physics. Science is not static as you make it out to be."

Incorrect. In science, you have falsifiability criteria, and when met, a theory is falsified.

No such falsifiability criteria exists for Evolution. Thus, Evolutionary Theory is unscientific. It can't be falsified, as the article for this thread makes clear.

[49th]

Evolution is eminently falsifiable. The discovery of species appearing in rock layers from millions of years before that species evolved would absolutely trash the theory.

You go find me a rabbit skeleton in Precambrian rock and we'll talk about this 'creationism' hypothesis of yours. Until that time, recognize that if the work of God (the earth) appears to differ from the alleged word of God (the bible), then the fault lies with the word and not with the work.

[Tribune7]

Oh, and by the way the Creationists will have a cow with this thread.

Which is something that clearlydid not come from the demise of the dinosaurs. :-)

[LiteKeeper]

read later

[Southack]

"Evolution is eminently falsifiable. The discovery of species appearing in rock layers from millions of years before that species evolved would absolutely trash the theory."

That's incorrect. It's not even scientific falsifiability criteria, for one thing, and it would be discarded as some sort of fluke or mistake or flawed dating or contaminated sample by Evolutionists, anyway.

Look at the article for this thread. Evolutionary Theory was millions of years off. Do you consider it falsified?!

[49th]

"Evolutionary Theory was millions of years off. Do you consider it falsified?!"

Of course not. This article has nothing to do with the validity of Evolution. This article is about the point at which the Mammal genealogical line underwent rapid speciation. The fact that a hypothesis about how and when that occurred may not be exactly right has absolutely no bearing on the TOE as a whole.

[Southack]

"Of course not. This article has nothing to do with the validity of Evolution." - 49th

"the new study explains why scientists have been unable to find relatively modern-looking ancestors of the creatures known from that time: without any evolutionary boost from the dinosaur demise, those ancestors were still relatively primitive.
Some experts praised the large scale of the new evolutionary tree, which used a controversial "supertree" method to combine data covering the vast majority of mammal species."

[Southack]

"The fact that a hypothesis about how and when that occurred may not be exactly right has absolutely no bearing on the TOE as a whole." - 49th

Name the accepted scientific falsifiability criteria for ToE, then.