KellyJay and his dinosaurs

Originally posted by Jigtie
It's the exact other way around. In my mind, it's the exact other way
around. No, it really is the exact other way around. Depending on the
decade you're in, of course. No, really, Swedes are great, Norwegians are
dumb. This is a well known fact. I can't believe an educated man such as
yourself has failed to notice this.

Norwegian on McDonalds, says it all really:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKo40NrxXa8

😏

Well, someone has Swedish forebears, that much is clear.

I don't really think either Swedes or Norwegians are dumb -- that's a well known fact in my area.

Of course, Norwegian bachelor farmers and their Swedish counterparts out in the boonies may be the exceptions that prove the rule.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I agree with you fully, I was just having fun 🙂

However what your nephew 'knows' proves nothing whatsoever. I can promise you that if his parents were creationists he would 'know' something different. Most eight year olds know primarily what their parents want them to know regardless of its truth value.

I went to Sunday school too, when I was a child. The desinformation was total. If my teacher told me about dinos on the ark of Noah, perhaps I would have believed that too, but when I grew up, got interested in science, I learnt the scientific truth, and that was that the dinos died out 65 million of years ago and the first hominids went into stage some 5 million of years ago. During 60 million of years, there were neither man nor dino anywhere on the face of the earth.

I cannot undestand that there actually are people, whereof one is here at RHP, believe in his religious heart that dinos and man lived together. I'd rather belive that it is possible to walk on water.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
For the record:

Sweden and Norway are best friends. Swedes and Norweigans are best friends. But we are joking about eachother, noone are really hurt about this.

The video shows som 'stupid' Norveigans, there are plenty of these videos, as videos about studing Sweeds too. It's the part of the game. Not to mention that there are lots of videos about ' pid' people everywhere.

But Norway and Sweden are best friends, thank you for sharing.

LOL! I think everyone understands that, but good of you to make the point. 😵

Addition: Uh, you didn't actually think I was serious, did you? 😕

Originally posted by FabianFnas
I cannot undestand that there actually are people, whereof one is here at RHP, believe in his religious heart that dinos and man lived together. I'd rather belive that it is possible to walk on water.

I am not sure if he does believe it. But some people get into a situation where they need to believe in God and they think that a whole lot of other beliefs are prerequisites. But at the end of the day belief in creationism is not significantly more irrational than most religious beliefs held by the majority of the worlds population.
So what you really don't understand is human psychology. Neither do I.

Originally posted by TheSkipper
Lots of thing can't be proven scientifically...no biggie. Surely, though, you must have some evidence that has led you to believe that dinos and people existed at the same time...yes?

Have not forgotten this.
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am not sure if he does believe it. But some people get into a situation where they need to believe in God and they think that a whole lot of other beliefs are prerequisites. But at the end of the day belief in creationism is not significantly more irrational than most religious beliefs held by the majority of the worlds population.
So what you really don't understand is human psychology. Neither do I.

except god doesn't say anywhere in the bible(a book i don't believe was entirely his fault anyway) that there were dinos with noah.
so this is not a matter of believing a random religious text, it is believing a random thought a random person had about a religious text.

it is one thing to believe in santa. but it is even more of a stretch to believe santa has a pink afro because little timmy just thought yesterday that santa must have a pink afro

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am not sure if he does believe it. But some people get into a situation where they need to believe in God and they think that a whole lot of other beliefs are prerequisites. But at the end of the day belief in creationism is not significantly more irrational than most religious beliefs held by the majority of the worlds population.
So what you really don't understand is human psychology. Neither do I.

It is just as easy for me to accept God created the universe as it is
written, or as if He did it billions of years ago, it is still God creating
the universe. Since God is creating the universe and keeping it
together by the power of His Word, why is it harder to accept He did
it a short time ago over billions of years ago?

For me the process is the problem, I do not accept evolution as it has
been presented. Life playing out (what we call natural selection) cannot
get feed random changes in a DNA string and build the variety of
systems required to make a human life let along all the other variety.
Simply getting random changes means you don't always get good ones
and the ones you get you may lose, which is why we use the word
random. Since those changes are random, and once you start altering
a system by changing it, knowing that if you change it in some places
you get weaker or dead ends the chances are just too great! It is no
different than taking a simple children’s book, randomly changing
letters, but at all times having a good story getting better and more
complex over time, without every reaching a point in the child’s story
where your changes didn't turn the story into pure gibberish.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
It is just as easy for me to accept God created the universe as it is
written, or as if He did it billions of years ago, it is still God creating
the universe. Since God is creating the universe and keeping it
together by the power of His Word, why is it harder to accept He did
it a short time ago over billions of years ago?

For me the process is the ...[text shortened]... int in the child’s story
where your changes didn't turn the story into pure gibberish.
Kelly

Of course there are evolutionary changes that haven't been beneficial!

Something like 98% of all the species that ever lived are now extinct, which correspond to the "gibberish" in your story analogy. Even current species show useless evolutionary traits.

Originally posted by marieclaire
Of course there are evolutionary changes that haven't been beneficial!

Something like 98% of all the species that ever lived are now extinct, which correspond to the "gibberish" in your story analogy. Even current species show useless evolutionary traits.

Not even close, your talking about living systems that are fully formed
dying off. If you see those dying off at such a grand rate, how did
those systems ever get started in the first place, even fully formed
systems don't have things work out for them they die off, so how did
blood, bones, nerves, hair, teeth and so on ever come to be?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Not even close, your talking about living systems that are fully formed
dying off. If you see those dying off at such a grand rate, how did
those systems ever get started in the first place, even fully formed
systems don't have things work out for them they die off, so how did
blood, bones, nerves, hair, teeth and so on ever come to be?
Kelly

The key point here is that there are still around 2% of the total species alive today. This is what you'd expect from evolution - a vast majority of dead ends and a small minority of survivors.

You're right to be incredulous at the chances of us being here, but that only corresponds to what you should expect from evolution.

As for how blood, bones etc came to be it's an extension of the same idea. 98% (or some other large percentage) of changes resulted in dead ends, however blood and bones are part of the 2% that were beneficial.

Originally posted by marieclaire
The key point here is that there are still around 2% of the total species alive today. This is what you'd expect from evolution - a vast majority of dead ends and a small minority of survivors.

You're right to be incredulous at the chances of us being here, but that only corresponds to what you should expect from evolution.

As for how blood, bones ...[text shortened]... anges resulted in dead ends, however blood and bones are part of the 2% that were beneficial.

The thing is, 'what you'd except from evolution' is a joke, it is always
what you want it to be. If a small part gets disproven, you just change
that little part and move on your happy little way.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
The thing is, 'what you'd except from evolution' is a joke, it is always
what you want it to be. If a small part gets disproven, you just change
that little part and move on your happy little way.
Kelly

Hold on, it was YOU who was explaining about the slim chances of beneficial changes with your story analogy.

So that was what YOU'd expect from evolution, nothing to do with me!

You started off saying that evolution should result in a vast majority of dead ends (the "gibberish" in your analogy).

I've just pointed out that this is indeed what the evidence shows - that you were right (in that respect) with your story analogy!

I think where your analogy went wrong was that it lacked a mechanism for selecting the "good" letters in the story (a natural selection equivalent). This would greatly reduce the time needed to make a good "story".

Originally posted by KellyJay
If a small part gets disproven, you just change
that little part and move on your happy little way.
Kelly

Exactly - that's what science is. Trial and error, experimentation and all that.

Science doesn't have the luxury of being gifted to us from an all-powerful, all-knowing god. So we have to rely on imperfect man and learn and make mistakes as we go.

Originally posted by marieclaire
Hold on, it was YOU who was explaining about the slim chances of beneficial changes with your story analogy.

So that was what YOU'd expect from evolution, nothing to do with me!

You started off saying that evolution should result in a vast majority of dead ends (the "gibberish" in your analogy).

I've just pointed out that this is indeed what th ...[text shortened]... selection equivalent). This would greatly reduce the time needed to make a good "story".

Yes, it was me, I can show you examples of what I believe happens
to systems over time if you start making random changes in them.
You cannot show an example of putting in random changes into a
functionally complex system and see it become more advanced, more
functionally complex system! The only time random changes can do
something like that is if it is DESIGNED to and even there the system
has to be built up to the point so it can handle such random changes.
Kelly

Originally posted by marieclaire
Exactly - that's what science is. Trial and error, experimentation and all that.

Science doesn't have the luxury of being gifted to us from an all-powerful, all-knowing god. So we have to rely on imperfect man and learn and make mistakes as we go.

Science is trial and error; you cannot do that and succeed while
building a complex system if once you get it wrong you can die off.
Think of the trial and error required to cause blood to clot, how long
do you think it took to get that right? If it clots before an injury the
circuitry system breaks down because the blood isn’t flowing, if it takes
to long the system bleeds to death! How many things all have to trial
and error to get it right at the same time?
Kelly