Dinosaurs may not be as ancient as we think

There is a lot to be learned from what people think occurred with life over time. Concidering the possibilities, the possible outcomes, how could what we see occur over time, in the time allotted, what process, and what mechanisms were involved. For me, these things speak to important points as they all go to the very cause of all things.

There are possible outcomes, probable outcomes and actual outcomes.

Yes, and the numbers involved are not close to 1 at all with respect to possible and probable outcomes. So how did the actual come about?

You could learn what is known by reading the work of biologists, archaeologists, geneticists, ...

Then you could learn that the fantasies pushed by those who read Middle Eastern poetry as literal history, science, etc. are not grounded in reality.

Reality is a good topic, bringing me back to the numbers regarding possibilities, probabilities, and outcomes. Do you have something you'd like to site that can explain how it all started and how the odds were overcome to begin life? When your biologist, archaeologist, and geneticists speak about that, do they give you concrete evidence or scientific proof? Attempting to explain something without being able to show its true isn't much different, say pushing a fantasy, or do you not agree?

The science of statistics produces outcomes that fall within likely bounds of probability. No outcome is guaranteed. Just because a coin toss should be 50/50 doesn't mean that each outcome of 20 tosses will produce 10 heads and 10 tails. But if we run a thousand sets of 20 tosses, the results should be able to be graphed as a "normal distribution."

At no point is any of this dependent upon the heavens to intervene. Though, a person winning big at the craps table may think that the hand of god or the power of his talisman brought about the success of his unlikely big win.

Clear, focused, and up-to-date. Also entertaining. Alice Roberts is terrific at explaining things.

https://youtu.be/x858bOny4Gw

The issues are very complex life has very small entropy and very high energy and in it highly complex systems and biological machines are doing functional work. Because of the nature of life, once an opportunity for success is lost, recovery is impossible from death. Moreover when looking at a chance for success all the variables have to be in place in the proper environment among a host of other possibilities against difficult odds to even begin.

Psychology Today has an article in its archive that describes this thread: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mind-in-the-machine/201810/how-religious-fundamentalism-hijacks-the-brain

Is your answer to functional complexity in systems guided by information in biological machines converting energy into useful work is to bring up religious fundamentalism?

Every day Earth gets tons of free energy from the Sun. Should we be sun worshippers?

What does that have to do with what I have said? Free energy is meaningless if you cannot convert it into something useful; biological machines and systems convert energy into something useful; processes take something and make it useful; that occurs in life; it happens in plants and every other living thing. Are you suggesting simply because there was light energy that alone could make life?

Aside from the fact that none of your discussion about energy addresses the topic of this thread, @TruthMuse, what is your point?

And sun worship is?

My point is that the life of the dinosaurs is something to consider when thinking about life, period. Evolutionary change is supposed to be slow progress over time. Life supposedly gets lucky with mutations giving practical advantages in the gene pool as time moves on. What we see in the fossil record, regardless of how old we think everything is, doesn't reflex that. We may disagree on the lengths of long periods, but seeing life slowly changing from one lifeform into another, we don't see that. What we see instead is the sudden appearance and disappearance of unique lifeforms.

People may attribute the simpler life to older life, but we have simpler and more complex life in this period of time, so that is not a good measure of which is older.

So your point is to dispute science because you refuse to comprehend science. Okay. That’s what I thought. Thanks for clarifying.

Science is asking questions, if the full just of all of your remarks are to be belittling thank you for your time.

Science questions and seeks answers, and it interprets data. Your speculative musings on energy do not seem like honest questions, but rather red herrings to distract from or undermine scientific evidence refuting the OP's contention in this thread.

Having been a Creationist in my youth, I recognize quickly the pseudo-scientific inquiries that are designed to cast doubt on matters that are generally quite clear to any one with an open mind.

I only recognized that you spend more time worrying about someone's religion than the points raised. Questioning the status quo is science; questioning what has been considered the common belief is what moves the bar; being unable to address the points being made and instead talking about someone's religion which you were only bringing up, shows me it isn't the data or facts that matter to you, but your unquestionable dogma.

So, you are not a Creationist?

I don’t care about anyone’s religion, but I object to those who substitute their religion for science. 

If you didn't care about religion, why did you mention religion twice in a discussion about dinosaurs? I started speaking about biological processes after you brought up limitless energy because the only way energy can be used is if you can process it in such as the way it can do specific work, for that religious fundamentalism and sun worship comes from you. Then you turn around as if questioning science is as bad as questioning the Bible or Koran among religious followers!  Isn't it the truth we should be concerned about?

So what is it you are on about here?