NationStates Jolt Archive

Yet another nail in the coffin of creationism. Admit it's dead already and move on.

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7736120/

Yet another nail in the coffin of creationism. Admit it's dead already and move on.

www.msnbc.com/id/7736120/
If it's dead... why do you keep digging up the subject only to bury it again... :rolleyes:

I found it especially ironic how they had an article talking abou that on cnn.com, right above another article talking about how they wanted to take the evolutionary teaching out of science classes in Kansas.

Sweet.

But try this link instead.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7736120/

If it's dead... why do you keep digging up the subject only to bury it again... :rolleyes:
Because I like to argue and because I enjoy seeing creationists struggle to justify their theory in spite of the facts.

Yet another nail in the coffin of creationism. Admit it's dead already and move on.

www.msnbc.com/id/7736120/

Satan did it!!
He planted that "evidince" a long time ago to try and fool humans into not following God!!
And also, any errors in my logic or gramer are also the work of satan!! :p

Because I like to argue and because I enjoy seeing creationists struggle to justify their theory in spite of the facts.


Facts are just another trick satan uses to keep people from God.

Because I like to argue and because I enjoy seeing creationists struggle to justify their theory in spite of the facts.
let them mourn in peace... it's tough to loose a faith baised argument.

In my opinion, these are amongst the most fascinating of all dinosaur taxon! Next to the pachychepahlosaurs and dromaeosaurines, of course! Nice job on the post, DCR! Keep 'em coming!

surely you know that all fossils were caused by the Great Flood and that the World is really flat and was created in 4400 BC and that the Earth is the center of the Universe..... :rolleyes:

the true believers will simply ignore the evidence as their faith is more important to them

I am not too late, good.

DCR I didnt see the thing that I was supposed to through the link.

Now anyway I don't see how creationaliststs come up with their theory in the first place. As I say many times and would probably repeat myself, a pope said that most of the things in the Bible are Metaphorical. What else, ah there is a lot of proof of evolution such as vestigal organs which to me is the most important connection since it kind of proves evolution with its gradual movement.

if science and religion would put their heads together,we would all be closer to the truth. i could tell you why we are all here and what the purpose of life is,but then you would prolly lose interest in living....assuming you believed me...

the true believers will simply ignore the evidence as their faith is more important to them


It's sad how true that is.

Am I the only Christian Evolutionist here? My personal theory is God created the Universe, wandered around it a bit, found us and saw how advanced, yet extremely stupid, we were, and had pity on us.

surely you know that all fossils were caused by the Great Flood and that the World is really flat and was created in 4400 BC and that the Earth is the center of the Universe..... :rolleyes:

the true believers will simply ignore the evidence as their faith is more important to them

They didnt believe the earth to be flat, they believed that the ocean was much smaller then it was which was proved wrong by explorers and Columbus' Encounter with America (North on the islands).

I am not too late, good.

DCR I didnt see the thing that I was supposed to through the link.

Now anyway I don't see how creationaliststs come up with their theory in the first place. As I say many times and would probably repeat myself, a pope said that most of the things in the Bible are Metaphorical. What else, ah there is a lot of proof of evolution such as vestigal organs which to me is the most important connection since it kind of proves evolution with its gradual movement.
Link's fixed.

I don't even understand why this is relevant. It was proved long ago that evolution is a real thign that happened. There are enough fossils already to prove it wrong a million times. This shooting down of fallacious Christian theories is a waste of net space

Am I the only Christian Evolutionist here? My personal theory is God created the Universe, wandered around it a bit, found us and saw how advanced, yet extremely stupid, we were, and had pity on us.

I'm a Christian Evolutionist. I think that the universe was created by the Big Bang, and there is a God, but he was never a living being.

Kind of like God was a product of the Big Bang (a type of force).
Other than that, I follow the usual Evolutionary Theory.

Ok, if there's so much "proof," then why is it still a theory? The reason is that there is too much unexplained. Like the fact that there has never been an instance where an addition or mutation to the genetic code has produced a benefit for an organism. It always results in deformation and death.

And don't cite the bacteria being immune to medicines thing. Frozen bacterium from the 19th century, before the advent of modern medicine, have shown resistance to these treatments. The reason is because there are some bacterium which can resist, and since those are the only one's to survive, it seems that the whole species evolves. Natural selection is true, but evolution is not.

...Dude, THEORY is a scientific term for something that cannot be totally proven, ever, but fits all the facts and has a body of evidence behind it.


If all the organisms die, and only the ones that are resistant remain, logically, they are the only ones to reproduce. Therefore, the species is now evolved, into a drug resistant strain.


Mutations are not always harmful.

Theory is theory. You can't say "proven" unless it is a Law, not a theory.

Actually, laws are just theories with even more evidence behind them.

Ok, if there's so much "proof," then why is it still a theory? The reason is that there is too much unexplained. Like the fact that there has never been an instance where an addition or mutation to the genetic code has produced a benefit for an organism. It always results in deformation and death.

And don't cite the bacteria being immune to medicines thing. Frozen bacterium from the 19th century, before the advent of modern medicine, have shown resistance to these treatments. The reason is because there are some bacterium which can resist, and since those are the only one's to survive, it seems that the whole species evolves. Natural selection is true, but evolution is not.
Polyploid strawberries produce larger fruits than diploid ones. They have an extra set of chromosomes. They're not dying out anytime soon. Your first point is shot.

Tuberculosis was easily treated with early antibiotics. Now TB requires new and more advanced antibiotics to treat. Are you seriously saying that the new TB strains haven't evolved drug resistance? If you beleive that, go infect yourself with TB and refuse any medicine but good old fashioned pennicilin. I'll see you at your funeral.

Ok, if there's so much "proof," then why is it still a theory? The reason is that there is too much unexplained. Like the fact that there has never been an instance where an addition or mutation to the genetic code has produced a benefit for an organism. It always results in deformation and death.

And don't cite the bacteria being immune to medicines thing. Frozen bacterium from the 19th century, before the advent of modern medicine, have shown resistance to these treatments. The reason is because there are some bacterium which can resist, and since those are the only one's to survive, it seems that the whole species evolves. Natural selection is true, but evolution is not.
Show proof for the second assertion, a journal would be fine. Perferably from Biology or something reputable, not "the southern journal of creationism".

Shall we quit teaching the theory of gravity in school now? Very few things are laws, and even fewer of these laws actually hold true in all cases.

It's a theory because we haven't experienced large scale evolution. Are there people around now, who were alive when Eden was around? No. But because the Bible says it's there, millions of people beleive it. And if someone would point out the verse that says "God told Moses to write the Torah", or specifically says that God told Moses to write the first five books of the Bible, I'll MIGHT beleive it. But I've read almost the entire Bible including about 95% of Exodus and never saw it. Now Christ I beleive in because there were actually people who witnessed it, and wrote it down. It's documented. And for those who say, "well each of the Gospels say something slightly different.", if you had Ten people witness a robbery, would they each tell the same exact story twenty years later?

I'm not saying don't teach it, just don't teach it like fact. With the Theory of Gravity, if you take higher level classes, you find cases where gravity seems to be defied. Do this with the Theory of Evolution and I'll be happy. Just say it has holes. Don't treat it like absolute fact.

Satan did it!!
He planted that "evidince" a long time ago to try and fool humans into not following God!!
And also, any errors in my logic or gramer are also the work of satan!! :pYou lie!!!1111oneone. God did it. He planted all of those fossils when he created the earth, as a test of faith for His believers. :p ;)

Evolution happens.

HOW it happens is where the holes are. It happens.

I'm not saying don't teach it, just don't teach it like fact. With the Theory of Gravity, if you take higher level classes, you find cases where gravity seems to be defied. Do this with the Theory of Evolution and I'll be happy. Just say it has holes. Don't treat it like absolute fact.
Ever taken a course in evolutionary biology? Or advanced level biology?

I'm not saying don't teach it, just don't teach it like fact. With the Theory of Gravity, if you take higher level classes, you find cases where gravity seems to be defied. Do this with the Theory of Evolution and I'll be happy. Just say it has holes. Don't treat it like absolute fact.
That evolution has occured is a fact. The theories have to do with how it happened. The fossil record alone is proof enough that evolution has occured.

Yeah, and no one's ever been able to explain the many holes. Like the fact that if reptiles really had evolved into birds, there would have been millions of years of extremely vulnerable transition species that could not have possibly survived. They kind of skip that part.

Why would they have to be "extremely vulnerable?"

Ok, if there's so much "proof," then why is it still a theory? The reason is that there is too much unexplained.
Theory in science is not theor in everyday conversation. Theory is basically the highest status an idea can achieve. It means there is tons and tons of evidence, but it can never be proven 100%, because in reality nothing can be 100% percent certain. That would be a law. As far as I know there are no laws; I don't even think gravity is one.

-edit- there are plenty of evolution/creationism theories here, and all of your so called holes always get filled by people for whom biology is a strong suit. Most faults in evolution are the product of peole who don't know what they're talking about.

Why would they have to be "extremely vulnerable?"

Well, let's consider the fact that they would have limbs that would be incapable of being used as legs and at the same time incapable of being used as wings. Movement would be drastically hindered, preventing it from easily attaining food and from avoiding predators.

And to the "there are no laws" thing, there are many laws. Ever heard of Newton's LAWS of motion? Proven.

Go ahead and explain away then, if you are so omniscient.

Yet another Piltdown bird.

Yeah, and no one's ever been able to explain the many holes. Like the fact that if reptiles really had evolved into birds, there would have been millions of years of extremely vulnerable transition species that could not have possibly survived. They kind of skip that part.
Bullshit. Why do the transitional forms have to be vulnerable? Oh, right, because otherwise you'd have to confront the reality that the evidence supports evolution, not creationism.

Well, let's consider the fact that they would have limbs that would be incapable of being used as legs and at the same time incapable of being used as wings. Movement would be drastically hindered, preventing it from easily attaining food and from avoiding predators.

And to the "there are no laws" thing, there are many laws. Ever heard of Newton's LAWS of motion? Proven.
Flying squirrels don't seem to have a problem with that. That's one of the oldest lies in creationism. "What good is half a wing?". There are plenty of animals that have "half a wing" and survive just fine. Better than they would with ordinary limbs.

It strikes me as hypocritical that a religion like Christianity, which sees lying as a sin, has spawned creationism, which treats lying as a virtue.

EXPLAIN HOW THEY COULD HAVE POSSIBLY SURVIVED, DON'T JUST ATTACK. I presented my evidence that they couldn't have survived. Support your side.

Flying squirrels? How does that have to do with reptiles and birds?

Flying squirrels? How does that have to do with reptiles and birds?
Not quite a wing, not a normal leg, but it works for them. One can assume that the transition between dinosaur and bird would have gone just as smoothly.

let them mourn in peace... it's tough to loose a faith baised argument.

Technically, it's impossible to lose a faith-based argument, unless you lose faith...

I don't even understand why this is relevant. It was proved long ago that evolution is a real thign that happened. There are enough fossils already to prove it wrong a million times. This shooting down of fallacious Christian theories is a waste of net space

It's relevant because despite all the evidence to the contrary, Dominionists (aka USian right-wing Christians) continue to demand that science education become watered down with their fallacious theories. Goddess knows there isn't enough time in the school day to cover all the real science, they want biology teachers to couch everything in "you don't have to believe what I'm telling you is the truth."

And the really sad part is the right-wingnuts are quite willing to gut education budgets to get their way.

I'm not saying don't teach it, just don't teach it like fact. With the Theory of Gravity, if you take higher level classes, you find cases where gravity seems to be defied. Do this with the Theory of Evolution and I'll be happy. Just say it has holes. Don't treat it like absolute fact.The process of evolution is fact. So it should be taught as such.

As far as the big-T big-E, Theory of Evolution goes, it is part of learning scientific method to learn to question the concepts and ideas being considered. It is therefore unnecessary to put warning labels on any one theory.

As you point out, discrepancies in scientific theories are appropriately covered in higher level classes. When someone is first learning basic science (hell, when someone is first learning anything), as a teacher you do not dwell on the exceptions.

The flying squirrel is nothing like a bird. The difference between the leg of a reptile and the wing of a bird is vastly different and, according to your theory, would have taken millions of years to change, causing severe problems for the transition species.

And the flying squirrel just has skin connecting its legs, not wings.

Yet another nail in the coffin of creationism. Admit it's dead already and move on.

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7736120/
Ah, but you show your ignorance here by missing something vital: one can be both creationist and believe in evolution. It's called the Catholic Church; look it up.

The flying squirrel is nothing like a bird. The difference between the leg of a reptile and the wing of a bird is vastly different and, according to your theory, would have taken millions of years to change, causing severe problems for the transition species.

And the flying squirrel just has skin connecting its legs, not wings.
Wings are nothing more then skin connecting fingers. Analogous to webbed toes found in some species.

As you point out, discrepancies in scientific theories are appropriately covered in higher level classes. When someone is first learning basic science (hell, when someone is first learning anything), as a teacher you do not dwell on the exceptions.[/QUOTE]

If you don't cover them in early classes, not everyone will know there are any holes. Then you get people on forums like this who don't know what they're talking about and just argue there are no holes because that is what they're taught. I'm not saying everyone here doesn't know what they're talking about, but some of you just attack and offer no support.

-edit:

Sorry, everything before the QUOTE thing is quoted from the other post.

Ah, but you show your ignorance here by missing something vital: one can be both creationist and believe in evolution. It's called the Catholic Church; look it up.

No, read my second or first post to see your fact is wrong

Wings are nothing more then skin connecting fingers. Analogous to webbed toes found in some species.

*sigh*

Except that the structure of wings are vastly different than the structure of reptilian limbs! It's not merely a question of skin connectors, but of the steps that would have to be taken to reach a workable wing.

Well how did everthing appear out of nothing? THAT is somehow more scientificlly sound than evolution? And don't say that is saying I don't belive in the Bible, because as far as I remember, "Creation" is the only time God made something out of nothing. Like, for instance, the seven plauges of Eygpt. Those weren't out of no where. Historians have proved there was a volcano that erupted in the Mediteraenian(SP?) around the time of the plauges that would have caused exactly what happened in that story to happen.

As you point out, discrepancies in scientific theories are appropriately covered in higher level classes. When someone is first learning basic science (hell, when someone is first learning anything), as a teacher you do not dwell on the exceptions.

If you don't cover them in early classes, not everyone will know there are any holes. Then you get people on forums like this who don't know what they're talking about and just argue there are no holes because that is what they're taught. I'm not saying everyone here doesn't know what they're talking about, but some of you just attack and offer no support.[/QUOTE]
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB300.html

*sigh*

Except that the structure of wings are vastly different than the structure of reptilian limbs! It's not merely a question of skin connectors, but of the steps that would have to be taken to reach a workable wing.
Vastly different? Nope. The wing is incredibly similar to related species' bones/structure, which, by the way, includes humanity.

And to the "there are no laws" thing, there are many laws. Ever heard of Newton's LAWS of motion? Proven.Scientific laws are generally accepted to be true and univseral. They are not "proven" as you use the term. They are accepted at face value because they have always been observed to be true. Should evidence be gathered to disprove it, even a Law (turn the reverb on when you say that) would be discarded.

Vastly different? Nope. The wing is incredibly similar to related species' bones/structure, which, by the way, includes humanity.
Looking at a skeleton of a bird, the wings look remarkabely like arms (its especially noticable in bats). There really isn't that much structural different between various animals.

Ok, much as I'd like to keep arguing, I have better things to do. I've argued this point in different forums, and I've come to the following conclusion:

Though creationists have a faith-based theory, and cannot "prove" anything beyond pointing out obvious holes and influences of God, evolutionists base their theories on faith as well. You guys simply say "it is because it is, and the holes will fill themselves in." That's faith. And like it's been said so many times before, you can't win a faith-based argument.

All of us are basing our beliefs on faith, and that is why this issue will never be resolved.

*sigh*

Except that the structure of wings are vastly different than the structure of reptilian limbs! It's not merely a question of skin connectors, but of the steps that would have to be taken to reach a workable wing.

Kind of like these steps:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/bird_forelimbs.gif

Edit: Since it appears the image doesn't include the handy caption:

Forelimbs of (A) Ornitholestes, a theropod dinosaur, (B) Archaeopteryx, (C) Sinornis, an archaic bird from the lower Cretaceous, and (D) the wing of a modern chicken (modified from Carroll 1988, p. 340; Carroll 1997, p. 309).

Handy thing that fossil record...

If you don't cover them in early classes, not everyone will know there are any holes. Then you get people on forums like this who don't know what they're talking about and just argue there are no holes because that is what they're taught. I'm not saying everyone here doesn't know what they're talking about, but some of you just attack and offer no support.I don't see anyone here maintaining evolution is fully explained and perfect. And I see plenty of support being provided to you to counter your arguments.

Having a basic knowledge of science, even if thinking everything is fully explained, is far better than the crap that masquerades as creationism. As for 'not knowing there are any holes.' Pick a school topic, any school topic, is it completely covered?

"It’s "our FIRST really good case of a dinosaur in the midst of shifting from the meat-eating body to a plant-eating one,” said an expert not involved in the discovery, Thomas R. Holtz Jr. of the University of Maryland."

"A newly found dinosour in Utah MAY show the transition from meat-eating to feathered, plant-eating dinosours."

No, read my second or first post to see your fact is wrong
You're post doesn't disprove any of my facts. Creationism and Evolution are compatible, and that is the doctrinal stance of the Catholic Church today.

Yet another nail in the coffin of creationism. Admit it's dead already and move on.

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7736120/

i read about this in a different article a couple days ago. very interesting...

Scientific laws are generally accepted to be true and univseral. They are not "proven" as you use the term. They are accepted at face value because they have always been observed to be true. Should evidence be gathered to disprove it, even a Law (turn the reverb on when you say that) would be discarded.

And never mind that the laws he/she used - ie. Newton's laws of motion - have, in fact, already been disproven. Physicists have found that they are incorrect. However, in large scales and normal speeds, they are a good enough approximation (the errors are way into the decimal range). The more correct theory is drawn from Einstein's work.

It's true that our understanding of evolution is imperfect. We know it happened but we don't know exactly how it happens. Consequently there are some holes in the different propositions. Some of them small, some a bit wider.

In contrast, creationism only has one hole... one big, gaping, monstruous pit of a hole. But only one! :)

Well, let's consider the fact that they would have limbs that would be incapable of being used as legs and at the same time incapable of being used as wings. Movement would be drastically hindered, preventing it from easily attaining food and from avoiding predators.


The Ostrich has a pair of limbs which are incapable of being used as legs, and incapable of being used as wings. Nobody considers an ostrich to be drastically hindered in terms of movement.

Many bipedal reptiles that existed before birds had practically useless forelimbs anyway, the classic example being Tyrannosaurus Rex, which was hardly vulnerable.

It's true that our understanding of evolution is imperfect. We know it happened but we don't know exactly how it happens.

That's where you're wrong. You cannot prove nor disprove evolution, just as I cannot prove nor disprove creationism.

You cannot "know" it happened.

Were you there?

Do you see apes turning into humans?

Do you REALLY think we're evolving into something better?

Honestly, I think we're getting worse.

Actually, you can disprove evolution.

It's just not happening, no matter how hard people try.

That's where you're wrong. You cannot prove nor disprove evolution, just as I cannot prove nor disprove creationism.

You cannot "know" it happened.

Were you there?

Do you see apes turning into humans?

Do you REALLY think we're evolving into something better?

Honestly, I think we're getting worse.

I don't get it.....how do dinosaurs not disproove creationism? Can someone explain this to me as I've never heard the counter-arguement.

I don't get it.....how do dinosaurs not disproove creationism? Can someone explain this to me as I've never heard the counter-arguement.

Because dinosaurs could've been created... What says they have to have evolved?

Because dinosaurs could've been created... What says they have to have evolved?

Dinosaurs are a monophyletic group, that's why.

Because dinosaurs could've been created... What says they have to have evolved?

Nothing I guess. What I was actually refering to was the claim that the Earth is only around 6,000 years old. How do dinosaurs fit into that?

Nothing I guess. What I was actually refering to was the claim that the Earth is only around 6,000 years old. How do dinosaurs fit into that?

If the earth is only that old, then how could anything that we have have evolved?

Weird point you're making...most evolutionists believe the earth is billions of years old. So...

?

Dinosaurs are a monophyletic group, that's why.

Ah, and that says...? Just because they come from one source doesn't make them evolved.

If Creationists were right, this (http://online.sfsu.edu/~uy/AnimDiv/lab/Lab9/microraptor.jpg) shouldn't exist either. :p

(That's Microraptor - one of many feathered dinosaurs)

Ah, and that says...? Just because they come from one source doesn't make them evolved.

Well, they have a lot of features in common (pierced acetabulum and three or more sacral vertebrae, for example). The "coincidence" would be too big if they were created separately, especially in chronological order. So... i think it's self-explanatory

If Creationists were right, this (http://online.sfsu.edu/~uy/AnimDiv/lab/Lab9/microraptor.jpg) shouldn't exist either. :p

(That's Microraptor - one of many feathered dinosaurs)

I don't understand this. How in the world would this disprove creationism? You do realize that by creating a species, it can be whatever it pleases?

How far will people go in order to disprove any sort of spark or idea that there could be a Creator? There is no possible way to say it didn't happen. You. Weren't. There.

Until you find someone who was here at the beginning of the first age, then you cannot discredit creation, nor can I prove that evolution doesn't exist. Yes, I believe we evolve, but not in the Darwinian theory. I believe we age, we grow.

Creationism and evolution are still only theories. Both cannot be proven. Both have never been seen.

Well, I need to take a shower.

Not quite a wing, not a normal leg, but it works for them. One can assume that the transition between dinosaur and bird would have gone just as smoothly.
First of all, you're wrong.

Flying squirrels have a flap of skin, and when they jump from tree to tree, the air gets caught under the skin.

The case of the reptile/bird is a good point. Do birds have feet on their wings? NO. A wing and an arm are two completely different things.

By the way, the Bible never says that animals don't evolve. Animals do evolve and natural selection is real. The fact that we are mere products of chance, like the Big Bang implies, is ridiculous. Our bodies have way too many tiny intricacies that could never be put together by chance. Anyone who's taken college level anatomy or biology knows this, and cannot possibly believe that.

To you "evolutionist Christians", explain to me in the Bible where it says that God created the big bang. If you don't believe the verse that says "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God, and the Word was with God", you can't possibly be a Christian. The reason Word is capitalized in that sentence is because it's talking about Jesus, who was there IN THE BEGINNING. If you don't believe that the Bible is wholly true, then what makes the fact that people saw all those miracles and followed Jesus a true fact?

Explain it.

First of all, you're wrong.

Flying squirrels have a flap of skin, and when they jump from tree to tree, the air gets caught under the skin.

The case of the reptile/bird is a good point. Do birds have feet on their wings? NO. A wing and an arm are two completely different things.

To repeat:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/com...d_forelimbs.gif

And since it appears the image doesn't include the handy caption:

Forelimbs of (A) Ornitholestes, a theropod dinosaur, (B) Archaeopteryx, (C) Sinornis, an archaic bird from the lower Cretaceous, and (D) the wing of a modern chicken (modified from Carroll 1988, p. 340; Carroll 1997, p. 309).

Well how did everthing appear out of nothing? THAT is somehow more scientificlly sound than evolution? And don't say that is saying I don't belive in the Bible, because as far as I remember, "Creation" is the only time God made something out of nothing. Like, for instance, the seven plauges of Eygpt. Those weren't out of no where. Historians have proved there was a volcano that erupted in the Mediteraenian(SP?) around the time of the plauges that would have caused exactly what happened in that story to happen.
Yes, because we all know that volcanoes are responsible for the death of every couple first-born children. How about you read that Bible of yours a little more?

Gentlemen, gentlemen...

What you seem to neglect is that evolution defies its own laws of science. The second law of thermodynamics is the law of entropy...the idea that things, without intelligent design, move from a state of order to disorder. Evolution involves no intelligent design, thus it is mere "chance". This is a direct contradiction to the second law of thermodynamics. When scientists figure out a way around that, let me know. (Don't hand me the b.s. about "well the circumstances were just right for it and..." No. The probability is off. It is in fact improbable.) Missing fossils. Sure...sure. Any ideas about what teeth were used for what and what body parts were used for what is mere speculation anyway, because in fact, YOU WEREN'T THERE. I welcome intelligent discussion on this.

Mr. Howard

Gentlemen, gentlemen...

What you seem to neglect is that evolution defies its own laws of science. The second law of thermodynamics is the law of entropy...the idea that things, without intelligent design, move from a state of order to disorder. Evolution involves no intelligent design, thus it is mere "chance". This is a direct contradiction to the second law of thermodynamics. When scientists figure out a way around that, let me know. (Don't hand me the b.s. about "well the circumstances were just right for it and..." No. The probability is off. It is in fact improbable.) Missing fossils. Sure...sure. Any ideas about what teeth were used for what and what body parts were used for what is mere speculation anyway, because in fact, YOU WEREN'T THERE. I welcome intelligent discussion on this.

Mr. Howard
YOU have a very good point. I learned that not long ago, and you're correct.

Gentlemen, gentlemen...

What you seem to neglect is that evolution defies its own laws of science. The second law of thermodynamics is the law of entropy...

Oh for christ sake.

the idea that things, without intelligent design, move from a state of order to disorder.

Please take a physics class. When they get to the 2nd law, pay close attention to the part about OPEN AND CLOSED SYSTEMS.

Please take a physics class. When they get to the 2nd law, pay close attention to the part about OPEN AND CLOSED SYSTEMS.
please explain, mr. physicist

The idea that the open system exists on earth is due to the fact that it has an endless supply of energy. Usually it is argued that this supply is the sun. If this is the case, then where did that energy come from? If the sun is "burning out", isn't it only logical that it had a beginning. If not, it would not be growing dimmer or would be burnt out by now. So again...the question is...if evolution works because it is in an open environment because of the unlimited energy supply, where is the energy coming from?

Mr. Howard

If the earth is only that old, then how could anything that we have have evolved?

Weird point you're making...most evolutionists believe the earth is billions of years old. So...

?
I believe the Earth is billions of years old. Creationists believe the Earth is 6,000 years old. How do creationists explain dinosaurs if the Earth is supposed to be only 6,000 years old?

please explain, mr. physicist

In plain terms, the second law states that in all exchanges of energy in a system, if no energy enters or leaves the system, the potential energy of the system will always be less than that of the initial state of the system.

Or, in other words... entropy always increases IN CLOSED SYSTEMS.

The earth, as it is receiving massive quantities of energy from the sun on a constant basis, is an open system, to which this statement does not apply.

Edit: No torches, this has nothing whatsoever to do with "endless" supplies of energy.

I believe the Earth is billions of years old. Creationists believe the Earth is 6,000 years old. How do creationists explain dinosaurs if the Earth is supposed to be only 6,000 years old?
I know this arguement isn't going to be too credible, because I don't know the scripture references. The Bible does, however, mention creatures that are believed to be dinosaurs. It doesn't mention that these were around 200 million years ago, but the again, the Bible also says that a day is like 1000 years. So when God was creating the Earth, who's to say that animals weren't on the earth millions of years ago. There were no humans around to say likewise.

In plain terms, the second law states that in all exchanges of energy in a system, if no energy enters or leaves the system, the potential energy of the system will always be less than that of the initial state of the system.

Or, in other words... entropy always increases IN CLOSED SYSTEMS.

The earth, as it is receiving massive quantities of energy from the sun on a constant basis, is an open system, to which this statement does not apply.

Edit: No torches, this has nothing whatsoever to do with "endless" supplies of energy.
So, you're saying that theoretically, the earth should be spontaneously producing organisms all the time? I want to know why no other planets in our galaxy have any (known) living matter. Was earth just that special?

No one has yet explained to me how our bodies were so intricately designed from these random "decreases in entropy". Who created the chemicals that came together anyways? If there is truly a BEGINNING, how did the chemicals get created?

So, you're saying that theoretically, the earth should be spontaneously producing organisms all the time?

No. Thermodynamics does not = molecular biology. It deals only with energy states. All this means is that if all the requisite biological criteria are met there is energy AVAILABLE for certain chemical processes to occur.

No. Thermodynamics does not = molecular biology. It deals only with energy states. All this means is that if all the requisite biological criteria are met there is energy AVAILABLE for certain chemical processes to occur.
Yes, you have a point.

Where would the requisite biological criteria have come from to produce the first organisms?

You never answered my question. Where did the original energy come from? If it has always been there why hasn't the sun burnt out yet? Where did the proper organic material come from? You can't really believe it was all just of a sudden there? The big bang theory proposes that there was some kind of reaction to begin the process. Where did the elements necessary for the reaction come from? There had to be some sort of beginning somewhere other than spontaneity and chance. Do tell...

Mr. Howard

You never answered my question. Where did the original energy come from? If it has always been there why hasn't the sun burnt out yet? Where did the proper organic material come from? You can't really believe it was all just of a sudden there? The big bang theory proposes that there was some kind of reaction to begin the process. Where did the elements necessary for the reaction come from? There had to be some sort of beginning somewhere other than spontaneity and chance. Do tell...

Mr. Howard
You're doing a good job. Keep up the arguement...I'm off to sleep.

You never answered my question. Where did the original energy come from?

Probably because I'm having a hard time figuring out why you're futzing around with an issue of cosmology in a discussion of biology... but whatever.

If it has always been there why hasn't the sun burnt out yet?

Who said the sun's always been there? It formed a little over 4 and a half billion years ago.

Where did the proper organic material come from?

Stellar fusion produced the heavier elements... and chemical reactions produced the more complex molecules.

You can't really believe it was all just of a sudden there?

No, I don't believe it was "all of a sudden there". This all took about 10 billion years after the Big Bang you know. Not by any stretch of the imagination "all of a sudden".

The big bang theory proposes that there was some kind of reaction to begin the process. Where did the elements necessary for the reaction come from?

Elements??? There were no elements theorized to have been involved in causing the Big Bang. What are you talking about?

There had to be some sort of beginning somewhere other than spontaneity and chance. Do tell...

Do read:

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html

And if you'd like a glimpse at one of the newer theoretical models taking a shot at what potentially caused the Big Bang, Steinhardt and Turok's cyclic model is a good read:

http://wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/sciencecyc.pdf

But that is wandering FAR FAR afield from any discussion of evolution. That is cosmology, a completely seperate field that has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution.

pwned

if science and religion would put their heads together,we would all be closer to the truth. i could tell you why we are all here and what the purpose of life is,but then you would prolly lose interest in living....assuming you believed me...
Not if you look at it from a scientific standpoint. There, it makes perfect sense. We're here for the same bloody reason all other animals (and we ARE animals, make no mistake about it) are; to breed and propagate more of our species. We work at jobs to make money, so we can buy food, so we can live, so we can survive to breed. We have children so they can breed and pass on our genes. Anything else in my opinion is superfluous and extraneous. Basically, it all goes back to the reproduction. That's why we're here. Simple.

Yeah, and no one's ever been able to explain the many holes. Like the fact that if reptiles really had evolved into birds, there would have been millions of years of extremely vulnerable transition species that could not have possibly survived. They kind of skip that part.
You ever hear of something called the Archeopteryx? Discovered back in 1861. Shows transition from a reptile with modified keratinous feathery integuement to birds fully capable of flight.
The hoatzin of the South American rain forest. Has claws on its wings reminsicent of those present in theropod dinosaurs from the Mesozoic. Looks a lot like an archaeopteryx. So does the toraoco (have claws, I mean. Doesn't look like an archaeopteryx)
Falcarius utahensis-Discovered back in 2003, I think. A therozinosaur dinosaur that shows evolution of plant eathing megafauna from velociraptorine forms.
Numerous dinosaur fossils found with feather imprints intact and still evident. Archaeopteryx, microraptor gui, caudopteryx, cryptovalens, shuvuuia, beipiaosaurus, sinornithosaurus, and perhaps most importantly, Sinosauropteryx, which I have personally seen when working at the Royal Tyrell Museum in Drumheller, Alberta, just to name a handful. All of these animals, I should mention, are from different geologic time periods, millions of years apart.

Looks as though your theory about transitional forms is flawed. But maybe we ought to be careful about using that "T" word around here, shouldn't we? ;)

Ok, if there's so much "proof," then why is it still a theory? The reason is that there is too much unexplained. Like the fact that there has never been an instance where an addition or mutation to the genetic code has produced a benefit for an organism. It always results in deformation and death.

And don't cite the bacteria being immune to medicines thing. Frozen bacterium from the 19th century, before the advent of modern medicine, have shown resistance to these treatments. The reason is because there are some bacterium which can resist, and since those are the only one's to survive, it seems that the whole species evolves. Natural selection is true, but evolution is not.
You have no concept of science it will ALWAYS be a theory
GRAVITY is still just a theory

They are all just well tested theories

Its all about degrees of likely hood

Does anyone else maybe think or possibly except the thought that neither the theory of creation or the theory of evolution don't have enough support to stand alone, that both idea support each other. Hence forth that we all use science when we go to the docotrs when we really get sick, and also the fact that god or what ever you want to call him or her gave us all kinds of choices as far as religion is concerned? ie (Christianity, Musilm, Pagan, Jewish...and so on and so on)? :D

Yay another evoulution thread! :D Evolution stand quite well on it's own, doesn't need creationism or God at all really.

Does anyone else maybe think or possibly except the thought that neither the theory of creation or the theory of evolution don't have enough support to stand alone, that both idea support each other. Hence forth that we all use science when we go to the docotrs when we really get sick, and also the fact that god or what ever you want to call him or her gave us all kinds of choices as far as religion is concerned? ie (Christianity, Musilm, Pagan, Jewish...and so on and so on)? :D
But insofar it does have enough evidence to support something close to the modern versions of evolution on its own

If evolution is wrong it will be corrected … that’s the beauty of a theory in the realm of science … if the theory does not fit the data the theory is modified to fit the real world

:) Ok if you haven't read the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy you at least need to see the movie. It clashes creationism and science and philosophy together, :fluffle: and overall it's just a good read. Maybe it would knock :headbang: some sense into you juggerheads, because all Adamists know that the answer to Life, the Universe and Everything is 42! :D Plus this book just blows all of your other arguements out of the water. And hey! Maybe there IS no proof that god exists, :rolleyes: but since Christianity and Judaism and Islam and Hinduism and Taoism and Buddhism ect. are faith-based religions and without faith there is no God (or Allah or whatever) they don't need proof. So the only people who really care about the aethiests' arguements are other aethiests. :mad: Or maybe agnostics. Besides, there isn't any proof that God (or Yahweh or whatever) DOESN'T exist! So there! :p Pbbbbbbt!

Okay, there is no way that either side of this argument is completely right. Creationism has a big flaw in that its only evidence is a couple of religious books.
Evolution is questionable because it doesn't answer all of the questions raised and maybe cannot answer all of the questions raised.
As you can see, the gaps in logic in creationism are much larger than those in evolution. Evolution is correct. Not entireley so, but then, is anything entirely correct?

:) Ok if you haven't read the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy you at least need to see the movie. It clashes creationism and science and philosophy together, :fluffle: and overall it's just a good read. Maybe it would knock :headbang: some sense into you juggerheads, because all Adamists know that the answer to Life, the Universe and Everything is 42! :D Plus this book just blows all of your other arguements out of the water. And hey! Maybe there IS no proof that god exists, :rolleyes: but since Christianity and Judaism and Islam and Hinduism and Taoism and Buddhism ect. are faith-based religions and without faith there is no God (or Allah or whatever) they don't need proof. So the only people who really care about the aethiests' arguements are other aethiests. :mad: Or maybe agnostics. Besides, there isn't any proof that God (or Yahweh or whatever) DOESN'T exist! So there! :p Pbbbbbbt!
Buddhism doesnt have a god. just thought u should know.

Buddhism doesnt have a god. just thought u should know.
No but they do follow Buddha, and who said that he ever existed? In the sense that I was entertaining, for all purposes and intentions of my post, they do worship and/or follow a god-like icon. So there! :p Pbbbbbt!

Am I the only Christian Evolutionist here? My personal theory is God created the Universe, wandered around it a bit, found us and saw how advanced, yet extremely stupid, we were, and had pity on us.

Probably, most of us evolution people seem to be atheist/agnostic/deist.
I personally belive that God set us up and we evolved to conscious, when god inspired men to write the various scriptures to show us the way.
Unfortunately, I think a lot of people take the bible the wrong way most of the time.

Ok, here goes.

The epistomological problem of Induction states that any theory, no matter how well evidenced, can never be taken as absolute fact. This is due to the inductive nature of empirical science - i.e. if I take a stone and drop it to the ground, and it falls, that is evidence for the Theory of gravity. But it doesn't prove it, as i'd need to test it a few more times to make sure i hadn't made a mistake.
But there's the problem - for how do I know how many times I need to test it? Till i'm 'certain'? But who's version of 'certain' should I take? Surely I have no proof either that the future will resemble the past - we all assume nature is uniform, even have a "Blind Faith" in it, even with no proof!

So when people say that they have 'absolute proof' of anything scientific, i tend to be very sceptical. E.g. the guy who was 'certain' he'd discovered Cold Fusion, when he in fact hadn't.

Also if there is no 'God', as atheists claim, then ALL things are relative, including science. For only religion claims to have an objective 'the truth is out there' stance. For if I say 'the moon is blue' and you disagree, surely there is no objective standard to mesure the 'truth' by, unless there exists some being who created it and has objective knowledge of all - i.e. is omniscient.

This is in effect the cosmological argument, but my premise still stands. Science has never proven anything. Sorry, but that's just the way it is. All it deals in the probabilities, statistics, if you will.

I want to know why no other planets in our galaxy have any (known) living matter. Was earth just that special?

Because we've hardly looked on any of them. We only have the capacity to observe 9 of them, out of potentially billions. That is a very silly point you just tried to make.

The flying squirrel is nothing like a bird. The difference between the leg of a reptile and the wing of a bird is vastly different and, according to your theory, would have taken millions of years to change, causing severe problems for the transition species.

And the flying squirrel just has skin connecting its legs, not wings.
Evolution occurs in small steps. Useless wings aren't always a hinderance to survival. Look at the ostritch. It can't fly, but it's not endangered or extinct.

Ah, but you show your ignorance here by missing something vital: one can be both creationist and believe in evolution. It's called the Catholic Church; look it up.
I'm talking about the creationists who reject evolution.

Well how did everthing appear out of nothing? THAT is somehow more scientificlly sound than evolution? And don't say that is saying I don't belive in the Bible, because as far as I remember, "Creation" is the only time God made something out of nothing. Like, for instance, the seven plauges of Eygpt. Those weren't out of no where. Historians have proved there was a volcano that erupted in the Mediteraenian(SP?) around the time of the plauges that would have caused exactly what happened in that story to happen.
How did everything appear out of nothing? What's that got to do with evolution?

Ok, much as I'd like to keep arguing, I have better things to do. I've argued this point in different forums, and I've come to the following conclusion:

Though creationists have a faith-based theory, and cannot "prove" anything beyond pointing out obvious holes and influences of God, evolutionists base their theories on faith as well. You guys simply say "it is because it is, and the holes will fill themselves in." That's faith. And like it's been said so many times before, you can't win a faith-based argument.

All of us are basing our beliefs on faith, and that is why this issue will never be resolved.
No, I'm basing my beleif on evidence. The evidence supports evolution. Fossils are found segregated by age. If everything was made at once birds and dogs would be found with dinosaurs and trilobites.

No, I'm basing my beleif on evidence. The evidence supports evolution. Fossils are found segregated by age. If everything was made at once birds and dogs would be found with dinosaurs and trilobites.

right-right. Well said, DCR :)

Btw, is it just me, or is "intellectual creationist" an oxymoron?

That's where you're wrong. You cannot prove nor disprove evolution, just as I cannot prove nor disprove creationism.

You cannot "know" it happened.

Were you there?

Do you see apes turning into humans?

Do you REALLY think we're evolving into something better?

Honestly, I think we're getting worse.
1 We can know it happened because the evidence indicates that it did. Same way you can know a person in a court of law is guilty even if you didn't see the crime. It's not 100% certainty, nothing in science is. It is, however, so well supported by evidence that it can be considered 99.9% certain that evolution occured.

2 We don't need to be there. The evidence is preserved.

3 Common mistake made by those who dont' understand evolution. Humans aren't a goal. We're one branch in a tree. Apes today may be evolving into any number of different species.

4 Another common mistake made by those who don't understand evolution. Evolution only makes a species better at producing the next generation. Look at insects. They're not big, and brainy, but they reproduce so well that they're an evolutionary success.

Because dinosaurs could've been created... What says they have to have evolved?
The fossil record.

First of all, you're wrong.

Flying squirrels have a flap of skin, and when they jump from tree to tree, the air gets caught under the skin.

The case of the reptile/bird is a good point. Do birds have feet on their wings? NO. A wing and an arm are two completely different things.

By the way, the Bible never says that animals don't evolve. Animals do evolve and natural selection is real. The fact that we are mere products of chance, like the Big Bang implies, is ridiculous. Our bodies have way too many tiny intricacies that could never be put together by chance. Anyone who's taken college level anatomy or biology knows this, and cannot possibly believe that.

To you "evolutionist Christians", explain to me in the Bible where it says that God created the big bang. If you don't believe the verse that says "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God, and the Word was with God", you can't possibly be a Christian. The reason Word is capitalized in that sentence is because it's talking about Jesus, who was there IN THE BEGINNING. If you don't believe that the Bible is wholly true, then what makes the fact that people saw all those miracles and followed Jesus a true fact?

Explain it.
http://rainforests.mongabay.com/0411.htm

Under "New world birds" read the Fifth paragraph. So much for not having feet on their wings. This bird has a claw on it's wing which it uses to climb. Like the feet of a squirrel.

Gentlemen, gentlemen...

What you seem to neglect is that evolution defies its own laws of science. The second law of thermodynamics is the law of entropy...the idea that things, without intelligent design, move from a state of order to disorder. Evolution involves no intelligent design, thus it is mere "chance". This is a direct contradiction to the second law of thermodynamics. When scientists figure out a way around that, let me know. (Don't hand me the b.s. about "well the circumstances were just right for it and..." No. The probability is off. It is in fact improbable.) Missing fossils. Sure...sure. Any ideas about what teeth were used for what and what body parts were used for what is mere speculation anyway, because in fact, YOU WEREN'T THERE. I welcome intelligent discussion on this.

Mr. HowardThe second law only applies to a closed system. Earth isn't a closed system. The sun pumps energy into the earth. The increase of order on earth is more than balanced by the chaos of moving particles in and ejected from the sun. This is necessary because the universe is a closed system. A local decrease in entropy is balanced by a greater increase in entropy elsewher in the system.

Let's please lay to rest the creationist lie that the second law of thermodynamics makes evolution impossible.

YOU have a very good point. I learned that not long ago, and you're correct.
No he's not. He's been misled just like you.

That's where you're wrong. You cannot prove nor disprove evolution, just as I cannot prove nor disprove creationism.

You can't prove or disprove anything. All you can do is find evidence in favor and against.

There is an enormous amount of evidence for evolution, very little against.

There is no evidence in favor of creationism, simply speculation. There is no evidence against it, but that's only because of the nature of the hypothesis, formulated in a very vague way.

You cannot "know" it happened.

But I can infer it. It's as if I was walking down the street and see a lot of glass, some pieces of metal and rubber, and oil stains. I don't know what happened, but I can infer there was some sort of accident.


Were you there?

No, but I'm here, and the evidence is all over the place.


Do you see apes turning into humans?

Do you REALLY think we're evolving into something better?

Honestly, I think we're getting worse.
Maan! This last three statements make me realize you really have no idea what evolution is or what the theory proposses. Go read a couple of books on the subject by reputable scientific authors and then come back.

The idea that the open system exists on earth is due to the fact that it has an endless supply of energy. Usually it is argued that this supply is the sun. If this is the case, then where did that energy come from? If the sun is "burning out", isn't it only logical that it had a beginning. If not, it would not be growing dimmer or would be burnt out by now. So again...the question is...if evolution works because it is in an open environment because of the unlimited energy supply, where is the energy coming from?

Mr. HowardThe energy comes from fusion.
The sun's energy needn't be endless, and it's not. The sun is burning it's energy, but it has so much to burn that we don't notice it getting dimmer. We do know, however, that it will one day run out of energy.

Yes, you have a point.

Where would the requisite biological criteria have come from to produce the first organisms?
That's irrelevant to a discussion of evolution. Would you ask someone if they know how to turn Bauxite into aluminum if they claimed knowledge of how to build an airplane?

You never answered my question. Where did the original energy come from? If it has always been there why hasn't the sun burnt out yet? Where did the proper organic material come from? You can't really believe it was all just of a sudden there? The big bang theory proposes that there was some kind of reaction to begin the process. Where did the elements necessary for the reaction come from? There had to be some sort of beginning somewhere other than spontaneity and chance. Do tell...

Mr. Howard
Time started at the big bang. Time doesn't go endlessly back. The sun didn't form immediately after the big bang. There were generations of stars preceeding it.

The idea that the open system exists on earth is due to the fact that it has an endless supply of energy. Usually it is argued that this supply is the sun. If this is the case, then where did that energy come from? If the sun is "burning out", isn't it only logical that it had a beginning. If not, it would not be growing dimmer or would be burnt out by now. So again...the question is...if evolution works because it is in an open environment because of the unlimited energy supply, where is the energy coming from?

Mr. Howard
The sun had a beggining. The energy has always existed, always, since the beginning of the Universe and "before" that. Matter has been around the same time. In fact, both are interchangeable to a point.

After the big bang, matter started to condense thanks to the action of gravity, which attracted clumps of matter against each other. As this clumps grow bigger the pressure inside rises, consequently the temperature. There comes a point when there's so much mass that the hydrogen in the core starts a process of fusion, in which two atoms of hydrogen become one atom of helium and release energy. That's where the energy from the sun comes from, and some of it falls on earth.

If you still have questions at least make an effort and read a book on astrophysics.

The issue of birds evolving from dinosaurs seems to be disputed in the scientific community.

Quotes from this page:
http://www.peripatus.gen.nz/Paleontology/OriBir.html


"Origin of Birds

Abstract

This page explores some of the debate surrounding the origin of birds; about how much we actually know about it, and about how well the hard evidence supports some of the popular accounts.

Keywords: bird, theropod, thecodont, dinosaur, Triassic, Jurassic, Cretaceous, bird origins, cursorial, Archeopteryx

Introduction

The popular press already has all the answers: birds evolved from dinosaurs – a hypothesis which many, including some professional paleontologists who really ought to know better, have adopted as an article of faith. In fact, the evidence is contradictory and difficult to interpret."


...



"What are the so-called "feathered dinosaurs" and what is their significance?

The first question is easy......

Sinosauropteryx prima from Liaoning, China, closely related to Compsognathus

In the last few years, many fossils of feathered dinosaurs have been found near Yianxin, in Liaoning Province, China. Two new Chinese feathered dinosaurs dating from between 145 and 125 million years ago (during the late Jurassic and early Cretaceous periods) have been found, Protarchaeopteryx robusta and Caudipteryx zoui. Their features are more dinosaur-like than bird-like, and they are considered to be theropod dinosaurs. Their feathers were symmetrical, which indicate that they could not fly (flightless birds have symmetrical feathers while those that fly have asymmetrical ones).

The second question, to interpret the significance of the feathered dinosaurs, is more problematic. These finds have been advanced as evidence to reinforce the theory that birds are descended from dinosaurs.

But many of these arguments are fatally flawed. Consider, for example, the statement "Sinosauropteryx had a coat of downy, feather-like fibers that are perhaps the forerunner of feathers" (from the Enchanted Learning site).

Archaeopteryx already had REAL feathers at ~150 Ma, a good 15 or 20 million years before Sinosauropteryx’s supposed "forerunner" structures.

Presumably this kind of over-zealous interpretation is being advanced by lay people; one sincerely hopes that the professional researchers graduating from our universities today would not make such elementary errors of logic.

"Modern feathers probably evolved through the following stages: (i) elongation of scales, (ii) appearance of a central shaft, (iii) differentiation of vanes into barbs, and (iv) appearance of barbules and barbicel" (Zhang & Zhou 2000, p. 1957).

This is what we can say: If the structures are indeed feathers, and if we believe that feathers have only ever evolved once, then we have a compelling case for an apomorphy.

Here again, though, it is the age of the fossils which presents the greatest theoretical difficulties because, Sinosauropteryx being the earliest of them, all of the so-called "feathered dinosaur" discoveries post-date Archaeopteryx by tens of Ma. The only possible relevance their supposed feathered condition can have is as a candidate derived character (a synapomorphy or symplesiomorphy) shared with birds. Neither interpretation lends more than circumstantial support to the theropod hypothesis, nor sheds any light on the development of feathers, or birds themselves, for that matter."


...



"As a generalisation, the theropod hypothesis tends to be favoured by paleontologists, whereas a good many ornithologists bridle at the implication of a cursorial ("ground-up") origin of avian flight (see below).

The main support for the theropod (or dinosaurian) hypothesis comes from the very close similarity of the avian skeleton to that of certain bipedal theropod dinosaurs, specifically the Maniraptora. The similarities are most pronounced in the structure of the pelvis and, depending upon one's interpretation, the posterior limbs (the legs). As long ago as the 1860s, T.H. Huxley drew "attention to the remarkable similarity of the avian skeleton to that of certain reptiles and concluded that the birds had descended from dinosaurs. ... [R]ecently the dinosaur origin has been proclaimed by the cladists with such vigor that at present it seems to be the most widely accepted explanation of the origin of birds" (Mayr 2001, pp. 226-227).


Fig. 1: A simple cladogram, having no implied time dimension, showing three possible insertion points for the bird lineage. Although diagrams like this clearly illustrate the relationships between different taxa, it is precisely their (typical) failure to incorporate a scaled time dimension which hides a multitude of sins - see fig. 2.
Ornithologist Alan Feduccia (Feduccia 1999, p. vii) criticises the vertebrate paleontologists who "have accepted a formal, rigid cladistic methodology as the sine qua non for reconstructing phylogenies and, using this scheme in an almost religious manner, have [ironically!] discarded geological time as a tool in deciphering evolution...." One need only read a year's worth of articles in Nature or Science, or peruse a "techno-popular" compilation such as the Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs to corroborate this observation, particularly the absence of a quantitative time dimension to all this discussion. (For a particularly ridiculous example, see the cladogram on pages 78-79 of Prum & Brush 2004. Also see fig. 2). Of course none of this is the real professionals' literature; nevertheless, Feduccia's criticism is well-deserved.

However, there are numerous theoretical difficulties to the theropod hypothesis also. The most challenging are:

1. Fossil ages - Archeopteryx is not only inconveniently old itself, but it is clearly a highly derived animal, which had evolved "along avian lines" for many millions of years already.
2. Evolutionary considerations - Deriving a bird from a large, ground dwelling dinosaur requires some explaining. Mostly, the explanations we have to date are unconvincing.
3. Manus homologies - Despite some startling anatomical similarities, there are other respects in which bird skeletons do not resemble theropod dinosaurs. Chief among these are the three digits of the hand, which comprise fingers 1, 2, and 3 in dinosaurs, but 2, 3, and 4 in birds. "It is quite impossible to derive the avian digits from those of dinosaurs" (Mayr 2001, p. 68)."

Originally Posted by Falconus Peregrinus
Ok, if there's so much "proof," then why is it still a theory? The reason is that there is too much unexplained. Like the fact that there has never been an instance where an addition or mutation to the genetic code has produced a benefit for an organism. It always results in deformation and death.

And don't cite the bacteria being immune to medicines thing. Frozen bacterium from the 19th century, before the advent of modern medicine, have shown resistance to these treatments. The reason is because there are some bacterium which can resist, and since those are the only one's to survive, it seems that the whole species evolves. Natural selection is true, but evolution is not.

Learn some science FP. A theory is an explanation of the data we already have. It is tested by looking for exceptions. If the Creationists actually had any scientific knowledge, they'd know that and would look for exceptions. Furthermore, a scientific theory has predictive qualities, showing us what to expect.

Next, the vast majority of mutations to the genetic code are trivial which neither benefit not (more importantly) harm the individual. The mechanism of natural selection means none of these trivial mutations are selected against and so, they are passed on to future generations. In this way, multiple mutations can "pile up" until their combined effect becomes non-trivial. At that point, the value of the mutation will be determined by it's interaction with the environmet of the organism. It's not surprising that some 19th century bacteria is immune to modern anti-biotics, in fact, if you understood immunology, you'd know it would be more amazing if none of it was. Why exactly do you think we have to keep changing anti-biotics? the bacteria doesn't change to fight the drug, some of the bacteria are already immune and they're not selected against so, they reproduce. We now have medicines aimed at new bacteria so, when an old bacteria shows up, the medicine isn't designed to fight it.

Since natural selection is a mechanism for evolution, to say it exists but not evolution is like saying grammar exists but communication doesn't. Evolution means change and species do change, when descendants of a species are no longer compatible (e.g. reproductively) at least one new species has been created.

(BTW where'd you get the info on 19th century bacteria, couldn't find anything in a quick search.)

And yet ... somehow ... after all this ... my faith remains unshaken.

Go figure.

My kids think I'm a transitional fossil.

My kids think I'm a transitional fossil.
And the worse thing is when you realize "heck, I'm transitioning to something... but what?"

The issue of birds evolving from dinosaurs seems to be disputed in the scientific community.

Quotes from this page:
http://www.peripatus.gen.nz/Paleontology/OriBir.html


"Origin of Birds

Abstract

This page explores some of the debate surrounding the origin of birds; about how much we actually know about it, and about how well the hard evidence supports some of the popular accounts.

Keywords: bird, theropod, thecodont, dinosaur, Triassic, Jurassic, Cretaceous, bird origins, cursorial, Archeopteryx

Introduction

The popular press already has all the answers: birds evolved from dinosaurs – a hypothesis which many, including some professional paleontologists who really ought to know better, have adopted as an article of faith. In fact, the evidence is contradictory and difficult to interpret."


...



"What are the so-called "feathered dinosaurs" and what is their significance?

The first question is easy......

Sinosauropteryx prima from Liaoning, China, closely related to Compsognathus

In the last few years, many fossils of feathered dinosaurs have been found near Yianxin, in Liaoning Province, China. Two new Chinese feathered dinosaurs dating from between 145 and 125 million years ago (during the late Jurassic and early Cretaceous periods) have been found, Protarchaeopteryx robusta and Caudipteryx zoui. Their features are more dinosaur-like than bird-like, and they are considered to be theropod dinosaurs. Their feathers were symmetrical, which indicate that they could not fly (flightless birds have symmetrical feathers while those that fly have asymmetrical ones).

The second question, to interpret the significance of the feathered dinosaurs, is more problematic. These finds have been advanced as evidence to reinforce the theory that birds are descended from dinosaurs.

But many of these arguments are fatally flawed. Consider, for example, the statement "Sinosauropteryx had a coat of downy, feather-like fibers that are perhaps the forerunner of feathers" (from the Enchanted Learning site).

Archaeopteryx already had REAL feathers at ~150 Ma, a good 15 or 20 million years before Sinosauropteryx’s supposed "forerunner" structures.

Presumably this kind of over-zealous interpretation is being advanced by lay people; one sincerely hopes that the professional researchers graduating from our universities today would not make such elementary errors of logic.

"Modern feathers probably evolved through the following stages: (i) elongation of scales, (ii) appearance of a central shaft, (iii) differentiation of vanes into barbs, and (iv) appearance of barbules and barbicel" (Zhang & Zhou 2000, p. 1957).

This is what we can say: If the structures are indeed feathers, and if we believe that feathers have only ever evolved once, then we have a compelling case for an apomorphy.

Here again, though, it is the age of the fossils which presents the greatest theoretical difficulties because, Sinosauropteryx being the earliest of them, all of the so-called "feathered dinosaur" discoveries post-date Archaeopteryx by tens of Ma. The only possible relevance their supposed feathered condition can have is as a candidate derived character (a synapomorphy or symplesiomorphy) shared with birds. Neither interpretation lends more than circumstantial support to the theropod hypothesis, nor sheds any light on the development of feathers, or birds themselves, for that matter."


...



"As a generalisation, the theropod hypothesis tends to be favoured by paleontologists, whereas a good many ornithologists bridle at the implication of a cursorial ("ground-up") origin of avian flight (see below).

The main support for the theropod (or dinosaurian) hypothesis comes from the very close similarity of the avian skeleton to that of certain bipedal theropod dinosaurs, specifically the Maniraptora. The similarities are most pronounced in the structure of the pelvis and, depending upon one's interpretation, the posterior limbs (the legs). As long ago as the 1860s, T.H. Huxley drew "attention to the remarkable similarity of the avian skeleton to that of certain reptiles and concluded that the birds had descended from dinosaurs. ... [R]ecently the dinosaur origin has been proclaimed by the cladists with such vigor that at present it seems to be the most widely accepted explanation of the origin of birds" (Mayr 2001, pp. 226-227).


Fig. 1: A simple cladogram, having no implied time dimension, showing three possible insertion points for the bird lineage. Although diagrams like this clearly illustrate the relationships between different taxa, it is precisely their (typical) failure to incorporate a scaled time dimension which hides a multitude of sins - see fig. 2.
Ornithologist Alan Feduccia (Feduccia 1999, p. vii) criticises the vertebrate paleontologists who "have accepted a formal, rigid cladistic methodology as the sine qua non for reconstructing phylogenies and, using this scheme in an almost religious manner, have [ironically!] discarded geological time as a tool in deciphering evolution...." One need only read a year's worth of articles in Nature or Science, or peruse a "techno-popular" compilation such as the Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs to corroborate this observation, particularly the absence of a quantitative time dimension to all this discussion. (For a particularly ridiculous example, see the cladogram on pages 78-79 of Prum & Brush 2004. Also see fig. 2). Of course none of this is the real professionals' literature; nevertheless, Feduccia's criticism is well-deserved.

However, there are numerous theoretical difficulties to the theropod hypothesis also. The most challenging are:

1. Fossil ages - Archeopteryx is not only inconveniently old itself, but it is clearly a highly derived animal, which had evolved "along avian lines" for many millions of years already.
2. Evolutionary considerations - Deriving a bird from a large, ground dwelling dinosaur requires some explaining. Mostly, the explanations we have to date are unconvincing.
3. Manus homologies - Despite some startling anatomical similarities, there are other respects in which bird skeletons do not resemble theropod dinosaurs. Chief among these are the three digits of the hand, which comprise fingers 1, 2, and 3 in dinosaurs, but 2, 3, and 4 in birds. "It is quite impossible to derive the avian digits from those of dinosaurs" (Mayr 2001, p. 68)."

Ah, finally *healthy* criticism with brains. :fluffle:

Regarding your arguments:

1. Well, according to this, we might expect more bird / feathered dinosaur fossils from the Middle and Late Jurassic. If that does happen, it would be a good hint.

2. Well yeah, but counter question: from what should birds have evolved if not from dinosaurs? The number of synapomorphies is remarkable.

3. Check out this as a possible solution (link) (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/bird_and_frog_development.html#birddigit)

Why does everyone get so worried about if birds evolved or not, the real question is did man evolve....that's the one that everyone freaks out about. I want someone to show me those bones, piltdown man, Peking Man, etc......

Rob
Libertarian Gun Owners

Why does everyone get so worried about if birds evolved or not, the real question is did man evolve....that's the one that everyone freaks out about. I want someone to show me those bones, piltdown man, Peking Man, etc......

Rob
Libertarian Gun Owners

Well... they did. Check this out:

|—— Adapiformes †
|
|—— Lemuriformes (Lemurs)
|
|—— Platyrrhini (New World Monkeys)
|
|—— Cercopithecoidea (Old World Monkeys)
|
|—— Proconsul †
|
|—— Hylobatidae (Gibbons)
|
|—— Pongo pygmaeus (Orangutan)
| |—— Sivapithecus †
| |—— Dryopithecus †
|
|—— Gorilla
|
|—— Pan troglodytes (Chimpanzee)
|
|—— Australopithecus anamensis †
|
|—— Australopithecus afarensis (aka Lucy) †
|
|—— Paranthropus robustus †
| |—— Paranthropus boisei †
| |—— Paranthropus aethiopicus †
|
|—— Australopithecus africanus †
|
|—— Homo habilis †
| |—— Homo rudolfensis †
|
|—— Homo erectus (Peking Man) †
| |—— Homo floresiensis (Dwarf hominid from Indoneshia) †
|
|—— Homo eragaster †
|
|—— Homo heidelbergensis †
|
|—— Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (Neanderthal Man) †
|
|—— Homo sapiens idaltu †
|
|—— Homo sapiens sapiens (Modern Man)

The issue of birds evolving from dinosaurs seems to be disputed in the scientific community.
Only really as to when it happened, and not nearly as much IF as some people on this board like to tout. The way scientists now classify animals, we group birds in with Theropod dinosaurs. and in fact, when referring to theropodian dinosaurs not of avian lineage or taxa, we refer to them as "non avian dinosaurs" to differentiate them from being grouped in with birds. There are a few hold outs in the scientific community, but then again, there are some geologists who are still YEC's. How that works, I have no clue...

Yet another nail in the coffin of creationism. Admit it's dead already and move on.

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7736120/

The universe was created. And THEN it began to evolve. Creationism is not dead...

At any rate, maybe God made that fossil to trick those of little faith.

I put about as much faith in science, which is run by people, finding answers to our deepest mysteries as I do in the Milwaukee Brewers winning the world series this year.

One could easily say the same for religion. And what is this "put on earth to fool people of little faith?" By faith, I think you mean, your faith, of which I have no faith, being an aetheist. And yet, I have been fooled, and I have no faith, or more faith, you could say, with the amount of faith needed to be convincedly aetheist. Never could figure that saying out.

It's sad how true that is.
If you find it so sad why comment on it? If we evolved then it is all an accident we are here and your whining is so much fluff ;)

some guy I've never heard of discoveres a "transitional fossil", MSNBC writes an article about it, and this is supposed to impress me?

Why does everyone get so worried about if birds evolved or not, the real question is did man evolve....that's the one that everyone freaks out about. I want someone to show me those bones, piltdown man, Peking Man, etc......

Rob
Libertarian Gun Owners

At the end of the day, our biological and chemical make up doesn't vary a huge amount from any other mammal on this planet. We reproduce in the same way, we have pretty much all the same major internal organs. If we were created so perfectly, why weren't womens hips made wider to make childbirth less painful? How come we are afflicted with the same disorder of the brain - hydrocephalus - as a lot of other mammals? Why can our elbows only bend in one direction? I propose that we are very much imperfect and still evolving as we speak

You lie!!!1111oneone. God did it. He planted all of those fossils when he created the earth, as a test of faith for His believers. :p ;)
No he didn't. God's Dog did the burying - it makes perfect sense when you think about it. Dogs love to bury bones.

Well, let's consider the fact that they would have limbs that would be incapable of being used as legs and at the same time incapable of being used as wings. Movement would be drastically hindered, preventing it from easily attaining food and from avoiding predators.
Because they were FUCKING BIPEDAL?! Points to Deinonychus antirrhopus, Scansoriopteryx, Unenlagia, and Microraptor.

And to the "there are no laws" thing, there are many laws. Ever heard of Newton's LAWS of motion? Proven.
Those were named back when "law" was used in science. It isn't anymore. The current terminology is "observation", or "fact". Don't debate on issues when your knowledge amounts to jack shit.

*snip*
*cough*

There's no controversy in the paleontological community about the evolution of birds from dinosaurs. Only three people disagree, Feduccia, Lawrence, and some guy whose name starts with "T". Incidentally, Paul utterly annihlates those arguments in his Dinosaurs of the Air. Right now I don't have the patience to refute your article on my own, but I'll do it tomorrow, when I'm more awake.

some guy I've never heard of discoveres a "transitional fossil", MSNBC writes an article about it, and this is supposed to impress me?
Some guy, who I don't believe in gets a bunch of his friends to compile a religious book about him and I'm supposed to follow it? Besides, Jim Kirkland is quite famous in paleontological circles, having helped to discover utahraptor ostromaayasorum, back in 1992. Of course, had you even the slightest interest in education and furthering your knowledge in the fields of science, you would have heard of him.