All Evolutionists, go see the movie "Expelled"

[Jim Richards]

[dewolf]

Originally Posted by m21sniper

What, you feel like you got the insult market cornered all to yourself?

lol, your a very angry man aren't you. Relax dude. go spend time with your wife and come back later.

[trekkor]

Typical...

pretty funny.



KT

[IROC]

Originally Posted by m21sniper

There must be a finite point in time where a lizard laid an egg that sprung forth a critter that was no longer a lizard, but was actually codifiable as a bird. A critter that a scientist would look at and say, "This is a bird."

You're missing the entire point that is trying to be made here and you seem unwilling to try. Is that the case?

Questioning is great. Refusing to listen to the answers you're given is frustrating.

[m21sniper]

Originally Posted by dewolf

How about many 'codifiable' species along the way. Not just suddenly a bird appears. Is it to hard for you to comprehend the many facets of change required for this?

I have agreed that the theory calls for millions of small changes. TWICE now. In writing.

But again, for birds to be evolved from lizards, at some finite point in time the offspring of the lizard must have become a critter that a scientist would look at and say, "That's a bird."

This does not mean an Iguana gives birth to a canary, but it means some super evolved flying lizard must have gave birth to a species that a scientist could look at and say, "Bird."

Again, at some finite point in time, this must have happened.

If that didn't happen, then birds didn't evolve from lizards.

[dewolf]

I did'nt mean the Trek 2 in a condescending way Trekkor. M21 shows the same stubbornness you do, lol. Your ok mate, just ribbin' ya.

[m21sniper]

Originally Posted by IROC

You're missing the entire point that is trying to be made here and you seem unwilling to try. Is that the case?

Questioning is great. Refusing to listen to the answers you're given is frustrating.

No one has given an answer.

Offering "There are millions of steps along the way" does NOT change the fact that at some finite point in time for the claim "birds evolved from lizards" to be true, that the first bird must have been born from a lizard's egg. The difference in the parent and offspring might be very, very minute...but it would have to be enough that a scientist would look at the parent and say "Reptile" then look at the offspring and say "Bird."

[dewolf]

Originally Posted by m21sniper

I have agreed that the theory calls for millions of small changes. TWICE now. In writing.

But again, for birds to be evolved from lizards, at some finite point in time the offspring of the lizard must have become a critter that a scientist would look at and say, "That's a bird."

This does not mean an Iguana gives birth to a canary, but it means some super evolved flying lizard must have gave birth to a species that a scientist could look at and say, "Bird."

Again, at some finite point in time, this must have happened.

If that didn't happen, then birds didn't evolve from lizards.

It's happened, we just haven't found it yet. There are some incredible examples only just now coming out of China etc. They claim some of these finds will change the way we view reptiles and mammals.

[trekkor]

This does not mean an Iguana gives birth to a canary, but it means some super evolved flying lizard must have gave birth to a species that a scientist could look at and say, "Bird."

It's pretty simple.

The question then arises, why are there still lizards, not just birds?!?

Lizards are cold blooded, birds are not.
When did the cold blooded have offsprignthat were warm blooded? Mutation? Adaptation?

Tell us!




KT

[dewolf]

Originally Posted by trekkor

It's pretty simple.

The question then arises, why are there still lizards, not just birds?!?

Lizards are cold blooded, birds are not.
When did the cold blooded have offsprignthat were warm blooded? Mutation? Adaptation?

Tell us!

KT

Sea turtles are warm blooded reptiles. Whose to say ions ago there were'nt warm blooded lizards?

[Jim Richards]

Originally Posted by m21sniper

But again, for birds to be evolved from lizards, at some finite point in time the offspring of the lizard must have become a critter that a scientist would look at and say, "That's a bird."

Suppose, a lizard/bird hybrid has a small genetic mutation and becomes a bird/lizard hybrid. The transition is very subtle, and it has to be quite difficult to say, for example, whether the 2,106,478th mutation of the lizard is bird, or the 2,106,479th mutation, or the 2,106,480th mutation. But, you can follow the transition from a lizard to a bird by following the features of each creature found in the fossil record over hundreds of millions of years.

[trekkor]

Originally Posted by dewolf

I did'nt mean the Trek 2 in a condescending way Trekkor. M21 shows the same stubbornness you do, lol. Your ok mate, just ribbin' ya.

trekkor©®™



KT

[Jim Richards]

But what does that brand name signify?

[m21sniper]

Originally Posted by dewolf

It's happened, we just haven't found it yet. There are some incredible examples only just now coming out of China etc. They claim some of these finds will change the way we view reptiles and mammals.

THERE YOU GO! I Knew you could do it!

Evolution theorizes it's happened, but we have not seen it yet.

When we see that, evolution will be absolutely 100% proven. Until then, there will remain skeptics, cause even with a lot of supporting evidence, it is a very, very hard thing to accept that bird can ever naturally come from a lizards egg, no matter how many steps it took. And while this is a rare event in and of itself, there are so many species of critters from insects to birds to mammals, etc, etc that at some point we should definitely see this transformation as it occurs.

At that time, you can say 100% for sure that is how it works. Until then, there will remain many skeptics. I myself am skeptical of the details. The fact that scientists were just totally blown away by how wrong they were over the sponge/jellyfish thing shows me that we are still nowhere near as smart as we tell ourselves(and others.)

Originally Posted by dewolf

The question then arises, why are there still lizards, not just birds?!?

I'll take a stab at it, sure.

If i was an egghead i'd say it's because the conditions that drove some lizards to evolve into birds only existed for some % of lizards, and only some % of those lizards had the right random genetic mutations along with the right environmental adaptations to become birds. And then the third variable is time. Those conditions need to last long enough for nature to effect all those changes.

Originally Posted by dewolf

Lizards are cold blooded, birds are not.
When did the cold blooded have offsprignthat were warm blooded? Mutation? Adaptation?

I don't know, we've never seen it before.

Originally Posted by dewolf

Tell us!

If i could, i would be very rich.

[Jim Richards]

Originally Posted by m21sniper

but we have not seen it yet.

What is your lifespan?

[trekkor]

Hey! Those were my quotes!!


KT

[IROC]

Originally Posted by m21sniper

I don't know, we've never seen it before.

Actually, we have seen it, but it is in the form of fossils. The evolution of the horse from its ancient ancestor to its current species is pretty well documented.

Here's a quote:

"Here, one could see the fossil species "Eohippus" transformed into an almost totally different-looking (and very familiar) descendent, Equus, through a series of clear intermediates."

Through a series of clear intermediates...

From:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html

[dewolf]

Originally Posted by trekkor

Hey! Those were my quotes!!


KT

LOL, yeh I don't want the credit for them thanks

[Jim Richards]

Originally Posted by trekkor

Hey! Those were my quotes!!


KT

Pride is a sin.

[m21sniper]

Originally Posted by Jim Richards

What is your lifespan?

Nowhere near as long as the history of written language.

My lifespan is irrelevant because we have written languages and books. Anything i say here now, can conceibably be read 5,000 years from now.

And let's keep in mind, there are not just a few species to observe, but millions. All you need to do is observe one of these millions of species take that big leap from bacteria to insect, insect to fish, fish to lizard, lizard to bird, or bird to mammal, etc, etc to totally validate the theory.

So far, it's never happened.

Or you could just get life to spontaneously spring forth from primordial goo in a lab somewhere. Good luck with that one.

Like i've said many times, i am quite confident Intelligent design (the creation of life from non-life in the form of AI) will be proven first. Now when that happens, it will not disprove evolution, it will only prove that intelligent beings can in fact design life from nothing.

So what i want to know is why evolutionists cannot accept that there is almost certainly more than one way to skin a cat. Why all the vitriol and name calling? You can have ID and Evolution at the same time. They can even work togehter.

Now if some one says to me "ID means god created adam and eve as they were and stuck em in eden", i would say that's pretty retarded, but if someone said to me "God created the universe, and all the conditions whereupon life could form, and evolution took over from there" then that makes some degree of sense to me. That allows for ID and evolution to co-exist.

I could see that happening.

I find all the what-ifs extremely fascinating, but it's unfortunate that to explore them one must tolerate being called an idiot by the 'learned' elite.

I guess the question on 'does ID exist' would be one of definition. If you define ID as "the ability to deliberately alter life to better suit some conscious purpose", then Cloning fits the bill, and ID already exists.

If you define ID as "the ability to create life from non-life" then we will have to wait for the birth of AI to prove it exists.

If you define ID as "God put adam and eve on earth in his own image" then odds are, you're nuts.