All Evolutionists, go see the movie "Expelled"

[snowman]

stuartj,

You are clearly in denial. For whatever reason, who cares. Most likely some kind of fag or some other mal content that has reason to challenge conventional wisdom. Whatever, your views do not fit any scientific viewpoint whatsoever.

Rearden,

Just plain BS.

[Nathans_Dad]

Originally Posted by IROC

Interesting. Pretty much every study shows an inverse correlation between both intelligence and belief and education and belief. You are in the minority, needless to say.

Care to elaborate on what aspect of your study has led to your belief?

Well, it isn't just one aspect of the workings of the body, but I do remember being truly amazed at the inner workings of enzymes and the inter-relation between them.

I'm sure for every example I could give you, someone like sjf would come along and say "Well, that just looks haphazard and random to me". Truth in the the eye of the beholder, I guess.

All I can say is that during my years of college and later in medical school as I dissected the human body and learned about the inner biochemical workings of it I was profoundly struck by the wonder of it and, to me at least, the obvious intelligence of the design (pun intended).

[snowman]

IROC

Even an idiot can tell that there must be a God. So where does that leave you? Sub idiot???

[trekkor]

I am fascinated by our senses as well as our conscience.

Our abilty to think, plan and execute ideas to completion is stunning.


Nothing is like the human brain. It's the single most complicated thing in the entire known universe...


KT

[stuartj]

Originally Posted by snowman

stuartj,

You are clearly in denial. For whatever reason, who cares. Most likely some kind of fag or some other mal content that has reason to challenge conventional wisdom. Whatever, your views do not fit any scientific viewpoint whatsoever.

Rearden,

Just plain BS.

Right you are Snowman. Except I havent stated any of my views. Now, as you havent, could you answer these questions please.

"Life clearly is the result of a designer. Any true scientist will agree with that." Please name some significant scientists (who are not associated Behe and the whatever its called institute) that say this.


And, who designed the Designer?

[Rearden]

Originally Posted by snowman

Rearden,

Just plain BS.

One man's religion is another man's BS.

[Jim Richards]

Originally Posted by nostatic

snow peas?

ROFLMAO! Coffee came spurting out my nostrils, nostatic. I hear it's good for an IQ bust.

[Jim Richards]

snowman prays to the God of Single Malt Scotch.

[IROC]

Originally Posted by snowman

IROC

Even an idiot can tell that there must be a God. So where does that leave you? Sub idiot???

Even an idiot? Actually, it's mostly idiots that proclaim there is a god. I'm a superidiot, BTW.


...and...

There is evidence that a creator exists! It is US, we are here. Explain where we came form otherwise!

France. Just like the Coneheads.

[sjf911]

Originally Posted by trekkor

I am fascinated by our senses as well as our conscience.

Our abilty to think, plan and execute ideas to completion is stunning.


Nothing is like the human brain. It's the single most complicated thing in the entire known universe...


KT

And how much more complicated is a human brain than say a chimpanzee or elephant? Are there profound differences in brain structures that suggest "design"? Is there really anything unique about the human brain that is not found in the rest of the animal kingdom?

[nostatic]

I thought dolphin brains were the most complicated.

They sure are tasty!

[m21sniper]

Originally Posted by kang

You’re talking semantics here. Why such focus on what you call the thing? Transitional species have some features of one creature and some of another, just like our DNA is very, very close to ape DNA.

You say “Any transitional species is either one or the other, not both.” Well, in name only, but other than that, that statement is not correct. Transitional species have some characteristics of each species. Who cares what the name is? It’s the characteristics that matter, and when you are talking characteristics, the statement “Any transitional species is either one or the other, not both” is incorrect. The correct statement would be “transitional species share characteristics of two different species.”

You seem to understand the process with this statement: “I have as firm a grasp of this as any, however, at some finite point in time the offspring will be 50.0000001% bird,” but you are still focused on the name, when you finish that sentence with “and a scientist examining it would then be forced to look at it and say, Bird.”

That’s not correct, but who cares what you call it? It’s still 50.1% bird and 49.9% reptile. The one before it was the reverse, and you called it the other thing. So what? In actuality, a scientist wouldn’t call it a bird; it would have its own species name, which would be a species with 50.1% bird characteristics and 49.9% reptile characteristics.

In this case, these particular transitional species exist only in fossil record. They all have scientific species names. There is no species called “bird.” I don’t know, and it doesn’t really matter, when you call it a bird. The point of the matter is that transitional species share characteristics of both species. It doesn’t matter when you call one a bird.

I would not call the categorization of species by general type (ie reptile, mammal, fish, etc) "semantics". Further i would simply counter your arguments by saying if it didn't matter, there wouldn't be things called birds.

At some point you can no longer call something a reptile, just as at some point you can look at something else and identify it as a bird. An Eagle is a bird. A Hawk is a bird. A flying lizard is a lizard. A flying squirrel is a rodent. A human being with a jetpack is a nutcase. It is incorrect to call a flying squirrel a bird, because simply put...it's not. Likewise it is wrong to call a bird a lizard, because it's not. At some point the lizard must have become the bird.

They're not interchangeable.

Shrug.

[kang]

Originally Posted by snowman

IROC

Even an idiot can tell that there must be a God. So where does that leave you? Sub idiot???

Interesting thought, let’s run with it and see where it leads us.

Idiots (not a PC term, but let’s go with it anyways) are not capable of reasoning or logic. Let’s say the idiot cannot reason some simple logic like “if A, then B,” yet according to you, they can “tell there must be a god.” Since they cannot determine there is a god by reason or logic, they must determine it some other way.

What is this other way? It must be something that is not reason or logic. What is left besides emotions? Some (most?) humans (including some idiots) are born with this “feeling” that a god exists. To me, this is just another confirmation of the theory that humans are hard-wired for faith. To these people, “there must be a god.” They cannot fathom a universe without one, as it is hard-wired into their brains.

Some (Doug, remember him?) would say that his god implanted this feeling that he exists in the brains of these idiots. There is no evidence, none at all, for this idea, yet there is bountiful evidence (I presented a bunch of this on the “is there a god” thread) for the idea that our brains are hard-wired for faith. I’ll take the idea that has evidence behind it over the idea with none any day.

Where does this leave people that can’t “tell that there must be a god?” Are they sub idiots, like the snowedman hatefully suggests? No, it just means their brains are not hard-wired for faith.

I found another good quote for snowedman:

“You know you’ve found the right religion when god hates the same people you do.”

[kang]

Originally Posted by m21sniper

I would not call the categorization of species by general type (ie reptile, mammal, fish, etc) "semantics". Further i would simply counter your arguments by saying if it didn't matter, there wouldn't be things called birds.

Shrug.

You missed the point of my post entirely.

Shrug.

[m21sniper]

Likewise, i am sure.

Shrug squared. :-P

I added this to my last post as you were commenting. In case you're interested:

At some point you can no longer call something a reptile, just as at some point you can look at something else and identify it as a bird. An Eagle is a bird. A Hawk is a bird. A flying lizard is a lizard. A flying squirrel is a rodent. A human being with a jetpack is a nutcase. It is incorrect to call a flying squirrel a bird, because simply put...it's not. Likewise it is wrong to call a bird a lizard, because it's not. At some point the lizard must have become the bird.

They're not interchangeable.

[Rearden]

Originally Posted by m21sniper

Likewise, i am sure.

Shrug squared. :-P

I added this to my last post as you were commenting. In case you're interested:

At some point you can no longer call something a reptile, just as at some point you can look at something else and identify it as a bird. An Eagle is a bird. A Hawk is a bird. A flying lizard is a lizard. A flying squirrel is a rodent. A human being with a jetpack is a nutcase. It is incorrect to call a flying squirrel a bird, because simply put...it's not. Likewise it is wrong to call a bird a lizard, because it's not. At some point the lizard must have become the bird.

They're not interchangeable.

If a red-eyed fruit fly carries a recessive gene for white eyes, is he a red-eyed fruit fly?

[sjf911]

Originally Posted by m21sniper

Likewise, i am sure.

Shrug squared. :-P

I added this to my last post as you were commenting. In case you're interested:

At some point you can no longer call something a reptile, just as at some point you can look at something else and identify it as a bird. An Eagle is a bird. A Hawk is a bird. A flying lizard is a lizard. A flying squirrel is a rodent. A human being with a jetpack is a nutcase. It is incorrect to call a flying squirrel a bird, because simply put...it's not. Likewise it is wrong to call a bird a lizard, because it's not. At some point the lizard must have become the bird.

They're not interchangeable.

You are approaching cladistics as if it were an absolute. The only absolutes in this world come from religion, not science (absolute good, absolute evil, absolute morals, etc.). IIRC, reptile is no longer an accepted clade but an older taxonomic term pre-cladistics.
You also fail to realize that species are defined by breeding populations, not individuals.

[Moses]

Originally Posted by m21sniper

At some point you can no longer call something a reptile, just as at some point you can look at something else and identify it as a bird. An Eagle is a bird. A Hawk is a bird. A flying lizard is a lizard. A flying squirrel is a rodent.

Yeah? then how do you explain Trogdor, huh?

[IROC]

Originally Posted by kang

Where does this leave people that can’t “tell that there must be a god?” Are they sub idiots, like the snowedman hatefully suggests? No, it just means their brains are not hard-wired for faith.

Karl Rove nailed it when he was asked what his religious beliefs were (he's an atheist). He said, "I was not blessed with faith".

Having put way more thought into this subject than I should have, I have come to the conclusion that belief in god is exactly what Kang suggests. It is a function of the emotional make-up of the person and really has nothing to do with reality or logic. Either you believe or you don't and typically, no amount of evidence one way or the other will make you change your mind. It's because belief in god(s) is not a rational decision that people make - it's hard-wired into them. You can't choose to believe any more than you can choose not to.

Believers interpret the world around them in a way that reinforces their faith. Nonbelievers simply see the world differently. Nonbelievers are not trying to avoid accountability or any of the other rationalizations, they simply do not believe. They don't have a choice.

This is where the rubber meets the road, though. Once this revelation is understood, it becomes very clear that it is wrong to force your beliefs on other people (like teaching ID in schools). Your beliefs are a function of your particular emotional make-up and just because you believe them, that doesn't mean that anyone else should or that they are even real.

IMHO, atheism is a good default position (for someone not hardwired for religious belief) because atheists generally do not advocate "beliefs" for things for which there is no evidence. We may push something like the theory of evolution, but at least there is evidence to support it, whether you agree with it or not.

OK, I'm rambling now...

[m21sniper]

Originally Posted by Rearden

If a red-eyed fruit fly carries a recessive gene for white eyes, is he a red-eyed fruit fly?

Now -that- is semantics. The point i am making....is they are both insects. More specifically, they are both flies.

To make the statement "Birds evolved from reptiles" true, at some finite point in time-space a reptile had to lay an egg that, when hatched, gave birth to something that a scientist would no longer categorize as a reptile, but indeed, as a bird.

Sure, a red-tailed hawk has a fancy scientific name (Buteo jamaicensis), but you know what? A biologist would look at it and say "That's a bird."

Is a Buteo jamaicensis a transitional species? You bet your ass. All living species are transitional species. But know what? It's still a bird.

It's not a reptile, it's not a fish....it's a bird.

Observe the following excerpt:

"Red-tailed hawks are native only to the Nearctic region. They are found throughout the United States and Canada, and into Mexico and Central America. Many birds are year round occupants although the birds of the far north migrate south during the fall to escape the harsh winter."

http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Buteo_jamaicensis.html

A flying Agama lizard (aka Draco volan) is not a bird...It's a reptile. BTW, for clarity's sake, these lizards do not actually fly. They jump and then glide.