All Evolutionists, go see the movie "Expelled"

[sjf911]

Originally Posted by m21sniper

And life by the currently accepted definition is life. So what?

Scientists can't all actually agree on what the actual definition of life really is(for that matter they can't all agree on almost every scientific issue), does that mean they shouldn't try? Or shouldn't write it down and adhere to it when they get a really good compromise that everyone can live with? Or that life isn't really life because there is no absolute definition for it?


Because in order for a bird to have evolved from something, at some finite point in time it must neccesarily become a bird.

Birds exist, you will agree?
They did not always exist, you will agree?
At some point, the first bird was born, you will agree?
At the point that the first bird was born, what gave birth to it was not a bird, you will agree?

Here's another one for you:

Either dinosaurs were warm blooded, or they weren't.

Of course these are either-or scenarios. Why don't you relax and wait for some answers instead of trying to claim evolution is set in stone, because it has been extremely wrong about a few things lately. Like predicting the first birds were born 65 million years ago, according to the fossil record. But wait, WHOOPS, biologists say it was 100 million years ago. Maybe next year someone else will say it was 120 million years ago.

Why is it that scientists even discuss when the first birds appeared if it doesn't matter? Because it matters.

By the way, the silence is deafening wrt my extremely obvious observations regarding ID and it's relation to cloning and artificial intelligence. People here have scoffed at the mere idea of ID. What are they scoffing at anyway....

A definition...and one that is very far from universal, i dare say.


As does your litany of insults and out of hand dismissals.

BTW, there is no absolute definition of a troll, so you cannot rightly categorize me or anyone as one. Hypocritical jackass.

Look at a rainbow sometime and draw a line exactly where you think red turns to orange. Can you? Why not? Could this be the same as evolution?

[kstar]

Remember this?

Originally Posted by m21sniper
From my understanding of it (which is admittedly quite limited), the science at the core of evolution is SHAKY AS HELL.

Then the position that he is lucky to have parents that protected him from education.

Then the complaints about insults while calling Steve a "Hypocritical jackass."

Yes, life is much stranger, and funnier, than fiction.



Best,

[Rearden]

Originally Posted by m21sniper

I feel the same way everytime some leftist college professor or student starts telling me about the wonders of communism.
Why is it that so many professors are left wing nuts anyway? Can i even call them that? Is that an actual absolutely definable condition? What is a professor anyway? Is there an absolute definition for a professor?

In the life sciences, it's not so much the professor as it is the equipment. Most people who don't attend college don't have access to machines that do PCR, LC, mass-spec, etc.

[m21sniper]

I demand you stop using the term life.

It is not absolutely defined.

Originally Posted by Rearden

In the life sciences, it's not so much the professor as it is the equipment. Most people who don't attend college don't have access to machines that do PCR, LC, mass-spec, etc.

So IOW some college graduates are educated, and some have poor equipment. And of course you would all lead me to believe you are the educated lot, when you cannot even admit that a bird is a readily definable animal type.

BTW, science is not an absolute definition, it is a silly term made up by men to fulfill our need for labels. (The sarcasm is absolutely dripping from my fingertips as i type now).

Originally Posted by sjf911

Look at a rainbow sometime and draw a line exactly where you think red turns to orange. Can you? Why not? Could this be the same as evolution?

Nice strawman. Wait...do we have an absolute definition for the term strawman...?

[sjf911]

Originally Posted by kstarnes

Remember this?



Then the position that he is lucky to have parents that protected him from education.

Then the complaints about insults while calling Steve a "Hypocritical jackass."

Yes, life is much stranger, and funnier, than fiction.



Best,

"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." MLK

"A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again." Alexander Pope

[m21sniper]

Originally Posted by sjf911

"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." MLK

"A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again." Alexander Pope

A little learning is exactly where man's understanding in most things scientific lies at this very point in time.

The only people wrong more often than scientists were the scientists that came before them who have all their theories and works disproven or modified.

Evolution is a science of filling in blanks. Isn't that what you all said to the ID'ers?

Tell me again about the 35 million year gap in the fossil record WRT when birds first appeared on earth?

Oh, wait, bird is not an absolute term, i shouldn't use it. For that matter it doesn't even matter when they appeared at all, cause you guys say so. Makes one wonder why scientists are studying or debate it. Must be tough debating a subject(birds) that has no absolute definition...

LOL....

[nostatic]

Originally Posted by m21sniper

I demand you stop using the term life.

It is not absolutely defined.

life = not dead

simple enough for ya?

Your requirement for absolute definitions (and the semantic bickering over "bird") pretty much eliminates any possibility for intelligent discussion of the topic. Language is pretty imprecise when it comes to describing natural phenomenon. That's why we use "generally accepted" terms and a mix of math and prose.

But then again, if you aggressively avoid education, you wouldn't really know what is "generally accepted." The best education expands your horizons rather than constricts them. A universal condemnation of "book learnin'" is disturbing yet telling.

[m21sniper]

Originally Posted by nostatic

life = not dead

simple enough for ya?

A metal cabinet is not dead. Does that mean it is alive?

Originally Posted by nostatic

Your requirement for absolute definitions (and the semantic bickering over "bird") pretty much eliminates any possibility for intelligent discussion of the topic. Language is pretty imprecise when it comes to describing natural phenomenon. That's why we use "generally accepted" terms and a mix of math and prose.

OMFG! It was THEM bickering over the fact that there is no absolute definition of what a bird is!!!! I am using the generally accepted term, and posted a link to the definition, i was TOLD that it is not an absolute definition, and therefore was invalid.

Seriously, go back and look!

No need, i'll link it for you:

Originally Posted by sjf911
These are artificial terms that we humans use for general classification. They are not meant to be absolute biological definitions. You are being far too concrete in your thinking about this.

Originally Posted by nostatic

But then again, if you aggressively avoid education, you wouldn't really know what is "generally accepted." The best education expands your horizons rather than constricts them. A universal condemnation of "book learnin'" is disturbing yet telling.

I am sarcastically carrying on about 'absolute definitions' because i was told that because there is no 'absolute definition' for birds, the term is invalid.

Seriously...

And as far as book learning, please do address that observation i made about left wing nutjob college professors. Many smart people come home from college(if they dont seek to stay there forever in 'academia' quite stupid.

[nostatic]

sfj911's comment is totally in line with mine. Sorry you can't make that connection.

[m21sniper]

Originally Posted by sjf911

So why don't you put science right? If you are such an expert that you can so easily poke holes in modern theories, why aren't you on all of the networks being interviewed as the David that brought down the Goliath of science??

I think that is the entire point of Ben Stiens movie.

That even Joe average can point to obvious loose threads in the theory of evolution and start pulling.

And i further confirmed his other assertion, that in response, the 'educated elite' respond with insults, dismissals, and censure.

Thank you for helping him to prove his point.

[m21sniper]

Originally Posted by nostatic

sfj911's comment is totally in line with mine. Sorry you can't make that connection.

I have no requirement for absolute definitions. So your comment was completely erroneous.

I asserted that there was a finite point in time when the first bird was born. I was told that A) there is no absolute definition for bird so the term is invalid(an utterly ridiculous claim), B) that it doesn't even really matter anyway because it's 'all shades of gray', and C) That the fossil record provides an unassailable mountain of evidence. One that was wrong by 35 Million years in predicting when the first birds appeared.

So hey, is a metal file cabinet alive? It's not dead...

[kang]

Originally Posted by m21sniper

From my understanding of it (which is admittedly quite limited), the science at the core of evolution is SHAKY AS HELL.

Where did you get your quite limited understanding of evolution? As part of a degree in biology, or from what creationists have told you?

[kstar]

I am certainly glad that my parents heavily influenced me to get my undergrad. degree, without fear that I would graduate as a clone of any one or all of my professors!

Mom and Dad also taught me independent thought . . .

Heck, I had many radically liberal professors and I vote Republican (sometimes much to my chagrin!)

This thread has become comical, even absurd. But, fun.

Best,

[m21sniper]

Originally Posted by kang

Where did you get your quite limited understanding of evolution? As part of a degree in biology, or from what creationists have told you?

Observation and listening to the eggheads.

This is a highly effective method of learning providing the student is interested in the subject matter.

For instance, i at least know what a bird is, and i am not hampered by the fact there is no 'absolute definition' for about 99% of all things in life.

I am also willing to look at things from an unbiased perspective. I didn't spend 4 years being force fed stuff in order that i may perpetuate (in some cases) decades old long ago disproven 'facts' to my friends on internet boards.

Anything else you'd like to know about me?

[m21sniper]

Originally Posted by kstarnes

I am certainly glad that my parents heavily influenced me to get my undergrad. degree, without fear that I would graduate as a clone of any one or all of my professors!

Mom and Dad also taught me independent thought . . .

Heck, I had many radically liberal professors and I vote Republican (sometimes much to my chagrin!)

This thread has become comical, even absurd. But, fun.

Best,

Well if you at least accept at some point that there is such a thing as a bird, then you will have taken away something from it all.

Comical is right. I would call it comical deniability by the 'educated elite.' I bet you guys don't even know what you're arguing about.

To repeat:

I asserted that there was a finite point in time when the first bird was born. I was told that A) there is no absolute definition for bird so the term is invalid(an utterly ridiculous claim), B) that it doesn't even really matter anyway because it's 'all shades of gray', and C) That the fossil record provides an unassailable mountain of evidence. One that was wrong by 35 Million years in predicting when the first birds appeared.

Rather than just admit that at some point an animal that would not be defined as a bird (using the 'commonly accepted' definition so kindly pointed to by nostatic) gave birth to an egg that hatched into an animal that could be defined as a bird, you spent several pages insulting me and calling my intelligence into question, talking about shades of grey and absolute definitions.

The first bird came from somewhere. It came from an egg. Laid by a non-bird. Evolution predicts this.

Yet you argue. You don't even know what you're arguing about. You sense dissent, and like Ben Stien postulated, you attack.

[kstar]

Originally Posted by m21sniper

Well if you at least accept at some point that there is such a thing as a bird, then you will have taken away something from it all.

Comical is right. I would call it comical deniability by the 'educated elite.' I bet you guys don't even know what you're arguing about.

Well, the words in this thread speak for themselves.

Best,

[sjf911]

Originally Posted by m21sniper

I have no requirement for absolute definitions. So your comment was completely erroneous.

I asserted that there was a finite point in time when the first bird was born. I was told that A) there is no absolute definition for bird so the term is invalid(an utterly ridiculous claim), B) that it doesn't even really matter anyway because it's 'all shades of gray', and C) That the fossil record provides an unassailable mountain of evidence. One that was wrong by 35 Million years in predicting when the first birds appeared.

So hey, is a metal file cabinet alive? It's not dead...

You need some help as you are failing this class.
First, the first "accepted" "bird" is archaeoptyrix which is 150,000,000 years old.
Second, there has been tremendous debate in science about what is and what is not a bird.

If you have any technical reading skills, a simple survey of Wiki would be a start:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_birds

Now I realize you are such an expert already, but we would appreciate your criticism of the content of these sites to better educate ourselves.

[nostatic]

Originally Posted by m21sniper

I have no requirement for absolute definitions. So your comment was completely erroneous.

I asserted that there was a finite point in time when the first bird was born. I was told that A) there is no absolute definition for bird so the term is invalid(an utterly ridiculous claim), B) that it doesn't even really matter anyway because it's 'all shades of gray', and C) That the fossil record provides an unassailable mountain of evidence. One that was wrong by 35 Million years in predicting when the first birds appeared.

So hey, is a metal file cabinet alive? It's not dead...

you contradict yourself just within this short paragraph.

As for the file cabinet, depends what school of philosophy you're talking about. Strictly speaking most would say that it lacks the elements of life (eg metabolism). There are chemical reactions taking place but they are not in anyway anabolic.

[m21sniper]

Originally Posted by sjf911

You need some help as you are failing this class.

Its not a class, and you are not my teacher.

Originally Posted by sjf911

First, the first "accepted" "bird" is archaeoptyrix which is 150,000,000 years old.
Second, there has been tremendous debate in science about what is and what is not a bird.

First, the article i just linked states the first birds appeared 100,000,000 years ago. Not 65,000,000 years ago as the fossil 'record' had predicted.

"Paleontologists who study fossils think the first modern birds evolved from dinosaurs about 60 million to 65 million years ago, right about the time most dinosaurs went extinct. But biologists who investigate DNA measure the origin of birds at about 100 million years ago.

Scientists hoped that a new study analyzing all of the available genetic data with new statistical models might narrow the gap, but instead it has reinforced it and definitively put the DNA-dating estimate at 100 million years ago.

"It's a robust estimate now," said Joseph Brown, a biology graduate student at the University of Michigan who led the study. "We know that this gap between the fossil record and the molecular data is a real gap. In the past people in both camps would just assume that the other side had gotten it wrong. But it seems now that the discrepancy is really genuine." "

That information is from Jan 2008, and was published in the Journal BMC Biology, according to the article.
http://www.livescience.com/animals/080208-birds-began.html

So what you're telling me is that scientists added another 50,000,000 years to the age of birds since January? Or maybe you missed this study?

Second, why would scientists bother to debate it, as you and a few others have opined here, it doesn't even matter. I guess the term does mean something afterall. And if they're debating it, it seems clear they do not have the answers i seek. Which means you sure as hell don't have the answers i seek.

It seems Princeton university has settled on a definition (the one i linked) for the word bird quite readily. It is perfectly clear and makes perfect sense to me, so i'll run with that one, if you don't mind.

Originally Posted by sjf911

Now I realize you are such an expert already, but we would appreciate your criticism of the content of these sites to better educate ourselves.

Oh no, clearly, the expert is you. I am sure that's why you teach many courses on the subject on a daily basis at a major university, and are the worlds acknowledged leader in evolutionary theory. I am sure your published works in the field have 100% positive peer reviews. And i'm sure that's why you use links to wiki too.

LOL

[DARISC]

Originally Posted by nostatic

you contradict yourself just within this short paragraph.

I'm amazed that some of youse guys with book larnin' are sufferin' fools so gladly here. This thread go on ad infinitum! Or forever, even!