All Evolutionists, go see the movie "Expelled"

[m21sniper]

Originally Posted by DARISC

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!

You make Ben Stien look very smart.

I bet you didn't even know what we were debating at the time you posted that. But hey, thanks for the brief drop by to call people morons. Makes you look really good to do so.

[IROC]

Originally Posted by m21sniper

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 never thought I'd say this, but I think maybe you need to stick with ID. It suits you.

[snowman]

Back on point. The movie is great and right on.

[m21sniper]

Originally Posted by IROC

I never thought I'd say this, but I think maybe you need to stick with ID. It suits you.

I'm still waiting for you to tell me why the fossil records predict the first birds appeared 65,000,000 years ago, but DNA studies definitively put it at 100,000,000 years. What happened to that "mountain of evidence" that the fossil record offers? If it's off by 35,000,000 years on this, all it's predictions must be looked at with renewed skepticism.

I'm also waiting for sf to tell me how he came up with 150,000,000 years when the author of the study i linked to called the 100,000,000 timeframe a "robust estimate".

I suspect i'll be waiting for quite a while.

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.

"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

And as far as i'm concerned, one could reasonably define cloning as a form of ID, which no one has even tried to refute. I've stated over and over that the birth of AI will be definitive proof that ID exists. Not a word out of any of you on that.

You all wanted to argue what the proper definition of a bird is.

[Milu]

Originally Posted by m21sniper

And as far as i'm concerned, one could reasonably define cloning as a form of ID, which no one has even tried to refute. I've stated over and over that the birth of AI will be definitive proof that ID exists. Not a word out of any of you on that.

In those terms a watch would be proof of intelligent design. So what?

Originally Posted by m21sniper

You all wanted to argue what the proper definition of a bird is.

You seem to have a problem with the concept that evolution is a gradual process and that there are many stages, for example from lizard to bird. Some of these would be neither reptile or bird but would share some of the characteristics of both. Thinking of these transient stages as reptile OR bird simply muddies the water. Perhaps you are trying to apply semantic reasoning to try and understand a scientific or if you prefer technical matter.

[sjf911]

""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."

So, birds evolved from dinosaurs after dinosaurs were already extinct? That does sound like ID.


There is no paleontologist that I am aware of who thinks birds evolved in the Tertiary period. That article is just plain wrong. Someone didn't do their homework correctly.

[Rearden]

Originally Posted by m21sniper

And as far as i'm concerned, one could reasonably define cloning as a form of ID, which no one has even tried to refute.

Cloning is not design. Cloning is duplication.
You don't have a clue, dude.

[sjf911]

LOL, I seem to be a bit slow today. You are completely confusing the issue here and it has to do with your lack of science education.

All modern birds were thought to have a common ancestor around the time of the KT extinction 65,500,000 years ago. The molecular evidence is suggesting a common ancestor 100,000,000 years ago when the modern line of birds split off of from archaic birds.
The article is incorrect in stating bird evolution started after the KT extinction as no dinosaurs were alive to give rise to birds and we already have fossil birds dating back to the Jurassic. The current paradigm is that archaeoptyrix is the first bird but bird evolution began well before 150,000,000 years ago.

[sjf911]

Here is a different perspective on the same study quoted above by a different science news organization:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080205171749.htm

Did modern birds originate around the time of the dinosaurs' demise, or have they been around far longer?

A new analysis by researchers at the University of Michigan, the University of Chicago, the Centre for Biodiversity Conservation Mexico and Central America, and Boston University offers the strongest molecular evidence yet for an ancient origin of modern birds, suggesting that they arose more than 100 million years ago, not 60 million years ago, as fossils suggest.

Note, modern birds. They are not talking about the origin of all true birds.

[stuartj]

Originally Posted by IROC

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...

Ramble on.

I wonder about the validity of your statement generally if we removed the word “religious”. Look at the dialogue over the last few pages- this is not matter of intelligence. It’s a clash between faith based and rational ideologies. Snowman likes to draw links such as “atheists, commies, homos”.

Rather than pick on the faith based side, it might be fair to make the observation that many people who do not accept creationism often don’t line up in many ways with the faithful view on other matters- attitudes to education for example, the need to start wars to bring about peace, social policy matters.

“Not blessed with faith”. Nicely put. Unable to suspend his disbelief. Didn’t Mr Obama touch on this recently with his “guns and religion” remarks- over which he as been back pedaling ever since?

[kstar]

I think this is the kind of evidence our friend is looking for:

[DARISC]

Originally Posted by IROC

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.

Interestingly, atheists do seem to be generally nonconfrontational regarding their disbeliefs and have historically never presented any kind of threat, organized or otherwise, to believers, other than, perhaps, in the minds of some believers.

That is not to say that they are always passive when they feel that believers are trampling on the rights of non-believers, but they are not, unlike many believers, inclined to engage in proselytization. They simply don't care what anyone else believes in.

[DARISC]

Originally Posted by kstarnes

I think this is the kind of evidence our friend is looking for:

I have a mating pair of those.
They'll sever fingers, bite off toes.
Can't adress their bio datum.
All I know's my neighbors hate'em.

[trekkor]

If evolution takes 'such a long time', there should be mountains of transitional reptile to bird fossils, right?

Where are they? They should be *everywhere*.
Think about it. Over 'those billions of years', there should be no shortage.


KT

[sjf911]

Originally Posted by trekkor

If evolution takes 'such a long time', there should be mountains of transitional reptile to bird fossils, right?

Where are they? They should be *everywhere*.
Think about it. Over 'those billions of years', there should be no shortage.


KT

We be green, baby. Haven't you heard of recycling?

[IROC]

Originally Posted by trekkor

If evolution takes 'such a long time', there should be mountains of transitional reptile to bird fossils, right?

Where are they? They should be *everywhere*.
Think about it. Over 'those billions of years', there should be no shortage.


KT

If you understood how fossilization occurs, you wouldn't have to ask this question. Do you want to learn?

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200_1.html

[frogger]

Originally Posted by IROC

Do you want to learn?

We already know the answer to that question, Mike.

[IROC]

Originally Posted by frogger

We already know the answer to that question, Mike.

Yeah, who am I foolin'...

[frogger]

Lol

[70SWT]

Originally Posted by Jim Richards

The question of origin is separate from the process of evolution. Why force an artificial constraint on this issue?

Wow. This thread lives on. But when religion meets science...

This early post remains the closest thing to a serious reason for debate within this whole tragic spectacle.