All Evolutionists, go see the movie "Expelled"

[trekkor]

Show the fossils then...

I call.


KT

[DARISC]

Originally Posted by snowman

That is a mis quote. I said "There are stupid people"

Isn't a quote.

Since you cannot get such a simple quote correct,

Wasn't a quote.

which one are you?

Smart.

NEVER cross threaded seldom stripped or reverse threaded.

I've no reason to believe that you are not mechanically inclined (I'm not). You do, however, strike me as being literal.

Glad to entertain you all. Hope you learn something in the process. Not likely but HOPE is the latest word and it springs eternal.

Watch for those commies, esp. the ones under your bed.

HOPE is good. No Commies under my bed last night. I hope tonight goes as well.

..

[IROC]

A disappointing chart:

[sjf911]

Originally Posted by IROC

A disappointing chart:

The protestant fundamentalists have been quite successful in sabotaging science education in this country for the last 80+ years. It is amazing how much influence and how much intellectual damage an ignorant preacher can impose in 1 hour on Sunday.
The only way you will be able to overcome this trend it to teach these kids to really think for themselves and escape the trap of sheepdom. I propose that we mandate a semester of critical thinking for all high-school students (or earlier if appropriate). If nothing else, at least it will make a more skeptical voting public.

[trekkor]

There should be mostly transitional fossils.

With all the species morphing into others, over time, they should be abundant...Not elusive.
'Missing links' should be everywhere.

Evolution has 'no hand'.


KT

[sjf911]

Originally Posted by trekkor

There should be mostly transitional fossils.

With all the species morphing into others, over time, they should be abundant...Not elusive.
'Missing links' should be everywhere.

Evolution has 'no hand'.


KT

Sorry, but this is an "argument from ignorance". Try again.

[kang]

Originally Posted by trekkor

Show the fossils then...

I call.

KT

How is it possible that you have not seen what has been shown to you over and over and over again? How are you so blind? How can you possibly be in such a state of denial?

Ah, but Steve already answered this question:

Originally Posted by sjf911

It is very simple;

1. The evidence is there.
2. Trek has not seen it.
3. Trek will not see it.
4. See no evidence; hear no evidence; feel no evidence.
5. Evidence does not exist.

And I answered it as well, when addressing snowedman. Let me modify it for Trekkor:

I think Trekkor is one of those people who let their feeling (emotion, intuition, whatever you want to call it) that god exists override all logic and common sense. From what other source could a statement like “Show the fossils then…” come from? He has made other statements in the past that confirm this opinion of him.

All believers let their feeling override logic and common sense to some degree, some more than others. People like snowedman and Trekkor are at the far end of this scale.

It would behoove the rest of us to take this into consideration when discussing things with people like this. No amount of logic or common sense will override this feeling they have. They are totally blinded by it. About the only thing we can hope to do is make them aware of this, and there is really very little chance of this.

Now whether you call someone in this condition a nut job, delusional, or some other term, I’ll leave that as an exercise for the reader.

[IROC]

Trek would see this as "more guesses" but I think this is good news:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080424140400.htm

[m21sniper]

Still going with the personal insults huh?

[m21sniper]

Originally Posted by Milu

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

A watch is the equivelant to a machine with living AI?

Well that's ridiculous.

Originally Posted by Milu

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.

No **** sherlock.

Originally Posted by Milu

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.

Sorry, a classification is a classification. Something is either a bird, or it is not a bird.

BTW, if birds are evolved from dinosaurs(or are in fact 'living dinosaurs), then birds didn't evolve from reptiles at all. If dinosaurs were in fact warm blooded as more and more scientists now suggest(another word for 'guess'), then dinosaurs weren't reptiles either.

Of course no one knows, do they?

Originally Posted by sjf911

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.

Nice job! Dismiss the latest study on the issue because it doesn't agree with your outdated knowledge! Kudos!

The study's AUTHOR states:

"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

Meanwhile YOU seem to think that birds are 150,000,000 years old. But they're not. According to the latest study, they are 100,000,000 years old, and according to the scientist that wrote said study, that is a "robust estimate." That means you were off by a factor of 50% wrt what you THOUGHT you knew.

Another quote from the study's author:

The new study aimed to compensate for the different rates by using five different statistical models, each built around slightly different assumptions. When each model independently arrived at the same date, the scientists believed it was a definitive measurement of the time birds genetically diverged from dinosaurs.

"This paper puts a pretty solid timescale at 100 million years," Brown told LiveScience. "We can say the old dates that we were generating are not the results of mistreatment of data. Now we can interpret the fossil record differently."

But go ahead and continue to preach your outdated gospel, in ignorance of the latest 'evidence'.

Originally Posted by Rearden

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

Ah, so if i clone a sheep, but genetically manipulate it to have black fur instead of white, then i'm merely 'duplicating it'? NOPE. I am intelligently manipulating it to create a life form with the traits that I -it's creator- favor, vs what nature favors.

I suggest it is you who doesn't have a clue.

All you've added to this 'debate' is some pre-school caliber insults, and nothing more.

Originally Posted by Nathans_Dad

I think that the discussion between Sniper, et al can be boiled down to a simple question regarding the lack of fossil record on transitional species. With all due respect to IROC, that link is pathetically weak.

Indeed it is.

In some cases, it has made woefully incorrect predictions as well.

Evolution...the science of faith.

[IROC]

Originally Posted by m21sniper

Evolution...the science of faith.

What's your theory for the diversity of life on Earth, then? Science has laid their's out on the table for your review (a review which you - by your own admission - have not done). Tell us your's and we'll judge it using the same scrutiny applied to the theory of evolution and we'll see how it stacks up.

[m21sniper]

Originally Posted by IROC

What's your theory for the diversity of life on Earth, then? Science has laid their's out on the table for your review (a review which you - by your own admission - have not done). Tell us your's and we'll judge it using the same scrutiny applied to the theory of evolution and we'll see how it stacks up.

Well, first, i am smart enough to know i don't know. But i can guess too.

My guess: An intelligent creator created the universe with a set framework of rules, and that life evolved according to the rules that the creator set forth. I personally liken "God" to "Mother Nature". In my view, they are one and the same.

But we will never validate or disprove my 'theory', as it it is impossible to look in time beyond the big bang, because time as we know it didn't exist.

BTW: Based on the 'review' of science's work i've done in this discussion, all it has done is reinforce the notion that science has taken some HUGE leaps of faith to date in this debate.

Just look at the example i've repeatedly pointed to.

Sf said birds first appeared 150,000,000 years ago. The author of the Live science article i linked stated paleontologists point to a date of 65,000,000 years ago. But the genetic data -confirmed by 5 separate statistical models- says 100,000,000 years ago.

So SF lambastes the author of the article as 'not having a clue', when he himself was misinformed by a factor of 50,000,000 years.

So his response? A completley dismissive, "Oh, the article is wrong."

And this is intellectual honesty?

He is basing his argument on his faith that what he learned is more accurate than the latest scientific studies just to avoid admitting he could be waaaaay off in his beliefs.

Likewise you have based your beliefs on the faith that the fossil record is accurate. Surprise...in this case, it appears to have been off by 35,000,000 years.

A belief in incomplete scientific theories is just another kind of faith.

Saying cloning/genetic manipulation is not the creation of unique and distinct life from a different form of starting life as one poster did is dishonest. Comparing the creation of actual living Artificial Intelligence to a watch as another poster did is even more dishonest. And dismissing an article out of hand because it doesn't fit with your (odds are out of date) base of knowledge is just as bad.

All that to avoid admitting that evolution may be wrong in some of it's predictions...and that evolutionary proponents also rely on faith that it's predictions are not wrong.

[kstar]

Just guesses, eh?

[sjf911]

Originally Posted by m21sniper

A watch is the equivelant to a machine with living AI?

Well that's ridiculous.


No **** sherlock.


Sorry, a classification is a classification. Something is either a bird, or it is not a bird.

BTW, if birds are evolved from dinosaurs(or are in fact 'living dinosaurs), then birds didn't evolve from reptiles at all. If dinosaurs were in fact warm blooded as more and more scientists now suggest(another word for 'guess'), then dinosaurs weren't reptiles either.

Of course no one knows, do they?


Nice job! Dismiss the latest study on the issue because it doesn't agree with your outdated knowledge! Kudos!

The study's AUTHOR states:


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

Meanwhile YOU seem to think that birds are 150,000,000 years old. But they're not. According to the latest study, they are 100,000,000 years old, and according to the scientist that wrote said study, that is a "robust estimate." That means you were off by a factor of 50% wrt what you THOUGHT you knew.

But go ahead and continue to preach your outdated gospel, in ignorance of the latest 'evidence'.


Ah, so if i clone a sheep, but genetically manipulate it to have black fur instead of white, then i'm merely 'duplicating it'? NOPE. I am intelligently manipulating it to create a life form with the traits that I -it's creator- favor, vs what nature favors.

I suggest it is you who doesn't have a clue.

All you've added to this 'debate' is some pre-school caliber insults, and nothing more.


Indeed it is.

In some cases, it has made woefully incorrect predictions as well.

Evolution...the science of faith.

"Birds" evolved >150,000,000 years ago as testified by the presence of archeopteryx in the late jurassic which is part of the Mesozoic. The article you referenced claimed that birds evolved in the Paleocene which is the beginning of the modern era of mammals (Cenozoic/Teriary/Paleogene).
This was a factual error in that article and I linked a correct news article based on the same source. What was being evaluated was the origin of modern birds, not the primary origin of the clade Aves. If you read up on bird evolution you will find that most paleontologists consider archeopteryx to be the first definitive bird. Anything with less bird features is considered a "proto-bird". However, Archeopteryx is not a modern bird and may itself not be a true ancestor to modern birds (could be an evolutionary side branch).
What you are seeing is the developing power of genomic evaluation in predicting evolutionary relationships and temporal sequencing. Terrestrial fossils are rare and difficult to find. However, all extant animal species contain the genetic legacy of evolution within their genome which is allowing us to more accurately place them on their respective branches of the "Tree of Life" and predict in a semi-quantitative way, relative historical speciation order and era.

[IROC]

Originally Posted by m21sniper

My guess: An intelligent creator created the universe with a set framework of rules, and that life evolved according to the rules that the creator set forth. I personally liken "God" to "Mother Nature". In my view, they are one and the same.

So, you're willing to go with a guess that is pretty much of your own fabrication that has no evidence what-so-ever to back it up? And you're picking on the theory of evolution?

In the context of your "theory" does mother nature (or this supernatural being) interfere with the universe after she/it flipped the switch?

[sjf911]

Originally Posted by m21sniper

Well, first, i am smart enough to know i don't know. But i can guess too.

My guess: An intelligent creator created the universe with a set framework of rules, and that life evolved according to the rules that the creator set forth. I personally liken "God" to "Mother Nature". In my view, they are one and the same.

But we will never validate or disprove my 'theory', as it it is impossible to look in time beyond the big bang, because time as we know it didn't exist.

BTW: Based on the 'review' of science's work i've done in this discussion, all it has done is reinforce the notion that science has taken some HUGE leaps of faith to date in this debate.

Just look at the example i've repeatedly pointed to.

Sf said birds first appeared 150,000,000 years ago. The author of the Live science article i linked stated paleontologists point to a date of 65,000,000 years ago. But the genetic data -confirmed by 5 separate statistical models- says 100,000,000 years ago.

So SF lambastes the author of the article as 'not having a clue', when he himself was misinformed by a factor of 50,000,000 years.

So his response? A completley dismissive, "Oh, the article is wrong."

And this is intellectual honesty?

He is basing his argument on his faith that what he learned is more accurate than the latest scientific studies just to avoid admitting he could be waaaaay off in his beliefs.

Likewise you have based your beliefs on the faith that the fossil record is accurate. Surprise...in this case, it appears to have been off by 35,000,000 years.

A belief in incomplete scientific theories is just another kind of faith.

Saying cloning/genetic manipulation is not the creation of unique and distinct life from a different form of starting life as one poster did is dishonest. Comparing the creation of actual living Artificial Intelligence to a watch as another poster did is even more dishonest. And dismissing an article out of hand because it doesn't fit with your (odds are out of date) base of knowledge is just as bad.

All that to avoid admitting that evolution may be wrong in some of it's predictions...and that evolutionary proponents also rely on faith that it's predictions are not wrong.

I will repeat. The article you posted was factually wrong and I challenge you to show otherwise.

[Moses]

The exact reptilian ancestor of Archeopteryx, and the first development of feathers, are unknown. Early bird evolution seems to have involved little forest climbers and then little forest fliers, both of which are guaranteed to leave very bad fossil records (little animal + acidic forest soil = no remains). Archeopteryx itself is really about the best we could ask for: several specimens has superb feather impressions, it is clearly related to both reptiles and birds, and it clearly shows that the transition is feasible.

Archaeopteryx of course had feathers.

[m21sniper]

Sorry son, it is the challengers task to disprove something.

Feel free to email the author and 'set her straight'

PS: your claim of the first bird species appearing 150,000,000 is completely wrong according to the author of the study i linked. Care to apologize for ignorantly spreading disinformation?

[kang]

Originally Posted by m21sniper

But we will never validate or disprove my 'theory', as it it is impossible to look in time beyond the big bang, because time as we know it didn't exist.

How do you know time didn’t exist before the big bang?

String theory is leading to an interesting idea of what caused the big bang. Here’s a quote from an article called “Create your own universe.”

Mighty as those discoveries and creations are, however, they pale into insignificance beside what Nobuyuki Sakai and his colleagues at Yamagata University in Japan have now put on the table. They have discovered how to use a particle accelerator to create a whole new universe.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg19125591.500&print=true

And here is a PDF file showing the mathematical equations behind this idea:

http://www.citebase.org/fulltext?format=application%2Fpdf&identifier=oai%3AarXiv.org%3Agr-qc%2F0602084

(I’m not even going to pretend I understand this highly mathematical stuff.)

This is all hypothetical at this point, of course, but very interesting nonetheless. (Note I used the word hypothetical rather than theoretical, so as not to confuse theory in “the theory of evolution” with the common usage of the word).

What if scientists come up with a mathematical model of what created the universe? What if they actually created one in a lab? Here’s an article describing just that: creating a universe in a lab. http://www.casavaria.com/sentido/science/2006/06-0802-new-universe.htm

What would this do to the belief in god?

[m21sniper]

Originally Posted by IROC

So, you're willing to go with a guess that is pretty much of your own fabrication that has no evidence what-so-ever to back it up? And you're picking on the theory of evolution?

There is no evidence backing ANY theory of the formation of life, but life is still here. So at this point, no theory has any factual evidence backing it up.

Originally Posted by IROC

In the context of your "theory" does mother nature (or this supernatural being) interfere with the universe after she/it flipped the switch?

I have no idea. Neither do you. The difference between us, i am honest enough to admit i don't know.