1. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    09 Jun '09 21:31
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090609092055.htm

    New analysis of bird lungs and thigh bones shows them to have a different evolutionary path but maybe a common older ancestor of both.
  2. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    148544
    12 Jun '09 13:39
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090609092055.htm

    New analysis of bird lungs and thigh bones shows them to have a different evolutionary path but maybe a common older ancestor of both.
    I'm sure we will get it right one of these days. 🙂
    Kelly
  3. Joined
    06 May '05
    Moves
    9174
    12 Jun '09 14:57
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    I'm sure we will get it right one of these days. 🙂
    Kelly
    Well, that's how science works - always changing to match what the evidence shows.
  4. Standard memberpatauro
    Patricia
    Joined
    25 Sep '06
    Moves
    14447
    12 Jun '09 21:01
    Originally posted by PsychoPawn
    Well, that's how science works - always changing to match what the evidence shows.
    Sonhouse, he is kidding, right?!
  5. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    13 Jun '09 01:09
    Originally posted by patauro
    Sonhouse, he is kidding, right?!
    I think he was pointing out the unchanging view of religious people in regards to evolution, sticking to the main creationist story or ID stuff, as opposed to scientific evidence that may change views of a particular science, whatever science you are discussing. Religious folk invariably have no argument with say, mathematicians or astronomers or engineers because they don't impinge on their central doctrine. Only in the field of evolution do the religious set get their dander up. If they ever won that fight (very unlikely) but if they did, they would drop all pretense of an interest in science and go right back to literal biblical interpretations.
  6. Joined
    06 May '05
    Moves
    9174
    13 Jun '09 03:13
    Originally posted by patauro
    Sonhouse, he is kidding, right?!
    What did I say that was wrong?
  7. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    13 Jun '09 05:58
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    I'm sure we will get it right one of these days. 🙂
    Kelly
    KellyJay, who has not understood the fundamental things about dinosaurs (He actually thinks that man and dinosaurs lived at the same time), should not participate in this discussion.
  8. SubscriberProper Knob
    Cornovii
    North of the Tamar
    Joined
    02 Feb '07
    Moves
    51560
    13 Jun '09 09:39
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    KellyJay, who has not understood the fundamental things about dinosaurs (He actually thinks that man and dinosaurs lived at the same time), should not participate in this discussion.
    Go on, let him. He makes me laugh whilst i'm having my breakfast.
  9. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    148544
    13 Jun '09 15:00
    Originally posted by PsychoPawn
    Well, that's how science works - always changing to match what the evidence shows.
    I know I point that from time to time and it upsets people here.
    Kelly
  10. Joined
    06 May '05
    Moves
    9174
    13 Jun '09 15:03
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    I know I point that from time to time and it upsets people here.
    Kelly
    Yes, but you point it out to try to justify your equivocation of religion and science.
  11. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    148544
    13 Jun '09 16:47
    Originally posted by PsychoPawn
    Yes, but you point it out to try to justify your equivocation of religion and science.
    In some places they are close to each other, others not so much.
    Saying that does not add to or take away from either as far as they
    being correct or false it only means they have somethings in common.
    Kelly
  12. Joined
    26 May '08
    Moves
    2120
    13 Jun '09 17:47
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    In some places they are close to each other, others not so much.
    Saying that does not add to or take away from either as far as they
    being correct or false it only means they have somethings in common.
    Kelly
    …it only means they have something in common.…

    But not much;

    Science works by always changing to match what the evidence shows:
    Religion generally doesn’t change to match what the evidence shows (at least not the fundamental sort). Instead it just says X and Y is true and you are just supposed to (at least that seems my impression of what the religious nuts say) just blindly except X and Y is true regardless of whether any evidence or reason says otherwise.
  13. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    13 Jun '09 19:13
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    In some places they are close to each other, others not so much.
    Saying that does not add to or take away from either as far as they
    being correct or false it only means they have somethings in common.
    Kelly
    KJ, do you still think that dinosaurs lived side by side with human beings in historic times?
    Or have you learnt something new as you frequently visit the Science Forum?
  14. Joined
    29 Oct '05
    Moves
    932
    13 Jun '09 22:38
    It's that dang prankster God again, out there planting fossils to screw with our heads... I believe in you Jesus, even when all evidence tells me I shouldn't. Personally, I think we should blame the Gideons. Always running around planting fossils and bibles everywhere to confuse people. Damn, now I have to go listen to some Bill Hicks.
  15. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    West Coast Rioter
    tinyurl.com/y7loem9q
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    14 Jun '09 01:46
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    I think he was pointing out the unchanging view of religious people in regards to evolution, sticking to the main creationist story or ID stuff, as opposed to scientific evidence that may change views of a particular science, whatever science you are discussing. Religious folk invariably have no argument with say, mathematicians or [b]astronomers or eng ...[text shortened]... p all pretense of an interest in science and go right back to literal biblical interpretations.[/b]
    Not any more at least. Was it Galileo, Copernicus or both? I forget.
Back to Top