New just in: Birds not evolved from dinosaurs:

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
Yes, but you point it out to try to justify your equivocation of religion and science.

You spend to much time trying to read minds instead of posts.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
You spend to much time trying to read minds instead of posts.
Kelly

People try really hard reading your mind, because yo hardly ever answer questions directed to you. You evade every question in order to cover up you ignorance, instead showing your ignorance.

It's not hard to reading your mind though. Your are very single tracked: "If it's science, it's wrong. If it's religion, I'm right!"

Originally posted by FabianFnas
People try really hard reading your mind, because yo hardly ever answer questions directed to you. You evade every question in order to cover up you ignorance, instead showing your ignorance.

It's not hard to reading your mind though. Your are very single tracked: "If it's science, it's wrong. If it's religion, I'm right!"

Sorry just realized who I responded too.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Sorry just realized who I responded too.
Kelly

It's okay, I'm used with your avoidance. You do it all the time.

Ignore these two wonderfully insightful posts by me.

Thanks.

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.

the entire episode is truly reflective of what is fundamentally wrong the evolutionary hypothesis! speculative in its conception, basic differences have largely been ignored, and this is a case in point, for it contains a plethora of assumptions and postulation presented as fact. it is so refreshing to see the scientific community openly embracing and challenging these long held "scientific" beliefs, yes that is correct Mr.Hamilton, beliefs!

its amazing that in your erudite little worlds, you never noticed it before, were you too busy telling everyone else how stupid they were, who can tell? 😉

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
the entire episode is truly reflective of what is fundamentally wrong the evolutionary hypothesis! speculative in its conception, basic differences have largely been ignored, and this is a case in point, for it contains a plethora of assumptions and postulation presented as fact. it is so refreshing to see the scientific community openly embracing a ...[text shortened]... iced it before, were you too busy telling everyone else how stupid they were, who can tell? 😉

So in other words, the idea that birds did not decend directly from dinosaurs but instead share a common ancestor destroys the entire artifice of evolutionary theory?
The same argument was put forth when creationists decided what evolutionists were talking about with the ascent of man was that man evolved from Apes. But what evolutionists showed that Apes and man had a common earlier ancestor that split off into the two and more lines that resulted in what we see today. But creationists jumped on that one saying it proves evolution wrong because the bible says we were created in god's image.

Originally posted by sonhouse
So in other words, the idea that birds did not decend directly from dinosaurs but instead share a common ancestor destroys the entire artifice of evolutionary theory?
The same argument was put forth when creationists decided what evolutionists were talking about with the ascent of man was that man evolved from Apes. But what evolutionists showed that Apes ...[text shortened]... hat one saying it proves evolution wrong because the bible says we were created in god's image.

no it does not destroy it, only in this particular instance, casts serious doubt on that particular aspect of the hypothesis, namely that birds evolved from reptiles. i have yet to see a convincing 'common ancestor', however, i could point you in the direction of more postulation and in some cases outright deception, masquerading as science, as in the case of the ill fated, Ramapithecus, an entire skeletal projection, made from a lower jaw bone and a few teeth, Australopithecus which is clearly simian etc tec etc. infact, of the 100 million or so extant fossils (new scientist magazine), you could fit the evidence for mans decent from Apes on a coffee table, thus, what the whole episode shows is that there is a clear difference between what scientists really know and what they think might have been. 🙂

An interesting things about the debate evolutionism vs creationism is that creationists are demanfing 100% proof of evolutionists but not delivering any evidence of any kind, except the multi thousand year script, not even in original language.

If any detail of evolution theory (or not yet known) is not totally convincing, then the whole theory is wrong, and thus creationism must be the right one, even withou a shred of observation or evidence. That's their logic.

Evolution must be the right theory, and the creationists know that. What other reason would it be for them to be so scared of it?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
An interesting things about the debate evolutionism vs creationism is that creationists are demanfing 100% proof of evolutionists but not delivering any evidence of any kind, except the multi thousand year script, not even in original language.

If any detail of evolution theory (or not yet known) is not totally convincing, then the whole theory is wro , and the creationists know that. What other reason would it be for them to be so scared of it?

scared of it? my goodness Fabian, this is a case in point, and is worth repeating, creationism can only ever gain from scientific discovery, thus what you read in sonhouses post, the discovery of a new aspect or rather the negation of an old premise, does not harm the creationists ideology, but ironically (although no one would argue conclusively) bolsters there claim that the hypothesis they seek to discredit is built on a shaky foundation, thus they are not in fear of new discoveries, but actively seek and embrace them!

yes the creationists theories are founded on an ancient script, no one will deny, but it is science itself, that has projected an air of infallibility, of soundness and logic, of lack of postulation and dogma, when you and i know, that this is simply not the case. you yourself are in some way mirroring the creationist view, 'evolution MUST be the right theory', 'creation MUST be erroneous', and until one can overcome a fear of either, then how can a mutual understanding take place?

the creationist seeks in science confirmation of his ideology, beauty and logic, order and design, harmony and diversity. It is simply a different way of looking at things, and i hasten to add, it seems to me, that the creationist gets more out of it than does the poor materialist, for when he beholds the wonders of "creation", not only is he increasing his knowledge and understanding, but it becomes a spiritual experience, a confirmation of his beliefs! how he wonders and is in awe, the beauty, the design, the ingenuity, its amazzzzzzing, he exclaims! Science is amazzzzzing! creation is amazzzzzzing!

anyhow i am glad that at least you and I are talking again,at least on civil terms 🙂

i will say this Fabian, there are certain aspects of creationism, that are completely without foundation, either in science or in scripture, what are we to do with them? we cannot expound science, nor can we expose the folly of their beliefs scripturally, for they are not founded on any reasonable premise!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
the entire episode is truly reflective of what is fundamentally wrong the evolutionary hypothesis! speculative in its conception, basic differences have largely been ignored, and this is a case in point, for it contains a plethora of assumptions and postulation presented as fact. it is so refreshing to see the scientific community openly embracing a iced it before, were you too busy telling everyone else how stupid they were, who can tell? 😉

…the entire episode is truly reflective of what is fundamentally wrong the evolutionary hypothesis!
…

There is nothing wrong with the evolutionary hypothesis and you have yet to show a premise for this claim:

First some limited evidence points to one possible evolutionary pathway so, naturally, most scientists think that that possible evolutionary pathway is the most probable. Then some new limited evidence points to a different possible evolutionary pathway so, naturally, most scientists now think that that different possible evolutionary pathway is the most probable evolutionary pathway -that is just how science works (note that I say “most probable” -no rational person is claiming absolute certainty in this case). But this is just an argument over which pathway evolution took and thus doesn’t cast any doubt over the theory of evolution itself.

In exactly what way would a change of view in the light of new evidence on which pathway evolution probably took cast rational doubt on the theory of evolution itself?
How is it even relevant to the theory of evolution itself whether a particular evolutionary pathway
was X-->Y-->Z or V-->Z etc instead of X-->T-->Z etc?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…the entire episode is truly reflective of what is fundamentally wrong the evolutionary hypothesis!
…

There is nothing wrong with the evolutionary hypothesis and you have yet to show a premise for this claim:

First some limited evidence points to one possible evolutionary pathway so, naturally, most scientists think that that possible ...[text shortened]... hether a particular evolutionary pathway
was X-->Y-->Z or V-->Z etc instead of X-->T-->Z etc?[/b]

i think the point in question is perfectly adequate in establishing this, what is it about the now establish scientific "fact", that birds did not (probably) evolve from reptiles that is now evading you Andrew? if i had stated this less than a month ago, it would have been ridiculed, but now in the light of new evidence you give it credence, that was the point that I was making! No one is saying that it is the death of the theory, but its interesting never the less, don't you think 🙂

i apologise for the tone of this, i am trying to fit a door and post and play chess and evade my wife at the same time.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
scared of it? my goodness Fabian, this is a case in point, and is worth repeating, creationism can only ever gain from scientific discovery, thus what you read in sonhouses post, the discovery of a new aspect or rather the negation of an old premise, does not harm the creationists ideology, but ironically (although no one would argue conclusively) b ...[text shortened]... e folly of their beliefs scripturally, for they are not founded on any reasonable premise!

But creationsim isn't base upon science, is it? There are a lot of creationists denying scientific methods, saying that dinosaurs were living at the same times as humans in historic times, denying fossil evidence, denying radiometric methods, and so on. So creationism has nothing to do with science.

Creationism is religion, and religion and science cannot ever mix.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
But creationsim isn't base upon science, is it? There are a lot of creationists denying scientific methods, saying that dinosaurs were living at the same times as humans in historic times, denying fossil evidence, denying radiometric methods, and so on. So creationism has nothing to do with science.

Creationism is religion, and religion and science cannot ever mix.

i dunno Fabian where those guys are getting their data from? why they should choose to deny scientific methods , i also do not know? there is no need for it! the scriptures which form the basis of creationist ideology, (even here i pause, for these things that you are saying cannot even be inferred from scripture) are perfectly adequate and can easily be reconciled to scientific thought, the earth is millions of years old, its understood and the fossil record, actually helps the creationist cause, as in the case of vertebrates which appear without precedent, i think so, why they are working against their own interest, who can tell?

have you never tried cider and lager, a snakebite we call it, true creationism and science is a potent mixture.