New just in: Birds not evolved from dinosaurs:

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
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 wa f this, i am trying to fit a door and post and play chess and evade my wife at the same time.

…the now establish scientific "fact", that birds did not (probably)
…


That is a self contradiction:
-if something is judged to be merely probably so (which it was in this case) than it isn’t an established fact.
The rest of your post is flawed because it implicitly uses your self contradiction as you stated it above as its premise.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…the now establish scientific "fact", that birds did not (probably)
…


That is a self contradiction:
-if something is judged to be merely probably so (which it was in this case) than it isn’t an established fact.
The rest of your post is flawed because it implicitly uses your self contradiction as you stated it above as its premise.[/b]

not actually, for i put the probably in afterwards, for your sake 😉

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? 😉

Just to clear the air, where did I ever call you stupid?

Originally posted by sonhouse
Just to clear the air, where did I ever call you stupid?

nowhere to my knowledge, did i say that you did, or implied that you did? if i did, then i apologise, profusely. i dunno sonhouse, i was incensed at the other thread, nothing to do with you, the one on the creationist museum, or whatever, yes their ideas are unfounded or substantiated on a false premise, but there is no need for condescension of that order. i myself have been guilty of it once or twice, and to see it in others was like looking in a mirror and seeing things that were not becoming, thus the tone of the post, hopefully you can understand, it was reactionary rather than cerebral.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
nowhere to my knowledge, did i say that you did, or implied that you did? if i did, then i apologise, profusely. i dunno sonhouse, i was incensed at the other thread, nothing to do with you, the one on the creationist museum, or whatever, yes their ideas are unfounded or substantiated on a false premise, but there is no need for condescension of th ...[text shortened]... hus the tone of the post, hopefully you can understand, it was reactionary rather than cerebral.

It sounds like you are distancing yourself from creationists. Are you just playing devils advocate here? Apology accepted. I don't think creationists or ID'ers are stupid, just misled. They can't accept evidence all around them but insist on finding a supernatural cause for the way things are. But it flies in the face of 200 years of solid science.

Originally posted by sonhouse
It sounds like you are distancing yourself from creationists. Are you just playing devils advocate here? Apology accepted. I don't think creationists or ID'ers are stupid, just misled. They can't accept evidence all around them but insist on finding a supernatural cause for the way things are. But it flies in the face of 200 years of solid science.

in all honesty, i do not know what a creationist believes, for even within the genre there are different branches, are there not? i am more a kind of Newtonian if there is such a thing, seeing no conflict between scripture and science, the latter being useful for the elucidation of the former, but not dependent upon it, kind of like the way archeolgy can be used to substabntiate Biblical places, events, the reigns of kings and dynasties etc, its useful but not entirely dependent upon it.

for example, the case with dinosaurs living and being present on the Ark. Is this a common creationist belief? if so, i cannot be a creationist, for although i have examined the evidence presented, it seems to be tentatively based on historical and cultural aspects, like coins and drawings, depictions of dragons on tapestry and stuff. there are no Biblical inferences that this was the case, none that i know of, therefore it enters the realms of conjecture. Also i have learned that some are professing a 'young', earth? what is the basis for this, for i do not think that it can be established scientifically, although there have been some attempts, for the earth seems to be very much older than a few thousand years, nor can it be substantiated in scripture, therefore what can we say, what is its basis? therefore on this basis i cannot be a creationist either.

A creationist simply believes that there is a creator. But within creationism there are different groups who believe things.

A young earth creationist believes scripture as absolute truth, ie the Earth is 10,000yrs old and literally described as in Genesis. These people are the ones who have most difficulty describing how dinosaurs fit in with their worldview. There's a great Bill Hicks sketch where he quotes YEC as saying 'we believe God put dinosaur fossils on Earth to test our faith', because if dinosaurs were alive during the time of Jesus they would have mentioned it in the Bible. Too big not to.

An old earth creationist believe the physical world was created by God and that Genesis should not be taken too literally. They accept the age of the Earth and the Universe as described by geologists and astronomers, but question modern evolutionary theory.

Intelligent design is the assertion that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. It is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, but one which avoids specifying the nature or identity of the designer. The idea was developed by a group of American creationists who reformulated their argument in the creation-evolution controversy to circumvent court rulings that prohibit the teaching of creationism as science. Intelligent design's leading proponents, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank, believe the designer to be the God of Christianity. (Copied from wikipedia, too tired to think).

By Proper Knob:

A creationist simply believes that there is a creator. But within creationism there are different groups who believe things.

A young earth creationist believes scripture as absolute truth, ie the Earth is 10,000yrs old and literally described as in Genesis. These people are the ones who have most difficulty describing how dinosaurs fit in with their worldview. There's a great Bill Hicks sketch where he quotes YEC as saying 'we believe God put dinosaur fossils on Earth to test our faith', because if dinosaurs were alive during the time of Jesus they would have mentioned it in the Bible. Too big not to.

An old earth creationist believe the physical world was created by God and that Genesis should not be taken too literally. They accept the age of the Earth and the Universe as described by geologists and astronomers, but question modern evolutionary theory.

Intelligent design is the assertion that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. It is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, but one which avoids specifying the nature or identity of the designer. The idea was developed by a group of American creationists who reformulated their argument in the creation-evolution controversy to circumvent court rulings that prohibit the teaching of creationism as science. Intelligent design's leading proponents, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank, believe the designer to be the God of Christianity. (Copied from wikipedia, too tired to think).

Can I add that there are also the Old Earth Creationists who accept the evolutionary theory pretty much entirely, including man sharing an ancester with the other great Apes, but then say that Humans are special because God 'breathed' some sort of 'soul' into us early in our history. I am pretty sure the Anglican branch of Christianity holds to this interpretation.

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by Penguin
By Proper Knob:

[b]A creationist simply believes that there is a creator. But within creationism there are different groups who believe things.

A young earth creationist believes scripture as absolute truth, ie the Earth is 10,000yrs old and literally described as in Genesis. These people are the ones who have most difficulty describing how dinosaurs f y sure the Anglican branch of Christianity holds to this interpretation.

--- Penguin.

…the Old Earth Creationists who accept the evolutionary theory pretty much entirely, including man sharing an ancestor with the other great Apes, but then say that Humans are special because God 'breathed' some sort of 'soul' into us early in our history.
…[/b]

Well, at least they got the first part correct.

if Birds did not evolve from reptiles, then where did the come from? is it simply a question of lack of evidence, no one really knows?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
if Birds did not evolve from reptiles, then where did the come from? is it simply a question of lack of evidence, no one really knows?

Wrong.
Thier is to much evididence on the contrery. Here is a tip take a look at the scales on the reptiles and the feathers. They found reptile with feathers on them in China 4 years ago come on man wake up.

Originally posted by theprotectors
Wrong.
Thier is to much evididence on the contrery. Here is a tip take a look at the scales on the reptiles and the feathers. They found reptile with feathers on them in China 4 years ago come on man wake up.

sorry i thought that the original post, had clearly established that birds not not come from reptiles? i.e. dinosaurs, are you contradicting that claim, were you awake when you read it?? and if you will also notice, the statement was in the form of a question, so now, you will kindly point out, what was wrong with the question.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
sorry i thought that the original post, had clearly established that birds not not come from reptiles? i.e. dinosaurs, are you contradicting that claim, were you awake when you read it?? and if you will also notice, the statement was in the form of a question, so now, you will kindly point out, what was wrong with the question.

I am not sure if they are saying the earlier ancestor was a reptile, I have a feeling the earlier ancestor was reptilian, just not dinosaur or bird. I wouldn't think for instance, this precursor form would have been mammalian for instance.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
sorry i thought that the original post, had clearly established that birds not not come from reptiles? i.e. dinosaurs, are you contradicting that claim, were you awake when you read it?? and if you will also notice, the statement was in the form of a question, so now, you will kindly point out, what was wrong with the question.

…sorry i thought that the original post, had clearly established that birds did not come from reptiles?
… (spelling corrected)

Err… nope:

Reminder of the original link:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090609092055.htm

“…the finding means it's unlikely that birds descended from any known THEROPOD DINOSAURS….” (my emphasis)

Are all reptiles “THEROPOD DINOSAURS”? -answer, no.
They NEVER said birds did NOT descend from reptiles.

They also said:

“…There are some similarities between birds and dinosaurs, and it is possible, they said, that birds and dinosaurs may have shared a common ancestor, such as the small, REPTILIAN "thecodonts," which may then have evolved on separate evolutionary paths into birds, crocodiles and dinosaurs….” (my emphasis)

So they suggested birds may have directly descended from "thecodonts" which are reptiles.

…not come from REPTILES? i.e. DINOSAURS,
..…(my emphasis)

“REPTILES” = “DINOSAURS” ? -so all reptiles are dinosaurs? 😛
What about the modern reptiles? Are they also all dinosaurs?