,,,we birds did,nt come from no reptile were not a dinosoars reletive AND IM GOING TO GET VIOLENT WITH THE EVOLUTION WACKOS IM GOING TO PICK THEIR EYES OUT SQUAWK SQUAWK
,,,we birds did,nt come from no reptile were not a dinosoars reletive AND IM GOING TO GET VIOLENT WITH THE EVOLUTION WACKOS IM GOING TO PICK THEIR EYES OUT SQUAWK SQUAWK
Obviously birds evolved from other species and if you don’t believe that, that’s fine. As long as you vote for lower taxes and a stronger defence, I’ll forgive you.
“In addition to cementing the dino-bird connection, the new study provides the first molecular evidence that mastodons and elephants are closely related.”
No. Sorry, but that’s absolutely false. Mastodons are related to homing pigeons, and elephants are related to kangaroos.
What a circus.
Steve
Speaking of genetic analysis, it is interesting, perhaps, that it turns out that dogs are closely related to, well, wolves and foxes, but that’s obvious, and also bears, um, ok, yet less obvious, perhaps, the northern elephant seal, and, yes, walruses, as shown in this tinyurl.com/6fpokm image from the American Scientist magazine article Genetics and the Shape of Dogs, which is available here: tinyurl.com/5oq9gw
I particularly like the intra-breed dog chart shown in the article here: tinyurl.com/6gnoml
I read a book from the 1840’s before Darwin. They where already discussing feathers on dinosaurs, connecting them with birds.
The so called new understanding of these creatures was already over a 100 years old. We can thank Uniformatism & its authors prejudice that bought into the Reptile origin. In fact its been so orthodox no one could talk about it till evolution by the Darwinian concept, is increasingly dead.
Again free expression was curtailed in the interests of conformity to the point significant discoveries where dismissed by dogmatists.
Personally I think the Epi-Genome becomes so stressed from environmental pressures what ever they are, it causes genetic change in the so called junk DNA, over one generation. This is only a theory period.
Instead of Nature red in tooth & claw, its cooperation plus adaptability that causes species to flourish. We see that in symbiotic relationships if not our own mitochondria that acts in our cells as engines. If not the social structure of our genus & others as well.
By the way, a warmer climate makes for a diverse expanding biota. Cold brings species decline.
Read to the end of the article, people:
“But doubts remain . . . .”
And always will.
Ah well. Just keep believing all life is mud animated by lightening. Every now and then one of you will swallow the red pill and bust out of Matrix.
The dinosaur-bird link and the observations from Revnant Dream are a good parallel to the dogmatism of the AGW crowd. The “science was settled” on the dinosaur-reptile link, as you’ll recall…same as the “science is settled” on AGW.
When it comes to science (and most everything else) “It ain’t over ’til it’s over”.
“Just keep believing all life is mud animated by lightening.”
As opposed to mud animated by a Bearded Guy In The Sky?
I shouldn’t have to mention that, from an impartial perspective, your proposition is at best no more likely than the one you’ve dismissed.
I also shouldn’t have to mention that evolution has nothing to do with either mud or lighting, nor does it propose to explain the origins of life.
Yet I find myself mentioning both things anyway, since the sheer ignorance of your comment has left me questioning your understanding of even these very basic concepts.
And yes, doubts do remain. That is the difference between logic and fanaticism – a belief acquired through logic can always be changed with the discovery of contrary evidence, while a belief based on fanaticism can never be changed. The fact that you see doubt as a “Bad Thing” tells me all I need to know about your ability to rationally analyze the world around you.
“,we birds did,nt come from no reptile were not a dinosoars reletive”
I’m glad he’s not my relative, one less present for Christmas.
🙂
“The dinosaur-bird link and the observations from Revnant Dream,…”
Ok I better call Richard Warman to buy me a garage if this keeps up.
“I shouldn’t have to mention that, from an impartial perspective, your proposition is,…”
I bet Alex is an impartial commie, Lenin is the only real god! Big government created us!
It takes a ‘greater’ faith to believe we are accidents of nature when the evidence of science presents absolutes.
Instead of trying to accept a vague link between reptiles and birds, try studying the absolutes of one beat of the heart. The chemical, electrical and muscular activity of the heart is very complex and absoulute, a well designed organ iside a more complex body. Accidents bring death, not life.
And each cell in our body is a very complex organism with absolute function, and reproductive ability.
Has anyone tried to link the life of a reptile to the life in plants? That’s a stretch of the imagination!
Science disproves the theory of evolution.
Guess it was time to bring up the discussion again eh, Kate?
Liberals related to the dodo.
“That is the difference between logic and fanaticism”.
Indeed.
Without God as the immaterial creator of this material universe, there is no rational reason why something like immaterial logic should even exist, and, if it did exist, why it should “work”, or why we should trust it. Furthermore, without God, your brain is undesigned and without purpose, composed of mere junkyard molecules and scraps of DNA — you have absolutely no rational reason to believe or trust anything that comes out of it.
Christians, and other who believe in God, have a rational reason for believing in reason, logic, and a brain that can make sense of reality around it.
Atheists do not.
Atheists owe a lot to God.
As opposed to mud animated by a Bearded Guy In The Sky?
No Alex God isn’t the bearded guy living in the sky. In fact you and I and everything that exists have our being ‘IN HIM’!
We are not only in His thoughts, we are His thoughts.
I know its complicated so if you want to believe that you are a bunch of amino acids accidentally bumping together go ahead.
Having tested your theory and observed its natural out come I prefer the Divine because of the Truth and the Hope and the Life that is evident in Him.
Now hang on a minute this t. rex weighs like 10 tons and tastes like chicken !!!!! woooo hooooo
Great info…..this is great stuff….yes the slow cogs of human exploration and discovery churn on. To what end who knows….
But cool info.
We’ve had this discussion before, but, it’s always timely (pun intended).
Richard Ball – you completely misunderstand atheism. I’m an atheist. That belief has zilch to do with rejecting reason and logic! There’s no logical reason to link reason and logic with a god. Nor is there any reason to consider that ‘being an atheist’ means believing only in randomness.
I certainly consider that the universe is an act of reason and logic. Any consideration of the complex nature of a single plant provides such a conclusion. But there’s no intentionality to such a result, there’s no need of an agential agent (god).
There is, however, Reason, which enables molecules to form functional cells, to form more complex organisms that all robustly interact with each other.
I won’t go into the argument here, but, I reject the basic two-step process of Darwin, which is pure mechanics: random mutant appearance of X, with judgment by Natural Selection.
I certainly agree with the concept of evolution and adaptation, but I don’t think that the appearance of X is as random and uninformed as Darwin suggests, and I don’t think that Natural Selection is as powerful as Darwin suggests.
Randomness DOES have a role, but a minor one that is overshadowed by the weight of current reality. It’s a waste of ‘Nature’s Energy’ for a totally random molecule to appear that doesn’t have a chance to exist in that environment. The molecule that DOES appear will already be ‘pre-adapted’ so to speak to function in that env’t.
The universe operates within Reason and Logic. Such a process might be comparable to Joe’s God, though I doubt if Joe would agree. But, there’s no intentionality, no agency. There’s a certain amount of freedom/chance in evolution, and a LOT of informational processing of ‘what might fit’ in this env’t, and a LOT of Reason.
Why oh why must we argue as to the existence or non-existence of God? One would think that after a couple thousand years of trying to prove or disprove the existence of God and 150 years of trying to prove or disprove evolution WITH NO ASBOLUTE PROOF ON EITHER SIDE, mankind would just give up and admit they don’t know. Remember, as the saying goes, the beginning of wisdom is the ability to say “I don’t know”.
I don’t know if God exists or not. There is no way to prove or disprove. You can look at the circumstantial evidence and make up your mind on this circumstantial and incomplete evidence…or you can say “I don’t know” and just quit worrying about it.
I have been on both sides of the fence on this issue and after great study and introspection, have decided to climb back up on the fence and tolerate both sides.
Either side can think or do whatever they want…it’s a “free” country…just keep your belief or disbelief in God to yourself and tolerate others.
To Christians, you are commanded to live IN the world but not be OF the world…you are commanded to witness to the world, not force God down anyone’s throat…you are commanded to obey the government in power at the time and not to change the government.
To atheists, the word of the century seems to be “TOLERANCE”. Look it up and practice it, please.
Sorry if I’m off-topic Kate.
“And yes, doubts do remain. That is the difference between logic and fanaticism – a belief acquired through logic can always be changed with the discovery of contrary evidence, while a belief based on fanaticism can never be changed.”
Well said; the religionists’ “explanation” can not and will not account for any new evidence, otherwise their house of cards would crumble the same way a medicine man’s “magic potion” can be shown to be nothing more than the wishful thinking of stone-age tribesmen.
The more I learn the more I am amazed at the absolute genius of creation. How is it that each individual can have their own special DNA footprint, and yet the connection can be seen between relatives? How is it that if we evolved from monkeys we still have monkeys, or even amoebas (the first primordial slime we are supposed to have crawled out of). And how is it that over millions of years and on this vast planet that coincidentally this evolved species female just happened to be in the vicinity of evolved species male counterpart at the same time, and the process repeated millions of times. That takes a lot more faith than just believing and accepting that God created the heavens and the earth. We pride ourselves on being informed and disputing AGW based on facts, and yet the same consensus crowd tells us we evolved – case closed. Look at the other side and decide which makes more sense. A good reference is Ken Hamm who works with Answers in Genesis.
Spurwing Plover isn’t the first to practice ‘genetic heritage denial’. Some aboriginal groups are very afraid that this effort will eviscerate their land claims.
eeyore, I don’t think the issue is as black and white as you set it up – either believe in god as agential or in no god/atheism. I think the issue pertains to the role of man, as a reasoning species, in the control of his own life and the environment.
If you accept that evolution and adaptation are real processes, and that man has the capacity of reason, then, you can accept that man can, and has the right to ‘make evolution and adaptation’ occur. This interference with natural processes has been ongoing since our species emerged and began to domesticate animals and plants. With regard to plants, for example, domesticated rice and wheat are far more productive than wild.
Then, if you accept that all of life is entangled and networked in a logical and ‘reasonable’ fashion, then you also realize that your intervention in this network has effects – not only in producing more food. But sometimes in unplanned harm to other parts of the network. So, we want to scientifically understand as much as we can about this world; that necessarily includes causality (random or ?).
ET:
“There is, however, Reason, which enables molecules to form functional cells, to form more complex organisms that all robustly interact with each other.”
Each single cell in the body is complex. No amount of reasoning gives that cell life by chance ET.
If there is any interruption by chance/accident in any of those cells they die…they do not carry on to something else.
If you choose to be an atheist that is fine. You try to explain the theory of evolution as your ‘reason’ for not believing in the Creator.
Science and absolutes disprove the theory of evolution.
I remember reading a book, can’t recall the name, where man evolved or devolved back to the water. Interesting theory.
now that they’ve firmly established the link, maybe someone can finally get it right when they assemble the T-rex bones. Obviously those tiny limbs aren’t his arms, they’re his bird feet! And those giant Legs? Nah, those are his poweful wings!
lucky for us we dont have KFR , kentucky fried rex. it would be a treat for drumsticks on top but at the bottom of the bucket the wings would be a real disappointment
So long as we’re bringing logic mudslinging into the equation…. Why would your precious god allow the slaughter of his own children? If we’re all inherently part of god (or whatever) how can ‘he’ justify killing us? How is it possible that a loving god will kill a child with diabetes while Jack Layton remains alive?
Why does Gibbon blame Christians for the fall of the Roman Empire? So often we have people on this site blaming muslims for their current dark age, somehow forgetting that dogmatic acceptance of THE WORD caused our very own dark age centuries earlier.
There is no logic in god. God is just another way for humans to explain a random universe without having to admit that they don’t know.
When does TRex season open?
I call dibs on the heart…
Ah yes, Jon, those wonderful regimes that got rid of God — life was bliss under Stalin, Hitler and Mao. Sheer bliss. Starvation, mock trials, brain-washing and extreme censorship, mass graves, and more executions in a year or two than any religious leaders caused in all the centuries of those “Dark Ages”, but hey — life was bliss without God. Oh, and it’s blissful in North Korea right now, too.
As for good ol’ T-rex:
“As philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn pointed out, (Kuhn, T.S., The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 3rd edition, University of Chicago Press, 1996.) what generally happens when a discovery contradicts a paradigm is that the paradigm is not discarded but modified, usually by making secondary assumptions, to accommodate the new evidence. That’s just what appears to have happened in this case. When [Dr.] Schweitzer first found what appeared to be blood cells in a T. Rex specimen, she said, “It was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But, of course, I couldn’t believe it. I said to the lab technician: “The bones, after all, are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?’” (Science 261:160, July 9, 1994) Notice that her first reaction was to question the evidence, not the paradigm. That is in a way quite understandable and human, and is how science works in reality (though when creationists do that, it’s caricatured as non-scientific). So will this new evidence cause anyone to stand up and say there’s something funny about the emperor’s clothes? Not likely. Instead, it will almost certainly become an “accepted” phenomenon that even “stretchy” soft tissues must be somehow capable of surviving for millions of years. (Because, after all, we “know” that this specimen is “70 million years old”.) See how it works?”
Dr. Carl Weiland
ET
Before your life ends I hope you come to the same realization that Nicodemus did:
Then Jesus told Nicodemus the beautiful words , “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.” Jesus came to save the people of the world, not to condemn them.
Once you believe this you will then have no difficulty in believeing that God indeed created this world we live in. The choice is yours.
That’s a lot of chicken!
Thanks for bringing that up Jon. Because that is the next logical flow in this discussion.
Sin
I will venture to guess that those who want to cling to the theory of evolution (including those who believe in God) cannot accept the history and prophecy of the Book of Genesis.
The theory of evolution also claims a progression of ‘disorder to order’ The book of Genesis claims order to disorder beginning with the Sin.
Does anyone see things getting orderly around the world?
Nightmare
re . opening day.
It’s not in the regs: so it’s open season.
I’ll call em in, with my wounded pterodactyl call, you set up by that tree.
I get the tenderloins !
I agree, bluetech, every single cell is a complex system. So are atoms and molecules. Note that I said ‘MORE complex organism’, not ‘complex organism’.
I also disagree with your rejection of chance in nature. I disagree that everything in nature is mechanical, i.e., planned. There are, in a complex system, several processes operating.
One is ‘the program’ which is a Rule-Based system. I consider that our world, by virtue of its operation as a ‘Reasoning System’ is amenable to Rules, which are normative patterns of interaction that constrain and inhibit randomness. These normative rules can themselves evolve.
Another of these processes is freedom or spontaneity, which is a non-rule action that may or may not last for longer than that one appearance.
The third is the individual expression of the first, the individual version of the Normative Rules. These expressions are slight variations of the Rules, bound by those Rules, but with a certain amount of variation – that, if these individuals become a stable group, they can actually become a new species on their own.
These three processes: deduction, abduction an induction, to give them one name, are as analytically old as Aristotle. And still valid.
Yes, that’s why I’m against relying on pure randomness as a basis for evolution – the ratio of a randomly emerging new cell having any success is a worse ratio than winning the lottery. My use of ‘chance’ operates in a different area of evolution; but it’s still there.
So, I reject Darwin’s two-step outline of evolution, and instead opt for one where the new species is not a random emergence but a pre-selected or ‘informed emergence’, where the new species is already highly tuned to the local environment by virtue of information processing in the entire system. Too much to explain here.
But, sorry, there’s still no god.
This conversation is pointless.
neither side will ever change their opinion in a chat forum.
I have one thought, If the Bible has no trouble with slavery and it is the word of God does that mean that slavery is ok with God?
ET…you just took this discussion one step further. God has revealed himself to us…and he gave you the free will to decide to believe or not.That does not allow you to decide that he doesn’t exist.
Jesus said He was God.He is either a liar, lunatic or Lord.
I know what I believe.
SPURIWNG HASZ CHEZBURGER?
ME HASZ SPURWING OUTED
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spur-winged_Plover
Ann,
I believe you’ve met Mr. Strawman. I forgot that in these debates the god side somehow takes the moral high ground. It’s as if the world has forgotten the children’s crusade the spanish inquisition etc. If you’re unable to admit that there was a dark age in Christendom because of dogmatic adherence to scripture then there’s no point in having this debate… because it’s obvious that too see god you must believe in god, and to evolve (and gain use of your thumbs) you must believe in evolution.
Every now and then someone like “right of centre” comes up with something they think is a very clever question that stumps Bible-believers and causes them to drop their Bible (because the question is just so clever and unanswerable!). Yawn. Here goes . . .
Christianity shook and eventually changed the Roman empire with these words from Paul (Gal. 3:2): There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Get it? Equal in God’s eyes, regardless of position in society.
The other Bible texts about slaves obeying their masters are related to the realities of that time period. Many Christians nowadays think of blue-collar and factory workers in relation to those texts, which is why many Christians tend not to be pro-union or pro-communist, for that matter.
You can google “Chritians and slavery” and you’ll get summaries of centuries of theological thought on this topic. With a little bit of effort you can can get centuries of theological discussion and thoughts on every Bible text you want to ask your “clever” questions about. Christians have heard them all, and probably asked those questions long before you read it in some atheist’s best-seller.
“too see god ”
Use your opposable thumbs properly on the keyboard, oh evolved one.
Hey, where did you get the wounded pteradactyl call? I just went through the Cabela’s catalogue with no luck.
The other Bible texts about slaves obeying their masters are related to the realities of that time period. Many Christians nowadays think of blue-collar and factory workers in relation to those texts, which is why many Christians tend not to be pro-union or pro-communist, for that matter
So you are bending the rules to fit man kinds point of view in the present wouldnt an all knowing God know this already and use his words to fit all eras?
If you want to yawn and say that your belief is has more evidence than feel free to yawn away as your point of view is tiresome.
Ann,
You’ve still failed to refute a thing. You’ve only quoted some obscure sketchy doctor from Australia. If he’s your best reference I’ll raise you a Darwin. If you don’t believe in Darwin, how about Einstein? Dawkins? Hawking? Bueller?
As mankind progresses it sheds away pieces of the Bibles faults all they have left is the “faith” argument and the mental slavery that comes with it.
Eeyore please move over a bit, that spot beside you on the fence looks very comfortable to me.
There are none so blind as thise who will not see. I will leave you with one thought ET and I hope the light comes on for you.
Divine revelation is indeed at the basis of faith, of man’s “I believe.” At the same time, the passages of Sacred Scripture in which this revelation is found, teach us that man is capable of knowing God by reason alone. He is capable of a certain “knowledge” about God, even though it is indirect and not immediate. Therefore, alongside the “I believe” we find a certain “I know.” This “I know” concerns the existence of God and even, to a certain extent, his essence. This intellectual knowledge of God is systematically treated by a science called “natural theology,” which is of a philosophical nature and springs from metaphysics, that is, the philosophy of being. It focuses on the knowledge of God as the First Cause, and also as the Last End of the universe. These questions, as well as the vast philosophical discussion connected with them, cannot be examined within the limits of a brief instruction on the truths of faith. Neither do we intend to take up here in a detailed way those “ways” that guide the human mind in the search for God (the “Quinque viae” [five ways] of St. Thomas Aquinas). For this catechesis of ours, it is sufficient to keep in mind that the sources of Christianity speak of the possibility of a rational knowledge of God. Therefore, according to the Church, all our thinking about God, based on faith, also has a “rational” and “intellective” character. Even atheism lies within the sphere of a certain reference to the concept of God. If it denies the existence of God, it must also know whose existence it is denying.
It is clear that knowledge through faith differs from purely rational knowledge. Nevertheless God would not have been able to reveal himself to the human race if it were not already naturally capable of knowing something true about God. Therefore, alongside and in addition to an “I know,” which is proper to man’s intellect, there is an “I believe,” proper to the Christian. With faith the believer has access, even if obscurely, to the mystery of the intimate life of God who reveals himself.
Bullwinkle,
The “believe” and the “know” are the same thing. One is used by people who do not believe in the absolute and the other is.
That’s also the reason why “Christians” can never validate their argument with science. They start with a hypothesis of “I know this therefore” and the observation vary from the expectation the therefore is assumed to be incorrect rather than the know.
No one knows that God exists. Some may believe it to be so, but know and believe are not the same thing, regardless of the logical acrobatics.
It’s also laughable that some are putting atheism and AGW in the same category. There’s a reason why we call him St. Al.
glasnost: Sure, I’ll shift over a bit on the fence and I’ll share my pillow, too.
Right of Centre: You’re right that this discussion is pointless in a forum like this. But you are wrong about Christianity and slavery. My suspicion is that you haven’t studied the Bible and therefore are informed only by incidental contact with second or third hand knowledge of the subject. In short, I suspect you don’t truly know what you are talking about.
I have read and studied the Bible…I find it fascinating. And “solid”, for the most part…meaning that there are few claims in the Bible that point out any significant error in knowledge of the sciences (the miraculous occurences you can just attribute to God’s omnipotence…parting of the Red Sea, stopping the sun in the sky, etc…I mean, if he can create the universe, he can part the sea, eh?). As a weak example, it was a passage in the Bible that inspired the discovery of the jet stream.
I happen to believe in evolution…and Christians can/do too…though likely NOT as the explanation for the appearance of life on the planet in the first place. I think it can be demonstrated quite clearly and unambiguously that animals evolve/change…just not necessarily INTO an entirely different type of creature…though that would theoretically be just a matter of time.
For those non-believers who wish to slam Christianity…at least educate yourself first on what the Bible actually says…otherwise, you are just demonstrating your own ignorance. Please, it’s embarrasing.
If, after having studied the Bible, you choose to disbelieve, at least you won’t be doing so out of complete ignorance.
As for Kentucky Fried Rex…imagine the size of the bucket! We’d eliminate homelessness with just a couple of picnics per month!
Jon,
Consider the following:
Man has an intellect and a will. The intellect is oriented to knowing the cause of all the things which man experiences as effects in this world. By an ascent of truth, it is possible (and some human beings have been able) to ascend to the knowledge that God exists and is one, truth, love, Creator, and provident. This can be known through reason alone. Yet, this is not enough for anyone.
Left to this sort of knowledge of God, man is like the fox before the grapes. The fox goes away sad because he wants to taste of the delicious grapes, but he cannot. Man wants to grasp God, but his mind cannot fathom the depth of truth in God. Man, by the very fact of his being created with an intellect, is called to another sort of knowledge of God than simply the kind which philosophers have arrived at by their reason alone.
Each thing God has made manifests his truth. But he communicates his nature in a special way to man, who is invited to participate in his nature, to share fellowship with the Trinity. This fellowship is proclaimed in 2 Peter 1:4, where Peter says that God has given us great and precious gifts by which we become “partakers in divine nature.”
The special love of God is shown for us in the communication of his truth. Communication is necessary for even natural relationships of love like marriage. This communication is even more necessary for the divine communion with the Holy Trinity promised to us in John 17. We are to be consecrated in the truth of God’s Word.
Waiting for the asteroid…. I don’t think so, the theory is that an asteroid hit near Chicklub on the Yucatan peninsula, the resulting dust cloud cooled the earth, this brought on the extinction of the dinosaurs. what if there was no asteroid what could of happened was that the mayan discovered that t-rex tasted just like chicken and all those pyramids were really just ancient YFR (yucatan fried rex) stands ? think about it all those ancient people sitting with their s u v’s idling waiting for their take-out ” you-all want fries with that” ? and the smoke from all those industrial size barbecues! man was at fault again. remember you heard this here first on …..LARGE DEAD ANIMALS…(that taste like chicken)
Bubba
Hey Eyore
Science has a theory for the explanation for the parting of the Red Sea.
your lack of knowledge on this shows your ignorance and it is just emabarasing.
Perhaps you should do some research first
We can both just throws stones at each other and talk this way but does it real help conversation?