Your conclusion on God's existence

[TecK NeeX]

This new information merely challenges the fact that Archea was the first "link" between birds and dinosaurs. An on itself silly statement since there wouldn't be something like a definite, absolute, single link. It only says that there may be a bird like creature found that was older than Archea. So? No serious evolutionist would argue the existence and place in time of Archea was conclusive evidence of birds suddenly evolving from dinosaurs. Again, you debunked nothing.

OMG do you honestly cant see the relevance of this bird Protoavis? You yousrself posted the relevance and what this discovery means to the theory of evolution. It doesnt just prove that the Archae wasn't the ancestor of birds it proves that it wasnt a link at all, it was a complete true modern-like bird that lived along with the dinosaurs.

The paleontologist Sankar Chatterjee has recently described the fossil Protoavis, from Late Triassic deposits in Texas. Chatterjee claims that Protoavis is a true bird that is actually closer to modern birds than Archaeopteryx. If this is true, this would push the origin of birds back by about 80 million years. It would also show that the first birds lived at the same time as the earliest dinosaurs -- which could disprove or force modification of the standard hypothesis that birds are descended from the highly derived coelurosaurian dinosaurs, which are not known from the Triassic. This would require major rewriting of the evolutionary history of the birds and dinosaurs alike.

Do you see the relevance? read it a couple of times and you will. So what we know so far is that the dinosaur that is long believed to be the ancestor of birds didnt exist during the time of the oldest known bird. So how could a bird evolve from a dinosaur that didnt exist? well, Evolutionists are left with no choice but to question the fossil because this fossil doesnt work in their favor. Or do an enee menee minee mo and pick another dinosaur and say wait it wasnt the coelurosaurian dinosaurs it was this dinosaur, no wait that dinosaur is the ancestor of birds. LOL this is really pathetic. They're really clutching at straws

Those two other guys you quoted out of the blue said nothing that is out of the ordinary. Derek V. Ager's comment doesn't really add anything except a second theory.

And do you know what this second theory is? The "explosion of one group" and the "sudden appearances of many species"? I'll let you guess

Czarnecki's statement says what it says, but isn't conclusive. Sure, bees haven't changed. Other animals did.

We can find evidence of species that never changed over millions and millions of years but we cant find evidence of species that did change. Ok great.

Christ, how hard is it to understand what is being said in that Wiki entry

i read it so what? You're going in circles by first saying there are none and there shouldnt be any transitional fossils and than arguing that the Archae is? wtf?

 

[TecK NeeX]

Czarnecki's statement says what it says, but isn't conclusive. Sure, bees haven't changed. Other animals did.

I've just noticed something very funny with this. Because these honey bees, dragon flies and ants still exist today we can safely say they never evolved over the course of millions of years. If they didnt exist evolutionists would probably say they evolved into something else. But because these so called transitional fossils dont exist today, it's like a must that we put them in the middle of 2 different species and can't assume that they're entirely different from the 2 species this fossil is believed to be inbetween. Why can't they be like the Honey bees, ants and flies that never evolved but went extinct instead of living on? because they no longer exist? ha..ha....ha

So in short, what you just said is

Ants, Honey Bees and Dragon flies didnt evolve because they still exist today. If they didnt exist they must have evolved

Animals that no longer exist did evolve because of the fact that they no longer exist. Yup thats the only other explanation we have right?

Oh man, this is really comedy!.

 

[Duke]

OMG do you honestly cant see the relevance of this bird Protoavis? You yousrself posted the relevance and what this discovery means to the theory of evolution. It doesnt just prove that the Archae wasn't the ancestor of birds it proves that it wasnt a link at all, it was a complete true modern-like bird that lived along with the dinosaurs.


The paleontologist Sankar Chatterjee has recently described the fossil Protoavis, from Late Triassic deposits in Texas. Chatterjee claims that Protoavis is a true bird that is actually closer to modern birds than Archaeopteryx. If this is true, this would push the origin of birds back by about 80 million years. It would also show that the first birds lived at the same time as the earliest dinosaurs -- which could disprove or force modification of the standard hypothesis that birds are descended from the highly derived coelurosaurian dinosaurs, which are not known from the Triassic. This would require major rewriting of the evolutionary history of the birds and dinosaurs alike.

Once again, comprehensive reading is beyond your grasp it seems. Here comes the clue train, last stop is you:

1.) Protoavis wasn't a modern day bird. It displayed characteristics of modern day birds, more then Archea, but tt wasn't a modern day bird as we know them.
2.) If indeed Protoavis was real, it merely rattles the gates a bit. It doesn't disprove that Archea was a "link", where'd you pull that retarded logic from? Archea is still an animal that displays avian and reptilian characteristics. Protoavis simply does the same, but earlier.
3.) This proves? Well, first it disputes the origin of the existence of bird like species. Ok. This would indeed force modification on the theory as we know it. But why do you think evolutionists would weep themselves to bits over this? If it's true, it's true. And then we may need to rewrite our theories on where birds came from. Fair game.
4.) IF it's true. Protoavis' legitimacy is still heavily disputed.

Do you see the relevance? read it a couple of times and you will. So what we know so far is that the dinosaur that is long believed to be the ancestor of birds didnt exist during the time of the oldest known bird. So how could a bird evolve from a dinosaur that didnt exist? well, Evolutionists are left with no choice but to question the fossil because this fossil doesnt work in their favor. Or do an enee menee minee mo and pick another dinosaur and say wait it wasnt the coelurosaurian dinosaurs it was this dinosaur, no wait that dinosaur is the ancestor of birds. LOL this is really pathetic. They're really clutching at straws

Indeed, it raises a question. Good thing science isn't afraid of questions and will try to answer them. Maybe we were indeed wrong about birds. Maybe we weren't and Protoavis is misidentified.

Funny also, how you accept this Protoavis fossil as real, while this one is disputed, yet fail to acknowledge other "proof".

And do you know what this second theory is? The "explosion of one group" and the "sudden appearances of many species"? I'll let you guess

He's theorizing that evolution came in jumps for some species, not gradually. I certainly hope you weren't thinking he advocated "Creation" there.

We can find evidence of species that never changed over millions and millions of years but we cant find evidence of species that did change. Ok great.

Again, this proves what? Besides the fact that it's wrong, small insects like bees and wasps certainly did evolve (http://www.entomology.cornell.edu/BeePhylogeny/fossils.html hi!) it proves nothing. One species can evolve faster than the other. Crocs barely evolved over the last 40 million years, they work good as they are. Just because there are different gradiants of evolution doesn't mean an animal that didn't evolve much over the last time immediately disproves evolution altogether.

Again, fallacies. And I don't call them fallacies because I don't agree with your point, no, from the point of proposition logics you're throwing fallacies around like a clown at a children's party.

i read it so what? You're going in circles by first saying there are none and there shouldnt be any transitional fossils and than arguing that the Archae is? wtf?

No? I argued that Archea is not a transitional fossil? Me and Joker have been arguing for 3 pages that the concept of "transitional fossil" is flawed?

It's the same old concept with you fundi's. Two flawed arguments using "scientific" data, and BOOM, you whip out some rarified conclusion.

Love to debate with you guys. Really do.

 

[Duke]

I've just noticed something very funny with this. Because these honey bees, dragon flies and ants still exist today we can safely say they never evolved over the course of millions of years. If they didnt exist evolutionists would probably say they evolved into something else. But because these so called transitional fossils dont exist today, it's like a must that we put them in the middle of 2 different species and can't assume that they're entirely different from the 2 species this fossil is believed to be inbetween. Why can't they be like the Honey bees, ants and flies that never evolved but went extinct instead of living on? because they no longer exist? ha..ha....ha

So in short, what you just said is

Ants, Honey Bees and Dragon flies didnt evolve because they still exist today. If they didnt exist they must have evolved

Animals that no longer exist did evolve because of the fact that they no longer exist. Yup thats the only other explanation we have right?

Oh man, this is really comedy!.

http://www.entomology.cornell.edu/BeePhylogeny/fossils.html

Oops

 

[TecK NeeX]

1.) Protoavis wasn't a modern day bird. It displayed characteristics
of modern day birds, more then Archea, but tt wasn't a modern day bird as we know them.

I said mordern-like bird, never said it was a modern bird. obviously that bird doesnt exist today does it? Meaning, like you said displayed characteristics of modern day birds.

2.) If indeed Protoavis was real, it merely rattles the gates a bit. It doesn't disprove that Archea was a "link", where'd you pull that retarded logic from? Archea is still an animal that displays avian and reptilian characteristics. Protoavis simply does the same, but earlier.
3.) This proves? Well, first it disputes the origin of the existence of bird like species. Ok. This would indeed force modification on the theory as we know it. But why do you think evolutionists would weep themselves to bits over this? If it's true, it's true. And then we may need to rewrite our theories on where birds came from. Fair game.
4.) IF it's true. Protoavis' legitimacy is still heavily disputed.

Sure thats fair enough, I do however believe that these findings prove alot more to me than they do to you. And i do believe it is a severe blow to the theory of Evolution. One of many

Birds did not evolve from dinosaurs, Birds lived with dinosaurs, infact lived before many dinosaurs. No proof they did. Evolutionists only wish they did and so do you, You're lying to yourself.

Did birds evolve from Dinosaurs? New research says NO. It's a myth thats all it is.

There are arguments that birds evolved from dinosaurs, but there is no evidence. What was thought to be an intermediate, Archaeopteryx, was really a true bird that lived at the same time as the dinosaurs and other true birds. The evidence that does exist demonstrates birds did not evolve from dinosaurs. Did birds evolve from dinosaurs? No way!

There are arguments that birds evolved, but no evidence. The evidence that does exist demonstrates that birds did not evolve. The oldest known fossil birds are those of true birds. There are no fossils of intermediates. The oldest known fossil feathers are like modern feathers. There are no fossils of intermediates. Evolution cannot explain where the genetically-encoded migration information came from. Nor can evolution explain irreducibly complex systems such as the woodpecker's hyoid apparatus. These systems had to be designed and then created as wholes. Similarly, birds had to be designed and created as wholes, with migration information programmed in. Did birds evolve? No way!

http://www.georgiasouthern.edu/~etmcmull/BIRD.htm

Funny also, how you accept this Protoavis fossil as real, while this one is disputed, yet fail to acknowledge other "proof".

LOL What other proof?

He's theorizing that evolution came in jumps for some species, not gradually. I certainly hope you weren't thinking he advocated "Creation" there.

He sure did, The cambrian explosion is a perfect example of creation of many species.

Again, this proves what? Besides the fact that it's wrong, small insects like bees and wasps certainly did evolve (http://www.entomology.cornell.edu/BeePhylogeny/fossils.html hi!) it proves nothing. One species can evolve faster than the other. Crocs barely evolved over the last 40 million years, they work good as they are. Just because there are different gradiants of evolution doesn't mean an animal that didn't evolve much over the last time immediately disproves evolution altogether.

You myth believers crack me up really, I read that site, its says nothing about bees evolving except for a one liner that says "spheciform wasps, a paraphyletic group within which bees arose," thats their evidence that Bees evolved? how do they know that bees arose from this group? Just because this group resembles modern bees or wasps? of course they fell short of showing that evidence. The possibility that this group was a completely different species that went extinct is zero, right? there is NO evidence of evolution, just a whole bunch of extinct animals so we 'must' fit them somewhere in the evolutionary chain without evidence. Right.....

No? I argued that Archea is not a transitional fossil? Me and Joker have been arguing for 3 pages that the concept of "transitional fossil" is flawed?

It's the same old concept with you fundi's. Two flawed arguments using "scientific" data, and BOOM, you whip out some rarified conclusion.

Love to debate with you guys. Really do.

Sure when one argument loses its credibility, They must give birth to another more rediculous one. At the beginning evolutionists went on and on about transitional fossils, how they worked night and day to find some and many still do today. But when their search came to a dead end, They declare that the concept of transitional fossil is flawed and there should be none. WOW.

 

[TecK NeeX]

http://www.entomology.cornell.edu/BeePhylogeny/fossils.html

Oops

Obviously you missed the point of my post, Your site has fuck all to do with what I said

 

[Jokerman]

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101041025-725105,00.html

 

[Duke]

See, Teck, the point you're not getting is that the paleontologic puzzle isn't complete yet. And it may never be fully complete. Right now we are in the process of completing the puzzle the best we can.

You look at one fossil, one particular case and draw very broad conclusions from it.

 

[Duke]

Birds did not evolve from dinosaurs, Birds lived with dinosaurs, infact lived before many dinosaurs. No proof they did. Evolutionists only wish they did and so do you, You're lying to yourself.

Did birds evolve from Dinosaurs? New research says NO. It's a myth thats all it is.

New research raises new questions. New research doesn't absolutely conclude a yes or no. Again, quick conclusions by your side. Not how it works.

http://www.georgiasouthern.edu/~etmcmull/BIRD.htm



LOL What other proof?

So where did all the dino's with nests and feathers and basic wingbone structures come from?

What these sources do is look at one piece of the puzzle, and dispute theories. Then you come along and use it as "proof" that evolution as a whole is wrong.

Science thrives on theories constantly being tested and disputed and fought over. Get it through your thick skull, scientists disputing each other is how it should be, not conclusive evidence that they're all just babbling.

Also, note that the site you linked, all the references for his reasoning are links to his own site. I must also say it's rather poorly written and argued, it provides no supportive evidence for his own claims or when it does, it's his own article.

He sure did, The cambrian explosion is a perfect example of creation of many species.

Haha, I suggest you google the name Derek V. Ager and read up who he is. He's a paleontologist disputing the way some other paleontologists conduct their research. The man never advocated creationism. Don't put words in the mouth of your quotes.

You myth believers crack me up really, I read that site, its says nothing about bees evolving except for a one liner that says "spheciform wasps, a paraphyletic group within which bees arose," thats their evidence that Bees evolved? how do they know that bees arose from this group? Just because this group resembles modern bees or wasps? of course they fell short of showing that evidence. The possibility that this group was a completely different species that went extinct is zero, right? there is NO evidence of evolution, just a whole bunch of extinct animals so we 'must' fit them somewhere in the evolutionary chain without evidence. Right.....

Once again you misread. The site deals with the little knowledge we have about such insects and how it fits the puzzle.

You argued that because what we know about bees shows little proof of evolution, SO evolution must not be happening.

This is false. First we must accept that we know very little and that any evidence we have must be viewed in a bigger picture with many gaps left to be filled. Second, it does mention bee evolution and provides notes about it. I admit that it's not the main focus of the site, but then again, the site deals about explaining WHY there is so little evidence. You are accusing the source of not providing the very thing they (succesfully) argue they can not conclusively provide.

On a sidenote, you must realize that not every species of animal around today evolved on the same time scale. Some species have been around for just a short while, some are practically archaic. Flying insects have been around for a long long time. But because of their physical build, they are unsuitable for fossilization. The only thing we have is flying insects trapped in amber, and this narrows our evidence scope down to species that collected nectar.

As explained on my link (you could've just read it and spared me the effort):

"the fossil record [of bees] is extraordinarily fragmentary and biased toward taxa that collect resin for nesting purposes, and thus occasionally are trapped in it and fossilized in amber.

Sure when one argument loses its credibility, They must give birth to another more rediculous one. At the beginning evolutionists went on and on about transitional fossils, how they worked night and day to find some and many still do today. But when their search came to a dead end, They declare that the concept of transitional fossil is flawed and there should be none. WOW.

Is this a serious argument? I honestly can't tell.

 

[Duke]

Hahaha, oh man, this is a firecracker. I did some more digging into TecK's "expert", mister Emerson Thomas McMullen. Apart from the fact he's a convinced anti-evolutionistic "scientist" (one in 500 maybe), you got to love some of his reasoning.

Joker, Glock, take a load of this guy's reasoning, it's fucking schoolbook example of fundi-style-blinders-on argumentation:

http://www.georgiasouthern.edu/~etmcmull/ANIMAL.htm

The most obvious difference when we compare ourselves to monkeys and apes is that we are basically hairless. Why? Why are our presumed relatives covered with hair and we are not? What survival advantage is there in having no hair? Weather permitting, why don't we walk around naked as a matter of course?

How about clothes? When we first discovered we could wear that wolf's pelt around our shoulders, BING!

Next fallacy:

Even when the weather permits, we at least walk around with our genitals covered. An exception was sophomore Andrew Martinez who attended classes in 1992 at the Cal-Berkeley campus in the buff. You may have read about him; they called him "the naked guy" (pictured at the right). However, some women complained and suddenly one of our most liberal universities had an anti-nudity policy. Kagan is right - we have deep moral emotions and a spiritual nature that animals don't have.

The good man must be totally oblivious to many tribes of bush people, whether in the rain forest or African plains, happily walk around naked without someone raising an eyebrow. It's society that made us against walking around naked. Not God, olocopter.

Similarly, we are much more sexually active than our supposed relatives, the primates. We usually have a comparatively lengthy courtship phase and often form prolonged pair-bond relationships. None of this happens with the primates. For them, precopulatory patterns are very brief and so is the act itself. Further, the female is receptive for only about a week or so out of her monthly cycle, but women are virtually receptive the year around. Also, the human female orgasm is unique compared to primates; so are lips, protruding breasts, hemispherical buttocks, the angle of the vagina, and the retention of the hymen.

This guy is like a Machine o' Phunnies. First he's arguing humans are more sexually active. The man must've never heard about the Bonobo apes (which are I think even the closest to us humans genetically) that solve even a minor dispute with a group orgy.

Next he's arguing that female primates don't experience orgasms (which is false, indeed there aren't many but some do), and he's arguing that human female are of different build than our Apish cousins. OMG! That's kinda why we're an advanced kind of ape...


Anyway, if you have more experts to bring to the table, Teckie, go on. I'm starting to enjoy this.

 

[TecK NeeX]

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101041025-725105,00.html

Ok so 2 discoveries. 1 finding suggest only that this creature named Mei Long 'slep' like a bird but no signs of feathers or any characteristics of a bird. Great discovery indeed.

The other 'Dilong paradoxus'

I did some research and of course die hard evolutionists are up to their old tricks once again, LIES

Imaginary Feathers Found on Dinosaur 02/08/2006

The science news outlets are all talking about a new dinosaur with feathers, but where are the feathers?

We went to the source looking for the feathers. The original paper by Xu et al. in Nature1 says nothing about feathers. Neither does the news story about it by Thomas R. Holtz in the same issue of Nature.2 Holtz does mention “feathered dinosaurs” from China, lists “feathered maniraptorans” in passing, and refers to an earlier discovery, Dilong paradoxus, that had some kind of coating that he calls “simple fuzzy ‘protofeathers’” in quote marks. Still no conclusive feathers for Guanlong. The plot thickens in The Case of the Missing Feathers.

The first solution to this mystery is to go back to an Oct. 6, 2004 story in National Geographic about D. paradoxus. This mentions a “at least a partial coat of hairlike feathers” on this small tyrannosaurid, but the description of the feathers is not what most of us picture when we think of a bird feather. These are called “featherlike structures” that apparently were for warmth or insulation, not flight.3 Since Sinosauropteryx had these “featherlike structures”, the discoverer assumed that this new fossil, along with birds, were “all expressions of the same evolutionary change.” Holtz said, “then we have to infer that tyrannosaurids also had some expression of the same trait [feathers].” Yet even these structures on D. paradoxus seem questionable. The article goes on: “The description of Dilong paradoxus is based on the fossils of four specimens, including a fragmented one with evidence of protofeathers—precursors to the feathers found on modern birds.” Then the article speculates on whether T. rex youngsters sported the downy coats, without mentioning any fossil evidence for such a claim.

This is very strange. Only one specimen of the earlier fossil, a fragmented specimen, had some kind of hairy skin filaments, that were not feathers, but “protofeathers” or “featherlike structures.” Then the new fossil has none at all. One team member leaps from fragmentary evidence to pure imagination in a single bound, assuming evolution relates these two dinosaurs to birds according to a common evolutionary innovation. From there, the news media print color drawings of Gualong coated in colorful plumage, with the word FEATHERS in bold type in the headlines. What is going on here? Why are they doing this to us? We are onto their tricks. They are mixing and matching fragments of flimsy evidence to fit a preconceived speculation and market it as fact.

Oh no this is not the first time, Evolutionists have been busted many times before, they're all fakes and hoax's.

in 1996 a reptilian fossil called Sinosauropteryx was found, Some paleontologists who examined the fossil said that it had bird feathers, However, Examinations conducted one year later, showed that the fossil actually had no structure similar to a bird's feather

A Science article titled "Plucking the Feathered Dinosaur" stated that the structures named as "feathers" by evolutionary paleontologists definitely had nothing to do with feathers:

Exactly 1 year ago, paleontologists were abuzz about photos of a so-called "feathered dinosaur," which were passed around the halls at the annual meeting of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. The Sinosauropteryx specimen from the Yixian Formation in China made the front page of The New York Times, and was viewed by some as confirming the dinosaurian origins of birds. But at this year's vertebrate paleontology meeting in Chicago late last month, the verdict was a bit different: The structures are not modern feathers, say the roughly half-dozen Western paleontologists who have seen the specimens. ...Paleontologist Larry Martin of Kansas University, Lawrence, thinks the structures are frayed collagenous fibers beneath the skin-and so have nothing to do with birds.

Another Hoax and a fake. In its November 1999 issue, National Geographic published an article about a fossil specimen unearthed in China which was claimed to bear both bird and dinosaur features.

However, the fossil was a fake and was skillfully constructed from five separate specimens. A group of researchers, among whom were also three paleontologists, proved the forgery one year later with the help of X-ray computed tomography. The dino-bird was actually the product of a Chinese evolutionist. Chinese amateurs formed the dino-bird by using glue and cement from 88 bones and stones. Research suggests that Archaeoraptor was built from the front part of the skeleton of an ancient bird, and that its body and tail included bones from four different specimens.

Give it a rest already, Just like all the bird-dino fossils that turned out to be a fake or a haox, these ones will too, Yup we can trust the Dilong and Mei Long discovered probably by the same chinese evolutionists who faked the bird-dino fossil from glue and cement in China. Gotta love the science of X-rays used to find the fakes

 

[Duke]

Ok so 2 discoveries. 1 finding suggest only that this creature named Mei Long 'slep' like a bird but no signs of feathers or any characteristics of a bird. Great discovery indeed.

The other 'Dilong paradoxus'

I did some research and of course die hard evolutionists are up to their old tricks once again, LIES





Oh no this is not the first time, Evolutionists have been busted many times before, they're all fakes and hoax's.

in 1996 a reptilian fossil called Sinosauropteryx was found, Some paleontologists who examined the fossil said that it had bird feathers, However, Examinations conducted one year later, showed that the fossil actually had no structure similar to a bird's feather

A Science article titled "Plucking the Feathered Dinosaur" stated that the structures named as "feathers" by evolutionary paleontologists definitely had nothing to do with feathers:



Another Hoax and a fake. In its November 1999 issue, National Geographic published an article about a fossil specimen unearthed in China which was claimed to bear both bird and dinosaur features.

However, the fossil was a fake and was skillfully constructed from five separate specimens. A group of researchers, among whom were also three paleontologists, proved the forgery one year later with the help of X-ray computed tomography. The dino-bird was actually the product of a Chinese evolutionist. Chinese amateurs formed the dino-bird by using glue and cement from 88 bones and stones. Research suggests that Archaeoraptor was built from the front part of the skeleton of an ancient bird, and that its body and tail included bones from four different specimens.

Give it a rest already, Just like all the bird-dino fossils that turned out to be a fake or a haox, these ones will too, Yup we can trust the Dilong and Mei Long discovered probably by the same chinese evolutionists who faked the bird-dino fossil from glue and cement in China. Gotta love the science of X-rays used to find the fakes

lmao, you're doing the same still. Look, sometimes scientists are wrong on their initial judgement of the fossil. Then later they get corrected. This proves nothing. It's how science works.

I'd like to see some sources for those statements too.

 

[TecK NeeX]

So where did all the dino's with nests and feathers and basic wingbone structures come from?

Holy shit!. They came from Creatures that lived with the dinosuars that had nests, feathers and basic wingbone. Jesus, No proof that they actually evolved from reptilian dinosaurs, just evidence of species with those characteristics lived among dinosaurs.

What you're saying is so idiotic its not even funny. It's either no dinosaurs with those characteristics or many dinosaurs had them but evolved.

The debate is this.

We find 2 different types of dinosaurs, ones that can fly and ones that can't. That can either prove that 2 different types of dinosaurs were created or one evolved from the other. But there is no evidence that this creature evolved from another, All these fossils prove is they lived together.

If we went to another planet and found 2 fossils one of a flying creature and one of reptilian creature, How can we come to a conclusion that one is the ancestor of the other just from that?

So in all seriousness, what im basically saying is we really cant prove evolution ever happened unless we witness it with our own eyes.

What these sources do is look at one piece of the puzzle, and dispute theories. Then you come along and use it as "proof" that evolution as a whole is wrong.

There is no puzzle to piece together to begin with

Science thrives on theories constantly being tested and disputed and fought over. Get it through your thick skull, scientists disputing each other is how it should be, not conclusive evidence that they're all just babbling.

I know that, Some abuse and hide behind it by forging and faking shit in their favor to further their deceiving agenda. Apparently glue and cement are their favorite materials.

Haha, I suggest you google the name Derek V. Ager and read up who he is. He's a paleontologist disputing the way some other paleontologists conduct their research.

Your point? all paleontologists do that. Many paleontologists and biologists critize others methods of conducting their experiments and researches. I dont know whats so Ha Ha about that. Its only normal.

You argued that because what we know about bees shows little proof of evolution, SO evolution must not be happening.

No that was not my point, My point was that because these bees, ants and dragon flies still exist today we can safely say that they did not evolve, but because other creatures no longer exist its as if we have to say that they evolved into something else like thats the only other explanation we can offer. Thats fucking rediculous. But the possibility that they just went extinct is not there right?

Thats like saying if certain species went extinct today do to whatever reason other than evolution and millions of years from now we find the fossils of these creatures we'd probably put them somewhere in the middle of this imaginary 'evolutionary chain" while all along they just went extinct.

God i hope you get what im trying to say.

This is false. First we must accept that we know very little and that any evidence we have must be viewed in a bigger picture with many gaps left to be filled. Second, it does mention bee evolution and provides notes about it. I admit that it's not the main focus of the site, but then again, the site deals about explaining WHY there is so little evidence. You are accusing the source of not providing the very thing they (succesfully) argue they can not conclusively provide.

On a sidenote, you must realize that not every species of animal around today evolved on the same time scale. Some species have been around for just a short while, some are practically archaic. Flying insects have been around for a long long time. But because of their physical build, they are unsuitable for fossilization. The only thing we have is flying insects trapped in amber, and this narrows our evidence scope down to species that collected nectar.

As explained on my link (you could've just read it and spared me the effort):

No you could've just avoided posting it all together and spared yourself the effort, cause it had nothing to offer, You linked it to a post of mine that had nothing to do with whats in the link

 

[TecK NeeX]

Oh one more thing. The Bonobo Apes may be your cousins I dont know, I can see the similarities between them and you, But they sure are not my cousins

 

[Duke]

Holy shit!. They came from Creatures that lived with the dinosuars that had nests, feathers and basic wingbone. Jesus, No proof that they actually evolved from reptilian dinosaurs, just evidence of species with those characteristics lived among dinosaurs.

So the feathers "jumped" from 1 animal to the other, eh? Yeah, phunni. All the dino's that look a dead ringer to today's running birds must all be made up, eh? All paper and glued. There are enough similarities. The raptors back then had rudimentary feathers, powerful hind legs for running (like ostriches have today) and arms not for flying, but for trapping and seizing prey. There are multiple fossils of species like this, sharing characteristics of both reptiles and birds.

No proof that they evolved from dinosaurs? The majority think otherwise, but as always, this theory is also disputed:

http://www.answers.com/topic/caudipteryx

Flightless bird?

While most scientists consider Caudipteryx hard evidence for the dinosaurian ancestry of birds, some scientists, like the ornithologist Alan Feduccia and the paleontologist specialized in saber-toothed cats Larry Martin, claim that Caudipteryx (along with all other maniraptorans) are not dinosaurs at all, but birds which evolved from a non-dinosaurian ancestor. They note that oviraptorosaurian fossils (and Caudipteryx in particular) have short tails, similar to the bird Confuciusornis, and skulls which show many birdlike features that are not found in theropods. Stomach stones were present in the Caudipteryx fossil, which indicate that these were herbivores, resembling Enantiornithesand flightless birds. The fossils also lack the serrated teeth typical of theropods. Feduccia believes these fossils are flightless birds that evolved from a flying ancestor, probably Archaeopteryx. The problem here is that Feduccia rejects using modern cladistic methods to test his ideas. Some scientists who consider birds to be descendents of dinosaurs also believe Caudipteryx and other oviraptors to be flightless, post-Archaeopteryx birds, most notably Gregory S. Paul (2002), Lu et al (2002), and Maryanska et al. (2002).

And what did this tell us? Nothing much eh? Some scientists disagree on the origins of the animal, but one thing remains as sure as ever. The animals existed and shared characteristics of both species.

What you're saying is so idiotic its not even funny. It's either no dinosaurs with those characteristics or many dinosaurs had them but evolved.

The debate is this.

We find 2 different types of dinosaurs, ones that can fly and ones that can't. That can either prove that 2 different types of dinosaurs were created or one evolved from the other. But there is no evidence that this creature evolved from another, All these fossils prove is they lived together.

If we went to another planet and found 2 fossils one of a flying creature and one of reptilian creature, How can we come to a conclusion that one is the ancestor of the other just from that?

So in all seriousness, what im basically saying is we really cant prove evolution ever happened unless we witness it with our own eyes.

Aaah, the ol' "put em words in the mouth" trick. The point is that there aren't just 2 dinosaurs. You can't limit the picture to such a small scale like you're trying to do here. There aren't just 2 dino's, not just 2 fossils. Not 2 species with something we need to come up with to fill the gap. There's more to it than just that.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/avians.html

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/saurischia/maniraptora.html

But I guess the university of Berkely doesn't know what it's talking about and our TecK knows it all better, eh?

Or the National museum of Scotland:

http://www.nms.ac.uk/dinobirds/

There is no puzzle to piece together to begin with

What? No puzzle? Then where did all those bones come from? I thought the Earth was only 5000 years old. :laugh:

I know that, Some abuse and hide behind it by forging and faking shit in their favor to further their deceiving agenda. Apparently glue and cement are their favorite materials.

Sure I guess somewhere along the way one of them cheated here and there. Not like it nullifies the relevance of a century of research. If you want to get into the "making shit up" business, I've got a couple of gems by Creationists for you.

Your point? all paleontologists do that. Many paleontologists and biologists critize others methods of conducting their experiments and researches. I dont know whats so Ha Ha about that. Its only normal.

Haha, service as promised. Once again, you astound me with your simplistic out-of-context reasoning. Must I remind you what you said?

He sure did, The cambrian explosion is a perfect example of creation of many species.

Hilarity. That's not what he said and you know that. Yes, many paleontologists dispute amongst each other. Then you came along, took one, ripped his statements out of context and argued that he was advocating creationism.

No that was not my point, My point was that because these bees, ants and dragon flies still exist today we can safely say that they did not evolve, but because other creatures no longer exist its as if we have to say that they evolved into something else like thats the only other explanation we can offer. Thats fucking rediculous. But the possibility that they just went extinct is not there right?

But they did evolve. For example we've seen the change of bees from being solitary animals to having complex social structures. But that said, (as explained in my previous posts), it's very hard to conduct some proper research into flying insects because of the lack of material we have from them.


You just imagine a dragonfly 200 million years ago and one now, you see no change and conclude there is no evolution. Please.

And I don't know you think they couldn't have just gone extinct....like 90% of the species are extinct, the fuck makes you think becoming extinct suddenly is impossible? And on the other side, just because animals that were around 100 millions years ago, are still here now doesn't mean they haven't evolved.

You're making false conclusions one after the other.

Thats like saying if certain species went extinct today do to whatever reason other than evolution and millions of years from now we find the fossils of these creatures we'd probably put them somewhere in the middle of this imaginary 'evolutionary chain" while all along they just went extinct.

Aaah, once again, misconceptions. Animals, which animals doesn't even matter, don't have to be "put" in the evolutionary chain because they already are. If someone is working from an evolutionary perspective, everything that lives, ever lived and will ever live is in that "chain".

Extinction and having evolved aren't mutually exclusive. I do not know why you think this is.

A particular animal can have evolved from it's ancestors, given "birth" to two new branches of his species, then it can become redundant and not as well adapted as the newer variants and simply become extinct. This is very rudimentary, but it shows the fallacy in your argument (either/either when it's the case of both).

No you could've just avoided posting it all together and spared yourself the effort, cause it had nothing to offer, You linked it to a post of mine that had nothing to do with whats in the link

What?


On a final note, a funny example of how scientists treat proof and how creationists treat proof.

Two sites that dispute birds coming from dinosaurs. Watch the writing style and conclusions drawn:

http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ncs/newsarch/1997/November97/nodinobird.htm
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i2/dino_bird.asp

Scientific site:

"This research clearly suggests birds did not come from known dinosaurs, Ruben said, but does not provide solid conclusions about where they did come from. It's possible some pre-dinosaurian reptile or early dinosaur that pre-dated the known dinosaurs may have been the ancestors of birds, he said."

Creationist site:

"All evolution is wrong".


Phunni.

Got any more TecK? More false arguments ready for the butchery?

 

[TecK NeeX]

So the feathers "jumped" from 1 animal to the other, eh? Yeah, phunni.

Nope, No jumping is going around here, Just a bunch of featherless dinosaurs and feathered dinosaurs living side by side. LOL No proof one evolved from the other.

All the dino's that look a dead ringer to today's running birds must all be made up, eh?

There are no dinos that look a "dead ringer" to todays birds, Unless you're talking about the oldest known birds and are classifying them as dinosaurs, sure, Thats all they are, Old birds LOL, No proof they evolved from land animals, It's impossible.

The raptors back then had rudimentary feathers, powerful hind legs for running (like ostriches have today) and arms not for flying, but for trapping and seizing prey. There are multiple fossils of species like this, sharing characteristics of both reptiles and birds.

So legs for running? no shit, Arms for not flying but for caturing prey? no shit, You're lying to yourself, Their feathers are more like protofeathers, like hairs than feathers. and you're telling me those are characteristics of both reptiles and birds? really what has the world come to?

I have powerful legs for running, i have arms "Not" (LOL) for flying but for capturing sheep, cows and chickens(prey), I have protofeathers, so sweet that makes me a bird and a reptile. BAHAHAHA.. Oh yeah very convincing observation there Dukey.

No proof that they evolved from dinosaurs? The majority think otherwise, but as always, this theory is also disputed:

http://www.answers.com/topic/caudipteryx

You link to a site with just one paragraph and say the "majority think otherwise". Feduccia an evolutionist for 25 years now is right when he said "I don't see any similarities whatsoever. I just don't see it... The theropod origins of birds, in my opinion, will be the greatest embarrassment of paleontology of the 20th century."

Larry Martin, a specialist on ancient birds from the University of Kansas(OMG University of Kansas ) , also opposes the theory that birds are descended from dinosaurs. Discussing the contradiction that evolution falls into on the subject, he states:

"To tell you the truth, if I had to support the dinosaur origin of birds with those characters, I'd be embarrassed every time I had to get up and talk about it.57

To sum up, the scenario of the "evolution of birds" erected solely on the basis of Archæopteryx, is nothing more than a product of the prejudices and wishful thinking of evolutionists."

And indeed thats all they are wishfull thinking of the puppet master and the puppets I.E Dukey.

And what did this tell us? Nothing much eh? Some scientists disagree on the origins of the animal, but one thing remains as sure as ever. The animals existed and shared characteristics of both species.

Actually no it didnt tell us anything. none of the distinct mechanisms of birds, which have a completely different structure from land animals, can be explained by gradual evolution. Thats what i mean by your site didnt tell us anything.

In a science article titled "The Birds Lung"

"The anatomy of birds is very different from that of reptiles, their supposed ancestors. Bird lungs function in a totally different way from those of land-dwelling animals.Land-dwelling animals breathe in and out from the same air vessel.In birds while the air enters into the lung from the front, it goes out from the back. This distinct "design" is specially made for birds, which need great amounts of oxygen during flight.It is impossible for such a structure to evolve from the reptile lung."

Also birds have feathers, Reptiles have scales, there is no similarity between scales and feathers. Again an evolutionist/neurobiologist from the University of University of Connecticut , A.H. Brush

"Every feature from gene structure and organization, to development, morphogenesis and tissue organization is different in feathers and scales, the protein structure of birds feathers and is "unique among vertebrates. There is no fossil evidence to prove that bird feathers evolved from reptile scales. On the contrary, "feathers appear suddenly in the fossil record as an 'undeniably unique' character distinguishing birds"

Other evolutionists replied to these claims and said.

]In response to the criticism of their theropod-to-bird theory that "The complex lungs of birds could not have evolved from theropod lungs," Padian and Chiappe write:

"This assertion cannot be supported or falsified at the moment, because no fossil lungs are preserved in the paleontological record. Also, the proponents of this argument offer no animal whose lungs could have given rise to those in birds, which are extremely complex and are unlike the lungs of any living animal."

Aaah, the ol' "put em words in the mouth" trick. The point is that there aren't just 2 dinosaurs. You can't limit the picture to such a small scale like you're trying to do here. There aren't just 2 dino's, not just 2 fossils. Not 2 species with something we need to come up with to fill the gap. There's more to it than just that.

No way, There arent just 2 species, 2 dinosaurs or 2 fossils? I swear you're not very bright. You continue to fail to understand my point in all of that.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/avians.html

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/saurischia/maniraptora.html

But I guess the university of Berkely doesn't know what it's talking about and our TecK knows it all better, eh?

Or the National museum of Scotland:

http://www.nms.ac.uk/dinobirds/

LOL OOOH not the museum of scotland and the university of Berkley. If the whole world told me the sky is blue while Scotland and Berkely told me its red, Id be an idiot not to believe berkeley and the imfamous museum of Scotland. Your method of debate is that of a 6 year old. really!.

What? No puzzle? Then where did all those bones come from? I thought the Earth was only 5000 years old. :laugh:

Just cause there are bones doesnt mean there must be a puzzle to piece together. LOL They're just bones of complete and true species. And the world is not 5000 years old you jackass.

Sure I guess somewhere along the way one of them cheated here and there. Not like it nullifies the relevance of a century of research. If you want to get into the "making shit up" business, I've got a couple of gems by Creationists for you.

Sure plz show me these gems, i want fossils put together by creationists that were faked and passed on as fact, and i want experiments faked and fabricated (stanley Miller) by creationists and passed on as fact.

Hilarity. That's not what he said and you know that. Yes, many paleontologists dispute amongst each other. Then you came along, took one, ripped his statements out of context and argued that he was advocating creationism.

You really know fuck all, You should really look into the meaning of an "explosion of groups of species" or The "Cambrian Explosion of Species". Inform yourself on what scientists mean when they say something similar to that and come back and tell me im right.

But they did evolve. For example we've seen the change of bees from being solitary animals to having complex social structures. But that said, (as explained in my previous posts), it's very hard to conduct some proper research into flying insects because of the lack of material we have from them.


{You just imagine a dragonfly 200 million years ago and one now, you see no change and conclude there is no evolution. Please.

And I don't know you think they couldn't have just gone extinct....like 90% of the species are extinct, the fuck makes you think becoming extinct suddenly is impossible? And on the other side, just because animals that were around 100 millions years ago, are still here now doesn't mean they haven't evolved.

You're making false conclusions one after the other.


Aaah, once again, misconceptions. Animals, which animals doesn't even matter, don't have to be "put" in the evolutionary chain because they already are. If someone is working from an evolutionary perspective, everything that lives, ever lived and will ever live is in that "chain".

Extinction and having evolved aren't mutually exclusive. I do not know why you think this is.

For fuck sakes. You still dont have a clue what im trying to say.

A particular animal can have evolved from it's ancestors, given "birth" to two new branches of his species,

WOW, haha "Give birth to 2 new branches of his species" Yes thats very scientificaly possible haha. What sci-fi movie do you live in?

What?

You know what

"This research clearly suggests birds did not come from known dinosaurs, Ruben said, but does not provide solid conclusions about where they did come from. It's possible some pre-dinosaurian reptile or early dinosaur that pre-dated the known dinosaurs may have been the ancestors of birds, he said."

Scientific site, When evidence proves them otherwise, They resort to the good ol' "maybies" "its possible" "There could have beens" arguments. Its very expecting though.

 

[Duke]

Nope, No jumping is going around here, Just a bunch of featherless dinosaurs and feathered dinosaurs living side by side. LOL No proof one evolved from the other.



There are no dinos that look a "dead ringer" to todays birds, Unless you're talking about the oldest known birds and are classifying them as dinosaurs, sure, Thats all they are, Old birds LOL, No proof they evolved from land animals, It's impossible.

Uuuh...why do so many small dinosaurs (raptors) look like modern day walking birds, and indeed have the basics for feathers etc. Coincidence? It's not as simple as "they're just two different species". Because there are so many more than two.

So legs for running? no shit, Arms for not flying but for caturing prey? no shit, You're lying to yourself, Their feathers are more like protofeathers, like hairs than feathers. and you're telling me those are characteristics of both reptiles and birds? really what has the world come to?

I have powerful legs for running, i have arms "Not" (LOL) for flying but for capturing sheep, cows and chickens(prey), I have protofeathers, so sweet that makes me a bird and a reptile. BAHAHAHA.. Oh yeah very convincing observation there Dukey.

You must view my statements in the context they were made, my dimwitted comrade. YOU don't have powerful hind legs for running. You're rather slow actually. You don't have the basics for feathers either. And when looking at the front paws of "running dino's", we can not help but see that they are very different from the front paws of more "conventional" dinosaurs, and in foundation are much alike rudimentary wing structures, but with a different purpose than flight.

When looking at the fossils of such "running dino's" we can't help but notice similarities between the species. So where did those come from then? You keep nitty bitting about individual fossils, specific parts about the fossils etc.

You link to a site with just one paragraph and say the "majority think otherwise". Feduccia an evolutionist for 25 years now is right when he said "I don't see any similarities whatsoever. I just don't see it... The theropod origins of birds, in my opinion, will be the greatest embarrassment of paleontology of the 20th century."

olofest, you misunderstood. That link was an example of a scientists disputing some current claims. It wasn't meant as a voucher for my point. I used it to refute your point before you could make it.

Larry Martin, a specialist on ancient birds from the University of Kansas(OMG University of Kansas ) , also opposes the theory that birds are descended from dinosaurs. Discussing the contradiction that evolution falls into on the subject, he states:

"To tell you the truth, if I had to support the dinosaur origin of birds with those characters, I'd be embarrassed every time I had to get up and talk about it.57

To sum up, the scenario of the "evolution of birds" erected solely on the basis of Archæopteryx, is nothing more than a product of the prejudices and wishful thinking of evolutionists."

A scientist kicking against theories. Good. Asking questions is good. It's the foundation of science. It proves nothing. It's one scientist disagreeing with 50.

I don't know why you think Archea is the only foundation for the dino->bird theory.....honestly, can't you read, man?

Actually no it didnt tell us anything. none of the distinct mechanisms of birds, which have a completely different structure from land animals, can be explained by gradual evolution. Thats what i mean by your site didnt tell us anything.

Duh? Are you honestly arguing that, because we see none of the specialized mechanisms of modern flying birds in ancient proto-dino-birds, it must all be false?

In a science article titled "The Birds Lung"

"The anatomy of birds is very different from that of reptiles, their supposed ancestors. Bird lungs function in a totally different way from those of land-dwelling animals.Land-dwelling animals breathe in and out from the same air vessel.In birds while the air enters into the lung from the front, it goes out from the back. This distinct "design" is specially made for birds, which need great amounts of oxygen during flight.It is impossible for such a structure to evolve from the reptile lung."

Also birds have feathers, Reptiles have scales, there is no similarity between scales and feathers. Again an evolutionist/neurobiologist from the University of University of Connecticut , A.H. Brush

"Every feature from gene structure and organization, to development, morphogenesis and tissue organization is different in feathers and scales, the protein structure of birds feathers and is "unique among vertebrates. There is no fossil evidence to prove that bird feathers evolved from reptile scales. On the contrary, "feathers appear suddenly in the fossil record as an 'undeniably unique' character distinguishing birds"

Other evolutionists replied to these claims and said.

Uh, yes, birds are indeed built different than old raptors. Very perceptive. I don't think you needed a scientist to tell you that. The fossil record is (still, i said it in a previous post as well, things haven't changed yet) incomplete. You're again accusing science for not providing the thing they already explained they can not provide yet.

LOL OOOH not the museum of scotland and the university of Berkley. If the whole world told me the sky is blue while Scotland and Berkely told me its red, Id be an idiot not to believe berkeley and the imfamous museum of Scotland. Your method of debate is that of a 6 year old. really!.

The concept of source credibility means not much to you, does it?

Just cause there are bones doesnt mean there must be a puzzle to piece together. LOL They're just bones of complete and true species. And the world is not 5000 years old you jackass.

What? The only bones found are from complete and "true" species? You must be completely off the rocker. Do you even have a clue how many incomplete fossils/skeletons we have? What the hell do you mean with "They're just bones of complete and true species"? From all the non-logical idiocy I've seen you write, this one tops them all off.

How old do you think the world is, really?

Sure plz show me these gems, i want fossils put together by creationists that were faked and passed on as fact, and i want experiments faked and fabricated (stanley Miller) by creationists and passed on as fact.

How about a whole book filled with unfounded nonsense on the creation of life passed off as fact? And you aren't even followed to kick against shins or ask questions, lest some bearded mofo chops your head off for being a heathen. Yeah, brilliant.

You really know fuck all, You should really look into the meaning of an "explosion of groups of species" or The "Cambrian Explosion of Species". Inform yourself on what scientists mean when they say something similar to that and come back and tell me im right.

What scientists mean is that in the Cambrian period a large amount of research material "appeared" as it seems, out of nowhere. Now, besides the fact that our fossil record is far from complete at all, this sudden "appearance" can have an immense variety of reasons, such as, i'm picking this out of the blue, the circumstances back then favouring fossilization. It doesn't advocate Creationism at all. Like all the works you quoted, he only thing it does is "raise questions". Questions that need to be answered. Maybe now, maybe in 2 years. Maybe in 60 years. Questions that can have a myriad of answers.

Questions that do not mean that everything it questions is pertinently wrong on all fronts. Questions raised does not equal theory debunked and Creationism accepted. That's what you have been doing this entire debate and that's probably what you will continue to do for the rest of it.

For fuck sakes. You still dont have a clue what im trying to say.

What you meant to say was "Damn, Duke logically refuted every single one of my points and I ran outta bullshit to throw at him".

This is the part of your post I "didn''t seem to get":

"No that was not my point, My point was that because these bees, ants and dragon flies still exist today we can safely say that they did not evolve( No you can not? Aside from your lack of knowledge about evolution and science in general, this is a clear fallacy. Where is your well funded reasoning for this conclusion?), but because other creatures no longer exist its as if we have to say that they evolved into something else like thats the only other explanation we can offer(No? Again, merely unfounded assumptions). Thats fucking rediculous. But the possibility that they just went extinct is not there right?( I explained in my previous post why this is perfectly possible.)

So if I misunderstood your point, which is hard because it's pretty straightforward and see-through like glass, please express yourself in clear, well reasoned English and we'll see if you can get your point across.




WOW, haha "Give birth to 2 new branches of his species" Yes thats very scientificaly possible haha. What sci-fi movie do you live in?



You know what



Scientific site, When evidence proves them otherwise, They resort to the good ol' "maybies" "its possible" "There could have beens" arguments. Its very expecting though.[/quote]"No that was not my point, My point was that because these bees, ants and dragon flies still exist today we can safely say that they did not evolve(No you can not. Apart from the fact you demonstrate little knowledge of the methods of science and the evolution theory, this assumption is simply false), but because other creatures no longer exist its as if we have to say that they evolved into something else like thats the only other explanation we can offer(Again, no?Where do you come up with this shit?). Thats fucking rediculous. But the possibility that they just went extinct is not there right?(It is, I explained that. I genuinely wonder what it was that troubled you to understand my reply

Thats like saying if certain species went extinct today do to whatever reason other than evolution and millions of years from now we find the fossils of these creatures we'd probably put them somewhere in the middle of this imaginary 'evolutionary chain" while all along they just went extinct."[/quote]

Again, I explained why this is false. If I'm not "getting" your point, which is pretty hard to do so considering your "point" is rather straightforward, you need to work harder on expressing your arguments (if indeed they can be called that) clearly in words.

WOW, haha "Give birth to 2 new branches of his species" Yes thats very scientificaly possible haha. What sci-fi movie do you live in?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt since my phrasing there was poor. What I meant was that a certain animal could function as a "blueprint"or "common ancestor" for multiple "evolutionary branches" before becoming extinct on it's own specific path.

This is not "out there", it's not a bold claim, it's something that is perfectly possible. It's what evolution is all about.

You know what

The "What" was indicative that I didn't understand what the hell you were saying.

Scientific site, When evidence proves them otherwise, They resort to the good ol' "maybies" "its possible" "There could have beens" arguments. Its very expecting though.

Duh. What part about "science doesn't accept absolute truth" did you not get?


Let me ask you a few questions in turn. You keep kicking against evolution, apparently expecting a "fullproof, watertight" gallery of evidence that we can whip out on a whim. I think this expectation stems from your religious background, that teaches one principle, one story, no questions asked.

Apart from your distinct lack of understanding of scientific study and methods, I want to ask you how you, from your point of view, explain all the fossils and piles of dino bones? Their place in time, their role in nature etc.

 

[Duke]

I mean, honestly, Teck, what have you "proven" so far? What have you and your corrupted form of logic achieved up to now?

You've showed that the theory of evolution still has many gaps and unanswered questions. That's all you did. And to tell you the truth, we needn't have debated this for 24 pages before I could tell you that the theory of evolution isn't a waterproof explanation for everything that ever happened.

Do I believe in the theory of evolution as absolute fact? Of course not. Do I think it's the most feasible option out there? As opposed to old school Creationism (which is a fairy tale really) and "Intelligent Design", which raises a host of moral and ethical questions, is the theory of evolution the most likely one out there?

Duh, damn straight is is.


So let's hear some of your views. Kicking against evoluti is something on a baby can do, it's meant to be abused and questioned and tested all the time. But let's see how your theories hold up against the sledgehammer of logics.

 

[KAMIKAZI]

GOD DOESN'T EXIST. CASE CLOSED. :thumb:

 

[TecK NeeX]

Uuuh...why do so many small dinosaurs (raptors) look like modern day walking birds, and indeed have the basics for feathers etc. Coincidence? It's not as simple as "they're just two different species". Because there are so many more than two.

First of all there arent 'many'. second, Since when did a raptor looked like a modern day walking bird? Do you even know what a raptor looks like?

You don't have the basics for feathers either.

Neither did the theropod dinosaurs, Recent studies and expierements conducted in 2003 by a team of paleontologis from the university of north carolina said this.,


By using poweful microscopes the team examined the skin of modern reptiles, the effects of decomposition on skin and the fossil evidence relating to alleged feather progenitors, also known as "protofeathers." They found that fossilized patterns that resemble feathers somewhat also occur in fossils known not to be closely related to birds and hence are far more likely to be skin-related tissues. Much of the confusion arose from the fact that in China in the same area, two sets of fossils were found. Some of these had true feathers and were indeed birds while others did not and should not be considered birds at all.

They just served body warmth and insulation, hence dinosaurs were warm-blooded. They say what they found weren't even protofeathers let alone feathers. They show that these and other filamentous structures were not protofeathers, but rather the remains of collagenous fiber meshworks that reinforced the skin.

Its funny how evolutionists are quick to jump and announce to the whole world that they've found fossils that supports this and fossils that supports that, but when carefully examined they turn out to be not quite exactly what these evolutionlists would like us to believe.


http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-10/uonc-lss100705.php

And when looking at the front paws of "running dino's", we can not help but see that they are very different from the front paws of more "conventional" dinosaurs, and in foundation are much alike rudimentary wing structures, but with a different purpose than flight.

When looking at the fossils of such "running dino's" we can't help but notice similarities between the species. So where did those come from then? You keep nitty bitting about individual fossils, specific parts about the fossils etc.

Thats not true, If there is anything the paws of running dinosaurs or theropod dinosaurs tell us its that they can't possibily be the ancestor of of birds, If there ever was an ancestor of Birds it must have been a five fingered dinosaur.

Again same group of paleontologists Dr. Alan Feduccia and Julie Nowicki of the University of North Carolina studied the development of ostrich eggs. Feduccia compared the hand digits in ostrich embryos with those of dinosaurs of the theropod species, and revealed that birds and theropods had a different thumb order and concluded that:

"Whatever the ancestor of birds was, it must have had five fingers, not the three-fingered hand of theropod dinosaurs," Feduccia said. Scientists agree that dinosaurs developed 'hands' with digits one, two and three… "Our studies of ostrich embryos, however, showed conclusively that in birds, only digits two, three and four, which correspond to the human index, middle and ring fingers, develop, and we have pictures to prove it," said Feduccia, professor and former chair of biology at UNC. "This creates a new problem for those who insist that dinosaurs were ancestors of modern birds. How can a bird hand, for example, with digits two, three and four evolve from a dinosaur hand that has only digits one, two and three? That would be almost impossible." …

raptor hands have a thumb, index and middle fingers, whereas birds derive their wings from the index, middle and ring fingers. Plus I dont see why you're still debating the evolution of raptors into birds when the latest bird fossils predate the theropod dinosaurs by millions of years. what you're basically saying is that birds evolved from dinosaurs that didnt exist.

Duh? Are you honestly arguing that, because we see none of the specialized mechanisms of modern flying birds in ancient proto-dino-birds, it must all be false?

And you're accusing me of not being able to read? I never said we dont see them in ancient dinos and birds. I said none of the distinct mechanisms of birds, which have a completely different structure from land animals can be explained by gradual evolution. not that we dont see it. Just that it's impossible to explain the 2 completely different structures

Uh, yes, birds are indeed built different than old raptors. Very perceptive. I don't think you needed a scientist to tell you that. The fossil record is (still, i said it in a previous post as well, things haven't changed yet) incomplete. You're again accusing science for not providing the thing they already explained they can not provide yet.

Ill wait for that day when it's 'Complete'

The concept of source credibility means not much to you, does it?

Obviously not to you, Ive used shit from several different universities and joked at my sources, yet you quote 'berkely' and bang as if they're Gods themselves

What? The only bones found are from complete and "true" species? You must be completely off the rocker. Do you even have a clue how many incomplete fossils/skeletons we have? What the hell do you mean with "They're just bones of complete and true species"? From all the non-logical idiocy I've seen you write, this one tops them all off.

You misunderstood, What I mean by complete and true species is that all of the present orders, classes, and phyla appear quite suddenly in the fossil record, without indications of the evolving lines from which they developed.

How old do you think the world is, really?

As old as science tells us.

How about a whole book filled with unfounded nonsense on the creation of life passed off as fact?

LOL great cop-out i must give you that much

And you aren't even followed to kick against shins or ask questions, lest some bearded mofo chops your head off for being a heathen. Yeah, brilliant.

"arent even followed to kick against shins"?. Sorry I dont speak dyslexic

What scientists mean is that in the Cambrian period a large amount of research material "appeared" as it seems, out of nowhere. Now, besides the fact that our fossil record is far from complete at all, this sudden "appearance" can have an immense variety of reasons, such as, i'm picking this out of the blue, the circumstances back then favouring fossilization. It doesn't advocate Creationism at all. Like all the works you quoted, he only thing it does is "raise questions". Questions that need to be answered. Maybe now, maybe in 2 years. Maybe in 60 years. Questions that can have a myriad of answers.

Ok I'll wait for that day, until then I have every reason and all the evidence we've collected from the cambrian explosion points towards the creation of millions of species. The emergence is made up of such a great number of complex creatures. They emerged all of a sudden in the fossil record, there are no pre-existing ancestors

Deeper investigation into the Cambrian Explosion shows what a great dilemma it creates for the theory of evolution. Recent findings indicate that almost all phyla, the most basic animal divisions, emerged abruptly in the Cambrian period

An article published in Science magazine in 2001 says:

"The beginning of the Cambrian period, some 545 million years ago, saw the sudden appearance in the fossil record of almost all the main types of animals (phyla) that still dominate the biota today. The same article notes that for such complex and distinct living groups to be explained according to the theory of evolution, very rich fossil beds showing a gradual developmental process should have been found, but this has not yet proved possible:

Questions that do not mean that everything it questions is pertinently wrong on all fronts. Questions raised does not equal theory debunked and Creationism accepted. That's what you have been doing this entire debate and that's probably what you will continue to do for the rest of it.

Thats not the intention of my arguments, Just to argue all "evidence' for evolution. Thats it. I could careless if you believe in creationism or not.

No you can not. Apart from the fact you demonstrate little knowledge of the methods of science and the evolution theory, this assumption is simply false)

The millions of years old fossils of the bees that show them havent changed a bit til today tells us that they havent changed in that time. wtf

What I meant was that a certain animal could function as a "blueprint"or "common ancestor" for multiple "evolutionary branches" before becoming extinct on it's own specific path.

This is not "out there", it's not a bold claim, it's something that is perfectly possible. It's what evolution is all about.

And thats where the impossibility of science and the natural world comes in. Dont tell me its possible. You've got fuck all to back that up.

But let's see how your theories hold up against the sledgehammer of logics

There is nothing logic about the theory of evolution and the all mighty natural selection.