RE: Microraptor: We have to admit it, folks

RE: Microraptor: We have to admit it, folks (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins

Message

Jhud -> RE: Microraptor: We have to admit it, folks (2/6/2008 5:03:53 PM)
quote: Why can't Chewey be a transitional form. You do realize that Chewey is a Wookie, so at best he could be a transitional form between an Ewok and a human.

Veritas -> RE: Microraptor: We have to admit it, folks (2/6/2008 7:19:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: futuredocter37 quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud quote: Why can't Chewey be a transitional form. You do realize that Chewey is a Wookie, so at best he could be a transitional form between an Ewok and a human. I'm sorry your right, he's obvoiusly a transitional form between YEC scientist and Darwinian evolutionist, well actually I'm not ver knowledgeable about Star Wars, so you will have to forgive me. No. Creationists evolved into design proponents, with the transitional form being the recently discovered cdesign proponentsists.

Jhud -> RE: Microraptor: We have to admit it, folks (2/6/2008 8:19:30 PM)
quote: No. Creationists evolved into design proponents, with the transitional form being the recently discovered cdesign proponentsists. Was this before or after evolutionists evolved into atheists?

futuredocter37 -> RE: Microraptor: We have to admit it, folks (2/6/2008 8:50:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud quote: Why can't Chewey be a transitional form. You do realize that Chewey is a Wookie, so at best he could be a transitional form between an Ewok and a human. Actually I was metioning the differences between primitive wookies and man, as seen in the non existent fossils that came from a galaxy far far away and a time LONG LONG AGO......

Aristocrat -> RE: Microraptor: We have to admit it, folks (2/6/2008 8:53:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud quote: No. Creationists evolved into design proponents, with the transitional form being the recently discovered cdesign proponentsists. Was this before or after evolutionists evolved into atheists? Atheists believe there is no God. Evolution proponents belief complex life evolved. What does one have to do with the other? [8\|]

Jhud -> RE: Microraptor: We have to admit it, folks (2/6/2008 9:08:20 PM)
quote: Atheists believe there is no God. Evolution proponents belief complex life evolved. What does one have to do with the other? Well, all atheists are evolutionists, so that would makes evolutionists an ancestral group.

futuredocter37 -> RE: Microraptor: We have to admit it, folks (2/6/2008 9:37:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: futuredocter37 quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud quote: Why can't Chewey be a transitional form. You do realize that Chewey is a Wookie, so at best he could be a transitional form between an Ewok and a human. Actually I was metioning the differences between primitive wookies and man, as seen in the non existent fossils that came from a galaxy far far away and a time LONG LONG AGO...... Science doesn't know all the details yet but we are working on it, and questioning us, is questioning science.

searcher1 -> RE: Microraptor: We have to admit it, folks (2/8/2008 4:52:17 PM)
Here is an interesting article I came across. INSTITUTE OF VERTEBRATE PALEONTOLOGY AND PALEOANTHROPOLOGY Discovered in 1999, the fossil Archaeoraptor was briefly believed to be the missing link between dinosaurs and birds. Shortly after its unveiling, however, it was determined that Archaeoraptor was instead a fake, probably comprised of up to five specimens of two or more different species. In 2000, scientists identified its tail as that of a Microraptor dinosaur from the early Cretaceous period. Now a report published today in the journal Nature classifies the rest of the faked fossil as the remains of a fish-eating bird. Zhonghe Zhou and Fucheng Zhang of the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology in Beijing and Julia A. Clarke of the American Museum of Natural History in New York City made the assessment by comparing Archaeoraptor to the fossil bird Yanornis martini. Both the dimensions and anatomical features of the front half of the fossil forgery, including the legs, toes, and beak tip, correspond very closely to those of Y. martini, the team reports. In fact, once breakage is taken into consideration, they are nearly identical. The researchers also analyzed a third, previously undescribed specimen that was recently retrieved from the same fossil-rich region of China and determined that it was also a Yanornis. Digested fish remains preserved in the creature's gut provided scientists with a peek into Y. martini's dietary preferences.

unclemonkey -> RE: Microraptor: We have to admit it, folks (2/8/2008 7:22:23 PM)
ORIGINAL:Jhud quote: Was this before or after evolutionists evolved into atheists? I thought it was the other way around. Atheists couldn’t be “intellectually fulfilled” until they evolved into evolutionists.

futuredocter37 -> RE: Microraptor: We have to admit it, folks (2/9/2008 1:17:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: unclemonkey ORIGINAL:Jhud quote: Was this before or after evolutionists evolved into atheists? I thought it was the other way around. Atheists couldn’t be “intellectually fulfilled” until they evolved into evolutionists. Its survival of the fittest, they couldn't survive unless they were evolutionist.

drmark -> RE: Microraptor: We have to admit it, folks (2/9/2008 6:54:32 AM)
Unfortunately (for them), evolutionists will not survive - Matt 25:41-46.

Veritas -> RE: Microraptor: We have to admit it, folks (2/9/2008 10:26:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud quote: No. Creationists evolved into design proponents, with the transitional form being the recently discovered cdesign proponentsists. Was this before or after evolutionists evolved into atheists? It was right after the Supreme Court decision in Edwards v. Aguillard which ruled that creationism was a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.Creationism is unconstitutional because it requires a supernatural Creator. So creationists became ID proponents. ID differs from creationism because instead of a supernatural Creator, ID requires a supernatural Designer. After Edwards v. Aguillard, creationists/ID proponents took a creationist textbook and changed it into an ID textbook. The transitional form was found in an intermediate version. creationists -> cdesign proponentsists -> design proponents You're an ID proponent. You should know the history and motives of the ID/creationist movement.

Jhud -> RE: Microraptor: We have to admit it, folks (2/9/2008 7:41:48 PM)
quote: It was right after the Supreme Court decision in Edwards v. Aguillard which ruled that creationism was a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.Creationism is unconstitutional because it requires a supernatural Creator. So creationists became ID proponents. ID differs from creationism because instead of a supernatural Creator, ID requires a supernatural Designer. After Edwards v. Aguillard, creationists/ID proponents took a creationist textbook and changed it into an ID textbook. The transitional form was found in an intermediate version. creationists -> cdesign proponentsists -> design proponents You're an ID proponent. You should know the history and motives of the ID/creationist movement. So you are saying it was a separate event from the evolution of atheists from evolutionists?

futuredocter37 -> RE: Microraptor: We have to admit it, folks (2/9/2008 8:10:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud quote: Why can't Chewey be a transitional form. You do realize that Chewey is a Wookie, so at best he could be a transitional form between an Ewok and a human. This actually begs the question what was Yoda then??

Veritas -> RE: Microraptor: We have to admit it, folks (2/9/2008 8:17:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud quote: It was right after the Supreme Court decision in Edwards v. Aguillard which ruled that creationism was a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.Creationism is unconstitutional because it requires a supernatural Creator. So creationists became ID proponents. ID differs from creationism because instead of a supernatural Creator, ID requires a supernatural Designer. After Edwards v. Aguillard, creationists/ID proponents took a creationist textbook and changed it into an ID textbook. The transitional form was found in an intermediate version. creationists -> cdesign proponentsists -> design proponents You're an ID proponent. You should know the history and motives of the ID/creationist movement. So you are saying it was a separate event from the evolution of atheists from evolutionists? No. I didn't mention the evolution of atheists from evolutionists or even whether atheists evolved from evolutionists. You can be very creative when you're misrepresenting someone, can't you? My point was that the evidence shows that ID is creationism repackaged in a transparent attempt to avoid Edwards v. Aguillard. You're an ID proponent. -- You must be aware of this.

Jhud -> RE: Microraptor: We have to admit it, folks (2/10/2008 12:42:25 AM)
quote: No. I didn't mention the evolution of atheists from evolutionists or even whether atheists evolved from evolutionists. You can be very creative when you're misrepresenting someone, can't you? My point was that the evidence shows that ID is creationism repackaged in a transparent attempt to avoid Edwards v. Aguillard. You're an ID proponent. -- You must be aware of this. You claimed one evolved into the other. As atheists are all evolutionists (and not all IDists, are creationists, or even neccesarily religious) it would seem the link is much closer. So when did atheists evolve from followers of Darwin?

drmark -> RE: Microraptor: We have to admit it, folks (2/10/2008 8:50:06 AM)
But not all evolutionists are atheists (so some claim, anyway). So wouldn't it be more likely that Darwinian evolutionists evolved from atheism?

essentialsaltes -> RE: Microraptor: We have to admit it, folks (2/10/2008 11:27:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: drmark But not all evolutionists are atheists (so some claim, anyway). So wouldn't it be more likely that Darwinian evolutionists evolved from atheism? Since atheism existed before Darwin, that's not possible either. So neither case holds. If the phylogenetic tree showed examples like this where descent is impossible, evolution could be falsified. But that is not the case.

Jhud -> RE: Microraptor: We have to admit it, folks (2/10/2008 2:23:58 PM)
quote: But not all evolutionists are atheists (so some claim, anyway). So wouldn't it be more likely that Darwinian evolutionists evolved from atheism? Well it would seem evolutionists are the larger, older original population, so atheists would have evolved to fulfill a particular niche from that ancestor group (the niche being that which advances the metaphysical aspect of evolution, and sells books). One disadvantage of course is that it seems that atheists are much less likely to reproduce than their ancestors, so it could be an evolutionary dead end.

Jhud -> RE: Microraptor: We have to admit it, folks (2/10/2008 2:35:05 PM)
quote: Since atheism existed before Darwin, that's not possible either. So neither case holds. If the phylogenetic tree showed examples like this where descent is impossible, evolution could be falsified. But that is not the case. Well as evolutionists often tell us evolution occurs in fits and starts. While elements of atheism may have existed previous to the exitence of evolution, it was fully derived until a thriving population of evolutionists existed.

futuredocter37 -> RE: Microraptor: We have to admit it, folks (2/11/2008 3:58:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: futuredocter37 quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud quote: Why can't Chewey be a transitional form. You do realize that Chewey is a Wookie, so at best he could be a transitional form between an Ewok and a human. This actually begs the question what was Yoda then?? Yoda was a missing link wasn't he??

searcher1 -> RE: Microraptor: We have to admit it, folks (2/12/2008 8:38:44 AM)
This article showed up on a website called Atheist Alliance. Darwin's 200th Birthday will occur on February 12, 2009; it will also be the 150th Anniversary of the publication of his famous book, On The Origin of Species. So, together we can evolve a truly international Celebration to express gratitude for the enormous benefits that scientific knowledge, acquired through human curiosity and ingenuity, has contributed to the advancement of humanity. The objective of Darwin Day Celebration is to encourage existing institutions worldwide, such as municipalities, public and private schools, colleges and universities, libraries, museums, churches, private organizations and individuals to celebrate Science and Humanity every year, on, or near, February 12, Darwin's birthday! Darwin is there unfurled banner they proudly wave. Without it the marching band would be silent. There were atheist before Darwin for sure. But Darwin gave them the impetus for recuiting. Two of the most intellegent , and tatical moves the atheist movement ever made was one: creating the Scopes trial, and two, capturing as many professorship positions as possible at our major institutions of higher learning .

ManimalX -> RE: Microraptor: We have to admit it, folks (2/12/2008 10:08:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aristocrat That opinion belongs in church, not a science lab. Are you implying that evolutionists and other scientists don't bring their religious beliefs into the lab with them? If you are, you may want to rethink your position because the atheistic materialist brings their religious belief into their 'science' just as much as anybody else. Religious neutrality is a myth.

BVZ -> RE: Microraptor: We have to admit it, folks (2/13/2008 1:05:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ManimalX quote: ORIGINAL: Aristocrat That opinion belongs in church, not a science lab. Are you implying that evolutionists and other scientists don't bring their religious beliefs into the lab with them? If you are, you may want to rethink your position because the atheistic materialist brings their religious belief into their 'science' just as much as anybody else. Religious neutrality is a myth. Of course they bring religious ideas with them into the lab. But they are only allowed to use evidence derived from nature. And so, the supernatural is excluded automatically.

drmark -> RE: Microraptor: We have to admit it, folks (2/13/2008 9:28:32 AM)
quote: Of course they bring religious ideas with them into the lab. But they are only allowed to use evidence derived from nature. And so, the supernatural is excluded automatically. Ahh, but what good is science without interpretations of that evidence. That's where personal biases enter the realm of "scientific" endeavor.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI