*

Online Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 8418
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Separation of Church & Science | Intelligent Design and the Flat Earth
« Reply #100 on: April 01, 2016, 06:10:38 AM »
I've been with many women just like you. Assumption after assumption and passive aggressive statement after statement bearing little to no resemblance to reality. As much as it disturbs me to point it out, the reality is most women, from my personal experience, are dominated by their emotions. Maybe you've never dated one, but reason and logic are not effective ways to resolve any conflict. This isn't just my opinion. This is a widely known consensus. Comedians joke about it, television shows and moves portray it, ancient philosophers pondered over it. Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.

What in God's name does this have to do with literally anything?
I threw him on ignore.  It seems to help.
The conviction will get overturned on appeal.

*

Offline Jura-Glenlivet

  • *
  • Posts: 1537
  • Life is meaningless & everything dies.
    • View Profile
Re: Separation of Church & Science | Intelligent Design and the Flat Earth
« Reply #101 on: April 01, 2016, 07:41:04 AM »
I've been with many women just like you. Assumption after assumption and passive aggressive statement after statement bearing little to no resemblance to reality. As much as it disturbs me to point it out, the reality is most women, from my personal experience, are dominated by their emotions. Maybe you've never dated one, but reason and logic are not effective ways to resolve any conflict. This isn't just my opinion. This is a widely known consensus. Comedians joke about it, television shows and moves portray it, ancient philosophers pondered over it. Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.

What in God's name does this have to do with literally anything?
I threw him on ignore.  It seems to help.

The funny thing is some one seems to have told him that just because you have a beautiful woman as an avatar, that makes you a woman. I would seriously look at your life choices again if you have been with a woman like me!

It did serve to highlight the depths of his prejudice though.
« Last Edit: April 01, 2016, 04:04:33 PM by Jura-Glenlivet »
Just to be clear, you are all terrific, but everything you say is exactly what a moron would say.

Re: Separation of Church & Science | Intelligent Design and the Flat Earth
« Reply #102 on: April 01, 2016, 04:17:13 PM »
I've been with many women just like you. Assumption after assumption and passive aggressive statement after statement bearing little to no resemblance to reality. As much as it disturbs me to point it out, the reality is most women, from my personal experience, are dominated by their emotions. Maybe you've never dated one, but reason and logic are not effective ways to resolve any conflict. This isn't just my opinion. This is a widely known consensus. Comedians joke about it, television shows and moves portray it, ancient philosophers pondered over it. Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.

What in God's name does this have to do with literally anything?
I threw him on ignore.  It seems to help.

He "threw me on ignore" because he had no answers for the questions I raised. He continued to push the debate forward though, even after I told him so many times I was done with his never ended cycle of bullshit.

Saddam you have to put it into context of the entire conversation. Otherwise don't highlight one part of one post and call me out on it if you haven't been around for the rest of it. Jura, if you are a man with an avatar of a women, on an internet forum, then I would seriously question your lifestyle. I may be "prejudiced," but you are just a mean-spirited, arrogant, condescending person (man or woman).

I don't know why I expected any kind of different experience than any other online community I've ever been to. A bunch of cliquey "regulars" that like to try to silence dissenting voices in order to maintain their private little safe space and remain ignorant to new ideas (as you've arbitrary decided I am)

I am 100% confident in my stance, and if anyone would ever look at this thread with an open mind they'll see who has remained objective and who hasn't. Petty insults, and condescending wastes of posts aside, there is something to be learned here, and besides the opinion of a very small, insignificant group of anonymous people on the internet, my logic is solid. My original post raises a very valid question.

I don't care what you believe the shape of earth to be, evolution and the big bang doesn't hold any water to anyone with even an modicum of critical thought in their constitution. Good day to those of you that aren't scared little men like Dave, and are willing to understand an alternative view without having to accept it.

Rama Set

Re: Separation of Church & Science | Intelligent Design and the Flat Earth
« Reply #103 on: April 01, 2016, 04:55:26 PM »
But I'm not going to call you ignorant if you haven't read the entire bible, or looked deeper into the meanings behind the symbols we see everyday.

Why not?  In that context, if it is accurate, the person is ignorant.  Ignorance is not pejorative, it is a state of lacking knowledge, nothing more.


I am 100% confident in my stance, and if anyone would ever look at this thread with an open mind they'll see who has remained objective and who hasn't.

...

I don't care what you believe the shape of earth to be, evolution and the big bang doesn't hold any water to anyone with even an modicum of critical thought in their constitution. Good day to those of you that aren't scared little men like Dave, and are willing to understand an alternative view without having to accept it.

Can you please justify the latter part of this quote in the context of the former part?  You seem to be suffering from a severe case hypocrititis.

Re: Separation of Church & Science | Intelligent Design and the Flat Earth
« Reply #104 on: April 01, 2016, 05:47:32 PM »
But I'm not going to call you ignorant if you haven't read the entire bible, or looked deeper into the meanings behind the symbols we see everyday.

Why not?  In that context, if it is accurate, the person is ignorant.  Ignorance is not pejorative, it is a state of lacking knowledge, nothing more.


I am 100% confident in my stance, and if anyone would ever look at this thread with an open mind they'll see who has remained objective and who hasn't.

...

I don't care what you believe the shape of earth to be, evolution and the big bang doesn't hold any water to anyone with even an modicum of critical thought in their constitution. Good day to those of you that aren't scared little men like Dave, and are willing to understand an alternative view without having to accept it.

Can you please justify the latter part of this quote in the context of the former part?  You seem to be suffering from a severe case hypocrititis.

I should've specified, "wholly, willfully" ignorant. I'm being constantly accused of that style of ignorance even though I've studied evolution, was taught evolution in school as a fact, and have honestly learned more about the theory since we've started this post. Have many of you actually spent the time to look into creationism as a realistic possibility? As I said, I don't expect you to have to read the entire bible. You can deduce through logic and reason that the big bang, and it's sheer improbability of being the origin of life is too much to surmise.

I don't understand your issue with the second quote. I've looked at the issue of evolution and big bang from a logical point of view, and have personally decided to eliminate it as a possibility. Does this prove that creation or intelligent design is the answer? No. The truth isn't mutually exclusive to the two concepts. It's just the best two guesses we have right now. And they both require an incredible amount of faith, and suspension of disbelief to fully accept.

I do, however, lean towards Intelligent Design. But I won't pretend to be 100% certain, or accost those that don't agree with me. I wont talk down to anyone for believing, in my opinion, the logical fallacy of evolution either. Everyone is free to come up with their own conclusions, but to accuse me of lacking intelligence for my views, is only a desperate maneuver to invalidate what I have to say. As I said, I've apologized for taking the bait and letting this type of personal attack make me stray from the original intent of this discussion. I won't hold my breath waiting for others to do the same.

Saddam Hussein

Re: Separation of Church & Science | Intelligent Design and the Flat Earth
« Reply #105 on: April 01, 2016, 06:22:24 PM »
even though I've studied evolution, was taught evolution in school as a fact

No, you haven't.  Or if you did, you completely half-assed it and/or didn't bother paying attention.  I know because there is nothing, absolutely nothing, you've said or asked that isn't incredibly basic, run-of-the-mill Evolution 101 material.  You may never accept that evolution is real, but you have to at least understand that neither you nor your arguments are exceptional or unusually well-informed.  Every creationist or skeptic of evolution says what you say and asks what you ask.  They're all very, very common fallacies that have been asked and answered a thousand times before.  God of the gaps.  Hoyle's fallacy.  "There are no transitional fossils."  Conflating evolution with the origin of life.  Bringing up hoaxes as if they somehow prove something.  There's nothing insightful or original about any of them.

Re: Separation of Church & Science | Intelligent Design and the Flat Earth
« Reply #106 on: April 01, 2016, 06:37:32 PM »
even though I've studied evolution, was taught evolution in school as a fact

No, you haven't.  Or if you did, you completely half-assed it and/or didn't bother paying attention.  I know because there is nothing, absolutely nothing, you've said or asked that isn't incredibly basic, run-of-the-mill Evolution 101 material.  You may never accept that evolution is real, but you have to at least understand that neither you nor your arguments are exceptional or unusually well-informed.  Every creationist or skeptic of evolution says what you say and asks what you ask.  They're all very, very common fallacies that have been asked and answered a thousand times before.  God of the gaps.  Hoyle's fallacy.  "There are no transitional fossils."  Conflating evolution with the origin of life.  Bringing up hoaxes as if they somehow prove something.  There's nothing insightful or original about any of them.

Regardless if they are basic questions or not, they're still questioned to this day, because they haven't been answered beyond a reasonable doubt. Something basic should have a quick ready answer, shouldn't it? Can't you consult your evolution wikis with it's pre-loaded responses to fire back at me? Of course it would just be easier to insult and slander me into submission, though.

Is asking for scientific experimental evidence of evolution happening a reasonable request? Oh, yeah, it would take thousands of years for that to happen. You haven't offered anything to the conversation, except criticism. So you can continue to criticize all you want, but until you begin to draw from your infinite wisdom and start answering questions then I will look at you as nothing more than the arrogant and pretentious [person] you appear to be.

Rama Set

Re: Separation of Church & Science | Intelligent Design and the Flat Earth
« Reply #107 on: April 01, 2016, 06:53:58 PM »


I am 100% confident in my stance, and if anyone would ever look at this thread with an open mind they'll see who has remained objective and who hasn't.

...

I don't care what you believe the shape of earth to be, evolution and the big bang doesn't hold any water to anyone with even an modicum of critical thought in their constitution. Good day to those of you that aren't scared little men like Dave, and are willing to understand an alternative view without having to accept it.

Can you please justify the latter part of this quote in the context of the former part?  You seem to be suffering from a severe case hypocrititis.


I don't understand your issue with the second quote. I've looked at the issue of evolution and big bang from a logical point of view, and have personally decided to eliminate it as a possibility. Does this prove that creation or intelligent design is the answer? No. The truth isn't mutually exclusive to the two concepts. It's just the best two guesses we have right now. And they both require an incredible amount of faith, and suspension of disbelief to fully accept.



You dismiss out of hand, and quite aggressively, anyone who gives credence to the Big Bang and/or evolution, and also call Lord Dave "(a) scared little (man)" yet two paragraphs earlier claim to be objective.  If you cannot even allow that someone can construct a logical position around the Big Bang theory and/or evolution, and if you must resort to Ad Hominems on those that support it, then you obviously have a bias you are  not disclosing.

Personally I find the argument from probability to be incredibly underwhelming because it is misleading for a few reasons: 1. No matter how improbable a scenario, it's probability after occuring is 1; 2. Any calculation in to the probability of the Big Bang occuring will always suffer from a lack of knowledge of the initial conditions which would be crucial to the calculation I hope you agree, and as such could never be considered reliable; 3. You offer no probability of what the likelihood of God existing and deciding to create the universe we observe.

If you can address these, I will give credence to the "improbability of the Big Bang", until then you appear to just be parroting Answer in Genesis or some such other group.

As for evolution, I have to agree with Saddam.  You really seem to either misunderstand or misrepresent what the theory supposes so I am not sure why I should take you seriously on the matter.


Regardless if they are basic questions or not, they're still questioned to this day, because they haven't been answered beyond a reasonable doubt.

This is a criminal legal standard, why do you keep applying it to other subjects?

Quote
Something basic should have a quick ready answer, shouldn't it?

No. That is a preposterous statement that is as illogical as it is unfounded in the world we live in.

Quote
Is asking for scientific experimental evidence of evolution happening a reasonable request? Oh, yeah, it would take thousands of years for that to happen.

That is simply not true.  Evolution happens on a generational time scale, and given sufficient generations, you see evolution working, for example the London Underground Mosquito.  Natural selection is obviously present, as humans can induce it in controlled breeding, so if you have an issue that small changes can lead to larger ones, perhaps you should explain why, of course noting that you are wrong about the 3rd law of thermodynamics.

Quote
You haven't offered anything to the conversation, except criticism.

So what?

Quote
So you can continue to criticize all you want, but until you begin to draw from your infinite wisdom and start answering questions then I will look at you as nothing more than the arrogant and pretentious [person] you appear to be.

Asking for answers to everything is a real epistemological problem, because it assumes that all questions have an answer we can fathom or access.  Believing this will ultimately cause you to make a misstep like supposing a creator of the universe...

Re: Separation of Church & Science | Intelligent Design and the Flat Earth
« Reply #108 on: April 01, 2016, 07:35:55 PM »
I called Dave a scared little man because he apparently has "ignored" me.  :'( :'( :'(

Quote
This is a criminal legal standard, why do you keep applying it to other subjects?

Because it is a very good standard of proof, that's why.

Quote
That is simply not true.  Evolution happens on a generational time scale, and given sufficient generations, you see evolution working, for example the London Underground Mosquito.  Natural selection is obviously present, as humans can induce it in controlled breeding, so if you have an issue that small changes can lead to larger ones, perhaps you should explain why, of course noting that you are wrong about the 3rd law of thermodynamics.

No one is debating the role that the environment has on giving rise to different variations of a species. The environment alone doesn't change the DNA of an organism. Time alone doesn't change the DNA. Selective breeding doesn't change the DNA. And tell me how I'm wrong about 3lot? Please elaborate. Things naturally trend towards entropy. A pile of sticks in my backyard doesn't turn into a log cabin. Rewriting war and peace one word at a time results in jibberish. Time alone doesn't make the impossible, possible, regardless your unique, personal views on probability.

Quote
Asking for answers to everything is a real epistemological problem, because it assumes that all questions have an answer we can fathom or access.  Believing this will ultimately cause you to make a misstep like supposing a creator of the universe...

Which is precisely why I avoid putting faith into evolutionary biologists who have staked their careers on supposing to have the answer. And if you check a previous post of mine, I don't claim that eliminating evolution as a possibility automatically makes creation the correct answer. It's interesting to note though, that many religious entities have accepted evolution as a possibility, not exclusive to God's creation. Evolutionists on the other hand prefer to abolish the thought of God, or any possibility of an intelligent hand guiding the process.

Rama Set

Re: Separation of Church & Science | Intelligent Design and the Flat Earth
« Reply #109 on: April 01, 2016, 08:04:55 PM »
I called Dave a scared little man because he apparently has "ignored" me.  :'( :'( :'(

Do you insult women who ignore you too?

Quote
Quote
This is a criminal legal standard, why do you keep applying it to other subjects?

Because it is a very good standard of proof, that's why.

So then why do you believe in God?

Quote

No one is debating the role that the environment has on giving rise to different variations of a species. The environment alone doesn't change the DNA of an organism. Time alone doesn't change the DNA. Selective breeding doesn't change the DNA.

No one has said otherwise have they?

Quote
And tell me how I'm wrong about 3lot? Please elaborate.

I already did, here I go again: A system tends toward entropy when it is closed, as in no new energy is being added to the system.  You may have noticed that there is new energy coming to the Earth almost every second of the day, therefore there is plenty of excess energy to do things like create life.

Quote
Things naturally trend towards entropy. A pile of sticks in my backyard doesn't turn into a log cabin. Rewriting war and peace one word at a time results in jibberish. Time alone doesn't make the impossible, possible, regardless your unique, personal views on probability.

I find it really interesting that you concede that one factor alone does not make evolution possible.  No one has ever asserted that, rather that it is a combination of all those factors.

Quote
Asking for answers to everything is a real epistemological problem, because it assumes that all questions have an answer we can fathom or access.  Believing this will ultimately cause you to make a misstep like supposing a creator of the universe...

Which is precisely why I avoid putting faith into evolutionary biologists who have staked their careers on supposing to have the answer. And if you check a previous post of mine, I don't claim that eliminating evolution as a possibility automatically makes creation the correct answer. It's interesting to note though, that many religious entities have accepted evolution as a possibility, not exclusive to God's creation. Evolutionists on the other hand prefer to abolish the thought of God, or any possibility of an intelligent hand guiding the process.
[/quote]

No they stake their career on looking for the answer competently.  I leave it to you to discern the difference.

*

Online Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 8418
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Separation of Church & Science | Intelligent Design and the Flat Earth
« Reply #110 on: April 01, 2016, 09:32:39 PM »
I called Dave a scared little man because he apparently has "ignored" me.  :'( :'( :'(
I find it interesting that someone who walks away from an aggrevating person is "scared".  Do you understand what fear is?  Because I don't think you do.  I have no risk of personal harm, financial harm, or social harm.  I'm not afraid of embarassing myself either.

So what am I supposed to be afraid of?  I put you on ignore because you are like a brick wall I'm tired of trying to argue with.  Out of sight, out of mind.

Except with quotes.
The conviction will get overturned on appeal.

Re: Separation of Church & Science | Intelligent Design and the Flat Earth
« Reply #111 on: April 01, 2016, 10:14:12 PM »
I called Dave a scared little man because he apparently has "ignored" me.  :'( :'( :'(
I find it interesting that someone who walks away from an aggrevating person is "scared".  Do you understand what fear is?  Because I don't think you do.  I have no risk of personal harm, financial harm, or social harm.  I'm not afraid of embarassing myself either.

So what am I supposed to be afraid of?  I put you on ignore because you are like a brick wall I'm tired of trying to argue with.  Out of sight, out of mind.

Except with quotes.

A brick wall that called him out on his bullshit. "Ignoring" someone is a bitch move. His "superiority" was on the line as he said so himself, so of course he had to bow out of the "argument" in the most passive aggressive way he could.

Quote from: Rama Set
So then why do you believe in God?
Because that is my faith based choice after carefully looking at the evidence. Just like evolution and the big bang are yours.

Rama Set

Re: Separation of Church & Science | Intelligent Design and the Flat Earth
« Reply #112 on: April 02, 2016, 04:54:14 AM »
I called Dave a scared little man because he apparently has "ignored" me.  :'( :'( :'(
I find it interesting that someone who walks away from an aggrevating person is "scared".  Do you understand what fear is?  Because I don't think you do.  I have no risk of personal harm, financial harm, or social harm.  I'm not afraid of embarassing myself either.

So what am I supposed to be afraid of?  I put you on ignore because you are like a brick wall I'm tired of trying to argue with.  Out of sight, out of mind.

Except with quotes.

A brick wall that called him out on his bullshit. "Ignoring" someone is a bitch move. His "superiority" was on the line as he said so himself, so of course he had to bow out of the "argument" in the most passive aggressive way he could.

So objective. So brave.

Quote
Quote from: Rama Set
So then why do you believe in God?
Because that is my faith based choice after carefully looking at the evidence. Just like evolution and the big bang are yours.

I can't believe you actually wrote that. It's even worse if you believe it.  Evolution is a matter of empiricism and is thoroughly documented and researched, unlike God. All the faith I require is that the laws of physics have been the same throughout history. As far as axioms go, that is fairly mild. Unlike the God proposition.

Tell Ken Hovind I say "what's up"

*

Offline Jura-Glenlivet

  • *
  • Posts: 1537
  • Life is meaningless & everything dies.
    • View Profile
Re: Separation of Church & Science | Intelligent Design and the Flat Earth
« Reply #113 on: April 02, 2016, 08:38:28 PM »
You are a mass of contradictions, you apologise for taking the bait and straying into personal attacks and in your very next post you call Saddam arrogant and pretentious.

Your "alternative", "new ideas", are anything but, based as they are on 2,000 year old books.

You say you have studied evolution but if you have you have failed to understand it, as you continue to do also with thermodynamics, something I am surprised you dare quote as apparently scientists are wrong about everything else.

You claim that your logic is solid, in the face of everybody else who has expressed an opinion  seeing the holes.

You ask us why we haven't "looked at creationism as a realistic possibility", well it needs a creator as a first principle, something that if you called for the same rigorous amount of evidence you do for evolution would be a non starter. So you invoke faith, basically the suspension of that need for proof in favour of conviction based on said old books.

I have no doubt that you will be the last man standing here, please don't mistake that for winning the argument, as some one once said “You cannot reason people out of a position that they did not reason themselves into.”
« Last Edit: April 02, 2016, 09:21:13 PM by Jura-Glenlivet »
Just to be clear, you are all terrific, but everything you say is exactly what a moron would say.

Re: Separation of Church & Science | Intelligent Design and the Flat Earth
« Reply #114 on: April 15, 2016, 06:47:49 PM »
“Although it is cloaked in the guise of science, the theory of evolution is nothing but a deceit: a deceit defended only for the benefit of materialistic philosophy; a deceit based not on science but on brainwashing, propaganda, and fraud.  The theory of evolution is a theory that fails at the very first step.  The reason is that evolutionists are unable to explain even the formation of a single protein.  Neither the laws of probability nor the laws of physics and chemistry offer any chance for the fortuitous formation of life.  Does it sound logical or reasonable when not even a single chance-formed protein can exist, that millions of such proteins combined in an order to produce the cell of a living thing; and that billions of cells managed to form and then came together by chance to produce living things; and that from them generated fish; and that those that passed to land turned into reptiles, birds, and that this is how all the millions of different species on earth were formed?  They have never found a single transitional form such as a half-fish/half-reptile or half-reptile/half-bird.  Nor have they been able to prove that a protein, or even a single amino acid molecule composing a protein, could have formed under what they call primordial earth conditions; not even in their elaborately-equipped laboratories have they succeeded in doing that.”  -Harun Yahya, “The Evolution Deceit” (214-215)

Rama Set

Re: Separation of Church & Science | Intelligent Design and the Flat Earth
« Reply #115 on: April 15, 2016, 09:13:45 PM »
“Although it is cloaked in the guise of science, the theory of evolution is nothing but a deceit: a deceit defended only for the benefit of materialistic philosophy; a deceit based not on science but on brainwashing, propaganda, and fraud.  The theory of evolution is a theory that fails at the very first step.  The reason is that evolutionists are unable to explain even the formation of a single protein.  Neither the laws of probability nor the laws of physics and chemistry offer any chance for the fortuitous formation of life.  Does it sound logical or reasonable when not even a single chance-formed protein can exist, that millions of such proteins combined in an order to produce the cell of a living thing; and that billions of cells managed to form and then came together by chance to produce living things; and that from them generated fish; and that those that passed to land turned into reptiles, birds, and that this is how all the millions of different species on earth were formed?  They have never found a single transitional form such as a half-fish/half-reptile or half-reptile/half-bird.  Nor have they been able to prove that a protein, or even a single amino acid molecule composing a protein, could have formed under what they call primordial earth conditions; not even in their elaborately-equipped laboratories have they succeeded in doing that.”  -Harun Yahya, “The Evolution Deceit” (214-215)

What is the positive evidence to support the claim "not even a single chance-formed protein can exist"? 

*

Online Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 8418
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Separation of Church & Science | Intelligent Design and the Flat Earth
« Reply #116 on: April 15, 2016, 09:51:26 PM »
Quote
half-fish/half-reptile
So an Amphibian?
The conviction will get overturned on appeal.

*

Offline Jura-Glenlivet

  • *
  • Posts: 1537
  • Life is meaningless & everything dies.
    • View Profile
Re: Separation of Church & Science | Intelligent Design and the Flat Earth
« Reply #117 on: April 16, 2016, 07:22:07 PM »

Damn, just when I thought he'd gone away , he done gone and read a book! A book (not) written by a cult leader convicted of running a criminal organisation, not in itself necessarily a reason to not take it seriously, so lets take one bit of the rubbish you quote.

“They have never found a single transitional form such as a half-fish/half-reptile or half-reptile/half-bird.  “

Well, “Archeopteryx lithographica (Late Jurassic, 150 Ma) -- The several known specimes of this deservedly famous fossil show a mosaic of reptilian and avian features, with the reptilian features predominating. The skull and skeleton are basically reptilian (skull, teeth, vertebrae, sternum, ribs, pelvis, tail, digits, claws, generally unfused bones). Bird traits are limited to an avian furcula (wishbone, for attachment of flight muscles; recall that at least some dinosaurs had this too), modified forelimbs, and -- the real kicker -- unmistakable lift-producing flight feathers. Archeopteryx could probably flap from tree to tree, but couldn't take off from the ground, since it lacked a keeled breastbone for large flight muscles, and had a weak shoulder compared to modern birds. May not have been the direct ancestor of modern birds. (Wellnhofer, 1993) “
And, “Sinornis santensis ("Chinese bird", early Cretaceous, 138 Ma) -- A recently found little primitive bird. Bird traits: short trunk, claws on the toes, flight-specialized shoulders, stronger flight- feather bones, tightly folding wrist, short hand. (These traits make it a much better flier than Archeopteryx.) Reptilian traits: teeth, stomach ribs, unfused hand bones, reptilian-shaped unfused pelvis. (These remaining reptilian traits wouldn't have interfered with flight.) Intermediate traits: metatarsals partially fused, medium-sized sternal keel, medium-length tail (8 vertebrae) with fused pygostyle at the tip. (Sereno & Rao, 1992). “ From http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html#bird.

Go read another book.
Just to be clear, you are all terrific, but everything you say is exactly what a moron would say.

Re: Separation of Church & Science | Intelligent Design and the Flat Earth
« Reply #118 on: April 17, 2016, 03:36:08 AM »

Damn, just when I thought he'd gone away , he done gone and read a book! A book (not) written by a cult leader convicted of running a criminal organisation, not in itself necessarily a reason to not take it seriously, so lets take one bit of the rubbish you quote.

“They have never found a single transitional form such as a half-fish/half-reptile or half-reptile/half-bird.  “

Well, “Archeopteryx lithographica (Late Jurassic, 150 Ma) -- The several known specimes of this deservedly famous fossil show a mosaic of reptilian and avian features, with the reptilian features predominating. The skull and skeleton are basically reptilian (skull, teeth, vertebrae, sternum, ribs, pelvis, tail, digits, claws, generally unfused bones). Bird traits are limited to an avian furcula (wishbone, for attachment of flight muscles; recall that at least some dinosaurs had this too), modified forelimbs, and -- the real kicker -- unmistakable lift-producing flight feathers. Archeopteryx could probably flap from tree to tree, but couldn't take off from the ground, since it lacked a keeled breastbone for large flight muscles, and had a weak shoulder compared to modern birds. May not have been the direct ancestor of modern birds. (Wellnhofer, 1993) “
And, “Sinornis santensis ("Chinese bird", early Cretaceous, 138 Ma) -- A recently found little primitive bird. Bird traits: short trunk, claws on the toes, flight-specialized shoulders, stronger flight- feather bones, tightly folding wrist, short hand. (These traits make it a much better flier than Archeopteryx.) Reptilian traits: teeth, stomach ribs, unfused hand bones, reptilian-shaped unfused pelvis. (These remaining reptilian traits wouldn't have interfered with flight.) Intermediate traits: metatarsals partially fused, medium-sized sternal keel, medium-length tail (8 vertebrae) with fused pygostyle at the tip. (Sereno & Rao, 1992). “ From http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html#bird.

Go read another book.

So please tell me: if natural selection is the reason why reptiles grew wings... What benefit were the half turned, non functional wings that clearly had to be passed on for hundreds if not thousands of generations? How would having half a wing suit an animal for survival better than a limb with claws?

Saddam Hussein

Re: Separation of Church & Science | Intelligent Design and the Flat Earth
« Reply #119 on: April 17, 2016, 03:48:06 AM »
It could help them survive a fall.  Or make a jump without falling.