Evolution? How?

Setanta wrote:

They have fallen to squabbling among themselves . . . Thank you, oh my Lord Dog, for sewing confusion in the ranks of mine enemies . . .

Your lord is a dog...

Your Sig seems to favor the scientific method, whereas many of your posts seem to run counter to it.

Are you playing devils advocate on some posts, or pulling our chain? Or do you see the Sig differently somehow?

Quote:

Your Sig seems to favor the scientific method, whereas many of your posts seem to run counter to it.

Are you playing devils advocate on some posts, or pulling our chain? Or do you see the Sig differently somehow?

I got the quote from his website, google it up and see what else he has to say.

Quote:

Your Sig seems to favor the scientific method, whereas many of your posts seem to run counter to it.

Are you playing devils advocate on some posts, or pulling our chain? Or do you see the Sig differently somehow?

I got the quote from his website, google it up and see what else he has to say.

Quote:

Actually rocks do "reproduce"... in the middle of suns... Rocks reproduce by means of fission.

What is your freakin problem?! Are you trying to say that rocks have natural selection? I am in no way even close to a scientist and I know that rocks don't evolve.

Mr. "Truth must rise above cherished beliefs and traditions" has assumed right from the beginning that there *is* a God, and that The "Christian" Bible is on par with the Natural World as an example of reality. So much for looking for truth beyond cherished beliefs I guess...

Quote:

Mr. "Truth must rise above cherished beliefs and traditions" has assumed right from the beginning that there *is* a God, and that The "Christian" Bible is on par with the Natural World as an example of reality. So much for looking for truth beyond cherished beliefs I guess...

It is not an illogical assumption that there is a God. In order to really get anything out of the bible you must have faith that there is a God. When he talks about cherished theories, etc. he is saying that our ideas are second to the word of God.

You do realize that science doesn't (and can't) make that assumption, right?

thunder_runner32 wrote:

Setanta wrote:

They have fallen to squabbling among themselves . . . Thank you, oh my Lord Dog, for sewing confusion in the ranks of mine enemies . . .

Your lord is a dog...

I have no lord. The concept of fawning devotion to any description of superior being is disgusting to me. Rather, i compliment the concept of god with an entirely undeserved comparison to the dog, the most noble of all of the mammals. Were the god of the religious self-delusionists of the same decent character and affability of the ordinary familiar dog, i would cease to consider them a threat to decent society.

Quote:

You do realize that science doesn't (and can't) make that assumption, right?

Does it matter whether they assume there is a God or not? Either way you assume, you are using the same amount of faith. Science is based on what we know, not what we don't know. Ruling God out of science is unfair for that reason.

I think that scientists assume a lot more than what you think.

Newfound Dinosaur Shows Transition in Diet

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: May 5, 2005

Filed at 8:26 a.m. ET

Caught in the act of evolution, the odd-looking, feathered dinosaur was becoming more vegetarian, moving away from its meat-eating ancestors. It had the built-for-speed legs of meat-eaters, but was developing the bigger belly of plant-eaters. It had already lost the serrated teeth needed for tearing flesh. Those were replaced with the smaller, duller vegetarian variety.

''I doubt seriously this animal could cut a steak with that mouth,'' said Utah state paleontologist James Kirkland, one of those describing the animal, based on bones found in east-central Utah.

The scientists dubbed it Falcarius utahensis. Bones from hundreds or maybe thousands of these dinosaurs were discovered at a two-acre dig site south of the town of Green River. Nobody knows why they gathered there or what killed them, Kirkland said.

Falcarius ate plants, but its bones show the transition from its carnivorous ancestors while still in progress.

All plant-eating dinosaurs were ultimately descended from a meat-eater, and switchovers to plant-eating occurred several times. The newly discovered species, which lived 125 million years ago, could help scientists understand details of how the changeovers took place.

It's ''our first really good case of a dinosaur in the midst of shifting from the meat-eating body to a plant-eating one,'' said an expert not involved in the discovery, Thomas R. Holtz Jr. of the University of Maryland.

''It's definitely eating a substantial amount of plants, (but) we still see the original imprint of meat-eating upon it.''

The creature, with 5-inch claws on its outsized hands, measured some 12 feet from its snout to the tip of its long skinny tail. It stood just over 3 feet tall at the hip and could apparently reach about five feet off the ground with its long neck to munch leaves or fruit, said Kirkland.

He describes the creature in Thursday's issue of the British journal Nature with Lindsay Zanno and Scott Sampson of the Utah Museum of Natural History at the University of Utah, among others.

Analysis revealed that Falcarius was the earliest known member of a bizarre-looking group of plant-eaters called therizinosaurs (pronounced THAY-rih-ZY-no-sores.) Found mostly in Asia, the barrel-bodied creatures waddled upright like Godzilla or ''a pot-bellied bear,'' Kirkland said.

Falcarius, very early in its evolution into the therizinosaur body type, retained the rather horizontal posture and powerful legs of its meat-eating ancestors. And its teeth were more suited for eating plants, Zanno said.

It also showed some change toward the larger gut needed to digest plant material rather than meat, as well as a lengthened neck and smaller head associated with eating plants, she said.

Holtz said Falcarius still had fairly slender proportions overall rather than the barrel body of later therizinosaurs. ''This one could probably move fairly quickly,'' he said, whereas its more evolved relatives ''would have had problems hunting things faster than a tree.''

Kirkland and Zanno said they suspect Falcarius probably ate some meat in addition to plants.

''I wouldn't doubt this thing would eat a lizard or two in a pinch,'' Kirkland said.

For anyone that may have missed this recent discovery.

Quote:

Newfound Dinosaur Shows Transition in Diet

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: May 5, 2005


Analysis has revealed that Falcarius was the earliest known member of a bizarre-looking group of plant-eaters called therizinosaurs.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/science/AP-Dinosaur-Diet.html?

The foundation that was chosen is called Naturalism; the idea that supernatural causes can not be used to explain natural phenomena.

Quote:

The foundation that was chosen is called Naturalism; the idea that supernatural causes can not be used to explain natural phenomena.

Is it possible that they picked the wrong foundation? Who picked this foundation? If there is a God, this foundation would never find him....