Has evolutionism become a leading religion?

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Yeah I hate that. It's even worse when you know someone is intelligent but are using mockery to cover for their lack of understanding on a topic

Both Prax and Pel have commented on my "laughter". Guys I didn't mean anything insulting by it. It wasn't a cover, the way the guy said chickens are descendents from dinosoars (he then followed it with, thats why he likes eating chicken, because they used to eat his ancestors) I though was both ridiculous and comical. Nothing contrived, hallow, or forced.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

Both Prax and Pel have commented on my "laughter". Guys I didn't mean anything insulting by it. It wasn't a cover, the way the guy said chickens are descendents from dinosoars (he then followed it with, thats why he likes eating chicken, because they used to eat his ancestors) I though was both ridiculous and comical. Nothing contrived, hallow, or forced.

And I rip on coadie for his typos... look at mine! "Hallow?" Did I mean "shallow" or "hollow?"

But it is sort of shallow Bro. unless you want to take me up on the one-on-one offer.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

Both Prax and Pel have commented on my "laughter". Guys I didn't mean anything insulting by it. It wasn't a cover, the way the guy said chickens are descendents from dinosoars (he then followed it with, thats why he likes eating chicken, because they used to eat his ancestors) I though was both ridiculous and comical. Nothing contrived, hallow, or forced.

They are stumped on the chickens evolving from dinos and reptiles. Chickens have an entirely different pulmonary system and they can show no empirical evidence of reptile and dino lung changes.

The word for making claims with no observed empirical evidence or tests is called Pseudo science.
Avian lungs have parabronchi
Reptiles work a diaphragmatic respiratory system, while birds have no diaphragm. Reptiles have airsacs. The diaphragm working like a bellows.
Denton states that the avian lung's structure invalidates Darwinism:

The avian lung brings us very close to answering Darwin's challenge: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down

The key is they can't show the small and progressive evolution from one system to another. No empirical evidence again.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

"Chickens are descendants of DINSOARS" 59:00th minute.

This field is still growing and changing and making mistakes. but that is supposed to be what Science is about, self correcting. The problem is when you have politics involved and corrupt scientists.

Anyways, if he was talking about sequencing apparently not everyone is convinced...

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...confirmed.html
There was one glaring mistake, however. Asara's results suggested the Anolis lizard, a native of the Southeastern US, shared more relations with mammals than with alligators and dinosaurs. Such errors are common when working with limited sequences, Asara says.
Trusty old bones

But Mark Norrell, a verterbrate palaeontologist at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, says such obvious errors question the usefulness of molecular trees, when compared to the old-fashioned kind made by studying bones.
"It doesn't add much new," he says. "Mammoths and elephants - I mean, five-year olds know that."
Thomas Holtz, a palaeontologist at the University of Maryland in College Park agrees. "I could do a hell of a lot better with bones," he say

-----
It seems really odd to me. Aren't T-Rexs more reptilian?

There is a huge difference between a species of that kind and the avian kind. Birds not only have feathers but they have very light weight bones. I can't see a T-Rex evolving into a chicken (to me that would be de-evolving anyways lol)

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

...
-----
It seems really odd to me. Aren't T-Rexs more reptilian?

There is a huge difference between a species of that kind and the avian kind. Birds not only have feathers but they have very light weight bones. I can't see a T-Rex evolving into a chicken (to me that would be de-evolving anyways lol)

I don't think the supposition offered by the majority of the paleontological community is that modern birds descended from "dinosaurs" like T-Rex. Rather, that there were related and smaller theropods that coexisted with T-Rex and their descendants evolved into avians.

Also, with regard to "lizard-like" features amongst dinosaurs, there are two general classifications of dinosaur: Saurischians ("lizard hipped) and Ornithischians ("bird hipped").

You are correct about the "lizard like" features of T-Rex (at least the hips). I think some confusion may arise in thinking that "bird-hipped" dinosaurs were the ancestors of modern birds. They were not.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsid...ithischia.html

"Aves" or avians - "birds" developed from bipedal theropods much later. T-Rex and company came along long, long after most of the well known Ornithischians (like stegosaurus and 'brontosaurus") had become extinct. For some reason, the "bird-hipped" AND four legged model became obsolete early on.

It was when the bipedal Saurischians began to develop avian characteristics that a form which persists into today's arena was seen. Another seemingly counter intuitive thing is that pterosauria ("flying dinosaurs" like pterodactyl) did NOT evolve into birds either. They died out as well.

The "bird family tree" seems to have "bushed out" quite early on - in the Cretaceous. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0626141117.htm

[Jason B]

"Fossils don't mean anything to evolution. Forget fossils, they just aren't important."-evolutionist 1:33:50-1:34:05 minute

[pelathais]

coadie, you mentioned Russell Doolittle earlier (actually you said something like "r Duliddel") but it appears that you you have clicked through some links on the clotting issue. I have a question:

Do you understand how microbiologists use the word "scaffold?" Have you considered this phenomena when attempting to understand Behe's arguments on blood clotting being "Irreducible?"

Have you considered the problems that Michael Behe's support of Darwinian evolution represent to your statements like the the ones in the taunt above (in your last post)?

1) You quote Behe (sort of, you claimed his words as your own).

2) You taunt "evolutionists" over the issue of blood clotting.

3) You then find out that Behe is both an evolutionist and a Roman Catholic believer.

4) You taunt Behe for being a "sprinkled" Catholic and disassociate yourself from him.

5) You then return to taunting "evolutionists" with Behe's original assertions.

[coadie]

Must be a religion. They can't offer empirical evidence for the wild claims so the religious boys take Darwinism on faith.

The neo darwinist synthesis theory is nearly dead. anything else?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by coadie

Must be a religion. They can't offer empirical evidence for the wild claims so the religious boys take Darwinism on faith.

The neo darwinist synthesis theory is nearly dead. anything else?

YES! Answer the questions:

Originally Posted by coadie

Quote:
Originally Posted by pelathais
"crack pipe coadie." That's you. And everyone else agrees. Lamentably.

We all want the very best for you, but you have to want that as well.

Originally Posted by coadie

This is getting a little trashy and i suspect prax condones it

I'll make a deal with you. I will FOREVER stop calling you "crack pipe coadie" if you do the following:

1) Show us how Zerubbabel could possibly be literally descended from the paternal lines of both Solomon and Nathan, the sons of King David.

(See Matthew 1; Luke 3; 1 Chronicles 3; Haggai 1:1-2:23 and Zechariah 4:6-14).

2) Select a single fossil from the list I gave you at Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...tional_fossils) and demonstrate why this fossil DOES NOT represent a transitional form as predicted by Charles Darwin.

Deal?

[coadie]

Evolution: A Theory in Crisis is a controversial 1985 book by Michael Denton

Behe credits Denton for his awakening and beginnings of questioning the darwiniac Dogma. He even uses it as a college text. Behe has done great work for intelligent design. Another nuclear term
Creationists and evolutionists both have issues with Michael Behe.

I like Behe for his work on malaria. He covers it too much but it clarifies the issues we have with 4 groups of blood cell chains.