Dinosaur-Bird Flap Ruffles Feathers

Yahoo!News ^ | October 10, 2005 | E.J. Mundell

[mlc9852]

MONDAY, Oct. 10 (HealthDay News) -- Head to the American Museum of Natural History's Web site, and you'll see the major draw this fall is a splashy exhibit on dinosaurs.

And not just any dinosaurs, but two-legged carnivorous, feathered "theropods" like the 30-inch-tall Bambiraptor -- somewhat less cuddly than its namesake.

The heyday of the theropods, which included scaly terrors like T. rex and velociraptor, stretched from the late Triassic (220 million years ago) to the late Cretaceous (65 million years ago) periods.

[Junior]

Sweetie, that article is about archaeoraptor, not archaeopeteryx. Two different critters.

[Junior]

It is possible that PC's mom heard "dirt" and later her memory translated it to "ground." My first wife came from a backwoods bayou family, and they were always doing things like this.

[Junior]

Polio

[Alter Kaker]

I'm not talking about a minor variation like green birds having blue offspring or slightly different beaks, I'm talking a completely new species - like a reptile into a bird.

And this is exactly why we don't take creationists seriosuly -- because clearly you don't know what a species is. A different beak shape could be a trivial thing -- a coding allele in a population -- or it could mark the divider between two discrete non-inter-breeding populations, which, in that case, would be "two completely different species." If you had been awake during your middle school biology class, you'd understand that evolution from reptiles to birds represents class evolution, not simply a new species.

If your protocol works, I'll start worshipping your god.

My God is the God of Abraham, and I don't want you worshipping Him, thank you very much. I'm sure there are other more evangelical religions that would be more welcoming of fools like yourself.

[Junior]

A joke or a jab from a position of knowledge would be readily acceptable. The same from a position of ignorance deserves all the ridicule it might garner.

[Ichneumon]

Now that you're back, please answer the questions in post #115. They shouldn't take more than about sixty seconds of your time to answer. Thanks.

[Coyoteman]

THAT'S RIGHT THE WORLDWIDE BIBLICAL FLOOD CAUSED THE FOSSIL RECORD. THE FLOOD HAPPENED ABOUT 4000 YEARS AGO!

I have asked this of others on these threads, but I have never received an answer.

I do archaeology in the western US. I have tested many sites, with good dating (not just Carbon-14 but several other methods). A number of these sites span the 3,000-5,000 year range, but have no evidence of a flood. The soil layers are intact and show a continuous record of human presence, along with faunal remains and lots of other evidence across the 3,000-5,000 year span. In otherwords, no flood!

Where do you think I am going wrong? (Please be specific.)

[js1138]

One of my best friends in college -- the best man at my wedding -- died about a decade ago of post-polio syndrome.

[metmom]

So I've been told. That's what I get for trying to concentrate whilst having two teens try to out talk each other at me while I'm trying to think.

[Junior]

A bit distracting, I'm sure.

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

We're not going to find direct transitions because in order for this to occur we would need fossils every parent, child, and subsequent descendent. Of course, such a thing is impossible.

That's not the context of Patterson's alledged out of context quote. It's about the gaps in the fossil record. Those pesky gaps that prompted Gould and Eldredge to advance the theory of "Punctuated Equilibrium".

---excerpt Talk Origins ----

"Anyone who has actually read the book can hardly say that Patterson believed in the absence of transitional forms". Lionel Thevnissen.

----excerpt Talk Origins------

"I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. . .I will lay it on the line, There is not one such fossil for which one might make a watertight argument." -- Dr. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History.

From the Talk Origin article it becomes clear that the "out of context" controversy is animated by comparing apples with oranges.

"Patterson believed" and "There is not one such fossil for which one might make a watertight argument." are the giveaway phrases in Thevnissen's Talk Origins argument.

Sunderland doesn't question Patterson's belief in Darwin's theory of gradual change over long time spans. He asks for hard evidence. Patterson says he has none. In addition Patterson speculates that there may be a problem with the fossil record. That's in understatement IMO.

This problem was pointed out by Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge in a paper initiated some years ago. It was also pointed out by Darwin himself.

[Liberal Classic]

Sorry, I don't agree. Suggesting Patterson believes there is no hard evidence is a misuse of the quote, contradicted by both Patterson's general scholarly work as well as his specific response to the quote given in the talk.origins file.

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

Sorry, I don't agree. Suggesting Patterson believes there is no hard evidence is a misuse of the quote, contradicted by both Patterson's general scholarly work as well as his specific response to the quote given in the talk.origins file.

That's not what I said.

I'm saying that the Talk Origins Article is suggesting that Patterson believes in Darwin's gradualism and it's attendant micro transitional changes in life form. Transitional life forms that fill the infamous "gaps". But he knows of no hard evidence from the fossil record that can support his belief.

Hard evidence in this context is not referring to isolated quasi factoids and speculations (i.e. Zebra to Tapir to Rhinoceros) but to real comprehensive evidence. A plethora of evidence from the fossil record indicating Darwin's gradualism is fact.

Darwin postulated a continuous system of gradual micro changes over long time spans. But the fossil record doesn't support this approach.

It's a discrete system (i.e. discontinuous).

[PatrickHenry]

Darwin postulated a continuous system of gradual micro changes over long time spans. But the fossil record doesn't support this approach.

Not quite. Darwin said that the continuum of micro changes existed, over time, for each species, but he understood clearly why the fossil record would be spotty.

The Origin of Species, by Darwin: Chapter 9 - On the Imperfection of the Geological Record.
Taxonomy, Transitional Forms, and the Fossil Record. What the fossil record is all about.

[Dimensio]

Let me propose a test for you: you create a protocol whereby one species turns into another species - I'm not talking about a minor variation like green birds having blue offspring or slightly different beaks, I'm talking a completely new species - like a reptile into a bird.

Are you suggesting that this be done in a single generation?

If your protocol works, I'll start worshipping your god

Science isn't about "worship". You blatantly misstate what science does, then you wonder why we question your competence in the field.

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

Not quite. Darwin said that the continuum of micro changes existed, over time, for each species, but he understood clearly why the fossil record would be spotty.

And it is spotty. Discontinuous is a better word. And there lies the problem. The fossil record has gaps for what ever reason. The Darwinians will give their rational for why it is so. The creationists and punk eeks will give theirs. And the controversy will continue.

Each side committed to their favorite theory. Interpreting self selected facts and quasi facts to support their side. And telling 'just so narratives' along the way.

[Ichneumon]

[Not quite. Darwin said that the continuum of micro changes existed, over time, for each species, but he understood clearly why the fossil record would be spotty.]

And it is spotty. Discontinuous is a better word.

What you're missing is that it's discontinuous IN A WAY CONSISTENT WITH EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY. It is NOT discontinous in a way consistent with creationism. Yet again, this *support* evolutionary biology and falsifies a non-evolutionary creationism. Furthermore, periodically nwe fossils are found which help fill in some of the discontinuities, and these consistently MATCH THE PREDICTIONS OF EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY. This again is stunning confirmation that evolutionary biology is correct, and creationism is wrong (see my earlier posts about the many and varied fossils which have been found fulfilling predictions of evolutionary biology, and *refuting* the confident statements of creationists about how such "missing links" would forever remain "missing" because evolution was off on the wrong track.)

And there lies the problem.

It's only a problem for creationism.

The fossil record has gaps for what ever reason.

It has gaps for the reasons stated by science, as confirmed by the fact that the gaps are of the type and nature one would expect if the scientific explanation was correct, AND confirmed by the fact that when new fossils aer fond, they help fill in the gaps in ways that science predicts they will.

Since the The Darwinians will give their rational for why it is so.

...and new findings keep confirming that the "Darwinian rationale" is the correct one. This is a classic case of theory making predictions, and the predictions being subsequently validated, which confirms the theory.

The creationists and punk eeks will give theirs.

...and new findings keep *falsifying* the creationist rationale.

And the controversy will continue.

...only among people who don't actually examine the evidence, or willfully choose to ignore it.

Each side committed to their favorite theory.

Biologists because they follow the evidence where it leads, and creationists because they ignore the evidence and believe what they want to believe. Also, creationism does not actually rise to the level of a "theory", don't pretend that it does.

Interpreting self selected facts and quasi facts to support their side. And telling 'just so narratives' along the way.

You're describing the creationists, not the scientists. The scientists develop theories which best fit *all* the actual evidence -- using "self selected facts" is not an option in science. It is, however, de riguer in creationism.

Finally, by focussing obsessively on the *gaps*, you appear to be intentionally trying to draw attention away from the way in which the "nongaps" (the actual evidence which *has* been acquired) overwhelmingly draws an unmistakable pattern of evolutionary development and interrelatedness.

There will always be gaps, in ALL collections of human knowledge. The wise man learns the lesson told by the information we *do* have -- and in the case of evolutionary biology, it is a MASSIVE amount of information -- rather than fixate on the "holes" and mumble about, "well, what might be in the holes *could* be argued either way"... Fine, but what about the vast sections of the picture where we *do* have the pieces already? These point overwhelmingly to evolution.

Here's a post of mine from last year that deals with the same fallacious "focus on the gaps, not on the data that has been acquired" hand-waving:

There are billions and billions of gaps.

Not that I've noticed. Perhaps you could support your claim by naming, say, twenty million or so of them. We'll wait.

But I see what you're driving at. You're saying that it would be premature for anyone to see any sort of pattern at all in the following, due to all those "gaps", so it must be just a meaningless scattering of dots, and no rational person would conclude that the dots indicate anything, or that closely spaced dots appearing to form a lines are anything more than a wild coincidence, since those pesky "gaps" preclude any sort of sensible connection whatsoever:

You're saying that until every single gap is filled, you can't possibly draw any conclusions from the relative positioning of the available data samplings, even when they seem to form clear patterns of connections, and fall into recognizable, meaningful results:

You're saying that it's impossible for the distribution and pattern of data points to suggest an underlying form, because the "gaps" between the data points could possibly make the final picture turn out to be something entirely different, if eventually filled in, and that the indications of the current data points mean nothing, and may just give the chance *appearance* of pattern, which anyone can mentally form into any shape through mental bias:

You're saying that while some of the pieces of the puzzle are still missing, it would be foolish, presumptuous, or impossible to make informed assumptions about what the "big picture" indicates, and what the missing pieces might look like:

I understand your point -- it's a common one among creationists/anti-evolutionists. I just think it's naive and goofy, that's all.

[PatrickHenry]

Newly added to The List-O-Links:
NEW What about gaps in the fossil record? Ichneumon's post 167.

[WildTurkey]

Are Birds Really Dinosaurs?

Ask your average paleontologist who is familiar with the phylogeny of vertebrates and they will probably tell you that yes, birds (avians) are dinosaurs. Using proper terminology, birds are avian dinosaurs; other dinosaurs are non-avian dinosaurs, and (strange as it may sound) birds are technically considered reptiles. Overly technical? Just semantics? Perhaps, but still good science. In fact, the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of birds being the descendants of a maniraptoran dinosaur, probably something similar (but not identical) to a small dromaeosaur. What is this evidence?

We'll spare you the exhaustive amount of available cladistic studies; those alone would make a large book if compiled. Dr. Jacques Gauthier, during his time as a graduate student of Professor Kevin Padian here at Berkeley, did his dissertation research on this subject, creating the first well accepted, detailed phylogeny of the diapsids. His work provided strong, compelling support for the theory that birds are theropod dinosaurs.

If we look back into the history of the issue, it is apparent that many comparative anatomists during the 16th through 19th centuries noticed that birds were very similar to traditional reptiles. In 1860, shortly after the publication of Charles Darwin's influential work On the Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection, a quarry worker in Germany spotted an unusual fossil in the limestone of the Solnhofen Formation (late Jurassic period). This fossil turned out to be the famous 'London specimen' of Archaeopteryx lithographica. It was a beautiful example of a "transitional form" between two vertebrate groups (traditional reptiles and birds); just what Darwin expected would eventually be found. Archaeopteryx, generally accepted as being the oldest known bird, is an important link between birds and other coelurosaurs that has helped to illuminate the evolutionary history (phylogeny) of the group. It is not widely held to be the ancestor of all living birds; this is a common misconception. In fact, recent expeditions in China, Mongolia, Madagascar, Argentina, and elsewhere may uncover dinosaurs that usurp the "urvogel" status of Archaeopteryx.

Many scientists, including Thomas Henry Huxley (a staunch suppporter of Darwin), saw incredible similarities between birds and the theropod dinosaurs (especially the coelurosaurs). Others since Huxley also hinted at the striking resemblances. However, birds were still not well accepted as dinosaur descendants — such hypotheses as A. Walker's "crocodylomorph" ancestor and G. Heilman's "thecodont" ancestor held sway for most of the 19th and 20th century, or else birds were simply dismissed as originating from some unknown reptile that didn't matter anyway. That would change. Dr. J.H. Ostrom's 1969 description of Deinonychus antirrhopus and its similarities to Archaeopteryx was the major step: his work since the 1970's has provided the impetus for a paradigm shift in paleontologists' visions of the origin of birds and the evolution of flight. Dr. Gauthier's cladistic work in the mid-1980's provided the best analytical systematic support for the theory that birds are the descendants of dinosaurs. Several independent analyses by other scientists have repeatedly upheld Gauthier's results. Today the important issue seems to be specifically which dinosaurs are the closest relatives of birds. The controversy over the dinosaurian status of birds had its heyday in the 1970's, but the coverage of the issue today by the press might make you think it was still a problematic matter. For those that have actually seen the relevant specimens and considered all of the relevant data (which is a basic procedure for any scientist), it is becoming increasingly difficult to draw the line between "bird" and "non-avian dinosaur".

Some researchers today do not agree that dinosaurs gave rise to birds, and are working to falsify this theory, but so far the evidence for the theory has swamped their efforts. If they were to conclusively establish that birds are more likely descended from another group (Crocodylomorpha, the group containing crocodiles, has been suggested), that would be a major upheaval in our knowledge of phylogeny. One single well-preserved fossil bird unequivocably of Triassic age might shed some doubt on the theory of the maniraptoran affinities of birds. That would be a major find. Some bird-like fossils have been presented as Triassic birds, but so far have not held up under peer review. Such is the dynamic nature of science.

So you may be thinking now, what are these striking resemblances between birds and other dinosaurs? The ratite birds, three of which are pictured in this article, are quite similar to theropod dinosaurs. Some of the similarities may be superficial, but others may be too obvious to dismiss, and in any case all available data must be considered. We'll start with the "reptilian" similarities of birds. Like all other reptiles, birds have scales (feathers are produced by tissues similar to those that produce scales, and birds have scales on their feet). Also, birds lay eggs like other reptiles. The soft anatomy (musculature, brain, heart, and other organs) all are fairly similar; birds are more derived in some aspects owing partially to their endothermic metabolism and their ability to fly. There are numerous skeletal resemblances between birds and other reptiles; these form the basis of the cladistic analyses done by Gauthier and others.

Coelurosaurian dinosaurs are thought to be the closest relatives of birds, in fact, birds are considered to be coelurosaurs. This is based on Gauthier's and others' cladistic analyses of the skeletal morphology of these animals. Bones are used because bones are normally the only features preserved in the fossil record. The first birds shared the following major skeletal characteristics with many coelurosaurian dinosaurs (especially those of their own clade, the Maniraptora, which includes Velociraptor):

Pubis (one of the three bones making up the vertebrate pelvis) shifted from an anterior to a more posterior orientation (see Saurischia), and bearing a small distal "boot".
Elongated arms and forelimbs and clawed manus (hands).
Large orbits (eye openings in the skull).
Flexible wrist with a semi-lunate carpal (wrist bone).
Hollow, thin-walled bones.
3-fingered opposable grasping manus (hand), 4-toed pes (foot); but supported by 3 main toes.
Reduced, posteriorly stiffened tail.
Elongated metatarsals (bones of the feet between the ankle and toes).
S-shaped curved neck.
Erect, digitgrade (ankle held well off the ground) stance with feet postitioned directly below the body.
Similar eggshell microstructure.
Teeth with a constriction between the root and the crown.
Functional basis for wing power stroke present in arms and pectoral girdle (during motion, the arms were swung down and forward, then up and backwards, describing a "figure-eight" when viewed laterally).
Expanded pneumatic sinuses in the skull.
Five or more vertebrae incorporated into the sacrum (hip).
Straplike scapula (shoulder blade).
Clavicles (collarbone) fused to form a furcula (wishbone).
Hingelike ankle joint, with movement mostly restricted to the fore-aft plane.
Secondary bony palate (nostrils open posteriorly in throat).
Possibly feathers... this awaits more study. Small, possibly feathered dinosaurs were recently found in China. It appears that many coelurosaurs were cloaked in an external fibrous covering that could be called "protofeathers."
Objections to the theory of the dinosaurian origin of birds

Some researchcers have raised issues that may seem to make the theropod origin of birds difficult to support, but these difficulties are more illusory than substantial. One proposed difficulty is the gap in the fossil record between the first known bird (Late Jurassic) and the dromaeosaurs, probable sister group of birds (Early Cretaceous). This overlooks the blatant fact that other maniraptoran coelurosaurs, such as Ornitholestes, Coelurus, and Compsognathus, are known from strata of Late Jurassic age. If other maniraptorans were there, it logically follows that the ancestors of dromaeosaurs were there. Fragmentary remains of possible dromaeosaurs are also known from the Late Jurassic.

Other arguments, such as the putative differences between theropod and bird finger development, or lung morphology, or ankle bone morphology, all stumble on the lack of relevant data on extinct theropods, misinterpretations of anatomy, simplifying assumptions about developmental flexibility, and/or speculations about convergence, biomechanics, or selective pressures. The opponents of the theropod hypothesis refuse to propose an alternative hypothesis that is falsifiable. This is probably because there are no other suitable candidates for avian ancestors. "Thecodonts" are often promoted as such, but this is an obfuscatory, antiquated term for a hodgepodge of poorly understood and paraphyletic, undiagnosible reptiles. The problems cited by such opponents for theropods are often more serious for the "thecodont" pseudo-hypothesis. Finally, such opponents also refuse to use the methods and evidence normally accepted by comparative evolutionary biologists, such as phylogenetic systematics and parsimony. They rely more on an "intuitive approach," which is not a method at all but just an untestable gestalt impression laden with assumptions about how evolution must work.

The "controversy" remains an interest more of the press than the general scientific community. There are more interesting issues for scientists to explore, such as how flight performance changed in birds, what the earliest function(s) of feathers was(were), when endothermy arose in some archosaurs, which group of theropods was ancestral to birds, how theropod ecology changed with the acquisition of flight, why some bird groups survived the Cretaceous extinction of other dinosaurs, etc.

Without its feathers, Archaeopteryx looks much like a small coelurosaur such as a dromaeosaurid or troodontid.

The facts are resoundingly in support of a maniraptoran origin for birds; certainly a theropodan origin at the very least. So when you see a hawk diving to snatch a dove, or an egret darting for fish, or an ostrich dashing across the African savanna, know that you are gaining some insight into what the extinct dinosaurs were like. However, do note that extant (living) birds are quite different from extinct dinosaurs in many ways, so it's not safe to assume that all dinosaurs are the same. For that matter, extant birds are quite different from Jurassic and Cretaceous birds. Time passes, the environment changes... life evolves. Extant birds have been separated evolutionarily from the other coelurosaurian dinosaurs for some 150 million years, so they do look, act, and function quite differently, but science has shown us that they are closely linked by their common evolutionary history.

[WildTurkey]

Dinosaurs became birds, yup, that's worth taking about, that's real news.

Of course in our polite, politically correct society we no longer laugh at the insane, we call them "Doctor" and shake our heads knowingly or is it condencendlingly, when they say, with a straight face, "Billions and billions of years ago, after the acid rained on the rock and diosaurs got tired of having diaosaurs they started branching out and had birds.

They had these birds by mating with other dinosaurs, but they had gold finches isntead of T-Rex's.

Well I guess we should thank God they haven't tried to convince us that it was birds that came first.

Could be these guys are the answer to 2 Timothy 3:1-5. And Peters scoffers.

Do I detect envy and jealousy in your post?

[WildTurkey]

Obviously all the home-schooled in the group and you never got a proper education in evolutionary biology or you wouldn't be making such stupid posts.

[WildTurkey]

Bearing false witness is a sin.

Not if you are a "Soldier of God"

[gitmo]

Two bambiraptors battle over territory.

[WildTurkey]

What happens to you after you die?

Earth to Earth ...

And you don't know otherwise.

[VadeRetro]

And it is spotty. Discontinuous is a better word. And there lies the problem.

We have the fossil record our models of evolution and geology tell us we should have. Nevertheless, we also have a lot of naysaying Witch Doctors doing strawman arguments which Darwin anticipated and answered in 1859. This is unfortunate and the reasons for it have nothing to do with science. We have the fossil record our models of evolution and geology tell us we should have. It doesn't stop people whose religion compels them to misrepresent science, but we have the fossil record our models of evolution and geology tell us we should have. Some people will be back again dumb as a stump with the same garbage no matter how often their arguments are discredited, but ...

We have the fossil record our models of evolution and geology tell us we should have.

[WildTurkey]

Each side committed to their favorite theory.

Only ONE side has a theory.

[whattajoke]

Could be these guys are the answer to 2 Timothy 3:1-5.

So I looked it up, not knowing the bible by heart.
3:1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
3:2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3:3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
3:4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
3:5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

Um, ok. So posting on Free Republic about scientific findings makes us somehow responsible for your end-times prophecy?

2 adjectives stand out - false accusers and incontinent. You have accused the Boston Museum of Science of employing an outright fool, who played into your cute little homeschooled kids' trap. I'm not calling you a liar, how would I know? But God certainly knows if those conversations actually occurred. And you can't tell me you haven't been incontinent recently.

[From many - one.]

Frankly, I am seriously unimpressed with those kids. Dishonest and major bad manners. I would hope homeschooling would produce a better result.

[OKWNORD]

Where do you think I am going wrong? (Please be specific.)

Find a book called the BIBLE, ask the HOLY SPIRIT to help increase your faith, and study BIBLE diligently. If your are sincere, GOD WILL allow you to understand what you are now not able to understand.

If you want miracles from ME, sorry, I'm just a mortal man.

[PatrickHenry]

Where do you think I am going wrong?

Now you know.

[OKWNORD]

BUT, Just for a minute try to imagine what our paradise, the mansion that Jesus is now building for us must be like, for He has been working on it for some 1,973 years so far. I feel bad for the evolutionist, I feel bad for anyone that thinks this earth is worth being called home. A man much wiser than me said: "For those of us who are truly Born Again Washed in the Blood of the Lamb Christians, this time on earth is the closest we ever come to hell, but for those who are unsaved, this time on earth is their heaven." Jake

I like those thoughts. I think this also applies: (1CR 2:9) But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. Trying as hard as my pea brain can, there is no way to imagine what good things God has planned for us.

I feel bad for the evolutionist

I can't understand how they can be so arrogant! They're 40, 50, maybe 60 years old and they want to match brain power with GOD. He's eternal and knows the thoughts in their heads before they think them. I believe they have a case of: (Jer 17:9)The heart [is] deceitful above all [things], and desperately wicked: who can know it?

AKA Jake

[Coyoteman]

THAT'S RIGHT THE WORLDWIDE BIBLICAL FLOOD CAUSED THE FOSSIL RECORD. THE FLOOD HAPPENED ABOUT 4000 YEARS AGO!

=============

I have asked this of others on these threads, but I have never received an answer.

I do archaeology in the western US. I have tested many sites, with good dating (not just Carbon-14 but several other methods). A number of these sites span the 3,000-5,000 year range, but have no evidence of a flood. The soil layers are intact and show a continuous record of human presence, along with faunal remains and lots of other evidence across the 3,000-5,000 year span. In otherwords, no flood!

Where do you think I am going wrong? (Please be specific.)

=============

Find a book called the BIBLE, ask the HOLY SPIRIT to help increase your faith, and study BIBLE diligently. If your are sincere, GOD WILL allow you to understand what you are now not able to understand.

If you want miracles from ME, sorry, I'm just a mortal man.

=============

I have provided a case in which the global flood, in which you apparently believe, did not, in the best judgement of scientists, occur.

Fine. No problem. But you at least admit your belief comes from religion. That's more than a lot of folks on these threads admit. And I do thank you for the reply.

I think this is the exact place where many of us disagree. I base what I know on science, subject to change with new data. You base your belief on religion. We're OK so far.

The problem for me comes with the attempt to insert religion into the schools under the guise of ID. To do so, someone has to contradict the example I cited, and thousands of other examples in this and other fields.

Anyway, at least you are honest in this post and where you are coming from. I do appreciate it.

[OKWNORD]

What happens to you after you die? Earth to Earth ... And you don't know otherwise

Oh, don't be so sure of that.

See Luk 16:19, There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:

Luk 16:20 And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,

Luk 16:21 And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.

Luk 16:22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;

Luk 16:23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

Luk 16:24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.

Luk 16:25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.

Luk 16:26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that [would come] from thence.

Luk 16:27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:

Luk 16:28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.

Luk 16:29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.

Luk 16:30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.

Luk 16:31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

While body of the rich man and Lazarus were buried, their spirit/souls remained conscious in some dimension/place/new location. They could think, feel, see, understand. One part of this location was for the wicked waiting judgment. The other portion was for those individuals who would be bodily resurrected at some future time (wedding supper of the LAMB). There is a divide between the two places that can't be crossed. Once a person dies the opportunity to repent is past and your eternal destiny is fixed. The rich man was now concerned about his brothers still living on earth. Abraham said they should listen to Moses and the prophets (The Old Testament). The rich man seems to imply that his brothers were not concerned with Moses and the prophets. He suggests sending Lazarus back from the dead to shock his brothers into believing. However, Abraham understanding the wickedness of this family, knew that even the miracle of a bodily resurrection of Lazarus wouldn't make these brothers repent.

Remember, this was told by Jesus and Luke doesn't say this was told as a parable. I think JESUS was telling about an actual event (JESUS being both GOD and man would know). So, if a person has placed their faith in JESUS having died for their sins, as I have, then I KNOW what happens after I die and where I spend eternity.

Thanks for your time.

[js1138]

Incontinent?

[OKWNORD]

The problem for me comes with the attempt to insert religion into the schools

Back in the fifties when I was in grade school, Christian religion was present in schools I went to. There were murders then, robberies took place and there were bad people among us. Over all though, it was not a bad time to be a child and I credit Christianity for that.

The contrast between then and now is mind warping.

Today Christianity ist verboten. JESUS can not be mention for fear of the ACLU and others. I am amazed at the garbage and filth that todays children see on a daily basis. I don't see that stuff is leading us to a better world. In fact, this is the only evolution I believe in, downward evolution of our civilization.

Anyway, at least you are honest in this post and where you are coming from. I do appreciate it.

Thanks, I wish you success in your research.

[Dimensio]

Today Christianity ist verboten.

Are you saying that it's forbidden for children to be Christian? Mind explaining where you think this is the case?

[Dimensio]

Back in the fifties when I was in grade school, Christian religion was present in schools I went to. There were murders then, robberies took place and there were bad people among us. Over all though, it was not a bad time to be a child and I credit Christianity for that.

Yet you can't actually make a logical connection to support the claim. Funny that.

[jennyp]

Popcorn is-a-poppin', just waitin' for the denouement PLACEMARKER.

[PatrickHenry]

Incontinent?

That's what you are, until you depart from North America. Then we'll say that you are ex-continent.

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

Some people will be back again dumb as a stump with the same garbage no matter how often their arguments are discredited, but ...

Then why debate with them? There is a saying: "Never debate a fool....he'll bring you down to his level and beat you with experience."

[js1138]

Here's one for the quote mine.

Back in the fifties when I was in grade school, Christian religion was present in schools I went to. There were murders then, robberies took place and there were bad people among us... I credit Christianity for that.

[VadeRetro]

Do I detect a yearning for a free pass?

[PatrickHenry]

Yeah, but this stuff is easy (which is why the creationists do it instead of actual science). Here's one of my favorites -- every word is, more or less, from Scripture:

"Verily I say unto you ... it came to pass that ... both the daughters of Lot were with child by their father ... go and do thou likewise."

Note to abuse-button pushers: the foregoing is a joke.

[js1138]

Then why debate with them? There is a saying: "Never debate a fool....he'll bring you down to his level and beat you with experience."

It depends on the reason for debating. If you think we debate to convince our opponents, you are wrong. Most of us have been here long enough to have gotten over that illusion.

Most of us debate to demonstrate to lurking enemies of FR that some of us understand biology. It is sad when the opponents of evolution can't even describe correctly what they oppose.

Since the CBS/Rather affair, FR has lots of enemies in the mainstream media. I personally don't want to see FR dismissed as easily as we dismiss DU -- a bunch of ignorant, partisan hacks who cannot tolerate substantive debate.

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

Finally, by focussing obsessively on the *gaps*, you appear to be intentionally trying to draw attention away from the way in which the "nongaps" (the actual evidence which *has* been acquired) overwhelmingly draws an unmistakable pattern of evolutionary development and interrelatedness.

"The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic change; and this, perhaps is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be used against my theory." Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, 1859.

The gaps go to the heart of Darwinian orthodoxy. Darwin posited a continuum of micro changes over vast time spans. A continuous system not a discontinuous system.

If it can be demonstrated scientifically that the evolution of life is in fact discontinuous and not continuous, then Darwin is falsified.

Science has already falsified Creationism of the Morris-Gish variety. However Punctuated Equilibrium (PE) and Intelligent Design (ID), are still in play.

PE has the advantage in that it doesn't require an intelligent agent but has a problem with the mechanism of change. Very quick jumps between species are required. Jumping genes anyone?

ID has the same advantage that PE has (no problem with the fossil record) but posits an intelligent agent as the mechanism for change. It has the disadvantage in that the intelligent agent may be beyond the capabilities of science to identify.

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

touche

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"The gaps go to the heart of Darwinian orthodoxy. Darwin posited a continuum of micro changes over vast time spans. A continuous system not a discontinuous system."

Why didn't you post the rest of Darwin's statement where he explains why the spottiness of the fossil record is not a problem? That only a very very tiny percentage of organisms ever become fossilized? Is it too much to expect that an ID/creationist would actually try to give a quote in its proper context so that it doesn't say the opposite of what the author meant?

"PE has the advantage in that it doesn't require an intelligent agent but has a problem with the mechanism of change. Very quick jumps between species are required. Jumping genes anyone?"

The mechanism of change is still natural selection working on mutations; the time period is over 10's of thousands of years instead of hundred's of K or a million.

"ID has the same advantage that PE has (no problem with the fossil record) but posits an intelligent agent as the mechanism for change. It has the disadvantage in that the intelligent agent may be beyond the capabilities of science to identify."

May be? lol Nobody has shown how it is in any way possible to identify the *designer*.

[jennyp]

BRAVO!

[Stone Mountain]

I sent an email to the museum telling them about this controversy and pointing them to this thread. Here is the reply I received:

Dear (Stone Mountain),

I am writing in response to your question about an on-line forum. The Boston Museum of Science does believe teaching evolution is very important. We are just in the process of opening a new exhibit on the topic. I am a bit confused by the discussion since first, I assure you that our educators are more able to support the Museum's position and second, we do not give tours. I would like to continue this discussion with you, but perhaps you can give me some more information. I have reviewed the on-line discussion and see that near the end the original poster identifies our museum as the one in question. Some of his statements, however, make me wonder if he was correct in this identification.

Sincerely, Mike Alexander Manager of Public Programs

[Stone Mountain]

ping for post 199.