Creationism vs Evolution thread.

[Seangoli]

Wow. Just wow.

Even Richard Dawkins the famous biologist dosen't even estimate the duration of our species on Earth that LONG. Max would probable about 250.000 years and minimum is 100.000 years. I do hope you just made a typo.

From what I read, and what I have watched... the genus "Homo"( we as humans are Homo sapiens) have been around for about 1.8 million years. Our species "sapiens" has only been around for 50,000 years. The Human Species

Er... no. Homo sapien have been around for about 100k-150k years ago. Some contend that H. erectus should be included in our species as well, so it could technically be argued for much earlier than even that. You are confusing Behaviorally modern humans (H. sapiens sapiens) with our species (H. sapiens), which does have at least one other broadly recognized subspecies, H. sapiens idaltu. The major difference between the groups has little to do with actual biology, and more to do with the complex behavior in modern H. sapiens.

[Seperates]

Wow. Just wow.

Even Richard Dawkins the famous biologist dosen't even estimate the duration of our species on Earth that LONG. Max would probable about 250.000 years and minimum is 100.000 years. I do hope you just made a typo.

He's probably referring to something aside from Homo sapiens sapiens. Like Homo erectus.
EDIT: Both are Humans, really.

And....................... What would that be for evidence?

You know, I have evidence for Spider-Man. All the comic books, you see they wrote it so it must be true right? I mean come on, no one is an atheist to Spider-man!

Spider-man: Falsifiable.
God: Unfalsifiable.

One can be proven or disproven, and so argumentation is possible.
The other can be neither proven, nor disproven, so argumentation is silly and unproductive.

Really? You think that the concept of deities is unfalsifiable? Well, then... you'll still have to go and prove that your God is the right God among other believers of all the other dieties out there... that have just as much proof as you.

I guess theism is mostly just a matter of gullibility. How many things are you willing to hear before you ask for, nay, demand evidence?

[Seangoli]

Quick question.

When it comes to transitional stage fossils, what exactly about them keys us in that they were transitional stages, and not merely their own species that went extinct? If the wording of that question even makes any sense. ;^_^

we can't really tell that, exactly. like, we can't know that this particular population - let alone individual - had offspring that eventually resulted in currently existing species. so instead we call anything with the right sorts of mixed features 'transitional'. the basic idea is that a transitional form is a species that has traits in common with both earlier ancestors and later descendents.

archeopteryx is an absolutely stunning example - a proto-bird with flight feathers and claws on its wings, teeth in its mouth, and a long bony tail.

Most stunning perhaps is the lack of a keel on the breastbone, which is something that all modern birds have (Or at least the ones meant for flight). Essentially it lacked the anchoring bones for powerful flight muscles. So while it was most certainly capable of flight, it was not meant for the type of flight you see in modern birds. Which is why those who say "it's just a bird" are laughable idiots. It is transitional not only in morphology but also in implied behavior, as the necessary equipment for flight in modern birds isn't there. It truly was a prototype for birds.

[Katganistan]

Once upon a midnight dreary, while I pondered, weak and weary,
Over many a quaint and curious volume of forgotten lore,
While I nodded, nearly napping, suddenly there came a tapping,
As of someone gently rapping, rapping at my chamber door.
" 'Tis some visitor," I muttered, "tapping at my chamber door;
Only this, and nothing more."

Ah, distinctly I remember, it was in the bleak December,
And each separate dying ember wrought its ghost upon the floor.
Eagerly I wished the morrow; vainly I had sought to borrow
From my books surcease of sorrow, sorrow for the lost Lenore,.
For the rare and radiant maiden whom the angels name Lenore,
Nameless here forevermore.

Ah, Poe.

[Katganistan]

I voted but, come on people. This is the 21st century, not the bronze age. We've cast away the prophet for the scientist a long time ago.

Unfortunately, some folks want to drag us all back into ignorance, because if science is correct then where does that leave their religion that they take far too literally?

[Hallistar]

He's probably referring to something aside from Homo sapiens sapiens. Like Homo erectus.
EDIT: Both are Humans, really.



Spider-man: Falsifiable.
God: Unfalsifiable.

One can be proven or disproven, and so argumentation is possible.
The other can be neither proven, nor disproven, so argumentation is silly and unproductive.

Really? You think that the concept of deities is unfalsifiable? Well, then... you'll still have to go and prove that your God is the right God among other believers of all the other dieties out there... that have just as much proof as you.

I guess theism is mostly just a matter of gullibility. How many things are you willing to hear before you ask for, nay, demand evidence?

"Nuuuu that cannot be true because bible feels better than the quran and i know of no contradictions and i can feel christ around me and youre all going to hell!"

"Subhanallah the quran is perfect and is the unadulterated word of god and any that claim there are bad things in it are false prophets and i have seen muhammad in my dream"

"Yeah well..my unfalsifiable god has a bigger d--k than yours! *epic combat music starts*

[Katganistan]

Interesting debate.

I find it somewhat ironic though that the Soviet Socialist Republic - in the real world, a centrally sponsored atheist state who persecuted the church - is standing up for religion!

I find it terrible that anybody would want to persecute religion, the the USSR did to religious people was terrible, the religions tried to spread love kindness and morality to that country and the government hated them for that. I havent the slightest idea why atheists are atracted to communism and socialism more than theists but religion stands for many things socialism stands for, love, helping those around you, if anything religion makes you more socialist.

Or in other words i dont let my economic belifes interfere with my religion.

The Church also helped keep the peasant happy and pacified and promised rewards in the afterlife so they wouldn't rebel. If you think the Church has ever been apolitical, you need to study your history.

[Hallistar]

Interesting debate.

I find it somewhat ironic though that the Soviet Socialist Republic - in the real world, a centrally sponsored atheist state who persecuted the church - is standing up for religion!

I find it terrible that anybody would want to persecute religion, the the USSR did to religious people was terrible, the religions tried to spread love kindness and morality to that country and the government hated them for that. I havent the slightest idea why atheists are atracted to communism and socialism more than theists but religion stands for many things socialism stands for, love, helping those around you, if anything religion makes you more socialist.

Or in other words i dont let my economic belifes interfere with my religion.

Religion is what enabled the church to keep the fuedal system operating, you know, where hundreds of serfs lived a horrid lifestyle to serve some fuedal lord all for the promise of heaven.

[Coccygia]

Billy the Hobo with the ten pound Adam's Apple is not a legitimate scientist.
P.S. Fossils. Fossils. FOSSILS. *throws ammonite* FOSSIL!

Fossils. Even more proof creationism. They have proven dating methods to be wrong over and over again. Even creatures that died just a few hours or days before being radiometric dated have been dated as being thousands of years old.

I will almost certainly regret this...but I don't suppose you have a source for that, do you?

[Moutere]

archeopteryx is an absolutely stunning example - a proto-bird with flight feathers and claws on its wings, teeth in its mouth, and a long bony tail.

Most stunning perhaps is the lack of a keel on the breastbone, which is something that all modern birds have (Or at least the ones meant for flight). Essentially it lacked the anchoring bones for powerful flight muscles. So while it was most certainly capable of flight, it was not meant for the type of flight you see in modern birds. Which is why those who say "it's just a bird" are laughable idiots. It is transitional not only in morphology but also in implied behavior, as the necessary equipment for flight in modern birds isn't there. It truly was a prototype for birds.

Except that the Ratites (Ostrich, Emu, Kiwi) are an extant group of avians that also lack a keel. Are we also to say that the Ostrich is not really a bird but a transitional form between archaeopteryx and birds capable of flight?, wouldn't that be laughably idiotic?

There is also the Hoatzin an avian with claws on its wing digits, are these also NOT-birds? (admittedly I've never seen one irl, so perhaps they are a myth)

[Mavorpen]

Except that the Ratites (Ostrich, Emu, Kiwi) are an extant group of avians that also lack a keel. Are we also to say that the Ostrich is not really a bird but a transitional form between archaeopteryx and birds capable of flight?, wouldn't that be laughably idiotic?

There is also the Hoatzin an avian with claws on its wing digits, are these also NOT-birds? (admittedly I've never seen one irl, so perhaps they are a myth)

What does this have to do with anything?

[Tlaceceyaya]

archeopteryx is an absolutely stunning example - a proto-bird with flight feathers and claws on its wings, teeth in its mouth, and a long bony tail.

Most stunning perhaps is the lack of a keel on the breastbone, which is something that all modern birds have (Or at least the ones meant for flight). Essentially it lacked the anchoring bones for powerful flight muscles. So while it was most certainly capable of flight, it was not meant for the type of flight you see in modern birds. Which is why those who say "it's just a bird" are laughable idiots. It is transitional not only in morphology but also in implied behavior, as the necessary equipment for flight in modern birds isn't there. It truly was a prototype for birds.

Except that the Ratites (Ostrich, Emu, Kiwi) are an extant group of avians that also lack a keel. Are we also to say that the Ostrich is not really a bird but a transitional form between archaeopteryx and birds capable of flight?, wouldn't that be laughably idiotic?

There is also the Hoatzin an avian with claws on its wing digits, are these also NOT-birds? (admittedly I've never seen one irl, so perhaps they are a myth)

An ostrich IS a bird. Its ancestors abandoned flight, though. That's why it has wings but they are tiny. Your first paragraph is described by the last two words of itself.

[Wikkiwallana]

archeopteryx is an absolutely stunning example - a proto-bird with flight feathers and claws on its wings, teeth in its mouth, and a long bony tail.

Most stunning perhaps is the lack of a keel on the breastbone, which is something that all modern birds have (Or at least the ones meant for flight). Essentially it lacked the anchoring bones for powerful flight muscles. So while it was most certainly capable of flight, it was not meant for the type of flight you see in modern birds. Which is why those who say "it's just a bird" are laughable idiots. It is transitional not only in morphology but also in implied behavior, as the necessary equipment for flight in modern birds isn't there. It truly was a prototype for birds.

Except that the Ratites (Ostrich, Emu, Kiwi) are an extant group of avians that also lack a keel. Are we also to say that the Ostrich is not really a bird but a transitional form between archaeopteryx and birds capable of flight?, wouldn't that be laughably idiotic?

There is also the Hoatzin an avian with claws on its wing digits, are these also NOT-birds? (admittedly I've never seen one irl, so perhaps they are a myth)

You seemed to have missed something, let me help.

[Zutroy]

I find it terrible that anybody would want to persecute religion, the the USSR did to religious people was terrible, the religions tried to spread love kindness and morality to that country and the government hated them for that. I havent the slightest idea why atheists are atracted to communism and socialism more than theists but religion stands for many things socialism stands for, love, helping those around you, if anything religion makes you more socialist.

Or in other words i dont let my economic belifes interfere with my religion.

The Church also helped keep the peasant happy and pacified and promised rewards in the afterlife so they wouldn't rebel. If you think the Church has ever been apolitical, you need to study your history.

Yes, and a purported communist of all people should know how malignant religion is.

The United Soviet Socialist Republic, would you like to know why atheists are attracted to communism? Because it clearly rejects religion. That's because it's far more than a set of "economic belifes." It's a social theory rooted in a philosophy known as materialism that explicitly rejects the existence of God or any other immaterial beliefs -- which the social theory goes on to explain is a force that retards progress and perpetuates class division, hence the term "opiate of the masses."

[Tlaceceyaya]

The Church also helped keep the peasant happy and pacified and promised rewards in the afterlife so they wouldn't rebel. If you think the Church has ever been apolitical, you need to study your history.

Yes, and a purported communist of all people should know how malignant religion is.

The United Soviet Socialist Republic, would you like to know why atheists are attracted to communism? Because it clearly rejects religion. That's because it's far more than a set of "economic belifes." It's a social theory rooted in a philosophy known as materialism that explicitly rejects the existence of God or any other immaterial beliefs -- which the social theory goes on to explain is a force that retards progress and perpetuates class division, hence the term "opiate of the masses."

He changed his beliefs after he got the account.

[Zutroy]

Yes, and a purported communist of all people should know how malignant religion is.

The United Soviet Socialist Republic, would you like to know why atheists are attracted to communism? Because it clearly rejects religion. That's because it's far more than a set of "economic belifes." It's a social theory rooted in a philosophy known as materialism that explicitly rejects the existence of God or any other immaterial beliefs -- which the social theory goes on to explain is a force that retards progress and perpetuates class division, hence the term "opiate of the masses."

He changed his beliefs after he got the account.

Judging from his posts, it doesn't sound like it.

[Seangoli]

archeopteryx is an absolutely stunning example - a proto-bird with flight feathers and claws on its wings, teeth in its mouth, and a long bony tail.

Most stunning perhaps is the lack of a keel on the breastbone, which is something that all modern birds have (Or at least the ones meant for flight). Essentially it lacked the anchoring bones for powerful flight muscles. So while it was most certainly capable of flight, it was not meant for the type of flight you see in modern birds. Which is why those who say "it's just a bird" are laughable idiots. It is transitional not only in morphology but also in implied behavior, as the necessary equipment for flight in modern birds isn't there. It truly was a prototype for birds.

Except that the Ratites (Ostrich, Emu, Kiwi) are an extant group of avians that also lack a keel. Are we also to say that the Ostrich is not really a bird but a transitional form between archaeopteryx and birds capable of flight?, wouldn't that be laughably idiotic?

There is also the Hoatzin an avian with claws on its wing digits, are these also NOT-birds? (admittedly I've never seen one irl, so perhaps they are a myth)

1. You missed the qualifying statement about all birds that fly have it, and certain non-flying forms do as well. So there ya go.
2. As the Ostrich is a modern extant species I would find it rather odd for it to be some sort of transitional species between an extinct species and current extant species.
3. My point was that the archaeopteryx's behavior was also transitional, as implied by the lack of a keeled sternum. It was capable of flight, as is obvious from the form and type of feathers it had. However, it was not fully capable of the degree of flight seen in all modern type birds as it lacked an anchoring point for the muscles needed for such flight.
4. The hoatzin is an example of a bird which retains primitive features.

Really, I have no idea how the hell you got any of what you are trying to say out of my post. In fact I'm not entirely certain what you are trying to say at all.

[Moutere]

Except that the Ratites (Ostrich, Emu, Kiwi) are an extant group of avians that also lack a keel. Are we also to say that the Ostrich is not really a bird but a transitional form between archaeopteryx and birds capable of flight?, wouldn't that be laughably idiotic?

There is also the Hoatzin an avian with claws on its wing digits, are these also NOT-birds? (admittedly I've never seen one irl, so perhaps they are a myth)

You seemed to have missed something, let me help.

The point is the Archeopteryx was a bird that lacked a keel exactly like the Kiwi is a bird that lacks a keel. Lack of a keel is not evidence that the Archeopteryx is not a bird.
The evidence of the Archeopteryx is that it is a bird with some strange traits rare in other birds. The kiwi is the only bird with external nostrils at the end of its beak, it remains a bird not something else...

and although Archy might have had a size and wings capable of flight we have no evidence that it actually could do more than glide.

[Mavorpen]

You seemed to have missed something, let me help.

The point is the Archeopteryx was a bird that lacked a keel exactly like the Kiwi is a bird that lacks a keel. Lack of a keel is not evidence that the Archeopteryx is not a bird.
The evidence of the Archeopteryx is that it is a bird with some strange traits rare in other birds. The kiwi is the only bird with external nostrils at the end of its back, it remains a bird not something else...

and although Archy might have had a size and wings capable of flight we have no evidence that it actually could do more than glide.

Recent researchshows that it isn't a bird, but is instead a non-avialan dinosaur closely related to the origin of birds.

[Tmutarakhan]

Except that the Ratites (Ostrich, Emu, Kiwi) are an extant group of avians that also lack a keel. Are we also to say that the Ostrich is not really a bird but a transitional form between archaeopteryx and birds capable of flight?, wouldn't that be laughably idiotic?

There is also the Hoatzin an avian with claws on its wing digits, are these also NOT-birds? (admittedly I've never seen one irl, so perhaps they are a myth)

An ostrich IS a bird. Its ancestors abandoned flight, though. That's why it has wings but they are tiny. Your first paragraph is described by the last two words of itself.

No, its ancestors did not "abandon" flight. The ratites never did fly, and used their feathered arms only as a warming cover for the body. They branched off before flight became a specialty of the other birds.

[Avenio]

The point is the Archeopteryx was a bird that lacked a keel exactly like the Kiwi is a bird that lacks a keel. Lack of a keel is not evidence that the Archeopteryx is not a bird.
The evidence of the Archeopteryx is that it is a bird with some strange traits rare in other birds. The kiwi is the only bird with external nostrils at the end of its back, it remains a bird not something else...

and although Archy might have had a size and wings capable of flight we have no evidence that it actually could do more than glide.

The various forms of flightless birds diverged from the rest of the birds that could fly relatively shortly before the extinction of the dinosaurs; their ancestors evolved to fill terrestrial niches left vacant after the dinosaurs went extinct, and in many cases lost the bones associated with flight in the process. New Zealand, home of the kiwis and moa and whatnot, is an example of a Gondwanan ecosystem, a throwback to an era when large mammals hadn't yet evolved or spread to a significant degree to overtake older groups. Prehistoric South America, before the land bridge in Central America was formed, was another example of an area where birds remained dominant, and was in fact dominated by a group of giant predatory flightless birds known as the phorusrhacids, or 'terrorbirds'.

EDIT: Fixed something.

[Tmutarakhan]

The kiwi is the only bird with external nostrils at the end of its back

It can fart in stereo?

[Ski Apache Nation]

Well, it all boils down to:
Do you believe God created something somewhere down the line (which? where)?

Or do you believe in a creator-less universe from nowhere (where did it come from)?

Hard options for mere humans *snicker*

[Ifreann]

The kiwi is the only bird with external nostrils at the end of its back

It can fart in stereo?

I want this to be true

[Hallistar]

Well, it all boils down to:
Do you believe God created something somewhere down the line (which? where)?

Or do you believe in a creator-less universe from nowhere (where did it come from)?

Hard options for mere humans *snicker*

You forgot the third choice of "God didn't necessarily have to create the universe, and where it came from ultimately still has yet to be determined empirically".