The Evolution Thread

Where Fellowship and Camaraderie lives: that place where the CPS membership values fun and good fellowship as the cement of the community
Post Reply
User avatar
infidel
kthxbai
kthxbai
Posts: 6483
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 6:00 pm

Post by infidel » Tue Jan 28, 2014 10:09 am

gaining_age wrote:My, Grand Canyon, you're looking younger than ever!

http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/45 ... ly-thought
I bet a creationist came up with that headline :-P
Now Professor Karl Karlstrom from the University of New Mexico, Alberquerque, has said that while the "Hurricane" segment between 50 and 70million years old and the "Eastern Grand Canyon" was cut around 15 to 25million years ago, two other parts were much younger.

The "Marble Canyon" and the "Westernmost Grand Canyon" appear to be only five or six million years old.

Professor Karlstrom said: "If you were to add up the 280-mile length and ask, 'how much is young?', more than half of it is young; a quarter of it is middle-aged - 15-25 million years old; and the rest of it is 70 million years old.
Inadvertently emboldening the cause of naïve Evolutionism since 2016.

"Who the hell ponders placentas? Dude, you're a freak of nature." - DepartedLight

"One man's saint is another man's infidel." - hugodrax

"Total. Freaking. Win." - Skip

User avatar
infidel
kthxbai
kthxbai
Posts: 6483
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 6:00 pm

Post by infidel » Thu Jan 30, 2014 1:42 pm

Del wrote:In the chaos of random brain development, we accidentally discovered language, conceptual thinking, and the transcendental concepts (like truth, goodness, and beauty).

That was lucky!
http://www.lifenews.com/2014/01/30/rese ... -and-wrong
Inadvertently emboldening the cause of naïve Evolutionism since 2016.

"Who the hell ponders placentas? Dude, you're a freak of nature." - DepartedLight

"One man's saint is another man's infidel." - hugodrax

"Total. Freaking. Win." - Skip

User avatar
Kerdy
Smootchie
Smootchie
Posts: 17020
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: North Carolina

Post by Kerdy » Fri Jan 31, 2014 7:15 pm

I'm still dumbfounded when someone says, "You don't have to believe in evolution", but when another person doesn't that someone becomes upset and sets out on a mission of conversion. When conversion doesn't happen, ridicule follows with the insinuation of a poor education, all the while revealing a hypocritical side of that someone because, apparently, evolution is a really super-duper important thing and everyone needs to acquiesce.

It's actually a little amusing to witness, in a Jackass sort of way, but I don't get it at all.
"Let it be understood that those who are not found living as He taught are not Christian- even though they profess with the lips the teaching of Christ." - Justin Martyr  ( c.160 )

“Moral principles do not depend on a majority vote. Wrong is wrong, even if everybody is wrong. Right is right, even if nobody is right.” - Venerable Servant of God, Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen

User avatar
Thunktank
Terminal Lance. Perpetual Sea Lawyer. Unicorn Aficionado
Terminal Lance.  Perpetual Sea Lawyer. Unicorn Aficionado
Posts: 22442
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Home Sweet California at the Beach!

Post by Thunktank » Fri Jan 31, 2014 7:43 pm

Kerdy wrote:I'm still dumbfounded when someone says, "You don't have to believe in evolution", but when another person doesn't that someone becomes upset and sets out on a mission of conversion. When conversion doesn't happen, ridicule follows with the insinuation of a poor education, all the while revealing a hypocritical side of that someone because, apparently, evolution is a really super-duper important thing and everyone needs to acquiesce.

It's actually a little amusing to witness, in a Jackass sort of way, but I don't get it at all.
Kerdy, you're an apostolic Christian now, right? It matters not to me if you're Orthodox or Catholic. So whether or not you "believe in" evolution or not is secondary to what you actually "believe in." I've said it before and I'll say it again, I don't "believe in" evolution. Evolution is a word to describe many underlying philosophies and processes. I do believe that evolution did take place in the material sense, yes, and I believe that God chose this method of creation. I believe the evidence is quite strong to support it. But I don't buy the whole philosophy of Darwinism as something I "believe in." Why? Because it's based in materialism and as we know the material of the universe is only part of what is.

In my experience, most apostolic Christians who reject evolution reject it either because they don't understand evolution in the material sense and attach to it certain assumptions or they understand evolution but reject it's underlying philosophy. Neither of these things are a big deal to me. But if an apostolic Christian holds to an interpretation of Scripture that isn't true then it's a sin against faith itself. But I do believe it's prudent for Christians to know who they really "believe in."

User avatar
infidel
kthxbai
kthxbai
Posts: 6483
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 6:00 pm

Post by infidel » Mon Feb 03, 2014 11:10 am

Kerdy wrote:I'm still dumbfounded when someone says, "You don't have to believe in evolution", but when another person doesn't that someone becomes upset and sets out on a mission of conversion. When conversion doesn't happen, ridicule follows with the insinuation of a poor education, all the while revealing a hypocritical side of that someone because, apparently, evolution is a really super-duper important thing and everyone needs to acquiesce.

It's actually a little amusing to witness, in a Jackass sort of way, but I don't get it at all.
It's really not that hard to understand. We all have a deep-seated urge to be right and to correct perceived wrongness. Schisms happen for as little as that.
Inadvertently emboldening the cause of naïve Evolutionism since 2016.

"Who the hell ponders placentas? Dude, you're a freak of nature." - DepartedLight

"One man's saint is another man's infidel." - hugodrax

"Total. Freaking. Win." - Skip

User avatar
UncleBob
CPS Theological Dogmatician
CPS Theological Dogmatician
Posts: 36921
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:00 pm
Location: Lubbock, TX USA
Contact:

Post by UncleBob » Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:52 am

"One man's theology is another man's belly laugh." - Robert A. Heinlein

"Many of the points here, taken to their logical conclusions, don't hold up to logic; they're simply Godded-up ways of saying "I don't like that." - Skip

"Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please." -Mark Twain

User avatar
UncleBob
CPS Theological Dogmatician
CPS Theological Dogmatician
Posts: 36921
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:00 pm
Location: Lubbock, TX USA
Contact:

Post by UncleBob » Fri Feb 07, 2014 1:37 pm

"One man's theology is another man's belly laugh." - Robert A. Heinlein

"Many of the points here, taken to their logical conclusions, don't hold up to logic; they're simply Godded-up ways of saying "I don't like that." - Skip

"Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please." -Mark Twain

User avatar
infidel
kthxbai
kthxbai
Posts: 6483
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 6:00 pm

Post by infidel » Tue Feb 11, 2014 10:48 am

http://nautil.us/issue/10/mergers--acqu ... we-and-yew
At first glance, a tree could not be more different from the caterpillars that eat its leaves, the mushrooms sprouting from its bark, the grass growing by its trunk, or the humans canoodling under its shade. Appearances, however, can be deceiving. Zoom in closely, and you will see that these organisms are all surprisingly similar at a microscopic level. Specifically, they all consist of cells that share the same basic architecture.
Inadvertently emboldening the cause of naïve Evolutionism since 2016.

"Who the hell ponders placentas? Dude, you're a freak of nature." - DepartedLight

"One man's saint is another man's infidel." - hugodrax

"Total. Freaking. Win." - Skip

User avatar
wosbald
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Posts: 20216
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Post by wosbald » Tue Feb 11, 2014 10:56 am

+JMJ+
infidel wrote:http://nautil.us/issue/10/mergers--acqu ... we-and-yew
At first glance, a tree could not be more different from the caterpillars that eat its leaves, the mushrooms sprouting from its bark, the grass growing by its trunk, or the humans canoodling under its shade. Appearances, however, can be deceiving. Zoom in closely, and you will see that these organisms are all surprisingly similar at a microscopic level. Specifically, they all consist of cells that share the same basic architecture.
“Bacteria have made a start up every avenue of eukaryotic complexity, but then stopped short.” Why?
Because they're not eukaryotes. Duh.

ImageImage

"[T]he emergency of irregular migration has to be met with justice, solidarity and mercy. Forms of collective expulsion, which do not allow for the suitable treatment of individual cases, are unacceptable."
— Pope Francis, Morocco

User avatar
infidel
kthxbai
kthxbai
Posts: 6483
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 6:00 pm

Post by infidel » Tue Feb 11, 2014 10:57 am

wosbald wrote:+JMJ+
infidel wrote:http://nautil.us/issue/10/mergers--acqu ... we-and-yew
At first glance, a tree could not be more different from the caterpillars that eat its leaves, the mushrooms sprouting from its bark, the grass growing by its trunk, or the humans canoodling under its shade. Appearances, however, can be deceiving. Zoom in closely, and you will see that these organisms are all surprisingly similar at a microscopic level. Specifically, they all consist of cells that share the same basic architecture.
“Bacteria have made a start up every avenue of eukaryotic complexity, but then stopped short.” Why?
Because they're not eukaryotes. Duh.
Eukaryotes weren't eukaryotes either, until they were :-P
Inadvertently emboldening the cause of naïve Evolutionism since 2016.

"Who the hell ponders placentas? Dude, you're a freak of nature." - DepartedLight

"One man's saint is another man's infidel." - hugodrax

"Total. Freaking. Win." - Skip

User avatar
Ethell
Brother of the Briar
Brother of the Briar
Posts: 1271
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2013 6:00 pm
Location: South-Central, PA
Contact:

Post by Ethell » Thu Mar 20, 2014 3:54 am

More "feathered dinosaur" love: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... w-species/

My favorite quote:
Though the team didn't find direct evidence of feathers, the species was so closely related to birds that it was very likely covered in feathers that looked identical to those of modern birds.
Ahem.

User avatar
tuttle
Brother of the Briar
Brother of the Briar
Posts: 13968
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Middle-west
Contact:

Post by tuttle » Thu Mar 20, 2014 8:20 am

Ethell wrote:More "feathered dinosaur" love: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... w-species/

My favorite quote:
Though the team didn't find direct evidence of feathers, the species was so closely related to birds that it was very likely covered in feathers that looked identical to those of modern birds.
Ahem.
:lol:
"The Evangelium has not abrogated legends; it has hallowed them" -JRR Tolkien

"Better to die cheerfully with the aid of a little tobacco, than to live disagreeably and remorseful without." -CS Lewis

User avatar
infidel
kthxbai
kthxbai
Posts: 6483
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 6:00 pm

Post by infidel » Mon Mar 24, 2014 3:30 pm

tuttle wrote:
Ethell wrote:More "feathered dinosaur" love: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... w-species/

My favorite quote:
Though the team didn't find direct evidence of feathers, the species was so closely related to birds that it was very likely covered in feathers that looked identical to those of modern birds.
Ahem.
:lol:
<redacted_emoji>
Inadvertently emboldening the cause of naïve Evolutionism since 2016.

"Who the hell ponders placentas? Dude, you're a freak of nature." - DepartedLight

"One man's saint is another man's infidel." - hugodrax

"Total. Freaking. Win." - Skip

User avatar
Ethell
Brother of the Briar
Brother of the Briar
Posts: 1271
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2013 6:00 pm
Location: South-Central, PA
Contact:

Post by Ethell » Mon Mar 24, 2014 8:05 pm

infidel wrote:
tuttle wrote:
Ethell wrote:More "feathered dinosaur" love: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... w-species/

My favorite quote:
Though the team didn't find direct evidence of feathers, the species was so closely related to birds that it was very likely covered in feathers that looked identical to those of modern birds.
Ahem.
:lol:
<redacted_emoji>
A lol and an eye roll! Yes!

User avatar
MacGuru
I'm a PC
I'm a PC
Posts: 4783
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Mouth of the Rat

Post by MacGuru » Mon Mar 24, 2014 8:32 pm

Ethell wrote:
infidel wrote:
tuttle wrote:
Ethell wrote:More "feathered dinosaur" love: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... w-species/

My favorite quote:
Though the team didn't find direct evidence of feathers, the species was so closely related to birds that it was very likely covered in feathers that looked identical to those of modern birds.
Ahem.
:lol:
<redacted_emoji>
A lol and an eye roll! Yes!
So to recap, birds have scales and that's OK, but fossil dinosaurs could not possibly have had feathers except for all the other Theropoda that they found with feathers still attached but we'll disregard these pesky facts.

Got it.
"If you get that you're cooler than MacGuru. And nobody's that cool."- LushMojo

Meh Meh Meh.

User avatar
Ethell
Brother of the Briar
Brother of the Briar
Posts: 1271
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2013 6:00 pm
Location: South-Central, PA
Contact:

Post by Ethell » Mon Mar 24, 2014 8:38 pm

MacGuru wrote:
Ethell wrote:
infidel wrote:
tuttle wrote:
Ethell wrote:More "feathered dinosaur" love: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... w-species/

My favorite quote:
Though the team didn't find direct evidence of feathers, the species was so closely related to birds that it was very likely covered in feathers that looked identical to those of modern birds.
Ahem.
:lol:
<redacted_emoji>
A lol and an eye roll! Yes!
So to recap, birds have scales and that's OK, but fossil dinosaurs could not possibly have had feathers except for all the other Theropoda that they found with feathers still attached but we'll disregard these pesky facts.

Got it.
Sounds like you've got the gist of it.

User avatar
tuttle
Brother of the Briar
Brother of the Briar
Posts: 13968
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Middle-west
Contact:

Post by tuttle » Tue Mar 25, 2014 6:40 am

MacGuru wrote:
Ethell wrote:
infidel wrote:
tuttle wrote:
Ethell wrote:More "feathered dinosaur" love: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... w-species/

My favorite quote:
Though the team didn't find direct evidence of feathers, the species was so closely related to birds that it was very likely covered in feathers that looked identical to those of modern birds.
Ahem.
:lol:
<redacted_emoji>
A lol and an eye roll! Yes!
So to recap, birds have scales and that's OK, but fossil dinosaurs could not possibly have had feathers except for all the other Theropoda that they found with feathers still attached but we'll disregard these pesky facts.

Got it.
No. Some dinosaurs may have had feathers, it just doesn't mean they became poultry.
"The Evangelium has not abrogated legends; it has hallowed them" -JRR Tolkien

"Better to die cheerfully with the aid of a little tobacco, than to live disagreeably and remorseful without." -CS Lewis

User avatar
AFRS
Darth Floof-Floof
Darth Floof-Floof
Posts: 9988
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: University of Mars

Post by AFRS » Tue Mar 25, 2014 8:16 am

Hmm This thread is evolving!

User avatar
MacGuru
I'm a PC
I'm a PC
Posts: 4783
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Mouth of the Rat

Post by MacGuru » Tue Mar 25, 2014 11:00 am

tuttle wrote:
MacGuru wrote:
Ethell wrote:
infidel wrote:
tuttle wrote:
Ethell wrote:More "feathered dinosaur" love: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... w-species/

My favorite quote:
Though the team didn't find direct evidence of feathers, the species was so closely related to birds that it was very likely covered in feathers that looked identical to those of modern birds.
Ahem.
:lol:
<redacted_emoji>
A lol and an eye roll! Yes!
So to recap, birds have scales and that's OK, but fossil dinosaurs could not possibly have had feathers except for all the other Theropoda that they found with feathers still attached but we'll disregard these pesky facts.

Got it.
No. Some dinosaurs may have had feathers, it just doesn't mean they became poultry.
He disagrees:

Image

and him

Image

and him:

Image

Or let's look at the Hoatzin, who at a young stage of life still has claws on their wings.

QED, Dinosaurs didn't become poultry, they WERE poultry. Big, 40-ton 50-mph poultry. With large teeth and attitude problems.

It's important to note that only members of the order Saurischia are avian candidates to our modern taxa, (these included warm-blooded, highly active members of a family that was dominantly bipedal with digitigrade stances such as Tyrannosaurs, the Ornithomimisauria, and so forth.)

Saurischians are differentiated from members of the Ornithischia, such as Ceratopsians and Sauropods, ie, Brachiasaurs, Triceratops and the like, who as an order were dominantly 4-legged. These didn't survive the Cretaceous wipeout. Birds did. Grab a chicken, look at the scales on the feet, and just think about it a sec.
"If you get that you're cooler than MacGuru. And nobody's that cool."- LushMojo

Meh Meh Meh.

User avatar
infidel
kthxbai
kthxbai
Posts: 6483
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 6:00 pm

Post by infidel » Tue Mar 25, 2014 11:16 am

MacGuru wrote:Dinosaurs didn't become poultry, they WERE poultry. Big, 40-ton 50-mph poultry. With large teeth and attitude problems.
:joy: praise the lord, I am not alone :bacon:
Inadvertently emboldening the cause of naïve Evolutionism since 2016.

"Who the hell ponders placentas? Dude, you're a freak of nature." - DepartedLight

"One man's saint is another man's infidel." - hugodrax

"Total. Freaking. Win." - Skip

Post Reply