Hold on...

[Joshua-777]

Why do we have "Faith vs. Science?"

Why are we so intent on keeping the two apart?

Maybe it's the up coming battle ground.

Because ya can't put your spirit in test tube for repeated experimentation.

[SaturnV]

SV

Edited March 12, 2007 by SaturnV

[MorningGlory]

A little helpful advice for the quotaholics on this board.....the excessive quoting is crazy making! Why not just pick your point and respond instead of posting comments so long and convoluted that people fall asleep trying to read them? The subject is interesting and bears discussion; the long windedness and hissing at each other is not.

[The Lorax]

The quoting is a good way to break down a post and address it point by point. It might seem long-winded but it is the best way to show people you aren't avoiding their points.

[SaturnV]

Since brevity is the soul of wit, and tediousness the limbs and outward flourishes, I will be brief.

[MorningGlory]

Also, there are often many things that we might want to respond to, but this would be even more confusing if we didn't quote

Totally agree that it's important to quote; my point is that some of these posts are TOO LONG. And responding to several people in one post without identifying each is just confusing.

[The Lorax]

Please – feather sprouting proto-iguanas running up and down trees for their sexual pleasure for “trillions of years” and then - zap...morphing into peacocks – who can believe it? And all that Darwinian myth was presented without any scientific evidence. And you question common sense?

This remark disappoints me a little bit. Since I sent you all those wonderful peer-reviewed articles you should know Darwinists don't believe "feather sprouting proto-iguanas" evolved suddenly into the Archaeopteryx. What did you think of the articles, by the way?

Dave's right, theropods do look eerily birdlike, and theropod fossils have been found with proto-feathers. Scientists believe that flightless birds evolved first, and that feathers served originally for insulation and maybe water resistance. Gliding birds came later. But the word "bird" is a little questionable. Believe it or not, birds are more closely related to some reptiles than another group of reptiles is to that group. This makes birds (Aves) an in-group of Reptilia. Birds should be classified as reptiles, because classification is supposed to be monophyletic--and it usually is--but birds are kept in their own paraphyletic class for the sake of ease. The bird-reptile distinction does not have a biological basis, just a pragmatic one.

And although ectothermy distinguishes birds from reptiles, it puts birds even closer to dinosaurs. Even without transitional fossils, there would still be a decent case for birds as descendants of dinosaurs, namely theropods.

Edited March 16, 2007 by The Lorax

[The Lorax]

Leapin’ lizards!I will have to confess I only briefly reviewed your examples and I saw some science, a little paleobabble and much Darwinian mythology. I will also confess I am not one to really debate websites. I’ll tell you what Angry – you go back to your referenced sites and pull out your best argument with supporting evidence for the morphing of birds to lizards (or was it lizards to birds) and I will be happy to discuss. Please use your own reasoning along the way – I want to know what your noodle thinks. Be sure to include those good old theropods.

How about this: you give the articles a thorough read--like I did--then get back to me with what exactly you think is paleobabble and Darwinian mythology. If you are having trouble understanding the paleobabble maybe I can help you, and if you reject certain parts of the article, I'd like to know why. (I don't know about you, but I've always needed a good reason to reject large amounts of information.)

[The Lorax]

No dice, Angry – get real. I have asked you before – if you have scientific evidence to support reptile-to-bird morphing as taught in Darwinian mythology then post it for review. It appears you do not have this evidence but if you do then the burden of proof is on your shoulders. I already explained I don’t debate websites. Do your own legwork. After 174 posts I still have not seen you present any proof for Darwinism. Are you a Darwinist?

You haven't given me any indication that you've so much as read the articles, and now you expect me to spoonfeed you summaries? ...Do your own legwork. Oh, and if I remember correctly, you expressed doubt that I would even be able to get you sources. Well I got you the articles, and now you won't touch them with a 10-foot pole. Funny, huh.

I already explained I don’t debate websites.

You don't debate "websites"? I linked to peer-reviewed articles that were published by scientific periodicals--which happened to be saved online. Do you debate any kind of information that isn't spoonfed to you?

If you ever put in the effort to read the articles, let me know what you think of them.

[The Lorax]

Of course the few times you have tried to do this your regurgitation crashed and burned on take-off.

Actually, something much bigger crashed and burned--a boat. An ark that crammed animals into boxes less than two feet long. An ark that left no room for food, water, air, or people. You posted an article from a creationist crank site and I showed it to be fallacious using basic arithmetic. I invite you to do the same with the sources I've provided you but, again, you won't touch them with a 10-foot pole.

Then you started PMing me and crying foul and complaining I was not being nice to you in public.

I PMed you to admonish you for posting dishonest information. Bearing false witness is a sin, but you've taken it up as a hobby. I will pray for you brother.

I will post the articles for others to read, since everyone should read them--including you HE. Since I know several links can be daunting, we'll start with just one.

http://www-hsc.usc.edu/~cmchuong/2000CurrOpinGenetandDev.pdf