The Four-Winged Dinosaur
In 2002, the discovery of a beautiful and bizarre fossil astonished scientists and reignited the debate over the origin of flight. With four wings and superbly preserved feathers, the 130 million-year-old creature was like nothing paleontologists had ever seen before. In this program, NOVA travels to the Chinese stone quarry where the fossil was discovered (a famed fossil treasure trove) and teams up with the world’s leading figures in paleontology, biomechanics, aerodynamics, animation, and scientific reconstruction to perform an unorthodox experiment: a wind tunnel flight test of a scientific replica of the ancient oddity. Dubbed Microraptor, the crow-sized fossil is one of the smallest dinosaurs ever found and one of the most controversial, challenging conventional theories and assumptions about the evolution of flight. But how did Microraptor use its wings? Did it array its arm- and leg-mounted wings in the style of an early 20th-century biplane to produce high lift at low speed? Did it use them to create a single lifting surface for efficient, swift gliding? Did it employ some combination of these two methods? Or were the extra wings useless for flight and likely to have been for some other purpose, such as attracting a mate?
To answer these questions, NOVA interviews Chinese paleontologist Xu Xing, who first recognized the importance of Microraptor and gave it its name; paleontologist Mark Norell and artist Mick Ellison of the American Museum of Natural History; paleontologist Larry Martin of the University of Kansas; anatomist Farish Jenkins of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University; and aerodynamicist Kenny Breuer of Brown University. In addition, NOVA commissions a “flight-ready” wind tunnel model of Microraptor complete with feathers and articulating joints. Artists have historically played an important role in paleontology by helping to reconstruct the appearance and behavior of ancient animals. In the case of Microraptor, two completely different reconstructions were made, one at the American Museum of Natural History, and the other at the University of Kansas, based on different specimens and different techniques. The two markedly different reconstructions play into a long-running scientific controversy over the origin of flight in birds. For years the debate has been a standoff between two camps—those who believe dinosaurs were the ancestors of birds, and those who do not.
Watch the full documentary now
December 1st, 2009 at 12:53
This film is regurgitated, it is a big Joke. It was already IDed as a bird and found to be a purposely faked attempt to “prove” dino to bird evolution…the evolution crowd is up to it’s old tricks trying to disprove creation by going to the efforts agian to rebroadcast this bit of forgery to make you think it is true- like they still do with proven faked pilt and faked cro-mag man fossil foolery in schools. bottom line- evolutionist are so desperate to prove God does not exist they will make up lies to cover the truths of creation and go to the trouble faking the age of the earth as well. it was proved 25 years ago that in granite a specific radioactive particle could not form over time -. but had to be formed nearly instantaneously to be there- it could not exist in the evolutionist model of earth’s formation of millions of years with granite’s supposed molten state they believe in. Science is full of assumptions and few facts to make the evolution claims…. do your own research on the geology of the radioactive particle in granite i brought up. i will not say from where, so as to have you search in a none biased fashion I may lead you- all you need is the truth, not from me or some lying evolutionist jerk’s opinion but it will set you free once you do see.
December 2nd, 2009 at 01:24
You just keep talking to the zombie carpenter in the sky.
December 2nd, 2009 at 04:10
sick of the lies:
I will not even look, because it is the same old thing with you religious folks.
You will not say from where, because 10 to 1, it is from a creationists site!
Am I correct?
December 2nd, 2009 at 06:07
Sick of the Lies:
I know what you are talking about. They are called: Polonium Pleochroic Halos.
Polonium’s half life is measured in minutes, or perhaps even seconds, as I recall, and leaves “halos” in the rock. Particles that leave halos in rocks can do so over many years in most cases, but the particle you mentioned are a true scientific mystery, unless the rock was made instantly solid without burning up the particle inside which has a very very short half life. It would help if you posted a link from a scientific source rather than a religious source, as it would be more credible for people like Achems Razor, but I do understand that rarely do scientific sites post thier weekness rather than thier strengths.
But, you are right, apart from instant “creation” of the granit in which the Polonium Pleochroic Halos are found, no scientist has yet formed a plausible answer to the mystery, and it should not be dismissed so easily by the non-religious.
You’re welcome, by the way.
December 2nd, 2009 at 14:16
Kelly K:
What scientific weaknesses, are you referring to specifically?
For one thing, Robert Gentry is a Physicist, not a Geologist.
How about a counter claim?
Google-”Polonium Haloes” Refuted. By Thomas A. Baillieul.
I want to thank you at least for not using any circular logic.
December 3rd, 2009 at 02:29
Achems Razor:
This was a very good article by Thomas A. Baillieul. Thank you for taking the time to look it up for us.
The scientific weaknesses I was referring to was the fact that the possibility of instant creation of primordial rock and ergo, the world, (by God we assume) or any other form is never even considered as a possibility.
A quote stuck in my mind that was humorous from another source: “Your theory doesn’t go along with my theory, so your theory must be wrong!” Both religious and non religious people are quite guilty of that logic equally, I have found.
One quote from Baillieul is as follows:
“The development of fractures in the grains of mica after crystallization has occurred, and the migration of radon along these fractures over the course of millennia, is much more in keeping with current geologic models of rock formation. Thus, the radon hypothesis is more attractive than Gentry’s model since it fits the observed evidence and doesn’t require supernatural occurrences.”
Are there visible cracks by which the radon has traveled? Wouldn’t a “crack” still be visible under a microscope? That seems easy enough to verify. It seems to me they are trying to think of anything that might discredit the creationist scientist because he believes differently than they.
Why do we not just allow at least the possibility that “Polonium Haloes” are a work of creation, rather than trying so hard to prove otherwise? Perhaps the creationists are right on some things, but not on everything.
Even if the granit was cooled immediately by water (another theory) the Polonium would have been destroyed nearly instantly by the heat of multon rock before the cooling, as I understand it.
I would also think that Robert Gentry would be extremely careful in his analisys of the Polonium halos to actually be Plonium halos and not something else which would also cause the same circles, but if the halos could difinitively be proven to be not as Robert Gentry says, I would suspect they would write a short definitive 2 paragraph refute rather than such a long one. Logically. It was a bit technical for me to understand as I don’t have much background in geology. I’m more interested in biology.
So after sorting through both arguments, I concluded either rightly or wrongly that the mystery does indeed remain a mystery with only theories to how it came about.
If I’ve missed something really big, you can let me know what it was in a nutshell, but otherwise, I won’t loose sleep over either theory. Thanks again for the article.
KK
December 3rd, 2009 at 03:16
Kelly K:
You are welcome.
I guess it does go against scientific paradigm, to suggest everything was created instantly. But on a scientific perspective, I would not class that as a scientific weakness.
I agree, “Nobody knows everything” Whether it be Naturalism, or Supernatural Revelation.
I do not believe that it was cooled by water instantly, that to me does not make sense. Water from where? collision with a
water planet?
Yes, no doubt a mystery, but from one theory (scientific) the other is a belief, (creationism)
We probably both, missed something really big. But if the conclusions are not as yet irrefutably presented, how are we to know.
So in a nutshell, the scientific theory, and the creationist’s belief, are assumptions.
Sleep good. And thank you for the reply.
December 3rd, 2009 at 05:05
Achems Razor: That was well enough said!
KK
December 3rd, 2009 at 08:18
I really don’t know if this animal was a bird (with teeth and a long tail and claws on its wings) or a dinosaur with feathers. I suppose either is theoretically possible. I know there are some birds even now that are born with claws on thier wings but loose them as they mature.
Anyway, I found it interesting that only 30 of these birds have been found, but no other forms similar in that forest. Logically, they seem to be very few in number, but still 30 have been found. So, if there were many forms leading up to it and from it into various animals and birds, then looks like we would find them too if they were there. Just a tought.
This animal was awesome, and perhaps one-of-a-kind like the platypus is now, but the fact remains that it’s a perfect animal, and not a link as they would have us believe.
Sick of the lies: I don’t think they’re fakes this time. But they did waste half the documentary pushing evolution rather than appreciating the wonderful animal that unfortunately we no longer have at this time in the world as God’s unique creation of the past.
December 3rd, 2009 at 08:22
P.S. I really enjoyed the documentary nonetheless! Thanks again, Vlatko!
I wish I had been a palientologist sometimes. I’ve always loved dinosaurs, and so does my son. I think all kids do.
December 3rd, 2009 at 18:13
Not a problem Charles B. You’re welcome.
December 3rd, 2009 at 18:40
It’s funny how the two groups of scientists are having such a heated debate about this. I guess that’s what happens when you take sides though. No one wants to be wrong, so the truth becomes less important than being the winner. Personally, I strongly believe that this animal is the result of an accident involving a time machine and a faulty teleporter.
December 6th, 2009 at 22:10
So, just because you cant explain something it must be the work of a god? Come on. The stone age called and asked to get their intelligence back.
The earth has been flat as well before it was proved it was actually a globe and the religious people refused to believe that theory long after it was presented. Get a grip.
December 8th, 2009 at 11:05
Sick of the Lies:
Wow, man!
I have to appologize to you. You suggested this might be a hoax like before and I thought you were just being unscientific or overly reactive to a new find as it’s so easy to disprove “hoaxes” now, but Xing Xu IS a known hoaxer! I just got this e-mail from the Institute of Creation Research. I’ll have to research this out myself more carefully, but I just wanted to say I was sorry for disbelieving your comment. Let’s both “trust by verify” this following letter from ICR:
The e-mail quote is as follows:
“Dear Charles,
Thank you for your inquiry about the supposed dino-bird discovery. Sensation proclamations by evolutionists, promising though they may be, will eventually reveal the unbiased truth that the structure is not a transitional dinosaur-to-bird, but a species within a kind – if not another hoax. Xing Xu (featured in several of these findings) was a major player in the National Geographic hoax when he thought that a feathered dinosaur was found (‘Feathers for T. rex? National Geographic 197(3) March 2000). Evolutionists will see what they want to see, despite the overwhelming scientific and biblical evidence to the contrary, much of which has been provided by ICR on “Archaeoraptors” and related dino-to-bird reports through the years. For now, it is best to take a wait-and-see position and allow for a more thorough investigation to reveal the truth. . . .
Bruce Wood
Communications Liaison
Institute for Creation Research”
December 8th, 2009 at 11:33
Charles B., just to comment on the last portion of your first comment. “Pushing evolution rather than portraying it as God’s unique creation”. I know it is hard for some religious people to accept but this is a scientific documentary but people who are skeptical of this would like to see how it might be possible using our scientific institutions rather than just claiming it is God’s creation. Sure there will be more inquires into this and evolutionists I’m sure were the first ones to call fake before the public first saw it and probably will continue till we test it thoroughly until they come to a unanimous decision.
December 8th, 2009 at 11:43
Tom: Ok. I understand. Most scientist have a great amount of integrity, I’m sure. Just as long as everything is on the up and up. They have used fakes in the past for pushing their agenda of evolution for years and years before facts came to light, and then sometimes even then. It helps not at all to falsify findings. Let’s wait and see what developes. Peace.
December 10th, 2009 at 08:28
Wow, I must say I have enjoyed reading the comments and such from my initial first comment as to this subject. Charles B. thanks for the further research on your part and the apology, you didn’t need to apologize…we all have to come to terms with our own realities. I believe that to truly use all scientific points of verification on any subject, that one cannot dismiss any plausible solution, including that of a Creator. Just as one can see a figure of a face in a cloud and another see something entirely different in the same cloud, so such is scientific reasoning.
Bottom line with the BIG EVO/CREATION debate is that theoretical assumption for most of the liberalistic anti-God science community is in itself a religion with no answers but faith that they are right, and they never will find the answers.. Creationist already have religion and are not in denial that it is religion and don’t have an assumption as to anything but perhaps a young or old earth hypothese, and only because the radiocarbon dating crowd confuses them thanks to the evolutionistic teaching in public schools.
I called Dawkins out on the Polonium particle halos findings, but since this issue has been out for over 25 years and he hasn’t touch it,it is obvious he is avoiding it, since him and all these evolutionist are so busy lying to school kids and making money with TV documentaries it is easy to see why they avoid telling truth of fossil record.
December 11th, 2009 at 06:56
oh, sure, sick of lies, why not? our “bathala” created the whole world after all. anyway, ever heard of bathala? may not, because he is just one of thousands gods out there.
btw, its the year 2009, its no longer the middle ages. education are taught on schools and not on churches, by teachers and not by priests, by the state and not by churches.
December 11th, 2009 at 08:15
Sure, Daven, I have heard of Bathala, but you do mean Anak Bathala, right, I don’t want to get it wrong.. How about Moloch, ever hear of him Daven?
As to the year, it is not really 2009, the Chines have a calender that dates us at around 4600 or so I believe… Thank the Roman’s for the present calander
AS to your comment, and I quote you…”education are(is) taught on(in) schools and not on(in) churches, by teachers and not by priests, by the state and not by churches.” HERE IN LIES THE PROBLEM FOLKS… What we have here is a classical example of PUBLIC EDUCATION GONE WRONG, WE HAVE HERE A WARD OF THE STATE RUN EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM THAT HAS FAILED US AND STILL DOING SO WITH KIDS COMING OUT OF “SCREWLS”, er, I MEAN SCHOOLS(IF YOU CAN CALL THEM THAT). As education is being run by the state, the state controls what you learn, see, hear, eat and obviously think… Oh DAVEN, PLEASE TELL ME IT AIN’T SO! It SOUNDS SO SOCIALIST. You do know that Moloch is master to those that over see your SOCIALIST STATE RUN EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM RIGHT?
December 11th, 2009 at 17:41
LOL. I have to admit that was kinda funny, talking about education and getting the grammar all wrong. However, SoL, state-run education isn’t really that terrible. It can be pretty appalling sometimes, but that’s because we take it for granted. In reality, we’ve come a long way from having no education system at all. And by the way, I’ve attended private and public universities, and they teach basically the same things. Since most of what people learn in school is math, writing, history, languages, and other fundamental skills and factual information, there isn’t really a whole lot of room for the state to brainwash anyone with its ideas. Even at the university level, the state doesn’t micromanage what you see, hear and think. All the opinions come from the professors. And most of the professors at state-run universities (or even elementary and high schools) don’t care what you think, or sometimes even if you learn anything. Most of the information they give you is ideologically neutral anyway. So unless you’re talking about the evolution/ID/creation debate, there really isn’t much of a problem.
December 12th, 2009 at 23:42
Sick of Lies…. Different video – same troll same dogma. Get a life or hang out with the other candle burners please
December 13th, 2009 at 19:14
hey Steve w!
I got a great life! I’m 44yrs old, 4 kiddos 12 years to 14 months! Life is GREAT! I AM BLESSED!
As to your comment,”or hang out with other candle burners”- You know,I see the evo/creation debate as just that.
With a creationist belief you have the candle burning steady one end, upright, burning from the top to the bottom and with the evolutionary belief you have the candle burning at both ends with one end burning with the denial of intelligent design and the other end burning with the hopes you are 100% right so the atheist doesn’t have to answer to that Creator…. Sadly put- IF there is NO Creator and the atheistic model is RIGHT,I(as a believer in God),you and all atheists have nothing to worry about,ever….However, IF Creation IS RIGHT and there IS a GOD, you and all atheists have everything to worry about through out your lives grappling with the idea of your evolutionary thinkings because all of you spend all your time trying to prove your own Darwinistic teachings to each other and call all religious peoples crackpots.
All we religious “crackpots”, don’t care what you believe, all we do is just put the egg in the skillet for you to cook it( the idea being there is something more than and bigger than yourselves) and watch you burn it up as you grapple with the argument within your self absorbed humanistic terms… As to the same dogma, yes, that is what this video is… the same old dogma to put doubts in minds with tripe and falsehoods fabricated as fact to bolster an evolutionist belief and to make the supposedly educated and uneducated alike, believe there is no God.
December 13th, 2009 at 20:54
SoL, you’ve claimed several times that we atheists and evolutionists believe in nothing greater than ourselves and are self-absorbed. Please back up these insults with some evidence.
December 14th, 2009 at 04:44
Tim,
I would not go far as to say I’m insulting anyone, but if you have such strong feelings about my having faith in God and you are insulted by that, well then, I’m glad you are.
I would say the term “the self” for your side of it,is just that, very self-absorbed,as this selfism/humanistic thought process is a deification or idolatry of man and his own works, by putting himself at the godhead.
I will quote here, Ernest Renan in “The Future of Knowledge: Thoughts on 1848″, he stated: “It is my deep conviction that pure humanism will be the religion of the future, that is, the cult of all that pertains to man— all of life, sanctified and raised to the level of a moral value.“ This for the humanists, sounds like self-absorbed thinking to me by putting man above his own Creator, but, since you or any other atheist won’t hear of it and feel insulted by this or any other such revelation,it must be primarily a deeper than we can act upon here quibbling,so I would suggest actually seeking the truth in your heart by instead of ignoring that maybe there is a Creator, dig in and find out.
After World War II, there were three humanists who where the first directors of the major divisions of the United Nations: Julian Huxley of UNESCO, Brock Chisholm of the World Health Organization, and John Boyd-Orr of the Food and Agricultural Organization… and with keeping the humanist idea we see now the mess the UNESCO, WHO and FAO is doing nowadays creating a Unitarian World Order, Go read up on the Georgia Guidestones and see where this humanist thinking is heading… it requires the world’s human population to be reduced to 500,000,000. To do this Billions would have to die. If anything, it shows me that selfism/humanism teaches that man’s worth is nothing more than that of an animal to be manipulate by his masters, ergo- the masters you atheists would rather kneel to, than your Creator. Like I said before, I was a die hard evolutionist most of my life until my eyes opened. The problem I had before I turned to intelligent design at first was getting past the fairytale fantasies I was lead to believe as child that fostered my belief in the atheistic model. What turned me around was NOT some bible thumpers, but my own homework into the unanswered questions of life, it’s origins, and what was here before it all began in this material world…. nobody knows,nobody has any answers, nobody will. People like Dawkins just muck it up, people like you and me muck it up. Why? Because a child of three will have just as good of an answer as the most educated physicist. This is of course just my own variant, no less or better than you can come up with. I know is is a stretch for the atheist whether he/she likes it or not the book of Ephesians has a lot of answers about life for you to digest. We may argue until the cows come home. I am not wishing an argument, I stated that this movie is fallible tripe and just another falsehood of evolutionary claims. Please deal with it by researching yourselves and while you are at it, research the Truths in our arguments, as they lay with the Creator, not me. MERRY CHRISTMAS ALL!
December 14th, 2009 at 14:42
Sick of Lies………..
I`m sorry I upset you with my euphemisms about getting a life, etc. Clearly I have to be more succinct.
I suppose my point is that as you obviously get so upset about videos and comments regarding modern day scientific findings and discussions regarding evidenced matters you should redirect your energies to more satisfying pursuits: ie preaching to the converted to coin a phrase.
The reason however for you trolling such matters as these is not to help US understand your “reality” but more so to try to convince yourself. It must be very disappointing to have your faith so severely tested day in day out, constantly having to twist scripture to fit. I wish you the best of luck doing so but in the meanwhile I suggest you reduce your blood pressure by trolling some content more preferential to your beliefs.
Your comments about eugenics by the way… Wasn’t “God” the original eugenicist? I seem to remember a children’s story or something about a flood and a big boat which amongst other things must have carried some penguins and polar bears.
December 14th, 2009 at 16:40
Case point, Steve, your comment above is an most average attempt to twist your own feelings and your own attempts to explain away God in your own life… you assume I have been upset, on the contrary, you seem to be more so than most, which is a text book response from an atheistic viewpoint. I don’t have a need to grapple with my thought processes as to my faith. The best argument that your side can achieve is to make out anything I have to suggest as fantasy, well I can say that your side of the argument is fantasy in it face, then your more “upset” than I and throw back even more tripe than the video above. God and Eugenics, ah, eugenics… Steve,I have supplied Wiki’s definition for you: “Eugenics is the study and practice of selective breeding applied to humans,with the aim of improving the species. In a historical and broader sense, eugenics can also be a study of “improving human genetic qualities.” Advocates of eugenics sought(past tense) to counter what they regarded as dysgenic dynamics within the human gene pool, specifically in regard to congenital disorders and factors relating to the heritability of IQ.” Eugenics is man trying to play God, not God playing with man, a Creator made us perfect as He saw fit, that’s why, we(man)cannot improve on ourselves, we merely cannot as we are not gods ourselves… We can try and “play God” but thats just a child’s fantasy. How are we to improve ourselves, anyway, grow a few extra appendages maybe? Would that really be an improvement? Wonderous eugenics, another failed attempt to replace a Creator by selfism/humanistic means. The Flood Story is not a childern’s story, Steve W., there are written accounts through out antiquity with the story amid the same lines as what you may remember “seeming or something about” as a child, I suggest actually reading more on that to get the cobwebs out. Again, it is not my faith in God being tested, it is the atheistic model that cannot handle being called out. So, again, these attempts to criticize, are expected. For the atheist to see passed his closed minded commitment to deny his Creator, is expected. Again, do your own research, as I have, and see for yourself how you have been lied to and lead to believe in the humanistic evolutionary model. In fact, go check out the cavitation process… it can explain away a lot as to erosion and the “millions of years” theory , plus the sedimentary- i.e., the Grand Canyon. In fact here is a link: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ , So,don’t come back here and argue with me anymore, argue with Prof. Brown, he is smarter than us in many ways, check his bio FIRST…. the site contains things the old earth evolutionists cannot handle to hear. No, this is not my basis to all my leanings… I have many, mostly from my own dealings and groundwork with this subject personally over many years and well before there was an internet which now makes it a breezy to explore, and manipulate Truths into lies.
No hard feelings all around, Steve W, Tim, Patsy, Daven, Charles B., I have enjoyed it, it would be nice to sit at a table together and fellowship(er,argue). Merry Christmas ALL and to the atheist-enjoy your godless week off work!
December 14th, 2009 at 18:56
SoL, how can you be so unaware that you are insulting people? Do I have to point it out to you? And when did I say i was insulted by your faith in God? I have no problem with your faith. I have a problem with you slandering entire groups of people.
Selfism and humanism are NOT the same philosophy. Selfism is an obsession with ones own interests with no regard for the interests of others. Very few people in the world actually support this philosophy. They are mostly sociopaths, as those are the only people who are truly and completely self-centered. Humanism on the other hand is a vague term that refers to a philosophy of respect for all humans, regardless of gender, race, creed, etc. Humanism is not necessarily opposed to Deism, but there are definitely humanist movements that reject the idea of any supernatural forces. Even these branches of humanism do not deify humanity, as it would be IMPOSSIBLE to deify anything if you don’t believe in deities.
Since you chose to quote Ernest Renan, you should know that he wasn’t a very good example of a humanist. He was a racist, and you can’t be a humanist and a racist at the same time. But you also missed the point of that quote entirely. You condemn this kind of thinking as “self-absorbed,” but how can it be self-absorbed? Isn’t “all life, sanctified and raised to the level of a moral value,” the very OPPOSITE of selfishness? Isn’t this a very central Christian value– that all life is sacred? Humanism is not self-centered, it is HUMAN-centered. That’s the difference between humanism and selfism.
Look, if you want to criticize people for not believing in God, fine. But don’t spread lies about us. Just because we don’t agree with your religion doesn’t mean we’re evil people. Selfism and humanism are NOT equal. You cannot equate the whole of humanity to the individual self. Nor can you attribute the beliefs of a few humanists that you claim want to wipe out billions of people to the beliefs of all humanists. That would be like saying Osama Bin Laden is a Muslim, and he wants to kill Americans, therefore all Muslims want to kill Americans. Or Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK, therefore everyone born in New Orleans must be dangerous. The logic does not work.
If you used to be an atheist, I don’t understand why you feel such bitterness towards atheists. Were you as self-absorbed and foolish as you believe all other atheists to be? Did you deify human beings? Did you believe that humans were worth only as much as other animals? I’d like to know, because since you level these charges at all other humanists/atheists/evolutionists, and you claim you were an atheist yourself, then must have been just as bad as you think we are, unless you were somehow the sole exception.
December 14th, 2009 at 19:11
Ok… I think this debate is going astray. Everyone involved please read the Commenting Policy.
December 14th, 2009 at 19:14
Darn. Vlatko is right. We should move this to the forums. Thanks V.
December 15th, 2009 at 05:09
Vlatko is right,Tim… at least we can agree on that.
December 15th, 2009 at 05:40
Sorry, Vlatko.
I doubt anyone ever really goes to the “forums”. It is like being sent to Cyber Siberia! I can hear the lonely howling winds now, and all the lonely echos: “Hello! Is anybody reading my posts?!? Hello! You can even insult me if you like, just at least talk to me!”
It’s ok. I’m about to leave on vacation for a long time to the tropics without a computer anyway!
Tim, SOL, and Steve enjoy your exile!!! I shall miss you all NOT on my vacation.
December 15th, 2009 at 18:09
It’s true, Charles. No one ever reads the forums. So sad =(
December 15th, 2009 at 20:07
Yes you are all right. The forum is one lonely place. But I believe it will grow. Actually it does but very slowly.
@Charles I wish you a pleasant trip and a vacation of your dreams. I hope we’ll hear from you again. Regards.
December 15th, 2009 at 22:45
Charles B:
Tropics? Must be nice.
Where I live, right now it is 45 degrees below zero.
Have a good one!
December 16th, 2009 at 02:00
Mr. Razor: When I first saw your pen name, I figured you were in Egypt or somewhere before I learned it was a philisophical argument term. LOL Guess not if it’s that cold now.
I don’t leave until after Christmas when school ends, but I plan to have a nice new year in my shorts in the Philippines with my wife’s family.
December 16th, 2009 at 02:18
Charles B;
You thought I was an Egyptian? Just because “I walk like an Egyptian”
does not mean “I talk like an Egyptian”.
No, actually I am a Canadian in Canada. EH!
Usually it is not this cold, a cold front moved in, it will be warmer in a few days, around 15 to 28 below. Shorts time.
December 21st, 2009 at 08:07
Exile?
I had not gone anywhere, Charles B. bahalana!
December 21st, 2009 at 10:13
Mr. Razor: You made me laugh!
Canada’s a nice place, but I don’t think I’d enjoy the winters there. Summers, ok!
SOL: You’ll have to hold down the fort for the believers while I’m on vacation. By far the most irritating I’ve encountered for a long time is REB. Best of luck. Cheers! In the words of John Hammond from Jerassic Park about Dr. Malcom: “I really don’t like that man!”
December 22nd, 2009 at 17:11
@Sick of Lies
‘evolutionist are so desperate to prove God does not exist’
I think you have it the wrong way around, Creationists are the body that are seeking to prove the existence of a God. Evolutionary Theory doesn’t require a God, that doesn’t neccesarily mean it seeks to destory a God.
December 24th, 2009 at 02:53
@David
Yes, exactly. Thank you.
December 24th, 2009 at 03:19
David and Tim: It may be true that in theory evolution doesn’t seek to destroy the existence of God, but in practical every day life, I’ve not found that to be true. Atheists use “evolution” as a club to argue against God and Christians in general. You have to also admitt that to be true. “Patsy” is a prime example on the blind watchmaker thread of this in action.
December 24th, 2009 at 04:23
Charles: Yes, you’re right. Though there is nothing in the theory of evolution that states that any kind of divine or supernatural beings cannot exist, it is often used as an argument against the existence of the Abrahamic God, mainly because it directly contradicts the Genesis creation story and the idea that the world is roughly 6,000 years old. This in turn leads one to question the authority of the Bible, the existence of God, etc., etc. However, even in the predominantly Christian U.S., only about a third of the population completely rejects the possibility of evolution (depending on where you get your poll information of course). This means that there are a lot of Christians in this country that don’t interpret the Biblical creation story literally. And, yeah, I forgot what I was talking about.
January 1st, 2010 at 23:53
Fascinating! It’s like a mystery story with clues 100 million years old. Watch this one when you can devote your whole attention to it.
January 10th, 2010 at 21:14
it is quite funny to think of these beautiful birds we see today as dinosaurs as they claim.
anyway… everything could have evolved but not as the scientists are trying to prove it. as if it was a great puzzle.
let us say things were created and each categories of animal evolved a little perhaps. like some people develop some sort of resistance to disease or some human can get darker with inter racial intercourse…or cross pollination in plants.
but i see it very very far-fetched that one amoeba became man or a bird, ….would have to account for the time for them to evolved, which is more than the time our planet exist, and i can sense that the scientists who are normally accurate are growing more uncomfortable to suggest so many accident of nature to have happen to give so many new species. to account for their massive extinction is easy but each new spiecie discovered means as many new accidents of nature. it should start to become embarassing for the scientists.
it is easy for the wright brother to build artificial wings than to grow actual wings and feathers from their arms or feet.
let’s speculate, could become a phd theme for some folks
perhaps for some times in the history of the earth before man ‘was send’ down, animals could have been exposed to radioactive materials that deformed them and reform them and as the earth became less radio active evolution subsided. or the oxygen rich environment could have increased evolution?? it’s just a theory lol, no fact yet…
moreover i feel that to suppose that no evolution at all happened, is perhaps a bit too radical.
i’m using the word i feel or sense, because it is how i see things as an external observer, not as an expert. lol peace no war.
January 11th, 2010 at 14:38
/sigh
[Youtube] “Why do people laugh at creationists?”
/facepalm
January 30th, 2010 at 03:05
I can’t believe that this debate is serious. Outside of the few Islamist theocracies that exist today, only in the US could such utter tosh as creationism be taken seriously by more than the lunatic fringe of the populatio. but not in the us, oh no! More that 50% of the population believe that god had a role in the emergence of humanity. Either by direct creation or by kickstarting evolution. And where has all this religious fervour gotten vou? it gives you leaders like Nixon, Reagan and the two Bushes and they’re just the worst of a bad lot. I’m in my 60s and all my life I’ve watched the American led by the nose into one disastrous adventure after another in the name of god, country and freedom. For Jesus’ sake, waken up before these nutters destroy you and the rest of us along with you. I’ve lived in the states and I know that by and large americans are open kind and generous but to fool them you only have to invoke the name of god. It would be funny if it wasn’t so tragic
January 30th, 2010 at 03:58
It never ceases to amaze me how anyone can look upon th wonder of DNA and belivee it occurred on its own. The chance of this happening is like throwing a handfull of car parts in the air and when they come to rest you have a working automobile, get serious. And all the nonsense of human evolution, we can’t have come from apes or a common ancestor (with the apes), we don’t have the same number of chromosomes! That there is a entity behind everything is obvious. Mankind created religion, God created mankind.
January 30th, 2010 at 04:05
Two more points, Gen. describes the Big Bang to a T, something we didn’t stumble on until recently, yet primitives knew of it eons ago. I wondow how? Lastly, if climbing down from the trees, forming social groups and using tools worked our brains and jump started evolution to produce Humans, why are Chimps still where they are, why haven’t they evolved into another branch of Humans? And since they have two more chromosomes than Mankind, shouldn’t they be better positioned than we to take advantage of Natural Selection? Stop drinking the dope handed you from public education, there is something going on behind the curtain, call it Intelligent Design or whatever, but it isn’t evolution.
January 30th, 2010 at 05:03
No Evolution?? Right!
Than why do humans have?
At 4 weeks, a well formed tail, coccyx?
Have wisdom teeth?
Appendix?
Tonsils?
Why are humans made in the image of animals, instead of a completely
different species?
January 30th, 2010 at 06:51
Grow up, we have similar DNA, many of the genes match – hence the changes during gestation. BUT we do not have the same number of chromosomes as primates (ir apes) therfore it is impossible for us to be directly related. Hence evolution is not facftual. PERIOD! Look at our skin, the fat layers, we have hair not fur, our muscle structure is different. We have nothing in common with the apes. Then again maybe we all misunderstand evolution. Maybe we didn’t evolve from apes but rather toads. FYI our DNA isn’t far removed from amphibians either. Do you really think the diversity of life on this planet just popped and it was there. Look at DNA, how many Billions od years would it take for natural selection to develop this blueprint. Ain’t never gonna happen. As far as the useless (?) articles within us, we probably did use them at one time in our past. Just like your brain, if you dodn’t use it – it will atrophy. Don’t exercise and your muscle mass will slowly go away. That isn’t evolution. That is a natural process. But the Cross of Darwin is the missing two chromosomes. That is the one FACT no one can dispute so it’s just ignored.
January 30th, 2010 at 13:42
Mike White
January 30th, 2010 at 03:58
1)It never ceases to amaze me how anyone can look upon th wonder of DNA and belivee it occurred on its own. The chance of this happening is like throwing a handfull of car parts in the air and when they come to rest you have a working automobile, get serious.
I’m equally amazed that someone could regurgitate Hoyle’s “747″ argument four decades it had been successfully dealt with but that’s creationists for you – never let reality interfer4e with a good dogma. Evolution is not governed by chance certainly genetic mutations are but as Dawkins describes, these are governed by non-random natural selection. In other words only mutations that are advantageous to the organism or perhaps to it’s genes get passed, Mutations have to pass through a sort of environmental sieve that has little to do with chance and a lot to do with the real world.
2)And all the nonsense of human evolution, we can’t have come from apes or a common ancestor (with the apes), we don’t have the same number of chromosomes!
When this was raised it certainly was a problem for evolution but not anymore and the solution is a result of the predictive power of the theory something that creationists deny evolutionary theory has. The solution is that somewhere in the history of humanity a pair of chromosomes spliced to form one and this has been shown by molecular biology, this “problem” is actually a vindification of evolutionary theory. There are plenty of articles on the net that deal with the history of this issue. Google them.
3) That there is a entity behind everything is obvious. Mankind created religion, God created mankind.
If there is then, speaking as an engineer, his design for the human body would have received an F as a high school science project.
4) Two more points, Gen. describes the Big Bang to a T, something we didn’t stumble on until recently, yet primitives knew of it eons ago. I wondow how?
Geez! I must have been reading the wrong version of the bible but I don’t recall any mention if subatomic, particles, quantum mechanics, quantum gravity, gravity or the strong and weak nuclear forces in the biblical account of creation perhaps you can give me the relevant chapters.
5) Lastly, if climbing down from the trees, forming social groups and using tools worked our brains and jump started evolution to produce Humans, why are Chimps still where they are, why haven’t they evolved into another branch of Humans? And since they have two more chromosomes than Mankind, shouldn’t they be better positioned than we to take advantage of Natural Selection? Stop drinking the dope handed you from public education, there is something going on behind the curtain, call it Intelligent Design or whatever, but it isn’t evolution.
this really shows that either you don’t understand evolution or you are being deliberately obtuse. If you want to criticise something at least try to have a basic understanding of the subject.
Since when did the number of chromosomes have a direct correlation to evolutionary fitness? Is this an exciting new theory? if it is publish a paper on it.
January 30th, 2010 at 15:21
True, since simple goldfish have 94 chromosomes and Toucan has 106.
Does that mean that they should be superior or more evolutionary fit than humans?
Actually, singularity, Inflation (C+), Quantum mechanics, nuclear force, Gravitons, chaos theory,
energy equals mass, times the speed of light squared,
atoms, anti-matter, neutrino’s, galaxies, black holes, and then all the wave lengths. proton’s….there is a lot more! I cannot seem to find none of this in Gen.
January 30th, 2010 at 16:41
Mike White;
You are living proof of evolution being far too slow. If we had truly allowed natural selection to continue its course you wouldn’t have been able to make such comments whilst resting on your comfortable butt. You’d be out rooting through the grass looking for something edible whilst something with big teeth eye’d you up with relish. Because “God” wouldn’t save you from that.
Fact is where humans are concerned natural selection is in temporary suspension and therefore the weak and weak minded enjoy the benefits of a scientific modern society and all that it brings.
January 30th, 2010 at 17:02
For those who still doubt evolution should watch “The Cell” documentary here at TDF. I thought it was quite extraordinary and complete summation of biology.
January 31st, 2010 at 12:02
Now, now, Yavanna. We should draw the line at Social Darwinism. Although I do admit that creationists are a pqrticulas problem
January 31st, 2010 at 12:31
@Mike White: You just made me laugh out loud. Seriously. If you follow your logic, Drosophila Melanogaster (the common fruit fly) and the mushroom genus “Agaricus” are directly related with each other.
Thumbs up for making my day!
Honestly, if you’re trying to argue scientifically, then know your stuff.
January 31st, 2010 at 12:34
Okay – you made me laugh again. We have almost the EXACT same muscle structure as apes. Please look up some anatomy.
January 31st, 2010 at 17:33
Everything on Earth is in some form or another related. Why, even the Universe, since everything came from Star stuff!
All! “living” things, Plants and Animals, that includes us.
Store genetic DNA and RNA.
Everything on Earth is the product of the Earth, the primordial soup.
Nothing came about by any magician, forming anything by thought experiments.
January 31st, 2010 at 18:11
You and your weird soup fetish Achems!
January 31st, 2010 at 18:48
@ Yavanna:
Yeh, I know, Am always thinking outside the box.
Tired of all the same repetitious B.S.
This whole God thing, since people first invented it, has not come to any conclusions, and probably never will. Same old, same old. Boring!!
Throw some new stuff in, doesn’t matter how weird,
The weirder the better!
January 31st, 2010 at 21:23
Agreed – they’ve had 2-3K years! Its time for us to be freaks for a while! You enjoy your soup! Gawd bless ya!