What's new

Science vs. Creationism

...."evidence?" Universally heralded as the one great "link" between all birds and reptiles is Archaeopteryx. Here is how evolutionists imagine Archaeopteryx may have been preserved as a fossil.

There are many links between birds and other reptiles, seen in fossils, DNA, sex-determination systems, body construction, etc.

Evolutionists admit they must SPECULATE about the origin of birds. But they insist that the layman need not even question the validity of their theories!

I could speculate about your parentage, but nonetheless you would have been born of a human. Speculations about some of the details of the origins of birds does not change the basic truths.

But if our myriads of birds evolved from slimy reptiles, is there any REAL fossil EVIDENCE of a
part-bird, part-reptile? Is there such a thing as a HALF-scale, HALF-feather found?

The presence of a half-scale, half-feather would be a miracle, not evolution.

Feathers and scales are made up of two distinct forms of keratin, and it was long thought that each type of keratin was exclusive to each skin structure (feathers and scales). However, a study published in 2006 confirmed the presence of feather keratin in the early stages of development of American alligator scales.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feather#Evolution

Where are all the many HUNDREDS of VERY DIFFERENT creatures which would have represented the INTERMEDIATE stages of development?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feathered_dinosaurs

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fossil_bird_genera

And remember, IF these notions of evolution could possibly be true - these "intermediate" stages would be NOWHERE NEAR so well equipped to survive as the "fully developed" ones.

Compared to which other contemporaneous, partially flying vertebrates?
 
...."evidence?" Universally heralded as the one great "link" between all birds and reptiles is Archaeopteryx. Here is how evolutionists imagine Archaeopteryx may have been preserved as a fossil.

Imagine, says an ornithologist "a strange birdlike creature the size of a crow" gliding over an
ancient Bavarian lake.

"Or was it more reptile-like? We cannot be sure," continues the story- for "it appeared to have some of the features of both reptiles AND birds.

"Suddenly," goes the dramatic tale, "our birdlike
creature, with its feeble powers of flight, was
unable to cope with a sharp gust of wind and fell into the shallow waters below and drowned."
(Biology of Birds, Wesley Lanyon, page 1).

Evolutionists admit they must SPECULATE about the origin of birds. But they insist that the layman need not even question the validity of their theories!

Notice! "In attempting to reconstruct the early evolutionary history of many groups of animals a certain element of judicious speculation ... may be a valuable weapon" (Evolution, ed. by De
Beer, p. 321).

In most books on the subject, authors first
admit they are making "educated guesses," and
then follow with a broad, all-inclusive, sweeping
statement that such and such DID POSITIVELY
OCCUR!

They have already decided, on sheer faith, that birds evolved from reptiles! So they seem to imply: "Even though I must guess, imagine and speculate- you must assume my theory is so CORRECT that you needn't bother even thinking about it!"

But if our myriads of birds evolved from slimy
reptiles, is there any REAL fossil EVIDENCE of a
part-bird, part-reptile? Is there such a thing as a
HALF-scale, HALF-feather found?

The fossil "record" concerning the hazy
hypothesis that supposes birds came from reptiles
is much like dozens of feet of missing film! Where
are all the many HUNDREDS of VERY DIFFERENT creatures which would have represented the INTERMEDIATE stages of development?

And remember, IF these notions of evolution
could possibly be true - these "intermediate"
stages would be NOWHERE NEAR so well equipped to survive as the "fully developed" ones. That means that if it took only a "sharp gust" to bring down Archaeopteryx, his imaginary ancestors would have been falling out of the skies like bricks! And the fossil record, therefore, would contain FAR MORE "INTERMEDIATE" species than it does of the ones which were supposedly "better equipped" to survive!

But there ARE no "intermediate" species!

....yeah, you got TON'S of evidence!

You are grabbing straws my friend. Any time any of your ridiculous arguments is destroyed you drop it and look for something different. Enough already.
To remind you - once you argued that birds do not have scales. You know it makes you look really really stupid?
 
To remind you - once you argued that birds do not have scales. You know it makes you look really really stupid?

I never said that some birds didn't have scales! Obviously, some bird legs have scale like skin, unique to there environment. However, GENERALLY speaking, birds have feathers, hollow bones, light weight organs so they can fly long distances and at fast speeds! Reptiles, on the other hand, are just the opposite! Large bone structure, large organs and much heavier body parts....that make the statement that birds are the closest living things to Reptiles sounds like you've been smoking dope and doing drugs for years, maybe decades, perhaps centuries! Who, in there right mind, would come to such a conclusion....when the powers of observation, deduction, and common sense make that statement LUDICROUS!
 
Pearl, to her credit, is getting more educated about the science and has been able to raise some valid points in the discussion, as well.

Yeah I learned a bunch of useless boring **** about bacteria growing dicks "out of nowhere" to share their immunity. Thanks dalamon!
 
GENERALLY speaking, birds have feathers, hollow bones, light weight organs so they can fly long distances and at fast speeds! Reptiles, on the other hand, are just the opposite! Large bone structure, large organs and much heavier body parts....that make the statement that birds are the closest living things to Reptiles sounds like you've been smoking dope and doing drugs for years, maybe decades, perhaps centuries!

You are so stupid I am starting to feel sorry for you. It looks like you never studied biology and have absolutely no clue about variety of life forms on Earth. To sum every bird and reptile in your ridiculous definition is beyond stupid. Just for starters compare Ostrich or some other nonflying birds to some gliding reptiles and see how stupid your above statement is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIYAYuuv2qQ
 
I never said that some birds didn't have scales! Obviously, some bird legs have scale like skin, unique to there environment. !

Some? Scale like skin? Can you get any more uneducated/false statements here please, I have good laugh anytime I read this nonsense.
 
Some? Scale like skin? Can you get any more uneducated/false statements here please, I have good laugh anytime I read this nonsense.

...look it, numbnuts! I don't know if your a guy or a girl, but I'm sick and tired of your insults and use of the word "stupid" in reference to my posts! Now if you want to slap one of those "jailhouse tats" on your face that your buddy Klinko has on his back, that's find with me! For you to even suggest that Klinko is MVP of anything makes you the clown fool of this board! Peace?
 
but I'm sick and tired of your insults and use of the word "stupid" in reference to my posts!

Not my fault that you never took biology in school or never got educated about it Again, as an example, I do not post anything about NFL or MLB as I have no clue or understanding about it. So please, refrain from posting on subjects you have never had any education as it makes you look... uhm.... stupid!
 
Not my fault that you never took biology in school or never got educated about it.


...I took Biology in High School....and constantly ripped a big one in my Biology teacher every time he tried to force the evolution hoax down our throats! His best one was when he wanted us to draw what "man would look like in the 21st. Century....after they would be evolving in a "dust free" environment and would have no need to have eyelashes or nose hair to keep out the dirt!"

Well, here we are in the year 2014....and we still have eyelashes and nose hair! That BS prediction of his didn't pan out so good, now did it?
 
...I took Biology in High School....and constantly ripped a big one in my Biology teacher every time he tried to force the evolution hoax down our throats! His best one was when he wanted us to draw what "man would look like in the 21st. Century....after they would be evolving in a "dust free" environment and would have no need to have eyelashes or nose hair to keep out the dirt!"

Well, here we are in the year 2014....and we still have eyelashes and nose hair! That BS prediction of his didn't pan out so good, now did it?
Would pay money to watch you lecture your science teacher on creationism while your classmates laugh at you behind your back.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MVP
...I took Biology in High School...

Took and learned anything from it is different story Huge gaps in understanding of basic zoology, biology and science is showing in all your posts. What is DONKEY pregnancy again? You sure elephant can reproduce faster then human? Only some birds have scale like skin due to environment? Ostrich bones are tiny and light compared to "massive bones" of flying dragon? Human life expectancy was 900 years at some time?
Just a few "creations" of yours to laugh at;)
 
Communism was independent of evolutionary theory.



A favorite lie from the religious, that is not relevant at all to the truth of evolutionary theory,



Of biology, because it is.

c'mon OB. Where did anyone assert that communism was a dependent ideology? A good Communist doesn't actually believe anything, not even Marx. It is purely an expedient equation for securing state power over duped humans. Any lie will suffice.

Only a few isolated ideologues have ever led a "communist" revolution. The end result has always been a fascist state, just like the British elites who paid Marx to scribble wanted.

The "evolutionary theory" you admire so is not necessarily the only explanation for a whole lot of data/correlations being found by researchers, particularly by biased researchers who "believe" in the theory as you do, and who are out on a mission to validate their convictions, looking at everything they see as proof of it.
you continue to just be blind to some impressive facts of life. A study of consciousness and will in living things would require you to contemplate something besides your imagined dumb brute elements.

might open up a whole new universe for you.
 
Last edited:
Not my fault that you never took biology in school or never got educated about it Again, as an example, I do not post anything about NFL or MLB as I have no clue or understanding about it. So please, refrain from posting on subjects you have never had any education as it makes you look... uhm.... stupid!

In my life experience, people who are actually intelligent have other ways to make their points than "name-calling". If you could make your point with something actually informative, or say it in a way that would actually encourage consideration of the idea, you'd be doing a lot better than "stupid".

Sometimes I'm just disappointed with the last-ditch stands people take when they run out of patience or willingness to engage constructive discussion, and do the little lawyer ploy:

If the facts are on your side, argue the facts.

If the law is on your side, argue the law.

If neither the law nor the facts are on your side, attack your opponent.

Saul Alinsky and Trotsky and Obama are the sort of "community organizers" who will do anything necessary to their goal. Is it necessary that people "believe" in evolution?? What valid interest can a State have in managing human beliefs?? Or, more importantly, what kind of a human being do you want to end up being??

The truth is, life does change. Nobody knows "why" and we just have a beginning idea of "how" in our biological science. But even now, we are ourselves. . . . "evolutionary" scientists themselves. . . . are weighing in on making changes on purpose to living things. Well, we've been doing that for over ten thousand years, actually. . . . breeding animals, developing strains of useful plants. . . .

It is just absurd to believe in an unintelligent drift and call it "evolution" and use it to prove that life is unimportant or meaningless, and then buy into some statist program for the world and mankind.

how incongruent can any single set of fundamental beliefs be, anyway.
 
Last edited:
Yeah I learned a bunch of useless boring **** about bacteria growing dicks "out of nowhere" to share their immunity. Thanks dalamon!

Okay lets start this conversation again without bringing any judgments to the table.

Now that I know more about what the chart represents let's move slower and with more clarity.

My initial question was how do you move from asexual reproduction to sexual reproduction.

So you show me a chart of how a male bacteria (has f plasmid) passes this information to a female bacteria (doesn't have f plasmid) .

Why is there a difference between them in the first place?


First off: It's not a full-fledged penis, because there is no transfer of any DNA between this bacterial pilus. Rather, this appendage in F+ bacteria simply latches onto a bacteria that is F-, merges them together, and THEN the DNA is transferred unidirectionally.

It's a primitive form of sexual DNA transfer, so it isn't sexual reproduction itself-- but as you might imagine, it confers (and uses somewhat analogous) advantages that you'd get from sexual reproduction in something like a eukaryotic species (aka non bacteria).

As far as your question is concerned: why is there a difference between the two bacteria? Is that what you are asking? Well, one has an extragenomic collection of DNA called a plasmid, which confers the genes for this pilus being constructed. As far as how the first plasmids were constructed, let me just say it's a pretty well-understood process, and it isn't murky-- sadly, I am just a little busy with things, and I don't have time to gather sources to illustrate it to you in a simple way.
 
...I took Biology in High School....and constantly ripped a big one in my Biology teacher every time he tried to force the evolution hoax down our throats! His best one was when he wanted us to draw what "man would look like in the 21st. Century....after they would be evolving in a "dust free" environment and would have no need to have eyelashes or nose hair to keep out the dirt!"

Well, here we are in the year 2014....and we still have eyelashes and nose hair! That BS prediction of his didn't pan out so good, now did it?

Your Teacher told you that people would lose their eyelashes withina generation or two?

lol

Where did you go to school? Better yet, where did your teacher go to school?
 
It is just absurd to believe in an unintelligent drift and call it "evolution" and use it to prove that life is unimportant or meaningless, and then buy into some statist program for the world and mankind.

how incongruent can any single set of fundamental beliefs be, anyway.

Can I think that evolution happened without belief in a god and still think that life has meaning? Can I oppose a statist program for the world and mankind without subjecting my children to a nonscientific theory that is based only on other peoples religious beliefs? That's all I'm asking for.

Go to church enjoy your life and don't think for a second that I would have it any other way.
 
Sometimes I'm just disappointed with the last-ditch stands people take when they run out of patience or willingness to engage constructive discussion, and do the little lawyer ploy:

Well, if you paid attention I never called anybody else in this thread stupid because others at least are trying to discuss things while CJ just throws out pardon my language again stupid claims - and never comes back to them after they are denied. Like stubborn kid who is arguing for the sake of arguing that snow is black just to piss his mother off. I was patient enough for long time, posted bunch of links, pictures, videos - did he ever anywhere agreed that he was wrong? No, so that's why he does not deserve any patience or willingness for any constructive discussion anymore. Lets be honest and call things the way they are. Snow is white. Stupid is stupid.
 
I

It is just absurd to believe in an unintelligent drift and call it "evolution" and use it to prove that life is unimportant or meaningless, and then buy into some statist program for the world and mankind.

It is s way bigger absurd to believe that Earth is a laboratory field/experiment for some "creator". Even if you believe it - think about it for a second as an example - how stupid laboratory mice would be if they would worship humans who are doing experiments on them.
 
Well, if you paid attention I never called anybody else in this thread stupid because others at least are trying to discuss things while CJ just throws out pardon my language again stupid claims - and never comes back to them after they are denied. Like stubborn kid who is arguing for the sake of arguing that snow is black just to piss his mother off. I was patient enough for long time, posted bunch of links, pictures, videos - did he ever anywhere agreed that he was wrong? No, so that's why he does not deserve any patience or willingness for any constructive discussion anymore. Lets be honest and call things the way they are. Snow is white. Stupid is stupid.

I don't know CJ, and probably have missed some of the points he's tried to assert, or your responses. He's on another page of "defending the faith" from me, no doubt. Probably not prepared to make any actual concessions to your responses. I've seen some people in educational leadership sorts of standing show infinite patience and never lose their "class", though.

In a forum discussion like this, I think a strong position to take is to just let a lot of really "stupid" stuff just roll on by without comment, and keep up the argument as if you do have a smarter person on the other side. Interpret their comments and re-formulate them in some respectable or actually coherent fashion, and then show why, even "dressed in it's sunday best", the idea is not going to suffice.
 
Back
Top