Happy Atheist Forum

Many of you have read my post “the great faith of the evolutionist.” Well my case has been shown. New research shows that birds could not have evolved from dinosaurs. (D. E. Quick and J. A. Ruben, “Cardio-pulmonary anatomy in theropod dinosaurs: Implications from extant archosaurs,” Journal of Morphology, 2009. ) This was taught as fact and museums all around the world have displays about dinosaur-to-bird evolution and it has been shown to be FALSE. When will your eyes be opened? Evolution is a scam. Here is the Press release from Oregon State:

“OSU research on avian biology and physiology was among the first in the nation to begin calling into question the dinosaur-bird link since the 1990s. Other findings have been made since then, at OSU and other institutions, which also raise doubts. But old theories die hard, Ruben said, especially when it comes to some of the most distinctive and romanticized animal species in world history.
“Frankly, there’s a lot of museum politics involved in this, a lot of careers committed to a particular point of view even if new scientific evidence raises questions,” Ruben said. In some museum displays, he said, the birds-descended-from-dinosaurs evolutionary theory has been portrayed as a largely accepted fact, with an asterisk pointing out in small type that “some scientists disagree.”
Exactly my point…Science is guided by evolution. At this point you will say, “Oh, well birds still evolved.” Here is some things to chew on
-  Once again, the evolutionary “facts” have been challenged. What scientists believe about the evidence frequently changes, even while their presupposed belief in evolution is held constant. Don’t be fooled by the “facts” that evolutionists themselves may doubt tomorrow!
-  We may well hear a sharp response from other evolutionists attacking this research or, at least, emphasizing that birds still evolved, even if only from an unknown ancestor. Alternatively, we may hear virtually nothing if evolutionists hope the story goes unnoticed.
-  Whenever evolutionists demonstrate that specialized features originated separately (i.e., the evolutionary branches are farther apart), it multiplies the number of miraculous mutations that would have had to occur to produce the specialized anatomy.
-  The “overlap” between bird anatomy and mammal anatomy, and between bird anatomy and reptile anatomyâ€"along with the plentiful uniqueness of bird anatomyâ€"all shouts “design.” Evolution can only explain such recurring anatomical elements with the fanciful justification of “convergent evolution” (i.e., concluding that two similar features evolved separately because the organisms are on different evolutionary branches). Creationists instead have the common-sense understanding that the Creator chose for each organism whatever designs best suited its purpose, and sometimes reused the best designs.
-  Perhaps most importantly, this research identifies an incredible, previously unknown element of bird biologyâ€"a sophisticated design that enables bird flight and reflects on the ingenuity of the Creator.
(http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... not-evolve (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/06/12/birds-did-not-evolve) )
I can not believe that atheists are so blind to the great amount of faith they actually have. It is amazing that I have faith in something that for 6,000 years has never changed, never been proven untrue, and continues to prevail. Sounds like a good track record to me. Unlike evolution that has only been around for 200 years and it is a crumpling mess that constantly is being changed. Yet, you are so proud of your pet theory that you follow to its end. Amazing faith.

Perspective...no new threads until you have addressed the responses in your other thread.  

Topic locked.

Topic is now unlocked.

edit:  Btw... Fossil-hunters find the 'missing link' between dinosaurs and birds http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-storie ... -21449239/ (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2009/06/17/fossil-hunters-find-the-missing-link-between-dinosaurs-and-birds-115875-21449239/)

QuoteMany of you have read my post “the great faith of the evolutionist.” Well my case has been shown. New research shows that birds could not have evolved from dinosaurs.


When will your eyes be opened? Evolution is a scam.

The great thing about the scientific method is, given new evidence, you can change your hypothesis.  

The idea that birds evolved from dinosaurs is just that:  A hypothesis.  One of its premises may be the theory of evolution, but if you disprove it, that does not disprove evolution.  

You may contrast this with the methodology of making stuff up, deciding that it is true, and then ignoring all future evidence to the contrary.

This does nothing but support the hypothesis that birds evolved from dinosaurs:

Quote from: "Whitney"Fossil-hunters find the 'missing link' between dinosaurs and birds http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-storie ... -21449239/ (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2009/06/17/fossil-hunters-find-the-missing-link-between-dinosaurs-and-birds-115875-21449239/)

To clarify:

A is true.
B is true.
A and B suggest C.

Even if C is false, this doesn't mean A is also false.  It could be that B is false, or that A and D actually suggest E.

....*sigh*....

I've got a link to all of the articles published in the Journal of Morphology in 2009 right here (http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/35280/issueyear?year=2009). "Cardio-pulmonary anatomy in theropod dinosaurs: Implications from extant archosaurs" is not an article listed there. My first clue that this might be bogus was the misspelling of cardiopulmonary (one word, no hyphen). The second was that the only response to "D. E. Quick and J. A. Ruben" on google was the Answers in Genesis article cited in the OP.

I'm afraid I have to report Answers in Genesis to Wiley-Liss, Inc.

It's an actual article but it is a pre-print, early edition article available online.  If you'd like to give it a read, here it is:

http://www.mediafire.com/?tkthgmkzmmm

And the article Whitney linked a news story to:

http://www.mediafire.com/?euo21y2z3yn

I think Bongo just committed suicide. However, I found a note he left behind. Written on it were the words, "It's case in point, numbnuts!"

Although I would normally chafe at Bongo's use of such derogatory terms, I feel he was overwhelmed with grief at the thought of the misuse of the advanced brains of his cousins, Homo sapiens.

Bongo, we hardly knew ya'!

R.I.P.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.forumammo.com%2Fcpg%2Falbums%2Fuserpics%2F10062%2FKIOSAWCICFJQSWS4S3A23W5YLAOCDZDV.jpg&hash=4975e09847b91d4d0d0bc9fa2b04c3e99fc12520)

Quote from: "Squid"It's an actual article but it is a pre-print, early edition article available online.  If you'd like to give it a read, here it is:

http://www.mediafire.com/?tkthgmkzmmm

I read the abstract and conclusion in the first link and it seemed to basically be saying that they found that the air sacs of modern birds were not that similar to those found in modern crocodiles.  They then concluded that modern crocodiles are more closely related to dinosaurs than modern birds.  I do not interpret that to mean they were saying that this is proof that there is no link between dinosaurs an birds...is my basic understanding of the article correct?

Crocodiles are modern descendants of theropod dinosaurs (the big meat eaters back in the day like T-Rex).  They also examine other anatomical differences within theropods and conclude that modern birds probably didn't descend from theropods which is a bit presumptuous based upon what they present (the area of investigation on a complete scale would easily fill several monographs let alone one article - as there are many groups of theropod dinosaurs).  Many other specimens seem to show a link - it may just be a question not "if" birds descended from dinosaurs but exactly which lineage is theirs.  The dinosaur-bird link is not in question really it's just a matter of piecing together the line to the past.  What they present here, obviously focuses on cardiopulmonary morphology and compares the morphology of modern birds and crocodiles to theropod dinosaurs and they conclude, basically that the theropods were more like crocodiles than modern birds so modern birds may not be direct theropod dinosaur descendants.  However, their conclusions are limited to the specimens they examined and not all-encompassing.  Nowhere does it make the argument that there is no link between dinosaurs and modern birds...hear that Perspective?

Quote from: "Whitney"I read the abstract and conclusion in the first link and it seemed to basically be saying that they found that the air sacs of modern birds were not that similar to those found in modern crocodiles.  They then concluded that modern crocodiles are more closely related to dinosaurs than modern birds.  I do not interpret that to mean they were saying that this is proof that there is no link between dinosaurs an birds...is my basic understanding of the article correct?

Seems correct to me: I interpret their conclusion as to mean the dinosaur therapods did not likely have avian style abdominal air-sacks as was previously posited. This only impacts one thread in the evidence of therapod-avian evolution, and only in that there appears to be a vastly greater change in these vertebral pneumatization sacks, or that birds come from a different lineage. This may change some of the ideas about how it happened, but it does not change the theory that it happened.

Quote from: "perspective"I can not believe that atheists are so blind to the great amount of faith they actually have. It is amazing that I have faith in something that for 6,000 years has never changed, never been proven untrue, and continues to prevail. Sounds like a good track record to me. Unlike evolution that has only been around for 200 years and it is a crumpling mess that constantly is being changed. Yet, you are so proud of your pet theory that you follow to its end. Amazing faith.

I just have to comment about this. The fact that the bible has not changed in 2K years (yes, I'm ignoring the actual changes made to it, just for the sake of the argument) is itself a matter of faith: That is, it hasn't changed because people put their faith in it. Faith means not questioning it, because you "know" it is true. So, it never changes.

Evolutionary theory does change precisely because there is no faith involved. It's constantly examined and re-examined to locate its flaws. New evidence does often require the theory to be changed to fit that new evidence. That's how science works. That's how science brought you the computer you're using to post your creationist rants. That's how science brought you those polymer fibers in your long-lasting, comfortable clothing. It's how science brought you those high-yield crops that keep you so well fed no matter how large the population gets.

If I were forced to put faith in anything, I'd choose science because it brings tangible results.

Quote from: "JillSwift"If I were forced to put faith in anything, I'd choose science because it brings tangible results.

Jill, don't be surprised when Perspective twists the above into you saying you must have faith to accept evolution as valid science.  I swear, YECs are experts at quote mining and twisting.

I'm still trying to understand even if it were shown definitely that bird did not descend from dinosaurs how that would somehow disprove evolutionary theory...creationists have some odd thought processes.

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "JillSwift"If I were forced to put faith in anything, I'd choose science because it brings tangible results.

Jill, don't be surprised when Perspective twists the above into you saying you must have faith to accept evolution as valid science.  I swear, YECs are experts at quote mining and twisting.

The thing is...  once you start putting faith in it, it ceases to be science.   Science is a process, not necessarily the results of that process.

Quote from: "Whitney"Jill, don't be surprised when Perspective twists the above into you saying you must have faith to accept evolution as valid science.  I swear, YECs are experts at quote mining and twisting.

Yeah, I knows it.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmembers.shaw.ca%2Famitdeshwar%2Ffamilyguy.jpg&hash=544641206786a9aee0094a9c1f44e5641e118e51)


P.S. Perspective, the term is "Case in point" - meaning you're about to present an example (a case) that backs your argument (your point).
Just feeling pedantic.

Quote from: "Heretical Rants"The thing is...  once you start putting faith in it, it ceases to be science.   Science is a process, not necessarily the results of that process.

It would be the process I'd put faith in, were I forced. Because it has proven time and time again to bring results. It is the most successful epistemology humanity has.

It's not faith if it's rational

Quote from: "Heretical Rants"It's not faith if it's rational :P  It could be faith (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=faith) as in "1. Confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability. "

So let me see if I understand this, basicly your stating that one research team in one posibly bogus article linked to a Christian website that says modern crocadilia air sacks don't match modern birds so the hypothisis that birds may have evolved from dinosaurs is fasle, and therefor negates all other Darwinian evoltion therories?

Not the best foundation to disprove Evolution IMO.

Wait, did AIG really just make up a nonexistent article in the Journal of Morphology??  I feel like the collective knowledge of man has been . . .  soiled by those tools.  AIG tells lies all the time, but such brazen, blatant lies?  I was going to respond to the article -- it sounds reasonable enough, just being misrepresented by the creationists, I would have thought -- but I'm just disgusted right now.  I was going to offer that we might have asked if the scientists involved believed the birds shared no common ancestor with any other life on earth, of even if they believed the birds didn't branch off during the mesozoic era, or if we should expect to find avian fossils in Silurian strata.  The answer would have been "no", even if asked of scientists engineered in creationist's head, because even the creationist knows how ridiculous their predictions sound when stated with a little more depth than "Do you think God made everything?"  I could have typed about that more, but bleh, I'm gonna go get something to eat to get the bad taste of AIG out of my mouth.

Quote from: "PipeBox"Wait, did AIG really just make up a nonexistent article in the Journal of Morphology??  I feel like the collective knowledge of man has been . . .  soiled by those tools.  AIG tells lies all the time, but such brazen, blatant lies?  I was going to respond to the article -- it sounds reasonable enough, just being misrepresented by the creationists, I would have thought -- but I'm just disgusted right now.  I was going to offer that we might have asked if the scientists involved believed the birds shared no common ancestor with any other life on earth, of even if they believed the birds didn't branch off during the mesozoic era, or if we should expect to find avian fossils in Silurian strata.  The answer would have been "no", even if asked of scientists engineered in creationist's head, because even the creationist knows how ridiculous their predictions sound when stated with a little more depth than "Do you think God made everything?"  I could have typed about that more, but bleh, I'm gonna go get something to eat to get the bad taste of AIG out of my mouth.

I think it's legit. http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/122395783/abstract

Quote from: "JillSwift"

Quote from: "Heretical Rants"It's not faith if it's rational :P  It could be faith (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=faith) as in "1. Confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability. " :)

Quote from: "JillSwift"P.S. Perspective, the term is "Case in point" - meaning you're about to present an example (a case) that backs your argument (your point).
Just feeling pedantic.

Even Bongo knew that!  

Quote from: "McQ"Even Bongo knew that!  :sigh:

Quote from: "JillSwift"

Quote from: "Whitney"Jill, don't be surprised when Perspective twists the above into you saying you must have faith to accept evolution as valid science.  I swear, YECs are experts at quote mining and twisting.

Yeah, I knows it.

P.S. Perspective, the term is "Case in point" - meaning you're about to present an example (a case) that backs your argument (your point).
Just feeling pedantic.

Amended...

 

Quote from: "AlP"I think it's legit. http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/122395783/abstract

Oi.  My bad.  That'll teach me to write a knee-jerk post.  The other questions I would have detailed more thoroughly stand, as it's still clear how much weight the creationists are putting on this without warrant.  "A possible gap in science!!  Quick, stuff God into it!"  Please note that only a creationist relies on a God of the Gaps, as it is an absolute necessity for them that science be unable to account for our origin -- they know that there is no natural mechanic that could possibly create the universe we see today in just 144 hours, so they must fight any science that threatens their dogma.  Make no mistake, science is not against God, but creationists are against science.

Quote from: "karadan"

Quote(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/download/file.php?id=208&t=1)

That's not the way to get someone to see the light of reason, no matter how stubborn they are.

Quote from: "Heretical Rants"
That's not the way to get someone to see the light of reason, no matter how stubborn they are.

I stopped caring about getting him/her to see reason as soon as I saw how offensive he was to some of the more intelligent posters on this board. He waved any rights for respect from me as soon as I read those posts.

I'm not here to convert. I'm here to talk with like-minded people. If, during that process, someone enquires about my worldview and shows a genuine interest, I'll be happy to answer, and I'll be civil, polite and respectful. However, I'm not going to tolerate ignorant simpletons who have no desire to learn about reality and are simply here to annoy and offend. I don't see why we should be polite to others who have no desire to afford us the same degree of civility.
I'm not very tolerant of people like him. I don't believe I should be, though. Pipebox posted in Perspective's evolution thread in his usual well thought out and articulate way. Perspective's response? "Alot of words, not really convincing." I doubt he even read it.

I'm unrepentant. Some people are beyond saving.