While obviously not conclusive, it's a hint of what's out there, and is a part of the missing links regarding MACRO evolution
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1850&ncid=1850&e=1&u=/cpress/20050414/ca_pr_on_sc/dinosaur_eggs
Evolution, Dinosaur to bird transitionary fossil discovered~
Moderator: Dictators in Training
Did you even read the article?
Lots of dinosaur eggs have been found in the past, just in pairs
The discovery is hailed as a major achievement by leading paleontologists, including Canada's best-known dinosaur hunter Philip Currie. Although pairs of dinosaur eggs had been found previously, up until now complete eggs have never been found inside a dinosaur, so discussions of reproductive changes have been largely theoretical.
Lots of dinosaur eggs have been found in the past, just in pairs
Donnel wrote:Tossica wrote:Yes, but birds only lay 1-2 eggs at a time where most reptiles lay many more.
So this means that because the fossil only had two eggs in her, then she's obviously a bird link.
She couldn't have just been, y'know, interrupted and not laid all of them.
No possible way.
You missed the important part Donnel
Reptiles lay multiple soft shelled eggs
birds lay 1-2 hard shelled eggs
This dinosaur fossil had 2 hard shelled eggs in it
That's the important transition
Except this is not a transitionary fossil at all.
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtm ... ID=8184944
Forgive me if I'm skeptical in regards to the lack of any substantial proof of macroevolution when there should be BILLIONS of examples given the claims, and yet people trumpet something like this as revolutionary.
Again, check my sig. This is another example of this to a T. Things that suggest or might be are not science, except to people in the faith of Macroevolution.
If it were proved or if logic and pure science worked it out I'd gladly accept it. You apparently will not accept that this is a wild guess that most biologists have large variances in opinion, though. So I guess the tunnel vision analogy works both ways
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtm ... ID=8184944
The fossil, found in China's southern Jiangxi Province, consists of little more than the animal's pelvis and some vertebrae.
Forgive me if I'm skeptical in regards to the lack of any substantial proof of macroevolution when there should be BILLIONS of examples given the claims, and yet people trumpet something like this as revolutionary.
the shape of the eggs, pointed at one end, "suggests that the females came to the centers of the nests to lay neat, multilayered, ring-shaped clutches," the researchers wrote.
Again, check my sig. This is another example of this to a T. Things that suggest or might be are not science, except to people in the faith of Macroevolution.
If it were proved or if logic and pure science worked it out I'd gladly accept it. You apparently will not accept that this is a wild guess that most biologists have large variances in opinion, though. So I guess the tunnel vision analogy works both ways
What saves a man is to take a step. Then another step.
– C. S. Lewis
– C. S. Lewis
No, Evolution is the best logical pure science theory without using religion, Mindia. I don't agree with it but we need to be careful to keep good debate open. Especially to uncover things like this which are trumpeted as a big deal but could be as simple as a dinosaur being fossilized on top of two eggs.
We must respect those in Science searching for a pure solution without religion. We also must challenge them when they make unsubstatiated claims and try and pass it as fact.
We must respect those in Science searching for a pure solution without religion. We also must challenge them when they make unsubstatiated claims and try and pass it as fact.
What saves a man is to take a step. Then another step.
– C. S. Lewis
– C. S. Lewis
Lyion wrote:No, Evolution is the best logical pure science theory without using religion, Mindia. I don't agree with it but we need to be careful to keep good debate open. Especially to uncover things like this which are trumpeted as a big deal but could be as simple as a dinosaur being fossilized on top of two eggs.
We must respect those in Science searching for a pure solution without religion. We also must challenge them when they make unsubstatiated claims and try and pass it as fact.
I think all anyone is trying to do is discover/prove the truth of how we got here
If God were to visit me via my cornflakes tomorrow, I'd gladly convert to whatever religion he deemed proper
Until that happens tho, science and evolution are the only relatively substantiated evidence of creation, and I'll continue to worship the god Science~
Thank you Tikker.
You've been brave enough to say what nearly every evolutionist has been afraid to say.
In a worldview that revolves around theology as the center of its web of influence, there's little room for creation without God. In a worldview without a central diestic influence there's little room for it.
I'm glad to see someone on your side of the table admit to coming to said table with biases, just as I heartily admit to.
You've been brave enough to say what nearly every evolutionist has been afraid to say.
Until that happens tho, science and evolution are the only relatively substantiated evidence of creation, and I'll continue to worship the god Science~
In a worldview that revolves around theology as the center of its web of influence, there's little room for creation without God. In a worldview without a central diestic influence there's little room for it.
I'm glad to see someone on your side of the table admit to coming to said table with biases, just as I heartily admit to.
You think someone speaking metaphorically about 'worshipping' science is somehow equivalent to you twisting, spinning, and denying to somehow fit the world into your dogma? See-through and weak.
I love these threads. No matter how many thousands of pieces of evidence build up, you can count on religious conservatives for a laugh. The farther into the corner your backed, the more frantic and thin your arguments become. The Earth isnt flat. Animals evolve. Get over it.
Here's another recent find, speaking of transitions :
http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/04 ... index.html
I love these threads. No matter how many thousands of pieces of evidence build up, you can count on religious conservatives for a laugh. The farther into the corner your backed, the more frantic and thin your arguments become. The Earth isnt flat. Animals evolve. Get over it.
Here's another recent find, speaking of transitions :
http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/04 ... index.html
I have a serious question for the religious people out there.
Why is it that when a scientist goes out and puts forth a theory based upon scientific research for the start of life it is ridiculed as nonsence. However, when a scientist asks the same people to show evidence of creation, people thorow out The bible says it" as proof.
This is not an I am right and you are wrong thing. I am actrually very interested in peoples different views on this. I have married into a chrisitian family whom do not beleive in evolution, I can tell you I get some of the weirdest looks when I even go near the topic. As usualy I get the standard responce of the bible says this or the bible says that.
I for 1 and a beleiver in evolution, from what I have seen. The evidence points more towards evolution then it does to creation. There is even a large amount of information that can lead to both being true.
Why is it that when a scientist goes out and puts forth a theory based upon scientific research for the start of life it is ridiculed as nonsence. However, when a scientist asks the same people to show evidence of creation, people thorow out The bible says it" as proof.
This is not an I am right and you are wrong thing. I am actrually very interested in peoples different views on this. I have married into a chrisitian family whom do not beleive in evolution, I can tell you I get some of the weirdest looks when I even go near the topic. As usualy I get the standard responce of the bible says this or the bible says that.
I for 1 and a beleiver in evolution, from what I have seen. The evidence points more towards evolution then it does to creation. There is even a large amount of information that can lead to both being true.
For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.
mofish wrote:You think someone speaking metaphorically about 'worshipping' science is somehow equivalent to you twisting, spinning, and denying to somehow fit the world into your dogma? See-through and weak.
I love these threads. No matter how many thousands of pieces of evidence build up, you can count on religious conservatives for a laugh. The farther into the corner your backed, the more frantic and thin your arguments become. The Earth isnt flat. Animals evolve. Get over it.
Here's another recent find, speaking of transitions :
http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/04 ... index.html
And no matter how many times we Creationists assert that our beliefs are based on faith in a creator first and then looking for evidence to support that (where on the flipside there's the faith in NO creator and evidence found that "suggests" it) you still come here with your accusations and hysteria. Where you that snubbed by some overbearing "christian" who acted like they were too good for you or something? Is that where the hate comes from? Not all Christians are like the ones you know when you were a kid. Some of us can be very reasonable.
Anyone seen the movie "Saved" with Mandy Moore and others? Saw it last night. Is this what the world at large thinks of when they think of Christians? If it is, I apologize for the behavior of my peers and assure you we are not all so idiotic.
The problem with the vast majority of the creationists is that they do exactly what mofish suggests
When you request proof/evidence the creationist has 1 source: the bible
They ignore the fact that there's 57208572524626206 conflicting versions of the bible, or explain it away as God's will
It's hard to discuss a topic rationally when conflicting faith is involved
When you request proof/evidence the creationist has 1 source: the bible
They ignore the fact that there's 57208572524626206 conflicting versions of the bible, or explain it away as God's will
It's hard to discuss a topic rationally when conflicting faith is involved