namelesstavern.net

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

God put that fossil there.

Well... God... did you?

I must have missed something. Please explain why dinosaurs laying eggs would be proof of a link between reptiles and birds.

Weren't dinosaurs reptiles, and don't reptiles lay eggs?

What's the big deal?

Reptile eggs don't have hard shells

birds do

Shelled eggs have never been found inside any vertebrate fossil, be it dinosaur, turtle or crocodile.

Yes, but birds only lay 1-2 eggs at a time where most reptiles lay many more.

Read my sig. It certainly applies to this corrolation.

Did you even read the article?

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

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.

Lyion wrote:Read my sig. It certainly applies to this corrolation.

Careful Lyion, you're approaching the Mindia level of pigheadedness


You bitched about a lack of transitionary fossils to show MACRO evolution in the last thread


A new one is found, and now that's not good enough either~

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

"Transitional" ROFL wishful thinking.

Except this is not a transitionary fossil at all.

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

It's part of a working theory


You probably missed the 1st sentence where I did mention that it clearly wasn't conclusive, but is part of the chain of missing links


Evolution is the best theory to explain how we got here

Tikker sez:

Evolution is the best theory to explain how we got here

In your opinion.

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.

Wouldn't a fossilized egg be hard no matter what?

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.

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 don't see anything amazing here at all. This was 65 million years ago. For all we know the dinosaur was fossilized on top of some other animal's eggs.

This is hardly proving anything.

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.

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.

donnel it is usually the case that the respectable, compassionate, accepting christians are often drowned out by the ranting, bigoted, self-righteous ones.

i don't think we need to look too hard for examples around here~

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