WASHINGTON - The discovery of a furry, beaver-like animal that lived at the time of dinosaurs has overturned more than a century of scientific thinking about Jurassic mammals.

The find shows that the ecological role of mammals in the time of dinosaurs was far greater than previously thought, said Zhe-Xi Luo, curator of vertebrate paleontology at Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh.

The animal is the earliest swimming mammal to have been found and was the most primitive mammal to be preserved with fur, which is important to helping keep a constant body temperature, Luo said in a telephone interview.

For over a century, the stereotype of mammals living in that era has been of tiny, shrew-like creatures scurrying about in the underbrush trying to avoid the giant creatures that dominated the planet, Luo commented.

Now, a research team that included Luo has found that 164 million years ago, the newly discovered mammal with a flat, scaly tail like a beaver, vertebra like an otter and teeth like a seal was swimming in lakes and eating fish.

The team, led by Qiang Ji of the Chinese Academy of Geological Sciences in Beijing, discovered the remains in the Inner Mongolia region of China. They report their findings in Friday's issue of the journal Science.

Matthew Carrano, curator of dinosaurs at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History, called the find "a big deal."

An important factor is how specialized the creature was, said Carrano, who was not part of the research group.

"It gives a hint that early mammals were not just these shadowy creatures at the time of dinosaurs" but were having their own evolution. There have been hints of such animals in the past but nothing equal to the remains found by Luo and colleagues, he said.

Thomas Martin of the Research Institute Senckenberg in Frankfurt, Germany, said the discovery pushes back the mammal conquest of the waters by more than 100 million years.

"This exciting fossil is a further jigsaw puzzle piece in a series of recent discoveries," commented Martin, who was not part of Luo's team.

It's the first evidence that some ancient mammals were semi-aquatic, indicating a greater diversification than previously thought, the researchers said.

Modern semi-aquatic mammals such as beavers and otters and aquatic mammals like whales did not appear until between 55 million years ago and 25 million years ago, according to the researchers.

The new animal is not related to modern beavers or otters but has features similar to them. Thus the researchers named it Castorocauda lutrasimilis. Castoro from the Latin for beaver, cauda for tail, lutra for river otter and similis meaning similar.

The researchers found imprints of the fur, both guard hairs and short, dense under fur that would have kept water from the skin.

Weighing in at between 1.1 and 1.7 pounds, about the size of a small female platypus, Castorocauda is also the largest known Jurassic early mammal.

The research was funded by the U.S. National Science Foundation, National Natural Science Foundation of China, Ministry of Science and Technology of China, Chinese Ministry of Land Resources, National Geographic Society and Carnegie Museum. Source (http://tinyurl.com/q84j7)

Another source (http://www.yubanet.com/artman/publish/article_32135.shtml)

Scientific Source (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/311/5764/1068b)

__________________________________________________ _____



I wonder what excuses the evolution community will come up with for this one.

If a find like this poked a hole in the theory of Creation, we'd never hear the end of it.

This just further illustrates the point that science can't ever prove macro-evolution, which makes it even more preposterous that it is the only explanation taught in public schools regarding our existence.

This is a religion, people.

If they couldn't even entertain the thought of mammals of substantial size during this time period, what ELSE are they missing ?

I realize it's an ongoing effort, but the problem is, it's being taught in schools like it's a fact. Yes, it is called a "theory", but that is not how it's being portrayed to our children.

And there is NO mention of the fact that this might support young earth Creationist's. None.

Now all of you will go for my jugular, claiming that this isn't an error, it's merely information we didn't know. You'll also claim that this doesn't prove Creation, either.

You'd be right on both accounts. The problem I have with this is the arrogance and sheer disdain evolutionists have for anyone that doesn't agree with their "religion", yet they come up wrong, again and again.

The scientific curriculum of this nation needs a serious overhaul, and fast.

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 02-27-2006).]

Digital_Savior

How might this story support young earth creationism?

Well, I picked another theory, and one which I happen to believe.

You could use any theory, but I just used that one as an example, especially in light of the fact that I posted the thread in the religion forum. LOL

1. If you think there is something here to excuse, then it's painfully obvious you know nothing of science.

Science is not omniscient or omnipotent or infallible. Nobody ever claimed that it was impossible for it to be otherwise. The possibility of it being otherwise, in fact, is a requirement for it to be science in the first place! Thus, there is absolutely nothing to "excuse". If anything, we should be exited that scientific research has provided new insight to mammals in the Mesozoic; that the scientific method has been vindicated.

2. It is not that they couldn't "entertain" the thought, it is that pretty much nothing pointed to that. Can a scientist entertain the thought of a magical flying pink dildo? Yes. Should he? No - that is, unless of course it's in an attempt fo falsifiy the belief that is held; in which case it would have failed until now because there was no concrete evidence that refuted the belief that was held until now. There is absolutely nothing that indicates a magical flying pink dildo exists. The same applies here. Until now, there was little to suggest that larger mammals lived during that period.

3. There is no mention that it might support young-earth creationism because it in no way, shape or form supports young earth creationism. If anything, it completely disproves young-earth creationism since it dates the finding to be much more older than what young-earth creationists believe the earth is.

4. The only "disdain" scientists might have is for people who are ignorant of what evolution is, yet freely spout their bullshit. For example, someone who claims that this somehow supports young-earth creationism.

To claim that scientists somehow have disdain for those attempting to refute current theories, is ridiculous. Science invites refutations of theories, since that is exactly how science works: theories are falsified. If the falsification fails, then the theory gains greater absentence. If the falsification works, then a better theory replaces it.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 02-27-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

1. If you think there is something here to excuse, then it's painfully obvious you know nothing of science.

When the evolution community has stated that only tiny, shrew-like mammals existed during this period, yes there IS something to excuse.

quote:Science is not omniscient or omnipotent or infallible.

Didn't I say that this would be your excuse ?

Stop teaching it in our schools as if it were the only viable explanation, when it isn't even close to being complete.

quote:Nobody ever claimed that it was impossible for it to be otherwise.

It's the only theory taught in school. Indoctrination, whether direct or indirect, isn't right.

Neither is ommission.

quote:The possibility of it being otherwise, in fact, is a requirement for it to be science in the first place!

Then the same applies to all other theories, including ID and Creation.

quote:Thus, there is absolutely nothing to "excuse". If anything, we should be exited that scientific research has provided new insight to mammals in the Mesozoic; that the scientific method has been vindicated.

Except the evolution community has claimed that larger mammals didn't come onto the scene until much later.

They were wrong, and this proves it.

It's ok to be wrong, just don't blackball every other theory that doesn't agree with yours, just because you don't like it.

With shaky ground like this, it's a wonder how evolutionary theory has managed to permeate our schools as long as it has.

quote:2. It is not that they couldn't "entertain" the thought, it is that absolutely nothing pointed to that.

I guess you never bothered to read the scientific articles posted on www.icr.org (http://www.icr.org) - big surprise there.

Also, there are LOTS of books written on the subject of ID and Creation. Any book by Ken Hamm will do. They're cheap. I suggest you pick one up from Amazon.com.

There is plenty pointing to a young earth. Ignoring it doesn't eliminate it's existence.

They do not want to believe in God, so refusing to entertain the theory of Creation by claiming that there is "ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE" for it is expected.

quote:Can a scientist entertain the thought of a magical flying pink dildo? Yes. Should he? No.

If there was proof, sure.

Creation has proof. Just as much, if not more, than evolution.

quote:There is absolutely nothing that indicated a magical flying pink dildo exists. The same applies here. Until now, there was little to suggest that larger, mammals lived during that period.

And therein lies the logical fallacy of the theory of Evolution.

Not having evidence for something means it doesn't exist !

And you don't have a problem with that, do you ?!

quote:3. There is no mention that it might support young-earth creationism because it in no way, shape or form supports young earth creationism.

I could argue that this proves it didn't take as long for mammals to come on to the scene (and that they were there all along), which could indicate less than millions of years of evolution was required for their development.

This would shatter the dating methods the evolution community currently relies on (strata layers).

quote:If anything, it completely disproves young-earth creationism since it is much more older than what young-earth creationists believe the earth is.

See above.

quote:4. The only "disdain" scientists might have is for people who are ignorant of what evolution is, yet freely spout their bullshit. For example, someone who claims that this somehow supports young-earth creationism.

I didn't say it supported young earth creationism. Read it again.

1) Why is this in religion?

2) Why do you accept this scientific claim as valid while you throw out the majority of biology and geology?

3) What does "far greater than thought" and "'It gives a hint that early mammals were not just these shadowy creatures at the time of dinosaurs' but were having their own evolution. "

Have anything to do with the evolution community coming up with an excuse? Why do you think they need an excuse?

What arrogance of the scientific community (how many real scientific papers have you even read?) I guess to creationists the constant admitance that we don't know everything is arogance.

Is it possible you read too much into this and jumped the gun?

Rust, think about what you're saying before you post. I already responded, and now you've changed your post. http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif)

I can't be bothered to go back and tailor my response to your revision.

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

1) Why is this in religion?

RELIGION:

1. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. Source (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=religion)

2A. archaic : scrupulous conformity

2B. A cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith. Source (http://www.webster.com/dictionary/religion)

quote:2) Why do you accept this scientific claim as valid while you throw out the majority of biology and geology?

I didn't say it was valid, I said it shows how little evolutionists really know, and therefore it's ridiculous that it is taught in schools.

quote:3) What does "far greater than thought" and "'It gives a hint that early mammals were not just these shadowy creatures at the time of dinosaurs' but were having their own evolution." have anything to do with the evolution community coming up with an excuse? Why do you think they need an excuse?

They made a boo boo in thinking that mammals during this period were only the size of shrews, indicating that large mammals didn't evolve until much later.

If they are wrong about that, they have to manipulate the dating methods which rely on the strata layers in the geological columns, which means that everything is not as old as they once thought.

They'll never admit this, but that's what it means.

So, they will have to come up with some excuse for why they claimed the ages they did, when they were wrong.

quote:What arrogance of the scientific community (how many real scientific papers have you even read?) I guess to creationists the constant admitance that we don't know everything is arogance.

The denial of the validity of any OTHER theories, and the fact that evolution is the ONLY theory taught in public school, denotes arrogance.

Scoffing "That's not science !" to anyone who presents an alternate theory is arrogance.

quote:Is it possible you read too much into this and jumped the gun?

Nope. Wrong is wrong. Incomplete is incomplete.

Get it out of school. It doesn't belong there.

Save it for college, when people are old enough to at least find comparative theories on their own.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

When the evolution community has stated that only tiny, shrew-like mammals existed during this period, yes there IS something to excuse.

They said that was their current belief. They never, not once, said it was impossible for it to be otherwise. So no, you're wrong; there is absolutely nothing to excuse because their conclusions came from the evidence that was available at the moment, and that's the position that was maintained since the beginning.

quote:Didn't I say that this would be your excuse ?

Stop teaching it in our schools as if it were the only viable explanation, when it isn't even close to being complete.

Science is being taught in the science classroom. If you want something that isn't science to be taught, then teach it somewhere else. Nobody is stopping you from teaching other explanations; they are, however, stopping you from teaching it as science when it is extremely obvious it is not.

quote:It's the only theory taught in school. Indoctrination, whether direct or indirect, isn't right.

Neither is ommission.

Because it is the only theory that evidence agrees with, and that withstands falsification. Bring up a theory that explains what is observed, that does not rely on the supernatural, and that withstands falsification, and it will either replace evolution or be taught with it. Either do that, or kindly keep your silly objections to yourself because they prove to be meaningless.

As for your comment on it being indoctrination, you're wrong there as well. Teaching a scientific fact is not indoctrination.



quote:Then the same applies to all other theories, including ID and Creation.

What do you mean by this? That ID and biblical creationism hold the possibility of them being false? Then you would be wrong. If you meant something else, then explain yourself.

quote:Except the evolution community has claimed that larger mammals didn't come onto the scene until much later.

They were wrong, and this proves it.

It's ok to be wrong, just don't blackball every other theory that doesn't agree with yours, just because you don't like it.

With shaky ground like this, it's a wonder how evolutionary theory has managed to permeate our schools as long as it has.

They were wrong, yes. So? That, in and of itself, does not mean they need to excuse anything. The explanation was based on the evidence they had at the time; if that evidence changed, then the explanation changed to fit with it - that's exactly what the scientific method entails, and thus there is absolutely nothing to excuse. They were scientists following the scientific method; they need not excuse themselves for following it.

Moreover, you further prove your ignorance on the matter when you somehow claim that this provides a "shaky" ground for evolution. This in no way serves as a problem for evolution; only the the particular history of mammals which is independant of evolution. Evolution occuring from genetic change and selection still remains a scientific fact.

quote:I guess you never bothered to read the scientific articles posted on www.icr.org (http://www.icr.org) - big surprise there.

Also, there are LOTS of books written on the subject of ID and Creation. Any book by Ken Hamm will do. They're cheap. I suggest you pick one up from Amazon.com.

There is plenty pointing to a young earth. Ignoring it doesn't eliminate it's existence.

They do not want to believe in God, so refusing to entertain the theory of Creation by claiming that there is "ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE" for it is expected.

Actually, I have read them, and have refuted many of them on this very forum. You know this very well, yet you dishonestly ignore this in order to argue your silly point.

The fact remains that there was nothing pointing to other, larger, mammals existing during that time period. At least nothing that followed guidelines used by scientists.

quote:If there was proof, sure.

Creation has proof. Just as much, if not more, than evolution.

It does? The please, by all means, make a post providing that "proof".

Meanwhile, I'll go start taking bets on how long it takes for you to either decline, shift the burden of proof, or simply accept and then flee.

quote:And therein lies the logical fallacy of the theory of Evolution.

Not having evidence for something means it doesn't exist !

And you don't have a problem with that, do you ?!

No, what lies there is your atrocious reading abilities. I didn't say that a magical pink dildo couldn't exist nor that the lack of evidence was evidence of absence - I said that nothing pointed to its existence.

Science does not make a claim on the existence or non-existence of the supernatural.

quote:I could argue that this proves it didn't take as long for mammals to come on to the scene (and that they were there all along), which could indicate less than millions of years of evolution was required for their development.

This would shatter the dating methods the evolution community currently relies on (strata layers).

No, you couldn't. If you accept this new discovery, then you also accept the dating methods those some discoverers used. To claim that they magically got the discovery right, yet they conveniently got the dating wrong is ludicrous and a sad attempt at your part to support your ridiculous beliefs.

quote:I didn't say it supported young earth creationism. Read it again.

Then I guess it wasn't about you, huh?

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 02-27-2006).]

This thread really has no point other than to say "Science must be wrong about evolution and creationism because they found something new that they didn't know existed before hand"?!

Unlike religion, science disciplines can evolve themselves - allowing for the discoveries of new species and specimins for us to learn about and understand.

When definitive proof that creationism is true is discovered, then the creation argument can be taught in schools. Until then, it is logical to teach what we DO know and not fairy tales.

I didn't say it was valid, I said it shows how little evolutionists really know, and therefore it's ridiculous that it is taught in schools.

That seems a bit odd. So you didn't say it was valid yet you propose it's a problem for evolutionists, yet if it's not valid then where is the problem?

Again, why is this acceptable but the majority of science isn't?

It's been a number of years since the never scientifically accepted Nebraska man was exposed, and creationists still can't give it up, what if this is another hoax and science has no problems?

They made a boo boo in thinking that mammals during this period were only the size of shrews, indicating that large mammals didn't evolve until much later.

Yep, congrats on discovering they don't know everything. However you do realize you are arguing over exactly when mammals became Platypus sized right?

If they are wrong about that, they have to manipulate the dating methods which rely on the strata layers in the geological columns, which means that everything is not as old as they once thought.

How so? I don't see the logic here. Evolution is not straight forward chain. This does not show the dating of shrew sized mammals wrong but it does "indicating a greater diversification than previously thought" (from the article).

In other words the future generations of this new find probably lived with the old finds.

The denial of the validity of any OTHER theories, and the fact that evolution is the ONLY theory taught in public school, denotes arrogance.

You mean the fact that 'other' theories have been shown false yet a small group refuses the evidence because of their religion makes scientists arrogant. I see.

Scoffing "That's not science !" to anyone who presents an alternate theory is arrogance.

What about scoffing "that's not science" and then providing mounds of evidence that shows it's not science, is that ok?

Get it out of school. It doesn't belong there.

Get what exactly out of school?

You can't be seriously suggesting that because we don't know the exact history of the early mammal line all of evolution and geology should be removed from school, are you?

If that's the case we probably should remove the majority of history class including any mention of Jesus among many other figures.

We would end up being left with the only two things that can be proven, math and booze, and drunken math students are rather boring.



On a related question I am curious if you have ever fought against high school physic classes?

Edit: I should also ask why?

[This message has been edited by Beta69 (edited 02-27-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Creation has proof. Just as much, if not more, than evolution.

Please Digi, present one iota of evidence showing proof of anything at all supernatural.



quote: I didn't say it supported young earth creationism. Read it again.

No,you didn't say that it did. You did complain that the article didn't mention that the information might support Young Earth Creation (when it actually presents evidence to the contrary).

By the way, although a mammal weighing 1.7 pounds was much larger than expected, it was by no means a large animal.Also the article clearly stated that "...There have been hints of such animals in the past but nothing equal to the remains found by Luo and colleagues...".

It's interesting information. Nothing to make excuses for, by any stretch of the imagination.

i gotta say digital, your whole argument is pretty much intellectually bankrupt.

1. to say scientist got something wrong about mammals in the mesozoic period, you have to accept the existance of the mesozoic period, which disproves your particular creation myth.

2.this has changed nothing very drasticly in the accepted knowlege about prehistoric animals, we have to expect that the more fossils are found the more the gaps in the knowlege will be filled in. after all humans have only started to dig for fossils in the past 200 years.

3. your whole argument simply proves the infallibility of scientific method. and the total dogmatic aproach that fundamentallist christians take which is always disproved by object fact.

"Stop teaching it in our schools as if it were the only viable explanation, when it isn't even close to being complete."

So lets see here... Another viable explanation for lets say.. rain. Its God crying. Zomg you cant disprove it!! Zomg zomg zomg!! Teach teh Cry theory in schools plz! Were being persecuted, oh noes! Feel sorry-er for us!!!

Wait, so digital, your saying that we should teach every possible explanation for everything in the universe in science class?

I think we should teach the one that we have the direct evidence for, that way, we can cover many subjects throughout the school year.

[This message has been edited by Cpt.Winters (edited 02-27-2006).]

quote: Originally posted by Digital_savior

I wonder what excuses the evolution community will come up with for this one.

quote: From the article you just posted:

"It gives a hint that early mammals were not just these shadowy creatures at the time of dinosaurs" but were having their own EVOLUTION. There have been hints of such animals in the past but nothing equal to the remains found by Luo and colleagues, he said.

Hows that?

Edit: I can't believe no one noticed that...



[This message has been edited by great_sage=heaven (edited 02-27-2006).]

Digital_savior, all im getting from you is that evolution is ultimatly WRONG because of a new discovery. Well, keep in mind that evolution is still relatively new, and we ultimatly have no way to be 100% sure we're correct with everything.



Thats not to say, however, that a god created everything makes anymore sense. So what if we have to re-write the theory? if we found something that counters creationism (cough THIS DISCOVERY cough), all you can do is sit there and sputter.

quote:To claim that scientists somehow have disdain for those attempting to refute current theories, is ridiculous.



Dr. William Albert Dembsky

"Dr. William Albert "Bill" Dembski (born July 18, 1960) is a controversial American mathematician, philosopher, theologian and neo-creationist known for advocating the idea of Intelligent Design in opposition to the theory of evolution through natural selection. Dembski believes that the scientific study of nature reveals evidence of design and opposes what he regards as mainstream science's commitment to "atheistic" materialism or naturalism, which rules out design a priori.

Dembski's main proposal is that specified complexity, a type of information, is the hallmark of an intelligent designer. His work is controversial; his ideas are not accepted as valid by the mainstream scientific community, with leading scientific organizations such as the National Academy of Sciences describing intelligent design as pseudoscience, and significant voices within the science community challenging his credentials as a commentator on science, philosophy and mathematics. Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Dembski)

Michael Behe

Michael J. Behe (born 1952) is a American biochemist and intelligent design advocate. Behe is professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania and a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. He is noted for advocating the idea that life is too complex at the biochemical level to have evolved, which he has termed "irreducible complexity".

Behe's claims about the irreducible complexity of key cellular structures are strongly contested by the scientific community, including the Department of Biological Sciences at his own Lehigh University. Likewise, his claims about intelligent design have been characterized as pseudoscience.

Behe once fully accepted the scientific theory of evolution. However, Behe came to believe that there was evidence, at a biochemical level, that there were systems that were "irreducibly complex". These were systems that he thought could not, even in principle, have evolved by natural selection, and thus must have been created by an "intelligent designer," which he believed to be the only possible alternative explanation for such complex structures. Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe)

There's more, but I need to go to bed.

I will resume this tomorrow.

quote:Originally posted by great_sage=heaven:

Hows that?

Edit: I can't believe no one noticed that...



I did, I was just to lazy to come back and point it out.

But yeah, that's about the gyst. http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

I wonder what excuses the evolution community will come up with for this one.



- I don't necisarily believe in evolution the way it's taught, but I definitely believe in the blue prints of it as a theory. And while I find this post very interesting and informative, I don't know if it completely disproves the theory of evolution. It more just kind of creates a different path of evolution. I mean, after all, that's why it's a "theory". No one knows for sure. Everyones just trying to make educated. Someones educated guess was wrong, but that doesn't mean that the house of cards has collapsed completely.

This just further illustrates the point that science can't ever prove macro-evolution, which makes it even more preposterous that it is the only explanation taught in public schools regarding our existence.

- What can't ever been proven or not cannot be known, for obvious reasons. We may just not have the proper tools for proving it or something. I mean, it was only a few hundred years ago we thought the world was flat. And I don't believe that the theory of evolution is the only theory that's taught in schools. Especially not in religious schools and a lot of people go to religious schools.

If they couldn't even entertain the thought of mammals of substantial size during this time period, what ELSE are they missing ?

- That's the thing with science, they're missing a lot because there's just so much to know. Odds that we'll ever know everything there is to know about the universe are slim. That's why it's such a facinating field of study.

You'd be right on both accounts. The problem I have with this is the arrogance and sheer disdain evolutionists have for anyone that doesn't agree with their "religion", yet they come up wrong, again and again.

- You sound like you have a lot of disdain for evolutionists. I haven't seen anyone ripping your throat out over it, either.

Cheers,

Lost

That's because the ID proponents that you have mentioned have been shown to be wrong time and time again, if their predictions had been supported rather than refuted then maybe they would have more credibility in the scientific community.

I think the disdain comes from trying to do an end run around the scientific method and process with bad data. I don't know many real doctors who like the shill you see on TV hocking his "cures 'they' don't want you to know about" book.

On the other hand, serious scientists who try to falsify evolution or parts of it are hailed (as well as sometimes hated). This whole "debate" casts a very distorted view of science. It would seem creationists are happy with making scientists into a 'they' a secretive group that conspires against the truth which of course you can know (for only $9.95). In reality scientists compete quite a lot, they fight with each other, the first person to effectively take down a theory gets their names in lights (think back to all the scientists you know, I bet every single one is famous for falsifying a theory, Pastuer, Newton, Galileo, Einstein, etc.) The problem is the data falsifying the theory must stand up to scrutiny, ID doesn't. It's not some evil conspiracy but just bad data.

Digital, making a fool of yourself isn't helping in the whole "witnessing" buisness. Give it up. You demonstrate how little you know about science and your unwillingness to learn anything about it either. The minute a SCIENTIFIC discovery brings something new on the table that you THINK supports your views, you beging your gloating about science failing at ..what? being science?. It's quite hilarious, really.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

I'm a muppet

Biblical Creationism and Intelligent Design are pseudo-science. To simply call them that is not to have disdain for them, it is simply to be factual.

Dembsky and Behe are not trying to falsify evolution with new scientific hypothesis and their tests. They are givin unscientific hypothesis that they know to be scientific, and they know have been refuted before. Moreover, they are trying to teach these unscientific hypothesis in the science classroom. That is where any possible disdain comes from.

In any case, we should feel disdain for those people. Their theories are unscientific. They know that their theories are unscientific. They have been refuted countless times before, and the know this as well. Why shouldn't we feel some disdain for them? We should.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 02-27-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

I did, I was just to lazy to come back and point it out.

But yeah, that's about the gyst. http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

But wait, the article you originally posted that you're whole point was based on, supports evolution...

Soooo, what's the gyst?

Edit: I repeat, according to the article that you posted and this thread is based on, this new mammal only helps to further back up evolutionary theory. Is it just me, or is this argument over? I mean, I don't try and disprove the colour red by wearing a big red hat...



[This message has been edited by great_sage=heaven (edited 02-27-2006).]

Religious people don't belong in schools. That's why their stupid ideas aren't taught there. Fact.

Want some more facts, anyone?

quote:Originally posted by Snoopy:

Religious people don't belong in schools. That's why their stupid ideas aren't taught there. Fact.

Want some more facts, anyone?



Should I worship a magic flying pink dildo, snoopy? Im so confused....

quote:Originally posted by Snoopy:

Religious people don't belong in schools. That's why their stupid ideas aren't taught there. Fact.

Want some more facts, anyone?

You don't consider atheisim a religion? By definition it is, and evolution is a big part of atheisim, and it is being taught in schools

quote:Originally posted by Dragonsthrone:

You don't consider atheisim a religion? By definition it is, and evolution is a big part of atheisim, and it is being taught in schools

You're an idiot.

Well if calling me an idiot is all you can come up with...I think I did a good job no?

Ok. Atheism is simply a word to describe someone who does not believe in deities. It’s a lot easier to say “I’m an atheist” than to say “I do not believe in God and deities”.

There are loads of atheists with loads of different beliefs. I know an atheist who claims evolution is wrong. I have spoken to atheists online and offline who have very different beliefs, they all only share one thing in common, they do not believe in deities.

With a religious person, they assign themselves to a religion and they all believe the basic same dogma of that religion, their beliefs require worship, and they agree in more things than they disagree on.

All atheists have one thing in common, they don’t believe in gods. All religious people have loads in common.

When a Christian makes a decision, he tends to think ‘what would Jesus do’ or ‘what does it say in the Bible?’ Do you see Atheists going around following some crazy old ancient text? No, you don’t.

quote:Originally posted by Adrenochrome:

Ok. Atheism is simply a word to describe someone who does not believe in deities. It’s a lot easier to say “I’m an atheist” than to say “I do not believe in God and deities”.

There are loads of atheists with loads of different beliefs. I know an atheist who claims evolution is wrong. I have spoken to atheists online and offline who have very different beliefs, they all only share one thing in common, they do not believe in deities.

With a religious person, they assign themselves to a religion and they all believe the basic same dogma of that religion, their beliefs require worship, and they agree in more things than they disagree on.

All atheists have one thing in common, they don’t believe in gods. All religious people have loads in common.

When a Christian makes a decision, he tends to think ‘what would Jesus do’ or ‘what does it say in the Bible?’ Do you see Atheists going around following some crazy old ancient text? No, you don’t.

I agree with your first premise, that there can be atheists who believe in different things, but you just lumped everyone that refer to themselves as 'religious.' The different religions are very broad and I don't think that you can honestly lump them all together as you did.

I find it extremely funny that any time a revision of a theory comes along due to new EVIDENCE (for which creationism and intelligent design, which is creationism in a new wrapper, have none), these assclowns come along saying "ooh ooh science is wrong OMGWTFBBQ!!! that means my stupidass, no evidence-having theory must be right!!!!111oneone"

I, personally, am a person of faith (no religion, too much bullshit), but i do realize that everything in this world doesnt necessarily have to have a direct connection to my faith.

and all you fucks who think that science is anti-religion, wake up. it is not anti-religion, it is simply the seeking of truth, through evidence. its devoid of faith-based assumptions, and relies on evidence-based hypotheses.

[This message has been edited by dead_people_killer (edited 03-21-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Dragonsthrone:

You don't consider atheisim a religion? By definition it is, and evolution is a big part of atheisim, and it is being taught in schools

Atheism, not atheisim.

Language is a big part of atheism too, and OMG it's being taught in schools, those damn secular atheist satanist teachers, trying to make our kids more learned.

quote:Originally posted by Dragonsthrone:

You don't consider atheisim a religion? By definition it is, and evolution is a big part of atheisim, and it is being taught in schools

Every religion on this earth has rituals. What rituals do atheists have?

[This message has been edited by Atomical (edited 03-21-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Dragonsthrone:

You don't consider atheisim a religion? By definition it is, and evolution is a big part of atheisim, and it is being taught in schools

Provide that definition. Lack of belief in a diety in not a religion. You are a moron.

quote:Originally posted by Dragonsthrone:

You don't consider atheisim a religion? By definition it is, and evolution is a big part of atheisim, and it is being taught in schools

Atheism is only a religion using a poor third definition. By that same definition, People Who Think Jack Bauer is a Badass is a religion. So is the Democratic party. That definition is asininely vague.

I don't know when you went to school, but I had biology last year, and we were only taught micro-evolution, which is completely legitimate and reproduceable.

I don't have a problem with micro-evolution. But macro-evolution.

I'm glad to hear it.

Where do you live, Kansas ? http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

microevolution + millions of years = macroevolution.

Nope.

No new species has ever been spawned from another.

There is no proof. None. Zilch. Nada.

*pops his bubble*

A T.O. article from 95 about observed speciation, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Copy of a Timesonline UK article from 03 about an observed speciation in the wild, http://www.holysmoke.org/new-species.htm

Um, yes new species have been observed to come from old. As soon as two species (or two groups of the same species) can't share genetic information (for whatever reason) it only takes time to make their seperation grow and eventually they become completely different.

As if you saying it makes it so. Digi, there is a huge amount of very strong evidence supporting macro-evolution. There have been hundreds of posts in this forum presenting you with a small portion of said evidence.

The fact that you close your eyes, cover your ears, and babble at the top of your voice to keep from being exposed to the evidence, does not make the evidence any less valid.

And before you dismiss this post with one of your usual snide comments- No, I'm not some angsty kidiot attention whore , and Yes, you do know the bible better than I , although I have read it more than once. I simply find no rational reason to believe it is anything more than a fairytale.

God said it. THAT makes it so.

You don't see the value of the Bible, and that's fine. I am not asking that you do. *shrugs*

Your comments are just as snide as mine, so I hardly see how you can accuse me of that with a straight face.

And there have NOT been hundreds of posts showing proof of macroevolution.

MUTATION is not macroevolution. It's mutation.

I'm too tired right now to really get into it, but I'll address your links Beta.

Some mutations do cause speciation. Evolution is built on mutations.

I hope you aren't going to address them by claiming no new information thus it's not really "macro evolution" as we have just been over the no new information claim (well as far as we could before the creationists started ignoring it).

My first point will be this animal lived 164 Million years ago... That's around 163,995,000 years before the bible suggests creation happened...

Case in point; This animal lived before God created the Earth, Is this animal God perhaps?

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

God said it. THAT makes it so.

*You don't see the value of the Bible, and that's fine. I am not asking that you do. *shrugs*

Your comments are just as snide as mine, so I hardly see how you can accuse me of that with a straight face.

And there have NOT been hundreds of posts showing proof of macroevolution.

MUTATION is not macroevolution. It's mutation.

I'm too tired right now to really get into it, but I'll address your links Beta.

A wolf-like animal lives in a swamp... Over many years of mutations the wolf's offspring have developed paws with webbing between the toes... This is because webbing helped these wolf's swim the short distances to catch prey more effectively...

The furr of these creatures, over the years go shorter and shorter because the mud sticking to the matted hair was a breeding ground for diseases that killed off the ones with longer fur...

Is this creature still wolf-like, or now whale-like?

The wolf-like population of these animals moved inland following prey and adapted even longer furr for warth, the cold climate meant diseases were easier to control...

The whale-like population of these animals moved deeper into the swamp... Eventually adapting to living in water full time...

********************______ Wolves

********************|

*** Common Ancestor----|

********************|____ Whales

********************

This is to show how small mutations over time, produces two distinct animal species...

Where is the ape-fish animal?... Well, there's no such thing... Ape's have no fish DNA in them... But both Ape's and Fish share the DNA of their common ancestor, many millions of years ago, when the evolution tree branched the population of their common ancestor...



[This message has been edited by Axiom (edited 03-22-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

God said it. THAT makes it so.

You don't see the value of the Bible, and that's fine. I am not asking that you do. *shrugs*

Your comments are just as snide as mine, so I hardly see how you can accuse me of that with a straight face.

And there have NOT been hundreds of posts showing proof of macroevolution.

MUTATION is not macroevolution. It's mutation.

I'm too tired right now to really get into it, but I'll address your links Beta.

Right... and how do we know God says so? Because it's in the Bible. And how do we know the Bible is fact. Bcause God says so. And how do we know God says so? Because it's in the Bible.

Seriously. You're stupid. It's an ancient text that isn't valid for anything anymore.



[This message has been edited by Adrenochrome (edited 03-22-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Adrenochrome:

It's an ancient text that isn't valid for anything anymore.

I wouldn't go that far, but I think it's fairly obvious to most educated people that the Iron-Age science presented in the bible isn't completely accurate.

quote: "It gives a hint that early mammals were not just these shadowy creatures at the time of dinosaurs" but were having their own evolution. There have been hints of such animals in the past but nothing equal to the remains found by Luo and colleagues, he said.

Just to restate, the very article posted supports evolutionary theory, so as far as the article itself goes, this debate is over, and in the favour of evolution. Just in case everyone missed that.

Digital, I'm honestly sick of your nonsense. You use every new discovery in science that contradicts something formerly accepted as fact as an opportunity to lash out and mock all of science as ridiculous and false.

"These pricks think they can understand evolution? They don't even know every single species!"

I don't know if anyone has told you, but you don't need to have a thorough knowledge of every species that ever existed in order to realize the fact of evolution. Oh noes, scientists don't know something. They're learning something they didn't know! THAT MUST MEAN THEY'RE STUPID BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T BORN KNOWING EVERYTHING! http://www.totse.com/bbs/mad.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/mad.gif)

You get nasty and abusive to people who disagree with you or point out your hypocrisy, ban them from your IRC channel which is really just a podium for you to blather on endlessly about your fundie bullshit and ban anyone who disagrees (don't even fucking deny it, I know you do it) without the slightest twinge of guilt.

I would seriously appreciate you not insulting people who have different views than you and not decrying all of science as "retarded" or whatever when you clearly only have a tenuous grasp of basic scientific concepts. You can't debunk something that you fail to understand, so just stop.

Also, there is such thing as the burden of proof. Evolution is not an "unproved theory" by any stretch of the imagination. A scientific theory is not an untested hypothesis like most people seem to believe. A scientific theory is an explanation for a set of related facts, tested and overwhelmingly supported by scientific evidence.

In short, shut the fuck up, you goddamned moron.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

God said it. THAT makes it so.

DOES GOD SPEAK TO YOU DS? I highly doubt that you can talk to things that don't exist. THE BIBLE IS NOT GOD. YOU HAVE SAID IT YOURSELF IT WAS WRITTEN BY 40 DIFFERENT PEOPLE. THEY ARE NOT GOD.

As for Dragonsthrone, Evolution is not a huge part of atheism.

Dictionary.com defines Athiesm as,

1.Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.

2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

2b. Godlessness.

Now, You tell me where that says you have to believe in evolution to be an Athiest. Thank you.

many dinosaurs had feathers, they are merely ancient birds, meaning they were warm-blooded, NOT cold-blooded like reptiles. this find doesn't really do anything other than enlighten us as to something we didn't previously know about the ecological state of earth 165 million years ago. fur and feathers made great evolutionary assets, doesn't everyone agree?

another thing, this is more proof that science is self-correcting, meaning it WORKS. DS have any objections?

I rather like to entertain the idea of Intelligent Design the most, but every scientific as well as every religious theory is merely bunk to me.

quote:Originally posted by prozak_jack:

I rather like to entertain the idea of Intelligent Design the most, but every scientific as well as every religious theory is merely bunk to me.

Then educate yourself.

i like the way christians claim to "love everyone" so much but then try to destroy and set back humanities crowning achievements.

Just because I love you doesn't mean that i agree with your ideals and actions. What crowning achievements of humanity have we christians destroyed?

You haven't destroyed any, you just try to. Evolution is one of them.

quote:Originally posted by Dragonsthrone:

Just because I love you doesn't mean that i agree with your ideals and actions. What crowning achievements of humanity have we christians destroyed?

you fuckers burned galileo at the stake for pointing out the earth revolves around the sun.

you fuckers are holding back stem-cell research that could be saving lives.

you fuckers are the ones who believe in the second coming and the rapture so you fuckers don't give a shit about global warming or the environment.

FUCKERS!

quote:Originally posted by TerminatorVinitiatoR:

you fuckers burned galileo at the stake for pointing out the earth revolves around the sun.

you fuckers are holding back stem-cell research that could be saving lives.

you fuckers are the ones who believe in the second coming and the rapture so you fuckers don't give a shit about global warming or the environment.

QFT, Damn they really are fucking blind Terminator. They don't see how stupid they really are.