Evolution is a fact!

Originally posted by Langtree
I'll get to your previous posts, but why hurl insults, they only detract from your arguments. Why should I be annoyed, I find this exciting and stimulating. It forces me to further research on my position. I don't get emotionally involved, just intellectually.

i would go so far as to say that you do seem hungry for some evolutionary evidence. however, my question is much more fundamental and i will patiently await an answer. my question is simple: if creationism is faith-based, how can it possibly be the 'logical conclusion'? it's your positive assertion, and i am just asking for supporting documentation.

if you thought i was 'hurl[ing] insults' then i would again say that your skin is thin.

Originally posted by LemonJello
i would go so far as to say that you do seem hungry for some evolutionary evidence. however, my question is much more fundamental and i will patiently await an answer. my question is simple: if creationism is faith-based, how can it possibly be the 'logical conclusion'? it's your positive assertion, and i am just asking for supporting documentation.

if you thought i was 'hurl[ing] insults' then i would again say that your skin is thin.

Actually I'm starving. The reasons are simple, first, evolution can't explain the wave motions of light, electro-magnet and nulcear, because a wave shouldn't be able to occur in a vacuum, nevertheless it does. I know why.
Second, evolution flies in the face of the Laws of Energy conservation and Energy decay, (Thermodynamics) Third, the dating methods are still suspect. Fourth, the transitional forms cited by one of your collegues is superfluous, because of the their complexity. There is a lack of earlier forms which should have given rise to the Cambrian forms. Everything you collegue wrote fails because of that lack. The Cambrian forms appeared fully formed and functional with no preceeding form. Fifth, is the discovery that dinosaurs were not cold blooded like reptiles, but warm blooded like birds. That changed the appearance of several dinosaurs, especially the T-Rex, that was amusing. Sixth, is the problem Melvin Cook discovered concerning Helium 4 entering the atmosphere, not leaving the rocks, thus bringing into question the age of the atmosphere.(This is over-simplied version of a very complex issue.) Seventh, there of course is what was the earth like in the beginning. Trying to duplicate what you don't know is pretty silly, nobody was there. Eighth, how such animals as the woodpecker, bombardier beetle, the cleaner fish and the Archerfish come about. There designs are very complex, and random processes governed by chance don't work. If you think so, then try this, take apart a simple mechanism such as a calculator, and dismantle it. Take those several parts and put them in a dryer and let them tumble, and see if your calculator will turn up fully assembled. That's all folks.

Originally posted by LemonJello
i'm tired and at this point would rather watch paint dry, but i just wanted to recap your position quickly because, after all, you are the one making loud, boisterous claims. you speak of creationism (a faith-based theory that necessarily abandons reason) as the only 'logical conclusion'. hmmm....so what you are saying is that the only rational choic ...[text shortened]... y merry unbirthday yet today. well, let me be the first. and how old does that still make you?

I'm the mad-hatter? OOOOh, that was dirty, but expected. Your collegue Frogstomp waxed elequent, but forgot one very important detail. The complex forms appeared suddenly without any previous forms, he didn't cite the simpler forms, probably because they didn't exists. He lengthy arguement fell with a big THUD!

Originally posted by Langtree
The problem with the Cambrian fossils is they are too complex, where are the simpler forms, according to evolution these should have appeared first, but they didn't. Marshall Kay and Edwin Colbert address this issue in their book, Stratigraphy and life History. The evidence only supports the fact that these early fossils appeared suddenly fully formed a ...[text shortened]... onclusion, but I will continue to research. As a famous cyborg once said, "I'll be be back."

Heres the facts about radiometric testing, I dont have time to explain how wrong you are again.
btw Since I don't have time to go thru each nitpick you guys make.
make you statement I'll make mine and if you want to appeal to authority like dj does and you been trying in this post , I remind you the most of the authorities are evolutionists.
"strickly a bird" ?
Much has been made in pseudoscientific circles about the position of Archae within the evolutionary scheme of things. The usual "argument" put forward is that Archae cannot be a transitional fossil between birds and dinosaurs because it is a bird. This simplistic line belies the fact that, whilst Archae is indeed classified as a bird, it has been done so on the strength of 4 main characters - 2 of which are not unique to birds. This classification ignores the fact that Archae has numerous characters which are unique, unique in that they are not possessed by birds. Archae's avian affinities are allowable on the strength of the following 4 main characters:
Archaeopteryx's avian features
1) Feathers.
Feathers are the diagnostic feature of modern birds. This is one of the main criterion for classifying Archae as a bird, as no other modern animal has feathers. The possession of feathers is a characteristic of birds, so strike one up for the birds. However, in late 1996, a discovery in China may change this view. A small theropod dinosaur Sinosauropteryx (Chen et al. 1998) was found with what appear to be feathers preserved along the back. The identification of the sturctures is equivocal however, (e.g. Unwin 1998), with some doubting that the structures are feathers.
2) Opposable hallux (big toe).
This also is a character of birds and not of dinosaurs. Although opposable big toes are found in other groups, they are not, as far as I am aware, found in dinosaurs. A reversed big toe is found in some dinosaurs however, and the condition is approached in some theropod dinosaurs.
3) Furcula (wishbone) formed of two clavicles fused together in the midline.
Now we start getting on shaky ground. It used to be thought that the possession of a furcula distinguished birds from dinosaurs. Indeed, up until recently even clavicles were few and far between in even theropod dinosaurs (the suggested closest group to the birds and from which the birds evolved - see Ostrom 1976). However, it has been found that theropod dinosaurs did indeed have clavicles (e.g. Bryant & Russell 1993) and they have been found in several species, e.g., Segisaurus, Velociraptor, Euparkeria, Ornithosuchus, Saltoposuchus, Ticinosuchus. Also, Chure & Madson (1996) reported furculae in a non-maniraptoran, allosaurid dinosaur.
It has been found that the clavicles are often small and poorly ossified. This is no surprise, since they are of little evolutionary advantage to your average theropod dinosaur. However, birds too show this variation in ossification, especially amongst the carniates and some parrots, clavicles are reduced or even missing. Therefore the apparent absence of clavicles in some theropod dinosaurs may well be due to poor ossification rather than true absence. However, furculas have been found in some theropod dinosaurs, namely the Oviraptorosauria (Barsbold et al. 1990, Bryant & Russell 1993), for example Oviraptor and Ingenia. Thus furculas do not appear to be diagnostic to birds and certain members of the suggested closest group to the birds now appear to possess furculas so it is a neutral character.
A commonly cited criticism of this is that most of the theropod dinosaurs listed here post-date Archae. However, none of these is claimed as the ancestor anyway, and Eupakeria is a Triassic form. The presence of clavicles shows that this character is a feature of theropod dinosaurs and thus was probably present in early theropods
4) Pubis elongate and directed backward.
This is a feature of birds, but it is also a feature of some theropod dinosaurs so is not diagnostic of birds - another neutral character. However, the pubic shafts of Archaeopteryx and dromaeosaurs (a group of theropod dinosaurs which are thought to be closely linked to birds) share a plate-like, slightly angled transverse cross-section which not found in any other archosaurs
5) Premaxilla and maxilla are not horn-covered.
This is posh talk for "does not have a bill." The premaxilla does not have a keratinized covering, so Archaeopteryx has no bill. The bill is produced via the process of 'cornification' which involves the mucus layer of the epidermis (Romanoff 1960) and thus its formation is independant of jaw bone formation.
6) Trunk region vertebra are free.
In birds the trunk vertebrae are always fused.
7) Bones are pneumatic.
I.e. they appear to have air-sacs, as they do in birds and in some dinosaurs (e.g. Witmer 1990, Brooks 1993). It should be pointed out that previous claims suggesting the bones of Archae were not pneumatic (Lambrecht 1933; de Beer 1954), was based on negative evidence, i.e. that the bones do not exhibit pneumatic pores (through which the air sacs enter the bones) and the bones show none of the plumpness and bulges which characterise the pneumatic bones of modern birds. Britt et al. (1998) found evidence for the presence of pnematic bones in Archaeopteryx:
"Here we re-examine two specimens of _Archaeopteryx_. These specimens show evidence of vertebral pneumaticity in the cervical and anterior thorasic vertebrae, thus confirming the phylogenetic continuity between the pneumatic systems of non-avialan theropods and living birds" (Britt et al. 1998, p. 374
8) Pubic shafts with a plate-like, and slightly angled transverse cross-section
A Character shared with dromaeosaurs but not with other dinosaurs or birds
9) Cerebral hemispheres elongate, slender and cerebellum is situated behind the mid-brain and doesn't overlap it from behind or press down on it.
This again is a reptilian feature. In birds the cerebral hemispheres are stout, cerebellum is so much enlarged that it spreads forwards over the mid-brain and compresses it downwards. Thus the shape of the brain is not like that of modern birds, but rather an intermediate stage between dinosaurs and birds (e.g. Alexander 1990).
10) Neck attaches to skull from the rear as in dinosaurs not from below as in modern birds.
The site of neck attachement (from below) is characteristic in birds, _Archaeopteryx_ does not have this character, but is the same as theropod dinosaurs:
"Notice that this coelurosaurian-like neck extended back from the rear of the skull in _Archaeopteryx_ - as it does in coelurosaurs [theropod dinosaurs], rather than from beneath as in later birds." (Ostrom 1976, p. 137).
Skull and brain of Archae is basically reptilian and is not "totally birdlike" (contrary to a certain creationist's claim).
11) Center of cervical vertebrae have simple concave articular facets.
This is the same as the archosaur pattern. In birds the vertebrae are different, they have a saddle-shaped surface:
"The most striking feature of the vertebrae is the simple disk-like facets of their centra, without any sign of the saddle-shaped articulations found in other birds" (de Beer 1954, p. 17).
12) Long bony tail with many free vertebrae up to tip (no pygostyle).
Birds have a short tail and the caudal vertebrae are fused to give the pygostyle.
13) Premaxilla and maxilla bones bear teeth.
No modern bird possess teeth (e.g. Romanoff 1960; Orr 1966, p. 113). Bird embryos form tooth buds, but do not actually produce teeth. Some birds subsequently produce ridges in the bill, but there is no connection between them and the embryonic tooth buds, since the ridges also form in other areas of the bill where no tooth buds have previouslu formed. Some birds produce hook-like structures which are papillae, and appear to be related to the process of keratinization of the beak (Romanoff 1960), and have nothing to do with teeth. They do not possess blood vessel or nerve connections, nor do they produce dentine.
The expression of tooth buds in the bird embryo has a simple evolutionary explanation, since it suggests that the ancestors of modern birds possessed teeth and that this character has been supressed in modern birds. The presence of tooth buds in the embryos of organisms which do not possess teeth in the adult is a difficulty for anti-evolutionists, since why should a character be expressed that is never used in the organism? Some fossil birds exhibit a reduction in the number of bones which have teeth. Both Hesperornis and Baptornis lack teeth on the premaxilla (Archaeopteryx and theropod dinosaurs have teeth on both the maxilla and premaxilla). Not only that, Hesperornis has a beak, but on the upper jaw only (Gingerich 1975). It therefore has half a beak and teeth. A good example of a morphologicaly intermediate structure between toothed birds which lack a beak, and beaked, toothless birds.
14) Ribs slender, without joints or uncinate processes and do not articulate with the sternum.
Birds have stout ribs with uncinate processes (braces between them) and articulate with the sternum.
15) Pelvic girdle and femur joint is archosaurian rather than avian (except for the backward pointing pubis as mentioned above).
Here Archae really shows its transitional nature. Whilst the pelvic girdle as a whole is basically free and similar to archosaur girdles, the pubis points backward - a character shared with birds and some other bird-like theropod dinosaurs.
What is interesting is that with the bird pelvis:
"The ischium lies beneath the posterior part of the ilium and beneath this again is the pubis, which is directed backwards (i.e. like this: =). Embryological studies show that the peculiar position of these bones is the result of secondary rotation and that the pectineal process, in front of the ascetabulum, is not the true pubis as some workers have maintained." (Bella

Originally posted by Langtree
Actually I'm starving. The reasons are simple, first, evolution can't explain the wave motions of light, electro-magnet and nulcear, because a wave shouldn't be able to occur in a vacuum, nevertheless it does. I know why.
Second, evolution flies in the face of the Laws of Energy conservation and Energy decay, (Thermodynamics) Third, the dating method ...[text shortened]... nd let them tumble, and see if your calculator will turn up fully assembled. That's all folks.

how does any of this address my very fundamental question i posed? your specific blabberings cannot legitimize your general blanket statement that creationism is a 'logical conclusion'. again i will ask: how can something faith-based be 'logical'? how can something that is predicated upon the supernatural be 'logical'? how can a theory that suppresses reason be 'logical'?

Originally posted by Langtree
I'm the mad-hatter? OOOOh, that was dirty, but expected. Your collegue Frogstomp waxed elequent, but forgot one very important detail. The complex forms appeared suddenly without any previous forms, he didn't cite the simpler forms, probably because they didn't exists. He lengthy arguement fell with a big THUD!

Feathered Dinosaurs Found

Two species of dinosaur have recently been found in northeast China which possess feathers (Qiang et al. 1998). Protoarchaeopteryx robusta and Caudipteryx zoui show regiges, rectrices and plumulaceous feather inpressions. Further, they are not birds, lacking a reverted (backwards facing) big toe (see number 2 below) and a quadrratojugal squamosal contact, having a quadrojugal joined to the quatrate by a ligament and a reduced or absent process of the ishium. These and other characters group Protoarchaeopteryx and Caudipteryx with maniraptoran coelurosaurs rather than birds.

how much more of a THUDDING are you begging for

btw explain wave motion in biblical terms so I can have a laff
we have been throught all the things you raise and I would like to hear your views on field theory in conjunction with evolution


and I was addressing your gap claims. dont mischaracterize
things I say.

Originally posted by frogstomp
Feathered Dinosaurs Found

Two species of dinosaur have recently been found in northeast China which possess feathers (Qiang et al. 1998). Protoarchaeopteryx robusta and Caudipteryx zoui show regiges, rectrices and plumulaceous feather inpressions. Further, they are not birds, lacking a reverted (backwards facing) big toe (see number 2 below) and a quadr ...[text shortened]... tion


and I was addressing your gap claims. dont mischaracterize
things I say.

They also found human footprinpts within a dinosaur track.

Originally posted by dj2becker
They also found human footprinpts within a dinosaur track.

Even the most uninformed creationists 'forgot' about that one years ago after the human tracks were shown to be eroded dinosaur tracks.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html

Originally posted by frogstomp
Feathered Dinosaurs Found

Two species of dinosaur have recently been found in northeast China which possess feathers (Qiang et al. 1998). Protoarchaeopteryx robusta and Caudipteryx zoui show regiges, rectrices and plumulaceous feather inpressions. Further, they are not birds, lacking a reverted (backwards facing) big toe (see number 2 below) and a quadr ...[text shortened]... tion


and I was addressing your gap claims. dont mischaracterize
things I say.

I guess you heard the thud too. As lengthy as you arguements and sound that they be, you still have not explained the pre-Cambrian problem. All else is futile.

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
Even the most uninformed creationists 'forgot' about that one years ago after the human tracks were shown to be eroded dinosaur tracks.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html

I wouldn't worry about the foot print issue, there are other evidences to prove dinosaurs co-existed with man. For example, Herodutus, author from Greece noted in his writings, that on his journey in Egypt he saw flying reptiles, a Pterodactyl. That was about 5th century B.C. or B.C.E. which ever floats your boat. A Japanese fishing trawler caught an auquatic dinosaur, can't remember the name, in 1978, and commemorated it with a stamp. There are others, but the issue is Dinosaurs did not die out 65 millions years ago, because of a natural catastrophe. They died out like every other animal that went extinct, man hunted them into extinction.

Originally posted by frogstomp
Heres the facts about radiometric testing, I dont have time to explain how wrong you are again.
btw Since I don't have time to go thru each nitpick you guys make.
make you statement I'll make mine and if you want to appeal to authority like dj does and you been trying in this post , I remind you the most of the authorities ...[text shortened]... ss, in front of the ascetabulum, is not the true pubis as some workers have maintained." (Bella

Frogstomp, radiometric dating is all fouled up. We live in an open system which inevitbly affects the parent to daughter element decay rate. Besides, one must know wht the relationship was before the decay began, and you can't possibly know that. Carbon 14 only dates in the thousand of years.
Variations within kind is not a problem for creationism, because it is a fact, noting what you just wrote. Natural selection is a part of the real world, the canine is a perfect example of variation within kind, or horizontal change, not verticle. It has been my pleasure to have this dialogue , but I must be going. Summer vacation has finally begun and my wife and I are departing today, but not to worry, I be peeking in from time to time.

Originally posted by Langtree
Actually I'm starving. The reasons are simple, first, evolution can't explain the wave motions of light, electro-magnet and nulcear, because a wave shouldn't be able to occur in a vacuum, nevertheless it does. I know why.
Second, evolution flies in the face of the Laws of Energy conservation and Energy decay, (Thermodynamics) Third, the dating method ...[text shortened]... nd let them tumble, and see if your calculator will turn up fully assembled. That's all folks.

This post makes very little sense.

Firstly I don't really understand what evolution has to do with waves of any type. Or the law of conservation of energy.
As for the second law of thermodynamics you must remember that the entropy of a subset of a system can decrease if it is accompanied by an increase in another subset of the system.
The lack of a preceding form in fossil record can be explained by how rare fossil formation is. Say the preceding form exists for a while. Then through evolution it becomes more complex. This new complex form flourishes far outstripping the population that existed before. Which would we find a record of?

Your calculator analogy is flawed as telerion has shown in a different thread. If you completely assemble the calculator and then try it of course it won't work. However if through a process you start assembling the calculator piece by piece discarding at any point where it becomes obvious that it isn't correct then it quickly becomes a calculator. This type of process is actually used in creating electronic circuits of startling complexity in a short period of time.

Finally could you please learn the difference between there and their, basic sentence structure and some sense of coherant overall construction?

Originally posted by Langtree
I wouldn't worry about the foot print issue, there are other evidences to prove dinosaurs co-existed with man. For example, Herodutus, author from Greece noted in his writings, that on his journey in Egypt he saw flying reptiles, a Ptero ...[text shortened]... her animal that went extinct, man hunted them into extinction.

It was alleged to be a plesiosaur. In fact it was a large shark. This was proven quite a while ago. Try to keep up.

Also one person's account from 2500 years ago is suddenly evidence?