• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

EVOLUTION, what a lie.

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
those changes evolution speaks of would make any animal more vulnerable and more weak.
Nope.
you see the one thing i find interesting about the ideas put forward by evolution is that it says this happened first, then this, then that etc etc when infact we all know thats not right. but yet eveyone accept them blindly just because a scientist says so. ;)
Not a scientist, eselam, oh ignorant one. All the scientists. The entire consensus of the entire field of Biology for over a hundred years. For you to be right, they all have to be wrong. Now which one do I think is going to be wrong, the ones who have been studying it with an open mind, who understand it, or the anonymous guy on the internet who has shown he has no clue what it even says?

show me proof from the fossil record of a dinosaur evolving into a bird. now don't go posting some animated pictures that show HOW IT MAY HAVE HAPPENED, but show me a number of real fossils that clearly show the different statges or change. if you can do that i will never ever say evolution is not real and will never ever speak about evolution again.
Liar.
article-1215998-0694A667000005DC-613_634x590.jpg


(Check out the feathers--cool, eh?)

lm01052c.jpg


220px-Archaeopteryx_bavarica_Detail.jpg

250px-Confuchisornis_sanctus.JPG

800px-Longipteryx_chaoyangensis_2.JPG

450px-Ichthyornis_yale.JPG


changma2_72.jpg



O.K., there you go, a representative sample of the hundreds of skeletons illustrating the transition from dinosaur to bird. I look forward now to you keeping your word and agreeing to stop spreading your ignorant drivel around the internet.

Here's what talkorigins has to say:


  1. Many new bird fossils have been discovered in the last couple of decades, revealing several intermediates between theropod dinosaurs (such as Allosaurus) and modern birds:
    • Sinosauropteryx prima. A dinosaur covered with primitive feathers, but structurally similar to unfeathered dinosaurs Ornitholestes and Compsognathus (Chen et al. 1998; Currie and Chen 2001).
    • Ornithomimosaurs, therizinosaurs, and oviraptorosaurs. The oviraptorosaur Caudipteryx had a body covering of tufted feathers and had feathers with a central rachis on its wings and tail (Ji et al. 1998). Feathers are also known from the therizinosaur Beipiaosaurus (Xu et al. 1999a). Several other birdlike characters appear in these dinosaurs, including unserrated teeth, highly pneumatized skulls and vertebrae, and elongated wings. Oviraptorids also had birdlike eggs and brooding habits (Clark et al. 1999).
    • Deinonychosaurs (troodontids and dromaeosaurs). These are the closest known dinosaurs to birds. Sinovenator, the most primitive troodontid, is especially similar to Archaeopteryx (Xu et al. 2002). Byronosaurus, another troodontid, had teeth nearly identical to primitive birds (Makovicky et al. 2003). Microraptor, the most primitive dromaeosaur, is also the most birdlike; specimens have been found with undisputed feathers on their wings, legs, and tail (Hwang et al. 2002; Xu et al. 2003). Sinornithosaurus also was covered with a variety of feathers and had a skull more birdlike than later dromaeosaurs (Xu, Wang, and Wu 1999; Xu and Wu 2001; Xu et al. 2001).
    • Protarchaeopteryx, alvarezsaurids, Yixianosaurus and Avimimus. These are birdlike dinosaurs of uncertain placement, each potentially closer to birds than deinonychosaurs are. Protarchaeopteryx has tail feathers, uncompressed teeth, and an elongated manus (hand/wing) (Ji et al. 1998). Yixianosaurus has an indistinctly preserved feathery covering and hand/wing proportions close to birds (Xu and Wang 2003). Alvarezsaurids (Chiappe et al. 2002) and Avimimus (Vickers-Rich et al. 2002) have other birdlike features.
    • Archaeopteryx. This famous fossil is defined to be a bird, but it is actually less birdlike in some ways than some genera mentioned above (Paul 2002; Maryanska et al. 2002).
    • Shenzhouraptor (Zhou and Zhang 2002), Rahonavis (Forster et al. 1998), Yandangornis and Jixiangornis. All of these birds were slightly more advanced than Archaeopteryx, especially in characters of the vertebrae, sternum, and wing bones.
    • Sapeornis (Zhou and Zhang 2003), Omnivoropteryx, and confuciusornithids (e.g., Confuciusornis and Changchengornis; Chiappe et al. 1999). These were the first birds to possess large pygostyles (bone formed from fused tail vertebrae). Other new birdlike characters include seven sacral vertebrae, a sternum with a keel (some species), and a reversed hallux (hind toe).
    • Enantiornithines, including at least nineteen species of primitive birds, such as Sinornis (Sereno and Rao 1992; Sereno et al. 2002), Gobipteryx (Chiappe et al. 2001), and Protopteryx (Zhang and Zhou 2000). Several birdlike features appeared in enantiornithines, including twelve or fewer dorsal vertebrae, a narrow V-shaped furcula (wishbone), and reduction in wing digit bones.
    • Patagopteryx, Apsaravis, and yanornithids (Chiappe 2002; Clarke and Norell 2002). More birdlike features appeared in this group, including changes to vertebrae and development of the sternal keel.
    • Hesperornis, Ichthyornis, Gansus, and Limenavis. These birds are almost as advanced as modern species. New features included the loss of most teeth and changes to leg bones.
    • Modern birds.
 

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
why is it always like this with you :slap:

tell you what, i will make my question to you again and lets see how you are going to answer.

if evolution and natural selection was true (real) then humans, according to the laws of natural selection, would have died out at the very first second they became fully human.
Nope.
but the fact that humans exist disproves evolution and the mechanism of natural selection.
Nope.
 

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
is that your 'proof' concerning my question? please delete your post before i take a look at it for a third time.

No, it's this really radical stuff that science is made of, the stuff you're completely ignorant about: evidence. Suck it up.
 

Gharib

I want Khilafah back

because evidence shows that a crooked animal is les likely to survie (natural selection). now we are talking about a creature that has a twisted lung that is changing from breath in-breath out to breathe in only. now the only logical explanation for this is if the lung suddenly changed from 1 to 2 or if the dinosaur never evolved into the bird and the bird is fully created by god.

1. NO it doesn't.
2. That's funny. That's the thing you just said has never happened. As soon as you contradict yourself, you lose. FAIL

where'd you get this from, where have i contradicted myself, surely you must have misunderstood.
 

DarkSun

:eltiT
Nope. Not a scientist, eselam, oh ignorant one. All the scientists. The entire consensus of the entire field of Biology for over a hundred years. For you to be right, they all have to be wrong. Now which one do I think is going to be wrong, the ones who have been studying it with an open mind, who understand it, or the anonymous guy on the internet who has shown he has no clue what it even says?

Liar.
article-1215998-0694A667000005DC-613_634x590.jpg


(Check out the feathers--cool, eh?)

lm01052c.jpg


220px-Archaeopteryx_bavarica_Detail.jpg

250px-Confuchisornis_sanctus.JPG

800px-Longipteryx_chaoyangensis_2.JPG

450px-Ichthyornis_yale.JPG


changma2_72.jpg



O.K., there you go, a representative sample of the hundreds of skeletons illustrating the transition from dinosaur to bird. I look forward now to you keeping your word and agreeing to stop spreading your ignorant drivel around the internet.

Here's what talkorigins has to say:


  1. Many new bird fossils have been discovered in the last couple of decades, revealing several intermediates between theropod dinosaurs (such as Allosaurus) and modern birds:
    • Sinosauropteryx prima. A dinosaur covered with primitive feathers, but structurally similar to unfeathered dinosaurs Ornitholestes and Compsognathus (Chen et al. 1998; Currie and Chen 2001).
    • Ornithomimosaurs, therizinosaurs, and oviraptorosaurs. The oviraptorosaur Caudipteryx had a body covering of tufted feathers and had feathers with a central rachis on its wings and tail (Ji et al. 1998). Feathers are also known from the therizinosaur Beipiaosaurus (Xu et al. 1999a). Several other birdlike characters appear in these dinosaurs, including unserrated teeth, highly pneumatized skulls and vertebrae, and elongated wings. Oviraptorids also had birdlike eggs and brooding habits (Clark et al. 1999).
    • Deinonychosaurs (troodontids and dromaeosaurs). These are the closest known dinosaurs to birds. Sinovenator, the most primitive troodontid, is especially similar to Archaeopteryx (Xu et al. 2002). Byronosaurus, another troodontid, had teeth nearly identical to primitive birds (Makovicky et al. 2003). Microraptor, the most primitive dromaeosaur, is also the most birdlike; specimens have been found with undisputed feathers on their wings, legs, and tail (Hwang et al. 2002; Xu et al. 2003). Sinornithosaurus also was covered with a variety of feathers and had a skull more birdlike than later dromaeosaurs (Xu, Wang, and Wu 1999; Xu and Wu 2001; Xu et al. 2001).
    • Protarchaeopteryx, alvarezsaurids, Yixianosaurus and Avimimus. These are birdlike dinosaurs of uncertain placement, each potentially closer to birds than deinonychosaurs are. Protarchaeopteryx has tail feathers, uncompressed teeth, and an elongated manus (hand/wing) (Ji et al. 1998). Yixianosaurus has an indistinctly preserved feathery covering and hand/wing proportions close to birds (Xu and Wang 2003). Alvarezsaurids (Chiappe et al. 2002) and Avimimus (Vickers-Rich et al. 2002) have other birdlike features.
    • Archaeopteryx. This famous fossil is defined to be a bird, but it is actually less birdlike in some ways than some genera mentioned above (Paul 2002; Maryanska et al. 2002).
    • Shenzhouraptor (Zhou and Zhang 2002), Rahonavis (Forster et al. 1998), Yandangornis and Jixiangornis. All of these birds were slightly more advanced than Archaeopteryx, especially in characters of the vertebrae, sternum, and wing bones.
    • Sapeornis (Zhou and Zhang 2003), Omnivoropteryx, and confuciusornithids (e.g., Confuciusornis and Changchengornis; Chiappe et al. 1999). These were the first birds to possess large pygostyles (bone formed from fused tail vertebrae). Other new birdlike characters include seven sacral vertebrae, a sternum with a keel (some species), and a reversed hallux (hind toe).
    • Enantiornithines, including at least nineteen species of primitive birds, such as Sinornis (Sereno and Rao 1992; Sereno et al. 2002), Gobipteryx (Chiappe et al. 2001), and Protopteryx (Zhang and Zhou 2000). Several birdlike features appeared in enantiornithines, including twelve or fewer dorsal vertebrae, a narrow V-shaped furcula (wishbone), and reduction in wing digit bones.
    • Patagopteryx, Apsaravis, and yanornithids (Chiappe 2002; Clarke and Norell 2002). More birdlike features appeared in this group, including changes to vertebrae and development of the sternal keel.
    • Hesperornis, Ichthyornis, Gansus, and Limenavis. These birds are almost as advanced as modern species. New features included the loss of most teeth and changes to leg bones.
    • Modern birds.


I'm impressed... To think you'd actually spend the time to gather all of those.
 

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
you didn't read my post carefully, i agree with what you guys are saying, but such little evidence is no where near enough sufficient to support such a great theory. so it fails once again. the only mutations you or anyone else can offer are in the bacteria, is bacteria the only thing evolution speaks about? NO, so in order for evolution to be true there must be millions of cases of beneficial mutations in just about all areas of evolution.
That's right.

thats not what Darwin sugested. i am afraid evolutionists may have changed the theory over time and have thrown out parts of it that were unsupported by logic and reality, for example the origin of life and of the species.
Darwin had never heard of a mutation. We're way past Darwin, buddy. Around 150 years past.

no i only recon all evolution scientists are stupid (no offence to anyone), the rest of the scientists are doing a great job in their fields of expertise.
I see. Biologists are retarded, and all other scientists are smart?

Do you know any Biologists?

You couldn't be basing your opinion on ToE, because you have no clue what on earth it says. Not the slightest notion.
 

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
because evidence shows that a crooked animal is les likely to survie (natural selection).
What on earth is a "crooked animal?"
now we are talking about a creature that has a twisted lung that is changing from breath in-breath out to breathe in only. now the only logical explanation for this is if the lung suddenly changed from 1 to 2 or if the dinosaur never evolved into the bird and the bird is fully created by god.
What the heck are you driveling on about?

where'd you get this from, where have i contradicted myself, surely you must have misunderstood.
You said that species don't change suddenly. Then you said that fossils indicate that species changed suddently. Contradiction. You lost. Bye-bye.
 

Gharib

I want Khilafah back
What on earth is a "crooked animal?" What the heck are you driveling on about?

You said that species don't change suddenly. Then you said that fossils indicate that species changed suddently. Contradiction. You lost. Bye-bye.

you don't know what a crooked animal is. thats quite telling and surprising i must say.



i never said species don't cahnge suddenly, i said the fossil record shows sudden changes not over time changes, so that dissproves evolution.
 

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
you don't know what a crooked animal is. thats quite telling and surprising i must say.



i never said species don't cahnge suddenly, i said the fossil record shows sudden changes not over time changes, so that dissproves evolution.

So you're saying that giraffes don't exist?!?
 

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank

rageoftyrael

Veritas
i'm just really interested in eselam's reasoning that humans couldn't have possibly survived once they first became what we consider fully human. i will try to rebuttal you, once you've actually explained why we couldn't have survived.
 

Gharib

I want Khilafah back
So you're saying that giraffes don't exist?!?

what, i've never said that. i showed you an exmaple of a crooked animal.

but humans on the other hand would not have survived if evolution and it's theory of natural selection was true.

you know that apes cannot stand on 2 legs for very long especially the ones put forward by evolution as our "ancestors". they walked on all 4. now in order for us to have evolved out of them we would have gone through a great deal of bone changes specialy around our lower back. so a creature that is not fully ape and not fully human by default and logic would be weaker thus that creature could not have climed trees and could not have been a fast runner, meaning it was a crooked animal with crooked bones and thus was a very easy pray target for many other creatures.

i think i'm just wasting my breath, none of you guys are open minded, you've all convinced yourselves that evolution is true.
 

Gharib

I want Khilafah back
Please explain in detail what on earth this has to do with ToE, the theory that you don't understand in the slightest.

can you stop saying i don't understand evolution, you might give someone the wrong idea.

that picture was just one of the many million "beneficial" mutations that "supports" evolution. thats my proof now wheres yours?
 

Breathe

Hostis humani generis
statemet from an expert in favour of my statements that a crooked animal could not survive

Hex, a six-legged kitten, was born in Florida. Vets say that the kitten needs to have the extra limbs removed to save its life. (ABC)



Animal Oddity - Photo of Six-legged Kitten - RWS Photo Blog - Splendour pictures of Borneo


This kitten merely has a parasitic (I think I've used the term correctly here?) conjoined twin. See Lakshmi Tatma.
225px-Vishnu-1.jpg

Lakshmi Tatma - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is does not disprove evolution.
 

Breathe

Hostis humani generis
why do you say it doesn't?
Um.. because it doesn't. :D
This is a problem that occurs very early in pregnancy. It's not evolution.

Additionally, the legs of both the kitten and Lakshmi do (in Lakshmi's case, did, since she no longer has them) not function, and they are from another twin. There's all this explanation and stuff about them merging or not completely separating as cells and stuff like that, but it's a long explanation and not really relevant. :)
 
Last edited:

Pure-Truth

Member
Here's a thought,
If evolution simply is not possible, then how do most religions account for Aboriginals, Africans, and Asians with respects to them all coming from one Couple such as ADAM and EVE?, or if we are to consider the fairy Tale about Noah and his Family - from them?

And take note it doesn't matter from when, as some of Adam and Eves descendants for some reason changed the skin pigmentation and or a races eye features, and these changes never the less are evolutionary to say the least, we also have to consider another fact and that is some races have gained and embraced technology much quicker than other races, and sadly this is still obvious if one considers living standards throughout the world..

Sorry, but without evolution the many various races existing today simply are not possible and yet here we are, with all these races - each at a different stage of evolution, some admittedly are so un-evolved they unfortunately may still need religion for them to be morally correct and law abiding citizens..

Anyway if one concedes to evolution being fact, they are perhaps for the first time embracing facts, to which they now may have to consider ALL the other facts and not just some facts that has their self deceit justified..

Cheers to all who prefer facts and truth..
2~Duh~Loo to all those who refuse to accept facts!..

Pete..
 

rageoftyrael

Veritas
compelling argument, eselam, now prove that your theory is true. you are saying that you think that this could not survive, because it is a weaker creature. i think the problem here, is that you are still thinking of things in a too big scale. slow things down, give it time. you see some halfway creature, and don't seem to realize it doesn't work that way. i'll let someone a little bit more versed in evolution explain it to you further. i'm going to bed.
 

McBell

mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
i'm just really interested in eselam's reasoning that humans couldn't have possibly survived once they first became what we consider fully human. i will try to rebuttal you, once you've actually explained why we couldn't have survived.
I would not hold your breath.

He has thus far completely ignored my request of the exact same thing.
 
Top