Newfound Dinosaur a Transitional Creature

Las Vegas Sun (AP) ^ | May 04, 2005 | Malcolm Ritter

[MeanWestTexan]

Caught in the act of evolution, the odd-looking, feathered dinosaur was becoming more vegetarian, moving away from its meat-eating ancestors.

It had the built-for-speed legs of meat-eaters, but was developing the bigger belly of plant-eaters. It had already lost the serrated teeth needed for tearing flesh. Those were replaced with the smaller, duller vegetarian variety.

[Doctor Stochastic]

You are probably correct.

[Dimensio]

This source doesn't quite note the outlawing of Darwinian teachings, but does point out that Stalin outlawed the teaching of genetics.

And here is a site discussing Lysenkoism and how dogmatic adherence to it -- brought about through Stalin's orders -- led to a steady decline in the Soviet's biological fields.

As for what Lysenkoism is, you can check here to see that it is not compatable with Darwinian evolution. Key quote "It was due to Lysenko's efforts that many real scientists, those who were geneticists or who rejected Lamarckism in favor of natural selection,"

[Gumlegs]

And they're not nearly nasty enough, either.

[AndrewC]

Anything longer than it is round is phallic.

[Gumlegs]

Q.E.D.

[AndrewC]

Actually, my aim was more directed to Sternberg. He was vilified for being open-minded.

[AndrewC]

You have a strange definition of a phallus. But what the hay.

[Gumlegs]

I don't assume turgidity.

[narby]

The problem with your DNA evidence is rampant throughout biology: correlation does not equal causation. But no biologist or evolutionists seem to understand that fact.

Nice slogan to write off litteraly astronomic odds that such matches in DNA sequences are merely accidental.

Well, I suppose God could have cut and pasted His DNA algorithms that just happen to match the fossil record of species branching. The same fossil record that predates our DNA technology and predicted it's outcome. By the way, ID hasn't predicted squat, much less anything this impressive.

Or, you could just have misinterpreted Genesis.

I vote the latter, and recognize that your faith will be everlasting. Whether you're right or wrong.

It's funny how people can do that.

Whether it's you that's following faith, or me. The fact is that one or the other of us is following pure, unadulterated, BS.

I'll vote with the DNA.

You can vote with the OJ Jury.

[AndrewC]

I don't assume turgidity.

Ohhh, sorry. What do you take for it? ;^)

[hosepipe]

[ And you claim that "non-evo" scientists exposed them, yet you cannot demonstrate that this claim is true. ]

And its important to you that the "scientist" would NOT be a creationist believer.?.

-or- Thats its not even possible to be a creationist and scientist at the same time.?. especially a paleontologist.?.

What.?. spit it out..

This site is not a "scientic" forum.. I don't have a dog in that fight anyway but believe what I believe and a nameless handle on Free republic wouldn't change that anyways.. Surely you don't believe that it would.. do you.?.

[Gumlegs]

I take my wife. Please!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[AndrewC]

I take my wife. Please!

I'll stop here ;^)

[Gumlegs]

Excellent idea. G'night.

[AndrewC]

G'night. God bless.

[johnnyb_61820]

So what you're saying is that while Stalin reject Darwin's Theory of evolution, he mandated evolution itself. I'm going to make a wild guess that the reason for outlawing genetics is the fact that Mendel used it to show that evolution was false.

[Dimensio]

And its important to you that the "scientist" would NOT be a creationist believer.?.

No, but you are trying to argue that evolution-accepting scientists are not the ones exposing the frauds. Stop trying to turn your dishonesty around. Either support your claim that the frauds were uncovered by scientists who don't accept evolution or admit that you fabricated your claims because you don't have a real argument.

[Dimensio]

So what you're saying is that while Stalin reject Darwin's Theory of evolution, he mandated evolution itself.

Uh, no. Stalin mandated a failed biological teaching that ran contrary to Darwin's theory of evolution. Lysenko might have called it "evolution", but it has nothing in common with the actual theory of evolution.

I'm going to make a wild guess that the reason for outlawing genetics is the fact that Mendel used it to show that evolution was false.

And the facts do not bear out your claim regarding Stalin's reasoning.

I understand that a lot of creationists really want Darwin's theory of evolution to be an underlying foundation for socialism, communism, fascism or a host of other "bad things", but just because they want there to be guilt by association does not mean that such guilt actually exists.

[PatrickHenry]

Well, I suppose God could have cut and pasted His DNA algorithms that just happen to match the fossil record of species branching.

Yes. And you can't be sure that the latest edition of Encyclopedia Britannica is really the successor to all those previous editions. Just because you can trace the articles and their changes from one edition to the next, just because you can trace the editorial board's names from one edition to the next, just because you can trace the organization of the volumes, just because ... well, all that could be a gigantic coincidence. You have no proof that the presently available Britannica is in any way related to all those earlier Britannicas. Correlation does not equal causation!