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.

[VadeRetro]

So that's your supposed cover story? Now tell me you believed the next paragraph.

"Biology teachers are always a warm, fuzzy, and peaceful people, who never say unkind things about God, Jesus, or Christians", he said.

[Matchett-PI]

"Imagine the endgame: the serial liar ends up in what he expects to be heaven, but he swiftly realizes he's in the deepest pit of hell. Confused, he looks up at his cloven-hoofed master for an explanation. But the devil only laughs. And laughs. And laughs ..."

As one who is just another garden variety member of the man-centered religion, you embarrass yourself.

[Matchett-PI]

Hahahaha!!!

[PatrickHenry]

The only way to deal with a shameless troll is Virtual Ignore.

[Matchett-PI]

"Science does rest on supposutions. The primary supposition of science is that phenomena are regular. Events can be studied to find predictable behavior and reproducible. Another supposition of historial sciences is that the present is the key to the past. We got here by the operation of natural laws that remain constant over time. These suppositions are in lieu of the competing supposition, that we were born fully formed from the head of Zeus."

Pre-suppositions are our friends. Hope this doesn't put you in over your head.

[js1138]

I'm always in over my head. It's my natural home.

But science doesn't say "May I?" to philosophy. It just goes ahead without permission and solves problems.

[Matchett-PI]

"...science doesn't say "May I?" to philosophy. It just goes ahead without permission and solves problems."

You're talking about "true science", not the blind-faith religion known as macro-evolution.

Are you going to disagree with these two Darwinists?

[js1138]

Having looked over your link, I'm having trouble assigning relevance to it. I have never tried to argue against the existence of god.

I will, however, argue against the likelihood that you or anyone else are privy to the mind of God, or have inerrant knowledge of God.

[Centurion2000]

bump for later

[js1138]

Quote mining is a form of lying. I would expect lying to be a sin in your religion, but then perhaps you worship the Lord of Lies.

Source

What I think you did was engage in quote mining and found an article which you think supports your case but actually distorted Ruse's meaning (standard apologetic fare), tossed in a paragraph about ID, and then dropped in a Bible verse as if to say the three are linked in some way. Your attempts to do this are ignorant of facts, and misleading; not to mention they are logically unfounded.

First here is Michael Ruse's response to being misinterpreted by Creationists.

www.pratttribune.com/archives/index.inn?loc=detail&doc=/2000/September/6-512-news7.txt

Here are excerpts from his letter.

Michael Ruse

Quote:

---

"However, given that I am not only an enthusiastic evolutionist but a fanatical supporter of the theory of natural selection of Charles Darwin, I do feel a certain cognitive dissonance (as we say in the trade) at seeing that I am now on the side of Adam and Eve and Flood geology and dinosaurs as next-door neighbors and all of that sort of thing. For the past quarter century, in article after article, book after book, I have argued that Creationism is false science and bad religion. I even appeared as a witness for the American Civil Liberties Union in Arkansas in 1981, when suit was brought (successfully) against a law mandating the "balanced treatment" of evolution and Biblical literalism in the schools of that state. If ever there was a partisan for one side rather than the other, it is I."

---

And

Quote:

---

"First, Biblical literalism, or Fundamentalism (as it was known) or Creationism or Scientific Creationism (as it became known) or Intelligent Design (to use the modern-day terminology). This is the belief that essentially the Bible got it right, not just morally and spiritually, but also factually, as one finds in the best modern science. Let me be blunt on this matter, so there can be no more misquotation or out-of-context misunderstanding. As science, Creationism is simply false. There is no evidence of a world-wide Flood (and much against it), there is no evidence of a short-aged earth (and much against it), there is no evidence of a single pair of human parents (and much against it). Moreover, as science, Creationism is simply not science. Creationism, in whatever variant, appeals to miracles - to divine interventions. These may or may not have occurred. Do not accuse me of denying the Resurrection. They do not and cannot fall under the purview of science, which by its nature is confined to the dimension of experience as governed by natural regularity or law."

---

Here finally is what Ruse means when he says that evolution is like a religion.

Quote:

---

"I allow - I insist - that, from its very birth, evolutionism has been used for more than mere science. In this wise, it is often appropriate to speak of evolution as a form of religion, meaning a faith system with a moral message that makes sense of life's ultimate meaning."

---

It is not as you suggest meant to convey that evolution or Darwinian evolution at that, is based solely on faith or that it lacks evidence. No, what Ruse supports is the understanding that evolution is MORE than science not less than science. The fact is the Theory of Evolution is nearly universally accepted by experts and academics in the field as it is the absolutely best explanation of the data collected to date. PERIOD!

Now that I have provided you new information about Mr. Ruse’s positions on the question of the scientific viability of the TOE, do you still think he’s a trusted and knowledgeable expert in the field. Do you agree with him when he says:

Quote:

---

” As science, Creationism is simply false. There is no evidence of a world-wide Flood (and much against it), there is no evidence of a short-aged earth (and much against it), there is no evidence of a single pair of human parents (and much against it). Moreover, as science, Creationism is simply not science.”

---

Moreover the ID charade is just modern god in the gaps theory and NOTHING more.
From a logical perspective it's a farce that ID theorists project themselves to be in some default position whereby they assert that all they have to do is find some fault or wedge strategy to bring the Theory of Evolution into some question and voila their side wins the debate and bingo boingo “God did it”. But how about this Charla, considering how it is beyond a shadow of a doubt that "natural processes" do indeed exist and in fact are the causal agents for nearly everything which we have knowledge of (i.e. chemistry, physics, etc. ) and the whole god theory is just speculation at best and not at all one coherent hypothesis (meaning different cultures imagine god in different ways depending on time and place) that we allow what you ID types call "Naturalism" to be the "default position". In this case since you can not even begin to scientifically prove that "god did it" then Naturalism wins the debate until "Supernaturalism" can be scientifically proven to exist as a causal agent. I think this would be a much much more logical foundation to base an honest factual enquiry upon.

Another logical conundrum which your post falls prey to is what UGOD brings up in his response. So what, even if Michael Ruse sees evolution as a "religion" in the sense which you errantly portrayed; maybe he's wrong. One scientist would not a scientific community make. The fact is the scientific community firmly stands behind the TOE, your position is absolutely marginal and is indeed based on a "philosophical" argument and not a scientific one. If you disagree then please by all means present the "evidence" which positively enforces "god did it". Please no negative examples of how evolution doesn't prove it, because yours is not the default position. Even if the TOE is false this does not mean that "god did it"; there could be nearly endless other possibilities. Furthermore, even if for a moment I conceded all these points; couldn't I logically conclude that since Farrell Till and Dan Barker were once ordained ministers who now concede that the Christian religion is a bunch of phony bunk; then voila it is and bingo boingo rationalism is true by default? If not why not?

I also would like to comment on this paragraph you added, which I think very deceptively is made to look like something Mr. Ruse said, when in fact it appears to simply be your own commentary. You said:

Charla:

Quote:

---

"There is intelligence in the design of this community we call Earth and the life that inhabits it. Life is simply too hard to sustain, requires too many variables, works better and is infinitely more complicated than any machine man has ever built. Your comments welcome. Here is what the Bible says about knowing God exists by looking his creations:"

---

Prove your first sentence. In many cases the design is quite faulty and looks infinitely more like the result of a natural process than the result of an intentionally designed system made by a benevolent creator god. Also, Christians make this absolutely contradictory set of statements. On the one hand they claim the universe was specifically created for the purposes of life permission; then on the other they claim that the universe is just too hostile for the development of life by natural means and therefore it could only be the result of divine intervention. The universe is designed for life permission or it isn't, you can't have it both ways. I should think the "odds" that one tiny speck amongst an infinite amount of cosmic real estate would be environmentally suitable for the development of life as we know it, would be damn near 100%. I must also add that "complexity" or "improbability" does not a design make. If you flip a coin one million times and record the results each time the resultant sequence of heads and tails would be highly improbable in hindsight. It would be a one in billions "chance" that your sequence happened as it did; would this process then be "miraculous" and divine? Now apply this simple process to gene mutation say in a "hox gene" such a simple process could easily be responsible for nearly unlimited morphological changes in the physical structures of living creatures on earth given 4 BILLION years.

***WARNING***WARNING***WARNING***

I AM NOT SAYING THAT THIS IS TRUE OR CAN BE SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN; I DO NOT WANT TO OVERSTATE THE CASE IN "CHARLAESQUE" FASHION.

But this very process is indeed a "possible" mechanism for explaining nearly unlimited diversity of morphological structures among creatures on this planet. Indeed there has been evidentiary links among insects and crustaceans that strongly indicate that hox gene mutations in fact played a significant role in morphological diversity. Just because the information is incomplete and or perhaps ultimately unknowable doesn't mean that "god did it".

Here are a couple of links to information about Hox genes:

http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/science/mchox.htm
http://fbspcu01.leeds.ac.uk/users/bmb9imd/topicnoframes.html


Charla do you realize there is "life" on this planet from nearly the top of Mt. Everest to the great depths of the oceans. From tundra to desert life exists and multiplies and sustains itself. How then can you assert that "life is too hard to sustain"? It exists in every nook and cranny and in incredibly diverse ecosystems. No matter the climate or the elements, life as we know it marches on. I think the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that "life" is amazingly resilient and potentially eternal.

The line about "life" being more complicated than any machine made by man is nearly incoherent and is simply hyperbole. It certainly depends on what life, what machine and which aspects you're comparing. But even so, the statement is utterly meaningless.

Finally your last paragraph about what the Bible says is demonstrably in error. It is not clear that your god's power is "clearly" seen and understood through what has been made. No, the fact is the great lot of humanity disagrees with your particular god hypotheses. They have their own hypotheses which disagree and or contradict yours or they completely disbelieve in gods all together. No, reasonable people absolutely disagree with and deny your god hypothesis. So your assertions and the Bible's assertions, on the contrary, are quite in dispute. I would assert that if it were not for cultural bias and the psychological pressures brought to bear against disbelief in the Christian God, then the whole notion of it would wither on the vine due to a lack of sustaining truth to support it.

[hosepipe]

[ The above is the tip-of the iceberg of the other Blind-faith Darwinist's who didn't have one single objection to that quote back when they were posting in this thread: ]

Heroic effort Matchett...
Far beyond me to enage it.. Cudos..
Have read this thread some and am intriqued at the reponses..

What do you attibute to the almost constant use of the words lie, lying, liar.?. ALmost reeks of a DU'ers odor, no it does.. and smacks of the communist propaganists use of the terms, to obfiscate and distract from their own lies.. Its almost an obsession, the use of those words..

Accusing one of lying and not mere ignorance displays a mindset betraying their own agenda I think.. The logic is almost Noam Chomsky'eque.. in its approach.. Accuse the competion of lying not merely being wrong logically..

Not only that Matchett but I've also noticed that some of the Evos almost never engage on purely political threads.. They come to a mostly political site and never discuss politics(Free Republic).. Just an observation.. Its almost like THEIR FAITH is being attacked.. and they assume the role of "clergy".. preaching the bad news.. i.e. you are and they are intelligent road kill waiting for the galactic automobile to hit you.. There is no god and you're a moron for even being open to the chance their IS one..
OH! and you're a LIAR too... LoL.. Amazing..

[Matchett-PI]

"I will, however, argue against the likelihood that you or anyone else are privy to the mind of God, or have inerrant knowledge of God." ~ js1138

If you want to "legitimately" argue your position, you will need to be able to "legitimately" answer the arguments of Alvin Plantinga regarding the Mind who created our minds.

"....Darwin's dangerous idea is really two ideas put together: philosophical naturalism together with the claim that our cognitive faculties have originated by way of natural selection working on some form of genetic variation. According to this idea, then, the purpose or function of those faculties (if they have one) is to enable or promote survival, or survival and reproduction, more exactly, the maximization of fitness (the probability of survival and reproduction).

Furthermore, the probability that our cognitive faculties are reliable (i.e., furnish us with a preponderance of true beliefs) on Darwin's dangerous idea is either low or inscrutable (i.e., impossible to estimate). But either gives the devotee of evolutionary naturalism a defeater for the proposition that his cognitive faculties are reliable, a reason for doubting, giving up, rejecting that natural belief. If so, then it also gives him a reason for doubting any beliefs produced by those faculties. This includes, of course, the beliefs involved in science itself.

Evolutionary naturalism, therefore, provides one who accepts it with a defeater for scientific beliefs, a reason for doubting that science does in fact get us to the truth, or close to the truth. [ 14 ] Darwin himself may perhaps have glimpsed this sinister presence coiled like a worm in the very heart of evolutionary naturalism: "With me," says Darwin,
'the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?' [ 15 ]
Modern science was conceived, and born, and flourished in the matrix of Christian theism. Only liberal doses of self-deception and double-think, I believe, will permit it to flourish in the context of Darwinian naturalism."

Darwin, Mind and Meaning --Alvin Plantinga May, 1996 Full commentary and bibliography here: http://id-www.ucsb.edu/fscf/library/plantinga/dennett.html

*

bttt- Read: God and Other Minds by Alvin Plantinga
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0801497353/103-0517856-8903043?v=glance

[Matchett-PI]

"Not only that Matchett but I've also noticed that some of the Evos almost never engage on purely political threads.. They come to a mostly political site and never discuss politics(Free Republic).. Just an observation.. Its almost like THEIR FAITH is being attacked.. and they assume the role of "clergy".. preaching the bad news.. i.e. you are and they are intelligent road kill waiting for the galactic automobile to hit you.. There is no god and you're a moron for even being open to the chance their IS one.. OH! and you're a LIAR too... LoL.. Amazing.."

Only the easily distracted can be conned into following the rabbit trails they lay down.

They keep railing against "creationoids" in an effort to divert attention away from what is their biggest threat - their fellow-travelers the self-described "atheists" and "humanists" - as I showed them HERE and HERE

[js1138]

Evolutionary naturalism, therefore, provides one who accepts it with a defeater for scientific beliefs, a reason for doubting that science does in fact get us to the truth, or close to the truth.

I would agree in principle that science does not seek Truth. Science answers to (literally) mundane questions.

[dread78645]

LithiumDidit place mark

[Matchett-PI]

I've also noticed that some of the Evos almost never engage on purely political threads.. They come to a mostly political site and never discuss politics(Free Republic).. Just an observation..

I forgot to add this to my previous post:

Free Republic is a web site dedicated to defending, upholding, and preserving the Constitution of the United States of America.

The Constitution is a meaningless document unless it's doing the only job it was given to do, ie: To guard absolute objective moral truth (inalienable - because they're God-given -, unchanging, self-evident rights.

I am curious as to WHY moral relativists (whose SELF-righteous "moral truths" change with the "situation") would even want to be here unless their goal is to UNDERMINE our Constitution as if it was a "living" document that should conform with their "current" beliefs.

[hosepipe]

[ Only the easily distracted can be conned into following the rabbit trails they lay down. ]

Saw the second link.. the first was a withering display.. thanks..
"These" guys are not doing their cause any benefit..
with answers to posts (like what followed the 1st link) with sophomoric replys..

Its a fearful thing to be arrogant on free republic..
Dumb is usually tolerated.. we're all a little dumb in some things..
Arrogance will always itself display with dumb'ity, when the arrogance is stroked..
Evidence: Noam Chomsky..

Maybe they ARE DU'ers and trolls.. some of them..

[Elsie]

Hateful liar bump

[Elsie]

Because all male humans share the portions of the same DNA.

So AGAIN I ask:

How does they know what ADAM's was to begin with?

[Elsie]

It's not and I never said it was.

Ain't it ruff when other folks are trying to stuff words into your mouth?