Jump to content

Hellbender

Senior Members
  • Posts

    1207
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Hellbender

  1. Hi there , this is my first post here and wondering if someone could help me please.I am taking a college elective class called the Science of Life. I have to answer two questions.

    good. Have fun. Although why this class isn't called simply "biology" is beyond me. (perhaps a question for your prof?)

    The first;

    Who was the first scientist to prove that living things did not evolve form non living matter and what fellow countryman furthered his findings before the year 1800?

     

    I thought it would of been Darwin but the year 1800 rules him out.

    Darwin? I hope you haven't fallen into that trap. But you might be thinking of Fransisco Redi and his experiments with maggots.

  2. I remember saying it, but not really caring. Its one of those things that are said so much, they start to lose meaning. It only started to piss me off when I though back to my public school days. I believe its ok for people to swear allegiance to their country, but not to a particular religion's god when living in such a pluralistic society. Its hypocritical.

  3. One last comment, then I am really done with this

     

    there are plenty of people here that will probably post step-by-step responses that you will completely ignore.

    Your foresight is amazing, zyncod.

     

    I would advise everyone to follow Peon, me and Lucid. This thread is going nowhere fast, and my advice would be that we all should apply our valuable insights elsewhere, where it could potentially construct a valuable discussion. I see good posts all around, posts that are mostly ignored by this shinbits fellow. What a shame.

  4. You are becomming redundant and boring due to your neglect of others comments and then pressing your own down our throats. *walks away shaking his head*

    I don't know if you are familar with the legendary creationist "WILLOWTREE", but I almost like him better than this guy. At least he responded to everyone's posts, and didn't make you feel like you wasting your time with him. *Follows Peon de*

  5. Not off the top of my head, but Gould mentions it in one of his essays. Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes, iirc, in a collection of his essays by the same title. I'm pretty sure he mentions who did it in there, an then you could find the original source. I think he also includes pictures.

    Sounds good, thanks.

  6. To many people the very word 'fossil' causes about as much excitement as watching grass grow.

    So every time a new and interesting fossil is discovered, it is reported in numerous magazines, newspapers and websites because people find it "boring", huh? (off topic, I know, but this statement irked me.)

    The fossil of the Archaeopteryx is said to be the paleontologist's "Rosetta Stone" providing irrefutable evidence that evolution of the species actually occurred.

    We have far more evidence than that. Its foolish to think that the evolutionary biology and paleontology communites would put all their eggs in one basket like this. Archaeopteryx, however, is strong evidence supporting that birds are a side branch (or even a part of) the coelurasaurian theropod group.

    Darwinian enthusiasts began to speculate on what some of these transitions should have looked like; the alleged transition between the reptiles and the birds was based upon the fact that the bone structure of certain extinct dinosaurs and that of the birds have some similar features.

    And this is illogical, how? Please enlighten me. How is this bad science?

    The great bird expert, Professor Ostrom, writing before the 1988 specimen was assigned said of these latest specimens: ...these specimens are not particularly like modern birds at all.

    Well duh.

  7. This link happens to work for me; although I almost wish it didn't. I can see we will never convince you of Archaeopteryx's authenticity' date=' as you are quite the waffler (and an untalented one at that). Then address the "transitionals" I provided in the links I posted earlier, or did you not read them as I suspected?

    This same science used to make all our comforts actually prove ID.

    No it doesn't. I dare you to present one logically-sound argument that ID is supported by science. Please. Humor me.

    The more that science discovers, the more intricate we realize our world and our universe is.

    True, although that is by no means proof-positive it was created somehow. If you believe that, fine. But thats the realm of metaphysics, not science.

    And the more we discover, the more unlikely it is that all things came about by chance.

    No one said chance is the only way things can happen. Certain laws govern the universe and nature, and again, if you believe this is the handiwork of a divine presence, fine. But that cannot and will not be an empirically-based assumption.

    Does that make sense?

    If this was the philosoophy and religion forum, sure.

  8. He figured that maybe the reason modern birds lack teeth is that some trigger located on the epithelium would cause tooth growth, and if he grafted tissue of a mouse onto the jays of an embryonic chick, it's grow teeth. He tested his hypothesis (you know, what *real* science does), and found several teeth, all of which were conical and suspiciously similar to the teeth of theropod dinosaurs.

    That has to be one of the coolest experiements ever. Got any links or sources where I can read more about it?

  9. And when is someone going to tell Michael that Bush's approval rating goes up when Michael calls a press conference?

    Exactly. He seems like he gives the Right ammunition for saying "see, if you are not one of us, then you are like this bozo!" Although I am pretty far Left, I resent the opportunism coming from both sides, but mainly the far Left with the Katrina issue. Natural disasters are bad no matter who is president.

  10. *sigh*....okay. I meant transitional forms that weren't lies like Archaeopteryx.

    To come back to this again, Archaeopteryx mis not a hoax. I have seen one of the actual fossils, and I believe it wouldn't take you very long to take a taxi to the Museum of Natural History to see it either. You might or might not be thinking of "Archaeoraptor" which is a bonafied hoax. It was published in National Geographic (I have the issue) as genuine, although it was soon after discovered to be a clever composite hoax perpetrated by a Chinese farmer to make a quick buck. Just thought I'd beat you to mentioning it since you love to throw out names of known hoaxes thinking you are on to us or something.

     

    here's an article on it: http://skepdic.com/archaeoraptor.html

  11. Anyhow, lets settle this "where are the transitionals?" garbage once and for all:

     

    whale evolution:

    http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/

     

    equine evolution: (with pictures!)

    http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/HorseEvolution.htm

     

    Hominid Evolution:

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html

    (notice piltdown and nebraska man aren't mentioned. You are not onto us when you continually mention them, no one has considered them evidence for a while.)

     

    Talk.Origins Transitional Fossil FAQ:

    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

     

    Info on the Piltdown Hoax:

    http://skepdic.com/piltdown.html

     

    Info on "Nebraska Man":

    http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Nebraska_man_was_a_hoax

     

    Shinbits: I strongly suggest that you click on these links and actually read and try to understand them before posting again. I hope this clears everything up for you.

     

    edit: if any of these links don't work, tell me. I don't know how to "fix links" but I could post different ones.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.