Evolution vs Intelligent Design...

Whob:

Princeton definition of evolution:
(biology) the sequence of events involved in the evolutionary development of a species or taxonomic group of organisms

And from this website - http://helios.bto.ed.ac.uk/bto/glossary/ef.htm:
In Darwinian terms a gradual change in phenotypic frequencies in a population that results in individuals with improved reproductive success.

Do you actually have a point of view? Is it solely that everybody else is wrong? Could you please give us a explanation detailing it?

Originally posted by Trickster
Whob:

Princeton definition of evolution:
(biology) the sequence of events involved in the evolutionary development of a species or taxonomic group of organisms

And from this website - http://helios.bto.ed.ac.uk/bto/glossary/ef.htm:
In Darwinian terms a gradual change in phenotypic frequencies in a population that results in individuals with improved reproductive success.

Do you actually have a point of view? Is it solely that everybody else is wrong? Could you please give us a explanation detailing it?

Just go through any of the three Evo threads currently open. I think I've made my point fairly clear.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Just go through any of the three Evo threads currently open. I think I've made my point fairly clear.

your point is clear, your facts however are a bit distorted.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
your point is clear, your facts however are a bit distorted.

Which ones? Point them out to me. We can discuss what you believe is the distorition.

There was this instance of intentionally distorting facts of which I am aware.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Once again..hypocrisy and innacuracy is demonstrated in another one of your posts K-Dog. You should have just admitted to your mistake. Rather than dig yourself deeper into the hole.

Let's first address the innaccuracy..that being..that birds did not evolve from reptiles.

quote:
Taken from http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton2.html

These new specimens clinch the argument. Archaeopteryx is no longer on its own, a single species that attests to the reality of an evolutionary transition from reptiles to birds.

The evolutionary route from reptile to mammal is known in just as much detail. Between the Permian and Triassic periods, mammal-like reptiles evolved from basal forms that were fully reptilian.

Mr Benton is a fairly educated man, and would not use incorrect terminology when posting such information. Thus, your statement of birds not evolving from reptiles is is at worst innaccurate..and at best a half truth. Either way..contrary to your belief..the terms "DINOSAUR" and "REPTILE" are not used synonomously by Darwinists, when referring to bird evolution.

Interesting, though the full quote is as follows:

[QUOTE]
These new specimens clinch the argument. Archaeopteryx is no longer on its own, a single species that attests to the reality of an evolutionary transition from reptiles to birds. Below it, on the evolutionary tree, stretch countless theropod dinosaurs that become ever more birdlike through time, and above it stretch numerous bird species that bridge every step of the way from Archaeopteryx to fully-fledged birds. A long series of fossils through the Jurassic and Cretaceous periods, a span of 140 million years, document the evolutionary transition from reptile to bird.

See, you left out the part where he states that , Below it, on the evolutionary tree, stretch countless theropod dinosaurs that become ever more birdlike through time, and above it stretch numerous bird species that bridge every step of the way from Archaeopteryx to fully-fledged birds. A long series of fossils through the Jurassic and Cretaceous periods, a span of 140 million years, document the evolutionary transition from reptile to bird.

What is being said is that dinosaurs (theropods in particular) evolved from reptiles and the Archaeopteryx evolved from theropods, which are dinosaurs and not reptiles.

You intentionally pieced together parts of two paragraphs and left a lot of information out to make your point. This act of deception is so ridiculous and offensive that I will not even consider anything else you said in that post and will highly question any information (and the integrity withwhich it was posted) you post in the future.
[/QUOTE]

Somebody's just been

wow, smells like bill oreilly took a dump in here, huh KD?

Originally posted by KharmaDog
What is being said is that dinosaurs (theropods in particular) evolved from reptiles and the Archaeopteryx evolved from theropods, which are dinosaurs and not reptiles.

Actually you are a bit off. What you had originally stated in the thread was this..

Originally posted by KharmaDog
ZephroCarnelian made the implication that if birds and reptiles were related than there would be a species that possesed qualities of both. Of course, no one is saying that birds and reptiles are related..

What you implied above was that scientests don't believe that birds evolved from reptiles. This is an untrue/misinformed/and ignorant statement K-Dog. Don't believe me? Click on these links.

Taken from UC Berkley Website

Scientests believe that birds evolved from reptiles..

Taken from "General Science" Magazine 2005
Study: Dinosaurs are not bird's ancestors

*note: Both of these links are taken from sources that support evolutionary theory. So you can't claim that they are biased.

Moving on..when I pointed this out your ignorance to you..you then posted this..

Originally posted by KharmaDog
Now you are talking semantics to further your argument/agenda. It is common knowledge among those with any interest in this subject that dinosaurs and reptiles differ on many levels. Are they related? Yes. Are they the same? No. Do people often call dinos ‘reptiles’ out of slang or habit? Yes.

I then posted that quote from PHD Michael Benton who made the statement

These new specimens clinch the argument. Archaeopteryx is no longer on its own, a single species that attests to the reality of an evolutionary transition from reptiles to birds.

The evolutionary route from reptile to mammal is known in just as much detail. Between the Permian and Triassic periods,mammal-like reptiles evolved from basal forms that were fully reptilian.

Benton is kind of a dink. He contradicted himself a bit in the website. Dinosaurs and reptiles, should not be used as synonomous terms. He should know that. I believe what he was trying to allude to was that Birds and Dinosaurs..share a common ancestor, that being the Reptile..and that both birds and reptiles..evolved from a reptillian creature..that was not fully bird or fully dinosaur. Understand?

I could be wrong however, seeing as Benton is a bit of a Dink. But regardless..As you can clearly view from both links that I posted above, common thought among many scientists is that birds did indeed evolve from reptile.

One more point I believe you must grasp..

YOU'VE JUST BEEN OWNED...😆 😆 😆

Try a bit harder next time..

Originally posted by Darth Revan
Somebody's just been

You are correct sir..

😆 😆 😆

You know...I think it is now official..after much owning in multiple threads...PMS and Picador..have now become my boitches...😆 😆

Nite Guys..😖leep:

i love how you denied that you were exposed fixing a quote (forgery)

all the 'owned' pics on the internet wont erase that.

credibility-shot to hell

goodnight 🙂

Originally posted by PVS
i love how you denied that you were exposed fixing a quote (forgery)

all the 'owned' pics on the internet wont erase that.

credibility-shot to hell

goodnight 🙂

Make sure breakfast is hot and ready on the table by 7:00 am sweety..😆 Or else you know what I'm going to have to do..You don't want to see me pull out that pimp hand..

Whob, first of all, make up your mind. First you said this:

"Mr Benton is a fairly educated man, and would not use incorrect terminology when posting such information."

Then decided this:

"Benton is kind of a dink. He contradicted himself a bit in the website."

Is he educated, or a dink? Second, the point is not whether birds are descended from reptiles, but the fact that you mangled the information by quoting only certain parts of the page, and presenting it as if they were written one on top of the other.

Is your deal that you really believe what you're saying, or that you know how stupid you sound, but pretend you don't in order to seem less idiotic? If it's the second, it's not working.

After deliberating on this, IMHO I dont think evolution can account for all the complexities seen in nature. I believe that something higher than us exists and it probably had a hand in our eventual creation.

Originally posted by Darth Revan
Whob, first of all, make up your mind. First you said this:

"Mr Benton is a fairly educated man, and would not use incorrect terminology when posting such information."

Then decided this:

"Benton is kind of a dink. He contradicted himself a bit in the website."

Is he educated, or a dink?

He's an Educated Dink..like most of those who believe in Evolutionary theory.

One more for the night...

Originally posted by whobdamandog
He's an Educated Dink..like most of those who believe in Evolutionary theory.

One more for the night...

I just love how you left out the more important part of my post, in a perfect demonstration of your quote-distorting properties...

"Second, the point is not whether birds are descended from reptiles, but the fact that you mangled the information by quoting only certain parts of the page, and presenting it as if they were written one on top of the other."

That's actually (by my count) the second time you've done that with my posts in this thread alone. The other one, I believe, you completely ignored.

Anyways, that's the second time you've been caught misquoting some source on this page alone. Nobody's buying your crap-tastic brand of O'Reilly-style debating. Is there some reason why you left out that bit of my post?

Originally posted by Great Vengeance
After deliberating on this, IMHO I dont think evolution can account for all the complexities seen in nature. I believe that something higher than us exists and it probably had a hand in our eventual creation.

AWSOME..a convert..that means that I have to post one more before I go to bed...This one is dedicated to you Great Vengeance..(and I don't mean this in a negative way)

how funny that this is the same guy who only minutes ago questioned my mental stability...

Originally posted by whobdamandog
AWSOME..a convert..that means that I have to post one more before I go to bed...This one is dedicated to you Great Vengeance..(and I don't mean this in a negative way)

🙄

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Which ones? Point them out to me. We can discuss what you believe is the distorition.

Fine, collect all your lies, half truths and bullshit posts AND provided links, into one email, PM, post(all my info is on my profile)...and I'll point out every single bullshit biased opinion you've posted. Since you know you've spread your bullshit over a half dozen threads on the topic, that it's easier for you to say "tell me where I've lied"...than to just admit that you make shit up...and present facts from bible thumping websites like dino-extinction.com to support your POV. So, if you think I'm affraid to point out your bullshit lies...the words of others you've twisted in to bullshit so-called mistakes and etc, please...collect them all in one easy to view shitheap and I will. But, since you are on the bottom of the pile, gasping for air, not only in my view...but in practically all others...then you have the burden of providing all your relevant-to-topic posts....