Darwinism in schools?

[buffalo]

“Feathers were not preserved” from the ever reliable Wikipedia, . Why did you say “with feathers” in your post? Then here come the creative words,“it is likely”’ Another supposition and creative sketch.

Discovery Raises New Doubts About Dinosaur-Bird Links

…
The implication, the researchers said, is that birds almost certainly did not descend from theropod dinosaurs, such as tyrannosaurus or allosaurus. The findings add to a growing body of evidence in the past two decades that challenge some of the most widely-held beliefs about animal evolution.
“For one thing, birds are found earlier in the fossil record than the dinosaurs they are supposed to have descended from,” Ruben said. "That’s a pretty serious problem, and there are other inconsistencies with the bird-from-dinosaur theories.
“But one of the primary reasons many scientists kept pointing to birds as having descended from dinosaurs was similarities in their lungs,” Ruben said. "However, theropod dinosaurs had a moving femur and therefore could not have had a lung that worked like that in birds. Their abdominal air sac, if they had one, would have collapsed. That undercuts a critical piece of supporting evidence for the dinosaur-bird link.

and

…
The newest findings, the researchers said, are more consistent with birds having evolved separately from dinosaurs and developing their own unique characteristics, including feathers, wings and a unique lung and locomotion system.
There are some similarities between birds and dinosaurs, and it is possible, they said, that birds and dinosaurs may have shared a common ancestor, such as the small, reptilian “thecodonts,” which may then have evolved on separate evolutionary paths into birds, crocodiles and dinosaurs. The lung structure and physiology of crocodiles, in fact, is much more similar to dinosaurs than it is to birds.

 

[Farsight001]

Discovery Raises New Doubts About Dinosaur-Bird Links

…
The implication, the researchers said, is that birds almost certainly did not descend from theropod dinosaurs, such as tyrannosaurus or allosaurus. The findings add to a growing body of evidence in the past two decades that challenge some of the most widely-held beliefs about animal evolution.
“For one thing, birds are found earlier in the fossil record than the dinosaurs they are supposed to have descended from,” Ruben said. "That’s a pretty serious problem, and there are other inconsistencies with the bird-from-dinosaur theories.
“But one of the primary reasons many scientists kept pointing to birds as having descended from dinosaurs was similarities in their lungs,” Ruben said. "However, theropod dinosaurs had a moving femur and therefore could not have had a lung that worked like that in birds. Their abdominal air sac, if they had one, would have collapsed. That undercuts a critical piece of supporting evidence for the dinosaur-bird link.

and

…
The newest findings, the researchers said, are more consistent with birds having evolved separately from dinosaurs and developing their own unique characteristics, including feathers, wings and a unique lung and locomotion system.
There are some similarities between birds and dinosaurs, and it is possible, they said, that birds and dinosaurs may have shared a common ancestor, such as the small, reptilian “thecodonts,” which may then have evolved on separate evolutionary paths into birds, crocodiles and dinosaurs. The lung structure and physiology of crocodiles, in fact, is much more similar to dinosaurs than it is to birds.

You do understand that even if birds never evolved from dinosaurs, that it just means they evolved from something else - evolution remains true - don’t you?

 

[Geist]

Its worth noting “from dust” is true, we are mostly carbon, which is literally stardust generated (like all other organic elements) from stellar nucleosynthesis, or the process of a star creating and dispersing elements.

If you’re viewing the Bible literally I guess science is your enemy; if you view much of it allegorically it gets along very well with science.

 

[rossum]

“Feathers were not preserved” from the ever reliable Wikipedia, . Why did you say “with feathers” in your post? Then here come the creative words,“it is likely”’ Another supposition and creative sketch.

Complete and utter rubbish. Are you really so ignorant? Are you incapable of reading clear English text? Yes, I am extremely angry. You claim to follow one of the great world religions, yet you seem to be incapable of following one of its commandments.

Wikipedia article: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinornithosaurus

Sub-section Feathers:
Specimens of Sinornithosaurus have preserved impressions of feathers both covering the entirety of the body and forming the wings. These feathers were indistinguishable in form from those found on birds from the same geological deposits.[6] The body (contour) feathers were generally between 3-4.5 cm long and included two types: the first type are formed of several filaments joined together into “tufts”, similar to modern down feathers. The second type, including those on the arms, were composed of rows of filaments (barbs) joined together along a main shaft (rachis), making them similar in structure to modern bird feathers. However, unlike the wing feathers of flying birds, they did not have the secondary branches with tiny little hooks (barbules) that flight feathers have, which allow the flight feathers to form a continuous vane.[6] (emphases added)

The article even includes a good photo of the holotype:



The feather impressions are obvious.

You are a discredit to your religion.

rossum

 

[edwest2]

Its worth noting “from dust” is true, we are mostly carbon, which is literally stardust generated (like all other organic elements) from stellar nucleosynthesis, or the process of a star creating and dispersing elements.

If you’re viewing the Bible literally I guess science is your enemy; if you view much of it allegorically it gets along very well with science.

May I respectfully point out that scientists do not consult the Bible when doing their research? Why does the Bible need to get along with science? The consensus here is that the Bible is not a science book so why treat it like one? I think the primary issue is Genesis. Why should anyone take the time to post here endlessly about human origins?

Peace,
Ed

 

[Lujack]

Where was all that dust on the moon evolution scientists prepared the lunar lander for ? It was all based on the BILLIONS of years old concept. 50 to 180 feet and even higher was the estimate… Sinking deep into the dust was one of the astronauts greatest fears .Whew, “science” really came through.

If you’re going to criticize science at general, the moon landing seems like a pretty weak area to attack it in, considering the magnitude of that accomplishment.

 

[PumpkinSeed]

Buffalo, posting that picture just tells me that you do not understand evolution.

 

[mytruepower2]

If one is strictly speaking of science class only observable, repeatable and predictable. Beyond that is moving into philosophy.

True, although the two need not be divided. I know quite a few people who are quite qualified in both science and philosophy. “Philosophers of science,” if you will. Still, you’re right that science should be about facts and measurements, and philosophy about the logic used to go beyond that.

I guess I just have one more thing to ask. Where do theories fit into that?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

If you want to defend science and you want my (name removed by moderator)ut, you need to answer a basic scientific question: is it readily apparent that the Darwinism currently taught in schools is a completely sufficient explanation for the development of life on earth? One that requires no supernatural intervention of any kind?

The answer is no because Darwinism does not offer any kind of explanation for the development of life from non-life, if that is what you mean. Darwinism offers an explanation for the development of species from other species. That is not the same thing as the development of life itself. But to save you time I will also consider what you probably meant to ask: Is Darwinism currently taught in schools a completely sufficient explanation for the development of different species? To that question I say it depends on what you mean by sufficient. Sufficient for what? Sufficient to understand our place in the universe? No. Sufficient to establish relationships between species that helps to answer a vast number of questions in biology? Yes. And as regards requiring supernatural intervention, it is not that it isn’t required. It is that it doesn’t help in answering practical questions in biology. Although it does help in understanding our place in the universe.

OK, now that I answered your question, answer mine. What alternative do you trust more than mainstream science to answer the kind of questions that mainstream science tries to answer?

 

[edwest2]

Mainstream science includes a vast array of categories. Since I know what is involved in science, a lot can be excluded from the discussion at hand.

1. Electrical engineering. I attended a school that specialized in the repair of electronic equipment and creating new and improved devices. My final test was to assemble a radio using a box of parts and a schematic.
2. Mechanical and structural engineering.
3. Industrial design, which I personally follow with great interest.
4. Astronomy.
5. Mathematics.

You’ll find that most science research is funded by the military, followed by the pharmaceutical industry. Corporations that produce specific products often have their own internally funded research and development arms.

I don’t see how this theory contributes anything to the biological sciences. My trust is in the Church which provides the missing information that every human being needs about the development of life, especially as it concerns a true, full description of the human person.

My position is that in the beginning, all the information needed was loaded before the first fish-like creature crawled onto land. I am very skeptical of the geologic time frames. Like the coelacanth. If natural disasters over millions of years killed the dinosaurs and caused other environmental changes, why is it still around?

We are led to believe that small, gradual changes accumulated and caused the development of novel organs and appendages. I doubt it. I’ve read scientific papers where it is assumed this pathway led to this and then to that. I strongly doubt that.

sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110711151453.htm

The article makes the weird assumption that this information was conserved but for what reason? Switches control everything, like the keys on a piano, a million songs can be played. And it was all put there from the start.

And fossils - especially from China?

paleodirect.com/fakechinesefossils1.htm

The bottom line is that all sides of the issue need to be looked at, and they usually aren’t.

From Catholic Answers:

“Much less has been defined as to when the universe, life, and man appeared. The Church has infallibly determined that the universe is of finite age—that it has not existed from all eternity—but it has not infallibly defined whether the world was created only a few thousand years ago or whether it was created several billion years ago.”

Peace,
Ed

 

[Farsight001]

Mainstream science includes a vast array of categories. Since I know what is involved in science, a lot can be excluded from the discussion at hand.

1. Electrical engineering. I attended a school that specialized in the repair of electronic equipment and creating new and improved devices. My final test was to assemble a radio using a box of parts and a schematic.
2. Mechanical and structural engineering.
3. Industrial design, which I personally follow with great interest.
4. Astronomy.
5. Mathematics.

You’ll find that most science research is funded by the military, followed by the pharmaceutical industry. Corporations that produce specific products often have their own internally funded research and development arms.

I don’t see how this theory contributes anything to the biological sciences. My trust is in the Church which provides the missing information that every human being needs about the development of life, especially as it concerns a true, full description of the human person.

My position is that in the beginning, all the information needed was loaded before the first fish-like creature crawled onto land. I am very skeptical of the geologic time frames. Like the coelacanth. If natural disasters over millions of years killed the dinosaurs and caused other environmental changes, why is it still around?

We are led to believe that small, gradual changes accumulated and caused the development of novel organs and appendages. I doubt it. I’ve read scientific papers where it is assumed this pathway led to this and then to that. I strongly doubt that.

sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110711151453.htm

The article makes the weird assumption that this information was conserved but for what reason? Switches control everything, like the keys on a piano, a million songs can be played. And it was all put there from the start.

And fossils - especially from China?

paleodirect.com/fakechinesefossils1.htm

The bottom line is that all sides of the issue need to be looked at, and they usually aren’t.

From Catholic Answers:

“Much less has been defined as to when the universe, life, and man appeared. The Church has infallibly determined that the universe is of finite age—that it has not existed from all eternity—but it has not infallibly defined whether the world was created only a few thousand years ago or whether it was created several billion years ago.”

Peace,
Ed

So instead of responding to what others have said to you, you’re just going to ignore then, not address what they said, and pontificate to people?

 

[TEPO]

Darwinism is only useful for students -in that it teaches students how to reason by using the scientific methods of Hypothesis, and Theory.

The conflict here begins with the acceptance of Darwin’s findings and the need felt by some that his findings must defended and passed on to future generations in the classroom… As if these findings hold some great value that must be passed on verbally rather than in the history books.

To me Darwin’s findings are basic and obsolete… It seems so obvious to me that all creatures are made from the same content as Darwin suggests. It’s obvious that creatures change over time and that some wither away while others flourish. It’s obvious that time and natural selection play a role in the mutations…

…so the content which is being handed down is actually of little educational value, which begs the question of this entire thread… Why are the contents of Darwin’s teachings being handed down in schools with such eagerness…?
My response is that there exists a desire by those amongst the science community to demoralize its prospective torchbearers in order to prevent religion and the philosophies that follow from ever infiltrating the field of science again. Scientific scholars in academics know that there must first be a conditioning process among their successors to prevent this, so they keep Darwinism in front- to ward off the religious while falsely claiming that humanity is merely the result of natural selection. At the same time Darwinism serves as a double edged sword because with any “conditioning” process, you lose the capability or even the ability to speak outside that which has been handed over to you. You are bound by your tyrannical professors and peers.

 

[TEPO]

With that said, I hope that religion and philosophy infiltrate science to the core…! :twocents:

Good day. :tiphat:

 

[johnnyjones]

Actually, that was one estimate by one man that was already obsolete when they landed on the moon. The guy’s math was wrong, plain and simple, and he even admitted that he was probably overestimating. So much dust was never actually expected. The claim that astronauts were worried about sinking is just plain made up. There is no historical documentation supporting such a claim. The creationists just plain lied about it. So much for their Christian integrity.

Based on ONE man NASA built the giant saucer shaped feet on the lunar lander right ? If I show you a “non creationists” link in regards to this, then what?

 

[johnnyjones]

If you’re going to criticize science at general, the moon landing seems like a pretty weak area to attack it in, considering the magnitude of that accomplishment.

Your question leads me to believe there are other ares to attack the moon landing science. I guess constructing long legs and giant saucer shaped feet on the lunar lander was “weak” to NASA and the government that funded it?

 

[johnnyjones]

May I respectfully point out that scientists do not consult the Bible when doing their research? Why does the Bible need to get along with science? The consensus here is that the Bible is not a science book so why treat it like one? I think the primary issue is Genesis. Why should anyone take the time to post here endlessly about human origins?

Peace,
Ed

Because if God can’t be believed, why go any further into believing Jesus? As well, God made some kind of “half man” and had to wait billions of years to put a soul into him to make him into HIS image?

 

[johnnyjones]

So you pick a creationist website that refers to one paleontologist who is a complete loner in his perspective?

The way I see it, you’re only shooting yourself in the foot. First of all, he’s one of the only paleontologists with this view. Second of all, his view is about this one fossil, and does not apply to the hundreds of others with clear and obvious feathers. Third of all, this man, despite his minority view, retains the respect of the scientific community! Why do you think that is? Could it be because he actually understands evolution and actually understands the issues at hand? It becomes a little silly for creationists to claim that they are being silenced because of their views when scientists like him are around and not being silenced.

Many subjects in evolutionary theory are not believed or endorsed by all scientists . As well, I could start posting other scientists that do not concur with "dinosaur/bird concept. I have previously posted evolutionists who have stopped teaching a particular aspect of the theory.

 

[Lujack]

Your question leads me to believe there are other ares to attack the moon landing science. I guess constructing long legs and giant saucer shaped feet on the lunar lander was “weak” to NASA and the government that funded it?

Every aspect of the lunar landing involved science. The fact that they successfully went and returned far outweighs any earlier mistakes they made about what it would be like when they got there (and finding out what it would be like was, scientifically, the reason that they went).

 

[TEPO]

Because if God can’t be believed, why go any further into believing Jesus? As well, God made some kind of “half man” and had to wait billions of years to put a soul into him to make him into HIS image?

Every Catholic should be open to the idea that Cell mutations can only come from a source that is intelligent (God). Every Catholic should also believe that time as we know it is not the same for God.

Some insects only live for a day or two, but for them it is a long life.

Who are we to say that a billion years is not but a flashing moment for our everlasting God.

 

[rossum]

Who are we to say that a billion years is not but a flashing moment for our everlasting God.

2 Peter 3:8 “But of this one thing be not ignorant, my beloved, that one day with the Lord is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.”

rossum