Micro to Macro

AV1611VET · Jul 12, 2009

Alunyel said:
And as for that fire lord hell nonsense, this is the "Physical and life sciences" board, what does your religious belief have to do with science?

The volume increases to compensate for the increase of mass --- thus keeping the temperature the same.

Isaiah 5:14 said:
Therefore hell hath enlarged herself, and opened her mouth without measure: and their glory, and their multitude, and their pomp, and he that rejoiceth, shall descend into it.

I believe that's an example of Boyle's Law?

plindboe · Jul 12, 2009

MarkT said:
LOL I'm not asking you for an education Wiccan Child.

An education was exactly what you were asking for, whether you intended to or not.

MarkT said:
I know what the books say.

Your posts show otherwise.

MarkT said:
I'm saying repent and turn to the Lord for forgiveness or you will die in your sins. And you will be cast into the hell of fire at the coming of the Lord.

When you make claims about biology with such certainty that are both ridiculous and ignorant and then follow that up with religious claims, you've essentially sabotaged your own attempt at convincing anyone of your claims' veracity. You've basically told everyone in this thread that religious belief and ignorance goes hand in hand.

Peter

Alunyel · Jul 12, 2009

Of course you would disagree. Your belief wants evolution to be wrong so desperately, that you'll completely ignore the evidence for it, and, incidentally, half my post. I didn't know you could have selective hearing over the internet. The evidence for it is contained in the textbooks, people can go out and look at the evidence for themselves. Anyone who just believes it because it's written in a book is no different from you, only what they blindly accept has real evidence, whether they choose to look at it or not.

I can't quite see how a man putting a baby on an altar with some incense and burnt bones qualifies as a prophecy. Even if for some bizarre reason it was predicted that he'd do just that, then all that means is that it is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Great, the bible said a building won't last forever. That's predicting a natural occurrence in the same way as predicting that tomorrow the sun will illuminate half the world.

So far you're ignoring what I'm saying about the predictions they've made based on the ToE, that are entirely natural and un-controlled by mankind in any way (Unless man superglued two chromosomes together, or planted the fossils there before digging them up again.), and given me a load of self-fulfilling prophecies, all of which could've been just as easily influenced by the Bible, none of which are natural, none of which have any supporting evidence outside of the Bible.

Again, what they believe, even if they believe it to the point where they're willing to die for it, doesn't make it a fact. Being a fact makes something a fact, and facts always leave evidence to support them.

AV1611VET · Jul 12, 2009

Alunyel said:
Of course you would disagree. Your belief wants evolution to be wrong so desperately, that you'll completely ignore the evidence for it, and, incidentally, half my post. I didn't know you could have selective hearing over the internet. The evidence for it is contained in the textbooks, people can go out and look at the evidence for themselves. Anyone who just believes it because it's written in a book is no different from you, only what they blindly accept has real evidence, whether they choose to look at it or not.

I can't quite see how a man putting a baby on an altar with some incense and burnt bones qualifies as a prophecy. Even if for some bizarre reason it was predicted that he'd do just that, then all that means is that it is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Great, the bible said a building won't last forever. That's predicting a natural occurrence in the same way as predicting that tomorrow the sun will illuminate half the world.

So far you're ignoring what I'm saying about the predictions they've made based on the ToE, that are entirely natural and un-controlled by mankind in any way (Unless man superglued two chromosomes together, or planted the fossils there before digging them up again.), and given me a load of self-fulfilling prophecies, all of which could've been just as easily influenced by the Bible, none of which are natural, none of which have any supporting evidence outside of the Bible.

Again, what they believe, even if they believe it to the point where they're willing to die for it, doesn't make it a fact. Being a fact makes something a fact, and facts always leave evidence to support them.

Have a good day, sir --- :wave:

WilliamduBois · Jul 12, 2009

AV1611VET said:
Have a good day, sir ---

Typically AV: can't respond? Ignore.

Only shows how weak your position is, AV.

Alunyel · Jul 12, 2009

WilliamduBois said:
Typically AV: can't respond? Ignore.

Only shows how weak your position is, AV.

I think you hit the nail on the head there.

I think he's quite happy just sailing along on his failboat, even if it's not going anywhere.

Naraoia · Jul 13, 2009

MarkT said:
If you're honest about it tell me, is it (Archaeopteryx) a bird or a reptile?

Both

Shall I expand?

A reptile by definition crawls on its' belly.

By whose definition, pray tell?

Can you tell me this creature crawled on its' belly? I don't think so. So why do you call it a reptile? How many reptiles can fly? Remember reptiles crawl on their bellies.

So monitor lizards are not reptiles but seals are.

Wiccan_Child said:
Bats are mammals, whereas pterosaurs are reptiles. Bats, like all mammals, have a number of shared traits: hair, mammary glands, three middle-ear bones, etc. None of these mammalian traits exist in pterosaurs. Moreover, pterosaurs have all the reptilian traits that we find in reptiles (and not bats).

To be fair, pterosaurs were hairy, though it was their own version of hair.

(Although here on Palaeos there is a note saying that "the current thinking" is that the "hair" on Sordes pilosus is not actually hair but elastic fibres inside the wing -- now I'm a bit confused. I've heard they aren't restricted to the wings, for one thing. Over at DinoForum, I don't think I've ever seen anyone expressing reservations about the reality of pterosaur hair, and we have a couple of people who seem to know their pterosaurs. Then there is also Jeholopterus, a more recently discovered pterosaur with possible preserved hair. So take this for what it's worth.)

plindboe said:
An education was exactly what you were asking for, whether you intended to or not.

That line cracked me up

When you make claims about biology with such certainty that are both ridiculous and ignorant and then follow that up with religious claims, you've essentially sabotaged your own attempt at convincing anyone of your claims' veracity. You've basically told everyone in this thread that religious belief and ignorance goes hand in hand.

Peter

QFT.

Hespera · Jul 13, 2009

MarkT said:
If you're honest about it tell me, is it (Archaeopteryx) a bird or a reptile? A reptile by definition crawls on its' belly. Can you tell me this creature crawled on its' belly? I don't think so. So why do you call it a reptile? How many reptiles can fly? Remember reptiles crawl on their bellies.

The Bible talks about sea monsters and there's behemoth. Not much more.

As for pterosaurs, I think they belong to the bat family but I can't be sure.

What would YOU call an animal that has feathers, a long tail and teeth?
The idea that there is a "bright line" distinction between birds and reptiles is a product of looking at the reptiles and birds of today, not what there was in the past. Bipedal dinosaurs with feathers, what would you call them if they lived today?

Pterosaurs were reptiles.
Other than snakes, reptiles dont "crawl on their bellies". That CERTAINLY is not a definition. Behold T rex. Or this. Crawl on its belly?

YouTube - Jesus Christ Lizard

There is a "flying snake" and here is a flying lizard

YouTube - Fooled by Nature - Draco Lizard

You would find if you ever cared to / dared to pursue it, that no objection to evolution that you can think of will stand up any better than the ones you presented in this post.

Its actually a very interesting subject, its worth study on its own; certainly, my interest doesnt come f rom trying to disprove anyone's religion, be it that of a Bantu tribesman, Eskimo, Hindu, Christian, or any other.

As a matter of curiosity btw.... do you still hold that the points you raised are valid? or would you let me know that you learned something.

Alunyel · Jul 13, 2009

Another good example of a dinosaur that had feathers and glided was Microraptor.

We know it had feathers, because the feathers left imprints in the rock, when it became fossilized. It's actually really interesting, because it had two sets of "wings", one set on its forearms and another set on its hind legs.

I can't post pictures, yet, but look it up.

AV1611VET · Jul 13, 2009

Alunyel said:
Another good example of a dinosaur that had feathers and glided was Microraptor.

Ya --- my cat keeps leaving dinosaurs at our front door.

Bombila · Jul 13, 2009

I wish mine would leave them at the front door . He tries to sneak them in and leaves piles of feathers in places like the shower, where I find them at most inconvenient moments.

Hespera · Jul 13, 2009

AV1611VET said:
Ya --- my cat keeps leaving dinosaurs at our front door.

Actually they are fish.

AV1611VET · Jul 13, 2009

Bombila said:
I wish mine would leave them at the front door . He tries to sneak them in and leaves piles of feathers in places like the shower, where I find them at most inconvenient moments.

--- ewww.

Mine leaves them at the front door --- whole.

Unless it's a rabbit, then in pieces.

Wiccan_Child · Jul 13, 2009

Naraoia said:
To be fair, pterosaurs were hairy, though it was their own version of hair.

(Although here on Palaeos there is a note saying that "the current thinking" is that the "hair" on Sordes pilosus is not actually hair but elastic fibres inside the wing -- now I'm a bit confused. I've heard they aren't restricted to the wings, for one thing. Over at DinoForum, I don't think I've ever seen anyone expressing reservations about the reality of pterosaur hair, and we have a couple of people who seem to know their pterosaurs. Then there is also Jeholopterus, a more recently discovered pterosaur with possible preserved hair. So take this for what it's worth.)

I think it's 'hair' in the same sense that insects have 'hair': functionally similar to true mammalian hair, but structurally and biochemically distinct. It's convergent evolution at its finest.

MoonLancer · Jul 13, 2009

AV1611VET said:
Ya --- my cat keeps leaving dinosaurs at our front door.

don't you mean birds, whos ancestors are dinosaurs.

Hespera · Jul 13, 2009

MoonLancer said:
don't you mean birds, whos ancestors are dinosaurs.

Or birds, whose ancestors were fish, like the rest of us.

Actually tho, i never have known what the significance of this bird / dinosaur thing is supposed by AV to be. maybe ne can explain it and then just do a QV.

AV1611VET · Jul 13, 2009

Hespera said:
Actually tho, i never have known what the significance of this bird / dinosaur thing is supposed by AV to be. maybe ne can explain it and then just do a QV.

Do dinosaurs and man coexist?

Are dinosaurs mentioned in both Testaments of the Bible?

QV please: 1.

Hespera · Jul 13, 2009

AV1611VET said:
Do dinosaurs and man coexist?

Are dinosaurs mentioned in both Testaments of the Bible?

QV please: 1.

This seems a bit silly, tweety birds are a totally different subject than 30 ton carnosaurs.

Answer is no to both q's. Unless you want to have it that when the bible mentions sheep, it is thereby mentioning crossopterygian fish.

If the contention is that the connection between birds and dinosaurs shows that people coexisted with your T rex type dinosaurs, or that the bible refers in any way to such things, well, you is badly lacking in any credible evidence on that.

Anyway, is there a point to it that you keep mentioning bird-as-dinosaur?

AV1611VET · Jul 13, 2009

Hespera said:
Answer is no to both q's.

Then you disagree with berkely.edu, don't you?

corvus_corax · Jul 13, 2009

Hespera said:
Answer is no to both q's. Unless you want to have it that when the bible mentions sheep, it is thereby mentioning crossopterygian fish.

Not quite.

Micro to Macro

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Senior Member

Alunyel

Guest

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

BenderBendingRodriguez

Alunyel

Guest

Apprentice Biologist

Junior Member

Alunyel

Guest

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Veteran

Junior Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Contributor

The Moon is a reflection of the MorningStar

Junior Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Junior Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Naclist Hierophant and Prophet

Similar threads