New just in: Birds not evolved from dinosaurs:

New just in: Birds not evolved from dinosaurs:

Science

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.

s
Fast and Curious

slatington, pa, usa

Joined
28 Dec 04
Moves
53223
09 Jun 09

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090609092055.htm

New analysis of bird lungs and thigh bones shows them to have a different evolutionary path but maybe a common older ancestor of both.

Walk your Faith

USA

Joined
24 May 04
Moves
158030
12 Jun 09

Originally posted by sonhouse
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090609092055.htm

New analysis of bird lungs and thigh bones shows them to have a different evolutionary path but maybe a common older ancestor of both.
I'm sure we will get it right one of these days. 🙂
Kelly

P

Joined
06 May 05
Moves
9174
12 Jun 09

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'm sure we will get it right one of these days. 🙂
Kelly
Well, that's how science works - always changing to match what the evidence shows.

p
Patricia

Joined
25 Sep 06
Moves
14447
12 Jun 09

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
Well, that's how science works - always changing to match what the evidence shows.
Sonhouse, he is kidding, right?!

s
Fast and Curious

slatington, pa, usa

Joined
28 Dec 04
Moves
53223
13 Jun 09

Originally posted by patauro
Sonhouse, he is kidding, right?!
I think he was pointing out the unchanging view of religious people in regards to evolution, sticking to the main creationist story or ID stuff, as opposed to scientific evidence that may change views of a particular science, whatever science you are discussing. Religious folk invariably have no argument with say, mathematicians or astronomers or engineers because they don't impinge on their central doctrine. Only in the field of evolution do the religious set get their dander up. If they ever won that fight (very unlikely) but if they did, they would drop all pretense of an interest in science and go right back to literal biblical interpretations.

P

Joined
06 May 05
Moves
9174
13 Jun 09

Originally posted by patauro
Sonhouse, he is kidding, right?!
What did I say that was wrong?

F

Joined
11 Nov 05
Moves
43938
13 Jun 09

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'm sure we will get it right one of these days. 🙂
Kelly
KellyJay, who has not understood the fundamental things about dinosaurs (He actually thinks that man and dinosaurs lived at the same time), should not participate in this discussion.

Cornovii

North of the Tamar

Joined
02 Feb 07
Moves
53689
13 Jun 09

Originally posted by FabianFnas
KellyJay, who has not understood the fundamental things about dinosaurs (He actually thinks that man and dinosaurs lived at the same time), should not participate in this discussion.
Go on, let him. He makes me laugh whilst i'm having my breakfast.

Walk your Faith

USA

Joined
24 May 04
Moves
158030
13 Jun 09

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
Well, that's how science works - always changing to match what the evidence shows.
I know I point that from time to time and it upsets people here.
Kelly

P

Joined
06 May 05
Moves
9174
13 Jun 09

Originally posted by KellyJay
I know I point that from time to time and it upsets people here.
Kelly
Yes, but you point it out to try to justify your equivocation of religion and science.

Walk your Faith

USA

Joined
24 May 04
Moves
158030
13 Jun 09

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
Yes, but you point it out to try to justify your equivocation of religion and science.
In some places they are close to each other, others not so much.
Saying that does not add to or take away from either as far as they
being correct or false it only means they have somethings in common.
Kelly

AH

Joined
26 May 08
Moves
2120
13 Jun 09

Originally posted by KellyJay
In some places they are close to each other, others not so much.
Saying that does not add to or take away from either as far as they
being correct or false it only means they have somethings in common.
Kelly
…it only means they have something in common.…

But not much;

Science works by always changing to match what the evidence shows:
Religion generally doesn’t change to match what the evidence shows (at least not the fundamental sort). Instead it just says X and Y is true and you are just supposed to (at least that seems my impression of what the religious nuts say) just blindly except X and Y is true regardless of whether any evidence or reason says otherwise.

F

Joined
11 Nov 05
Moves
43938
13 Jun 09

Originally posted by KellyJay
In some places they are close to each other, others not so much.
Saying that does not add to or take away from either as far as they
being correct or false it only means they have somethings in common.
Kelly
KJ, do you still think that dinosaurs lived side by side with human beings in historic times?
Or have you learnt something new as you frequently visit the Science Forum?

t

Joined
29 Oct 05
Moves
932
13 Jun 09

It's that dang prankster God again, out there planting fossils to screw with our heads... I believe in you Jesus, even when all evidence tells me I shouldn't. Personally, I think we should blame the Gideons. Always running around planting fossils and bibles everywhere to confuse people. Damn, now I have to go listen to some Bill Hicks.

Insanity at Masada

tinyurl.com/mw7txe34

Joined
23 Aug 04
Moves
26660
14 Jun 09

Originally posted by sonhouse
I think he was pointing out the unchanging view of religious people in regards to evolution, sticking to the main creationist story or ID stuff, as opposed to scientific evidence that may change views of a particular science, whatever science you are discussing. Religious folk invariably have no argument with say, mathematicians or [b]astronomers or eng ...[text shortened]... p all pretense of an interest in science and go right back to literal biblical interpretations.[/b]
Not any more at least. Was it Galileo, Copernicus or both? I forget.