Here is a primer so we know what we are criticising:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/darwinism.html

Feel free to add pertinent links or comments.

Darwin is dead. I suppose he stopped evolving.

I still can't figure out if Darwinists think we supposedly morphed from monkeys or from tree shrew ancestors, there seems to be several schools of thought out there about this.

Also, how did cold-blooded reptiles supposedly morph into a warm-blooded birds, and why is this not happening today?

Most of the creatures in the fossil record look like extant animals, so how can this be, after "hundreds of millions of years of years of Darwinian evolution?"

It's both. All mammals had a common ancestor, and later on all primates had a common ancestor.

Cold Blooded reptiles have largely found their ecological niches, and warm blooded birds as well. If all birds died, then perhaps eventually something would replace them.

Many of the creatures in the fossil record look nothing like creatures today. Have you been to a natural history museum?

I agree, never didn't agree.

I agree with the first sentence of the third paragraph, I should have said.

If all birds died, then perhaps eventually something would replace them.

The bats are lurking in the shadows to take over. The insects are already master of the air.

And they'll still be bats and birds, or will be remaining birds morph into bats?

morph=evolve

morph = Darwinianly evolve

Just use the correct terminology. Birds cannot evolve into bats, since they are not mammals.

Well, reptiles supposedly morphed into birds, but reptiles are not warm blooded, so what is your point?

Is it possible to evolve backwards? He never stated that

Birds cannot evolve into bats, since they are not mammals.

although.... that would be cool!

if you get bored of your own species....you could transform into something a lot more interesting!

New invention:

The Darwinian Morphotron.

New invention:

The Darwinian Morphotron.

sounds like a sophisticated robot from a crap sci fi film!!!

Well, reptiles supposedly morphed into birds, but reptiles are not warm blooded, so what is your point?

Not directly. Reptiles became dinosaurs, which might have had quite a different metabolism than reptiles. Birds evolved from Dinosaurs, not reptiles.

Were dinosaurs luke warm blooded?

Guys. Don't waste your time on a guy that's stubbornly stuck in the past. Nothing will convince him of reality, as either his will to not see it is too strong, or reality is too strong for him to see.

Darwinian theory is muddled at best, most people know this.

Were dinosaurs luke warm blooded?

Evidence suggest that many dinosaurs were indeed warm-blooded.
And feathered.

Anyway.
It is absolutely pointless to try to talk to you anyway. You have nothing but sarcastic rhetoric. Why don't you go away? You're not even interesting.

What ever happened to the interesting crackpots around here? All we have nowadays are numbwits.

It is absolutely pointless to try to talk to you anyway. You have nothing but sarcastic rhetoric.

Please, to say that disgraces the beautiful art of sarcasm.

What ever happened to the interesting crackpots around here? All we have nowadays are numbwits.

I know what you mean. :(

I still can't figure out if Darwinists think we supposedly morphed from monkeys or from tree shrew ancestors, there seems to be several schools of thought out there about this.
Monkeys [supposedly] evolved from the same ancestor as we did, but they have evolved as well since then to become what they are now. All mammals evolved from the same proto-mammal. But, these evolutionary steps could have occured in seperate similar areas before converging, though this is a less-likely possibility. Of course there are several schools about it, because people have different interpretations of the evidence found and the research done. We can't all be right, and none of us are completely right.

Also, how did cold-blooded reptiles supposedly morph into a warm-blooded birds, and why is this not happening today?
I'll comment on this below with your comment on reptiles.

Most of the creatures in the fossil record look like extant animals, so how can this be, after "hundreds of millions of years of years of Darwinian evolution?"
For (at least) two major reasons.

One, because the most efficiently powerful entities for that local environment survive and create sufficient surviving progeny--but the organism can reach a peak in advancement where the mutations and recombinations of its genes aren't any better than the ones already selected for. This is why sharks and cochroaches haven't evolved in millions of years--because they are already extremely efficient and successful organisms for their environment. And also because their environment hasn't changed drastically.

Two, because evolutionary change can take longer depending on the environment and the organism.

Just use the correct terminology. Birds cannot evolve into bats, since they are not mammals.
They can, given enough time and the right environment(s) that will select for the right changes.

Well, reptiles supposedly morphed into birds, but reptiles are not warm blooded, so what is your point?
I believe that it was amphibians that morphed into reptiles, and amphibians that morphed into dinosaurs. The reptiles evolved into other reptiles and a branch of the dinosaurs evolved into birds.

Darwinian theory is muddled at best, most people know this.
Yes, this is true. Thankfully, most scientists have advanced the Theory of Evolution far beyond "darwinian theory".

Don't forget all the environmental catastrophies that caused extinctions. Then the Cambrian explosion 500 million years ago.

Cyanobacteria > Multicellular > Fish > Amphibians > Reptiles > Mammals

Reptiles > Dinosaurs > Birds

Debate is still out if Dinosaurs were cold or warm-blooded. What's the evidence for warm-blooded?

Is it possible to evolve backwards? He never stated that
Yes and no.

First of all, while we like to think of evolution as having a purpose, it really doesn't. There is no backwards or forwards. Evolution is a mechanism of change, nothing more.

But.....dolphins would probably fit the bill for what you're asking. Fish gave rise to amphibians which gave rise to reptiles which gave rise to mammals. Then dolphins (which are mammals) went back into the sea! Their limbs evolved back into fins. But they still breath air and must surface frequently.

Debate is still out if Dinosaurs were cold or warm-blooded. What's the evidence for warm-blooded?

The preserved bone fragment from a T-Rex that had marrow still in it. Or remnants of marrow, maybe some blood cells, I'm not quite sure. Anyways. The bone was from the leg of a female 'rex. It had a coating on the bone which was very similar to that of female birds when they become pregnant. Because the female requires so much calcium to make eggs, her body puts a special coating on the bones to keep them stronger so they won't break. This is what the pregnant T-rex seemed to show.

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/94/12/6291
Six independent lines of evidence point to the existence of heme-containing compounds and/or hemoglobin breakdown products in extracts of trabecular tissues of the large theropod dinosaur Tyrannosaurus rex. ... Finally, when dinosaurian tissues were extracted for protein fragments and were used to immunize rats, the resulting antisera reacted positively with purified avian and mammalian hemoglobins. The most parsimonious explanation of this evidence is the presence of blood-derived hemoglobin compounds preserved in the dinosaurian tissues.

And they say that dino tissue is about 65 mllion years old, why did that organinic material not decompose over the supposed millions of years?

And they say that dino tissue is about 65 mllion years old, why did that organinic material not decompose over the supposed millions of years?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decomposition

Darwinian theory is muddled at best, most people know this.

Do you have a better theory?

Do you have a better theory?

No, he doesn't.

"Originally Posted by IceAgeCivilizations
Darwinian theory is muddled at best, most people know this."

"Most people" are who, exactly? Theists?

"Muddled" is an appropriate word when theists attempt to understand reality.

Darwin's theory is probably very close to the truth, but incomplete in some way, there's somethings missing...some other factor involved....ofcourse modern evolution isn't "Darwinism"....

And they say that dino tissue is about 65 mllion years old, why did that organinic material not decompose over the supposed millions of years?
It is the signature of cells. The cells themselves have decomposed, but they left behind traces that haven't completely mineralized for some rare reason.

....of course modern evolution isn't "Darwinism"....
Thank you.