[_ Old Earth _] EVOLUTION - A BELIEVER'S PERSPECTIVE

[zeke]

As you learned, theropods had feathers and "wings" long before birds and even before flight. As Archaeopteryx shows, even some transitionals that were more dinosaur than bird, were capable of flight.

LOL - you just don't get it - do you? Archaeopteryx wasn't a "feathered dinosaur" and it wasn't some imagined 'transitional' - it is what it has always been (scientifically speaking) - it is an extinct bird. Dinosaurs did not transform themselves into birds. You have bought into Darwinian 'paleobabble' my friend - try to learn from your errors and educate yourself. You a not a real scientist - right?

Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bounded, feathered dinosaur. But it's not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of 'paleobabble' is going to change that. (Alan Feduccia)​

 

[zeke]

No miracle, other than the miracle by a God who was powerful enough to make a universe in which such things can emerge through the nature He made.

God created life on this planet via special creation and that life reproduces "after their kind" - remember these two words "pecies barrier". Dogs have always been dogs---birds have always been birds--dinosaurs were always dinosaurs--and humans have always been humans. Easy concept.

 

[Barbarian]

LOL - you just don't get it - do you? Archaeopteryx wasn't a "feathered dinosaur" and it wasn't some imagined 'transitional' - it is what it has always been (scientifically speaking) - it is an extinct bird.

And yet it has a dinosaur's face,(no beak), teeth, ribs, hips, legs, tail, and other features. It has more dinosaur features than bird ones.

Despite its small size, broad wings, and inferred ability to fly or glide, Archaeopteryx has more in common with other small Mesozoic dinosaurs than it does with modern birds. In particular, it shares the following features with the deinonychosaurs (dromaeosaurs and troodontids): jaws with sharp teeth, three fingers with claws, a long bony tail, hyperextensible second toes ("killing claw"), feathers (which also suggest homeothermy), and various skeletal features...In addition, in 1977 the first specific name of the Haarlem specimen, crassipes, described by von Meyer as a pterosaur before its true nature was realized, was also suppressed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx

Originally, the crow sized Archaeopteryx was classified as a theropod dinosaur (or a pterosaur) until its feather impressions were noticed.
http://bio.sunyorange.edu/updated2/pl new/55 first birds.htm

There's no point in denying the obvious, Zeke.

Dinosaurs did not transform themselves into birds.

So the evidence shows. It's not just that we have this transitional form. Genetics also shows it to be true, as does molecular biology. When a small amount of heme (fragment of a hemoglobin molecule) was found in a T. rex bone, it was injected into a rabbit, which formed antibodies against it. The antibodies when tested on modern organisms showed that it was closer to the heme of birds than it was to modern reptiles. Precisely what the theory predicts.

You have bought into Darwinian 'paleobabble' my friend - try to learn from your errors and educate yourself. You a not a real scientist - right?

My employers and clients have always thought so. So do the Universities from which I got my degrees. I've made a living at it for nearly 45 years.

Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bounded, feathered dinosaur.

Not exactly a dinosaur, not exactly a bird. The best guess is that it's pretty close to the line that gave rise to modern birds, but is not a direct ancestor.

But it's not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of 'paleobabble' is going to change that. (Alan Feduccia)

Feduccia could still be right, but there's a huge amount of convergent evolution that would have to happen to make it work that way.

Feduccia thinks it's a transitionial between thecodonts and modern birds. I think you just gave away the farm on that one.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
No miracle, other than the miracle by a God who was powerful enough to make a universe in which such things can emerge through the nature He made.

God created life on this planet via special creation and that life reproduces "after their kind"

God doesn't say that life reproduces after their kind. If you have to alter the word of God to make a point, isn't that an important clue for you?

remember these two words "pecies barrier".

Speciation is admitted by most creationists who know something about science. The "species barrier" is just another creationist "just so" story.

Dogs have always been dogs---birds have always been birds--dinosaurs were always dinosaurs--and humans have always been humans. Easy concept.

Comes down to evidence. And your story fails because of it. Simple as that.

 

[cupid dave]

What you are describing has nothing to do with CI, even if you could demonstrate that the universe is a manifestation of someone taking a meausrement of a probability.

The universe is not a quantum particle.

Not now, because the First Cause observed those initial Quantun Particles at the first split second of the Big Bang:



The Inflation Era

Part of the Universe expanded from billions of times smaller than a proton to something the size of a football field. This eras lifespan was a hundred billionth of a yoctosecond and was approximately 1,000 trillion trillion degrees centigrade.
The Quark Era

This period saw vast number of quark and anti quark pairs forming from energy and then annihilating back to energy.
Gluons and other elementary particles also appeared. This eras lifespan was about 100 millionth of a yocto second and was approximately 10 billion billion degrees centigrade.


Read more: http://scienceray.com/philosophy-of-science/step-by-step-guide-to-the-big-bang/#ixzz1xKtQJZ00

 

[zeke]

And yet it has a dinosaur's face,(no beak), teeth, ribs, hips, legs, tail, and other features.

Barb - the first rule of holes - "when you're in one stop digging". You're digging, dude. Alan Feduccia is a Darwinist and a bird expert - you are not even a scientist. I am going to go with Feduccia on this one - Archaeopteryx is a 'perching bird' that has nothing to do with dinosaurs.

What we see here folks is the "true believer" - they will swallow anything Darwinians spoon feed them. Birds have always been birds just as dinosaurs were always dinosaurs. Learn for your error Barb and for heavens sake - stop digging for the obvious reasons.

 

[zeke]

My employers and clients have always thought so. So do the Universities from which I got my degrees. I've made a living at it for nearly 45 years.

Really? What kind of "scientist" would that be - political?

 

[Barbarian]

(Zeke denies that Archaeopteryx is a transitional)

Barbarian observes:
And yet it has a dinosaur's face,(no beak), teeth, ribs, hips, legs, tail, and other features. It has feathers like dinosaurs. About all you have is that it could probably fly a little.

Barb - the first rule of holes - "when you're in one stop digging". You're digging, dude.

I don't think you're going to get out of the hole that easily. You have to explain why this "bird" has more dinosaur features than bird features. I see you again declined to defend your claim.

Alan Feduccia is a Darwinist and a bird expert - you are not even a scientist.

My employers and clients thought so. Mostly because of the Universities that awarded me degrees in science. I've made a living at it for about 45 years now.

I am going to go with Feduccia on this one - Archaeopteryx is a 'perching bird' that has nothing to do with dinosaurs.

Actually Feduccia believes that birds and dinosaurs both evolved from thecodont reptiles. He'd be pretty unhappy with your claim that he thinks birds have nothing to do with dinosaurs. Most scientists disagree with him on the ancestors of birds, and there's a small chance that he's right. You might learn more about this by getting a copy of his book "The Evolution of Birds." It's well illustrated, and written to be accessible to the layman. But you've pretty much given up the farm by endorsing Feduccia. Most scientists think dinosaurs gave rise to birds. Feduccia thinks they are sister groups arising from a common ancestor.

What we see here folks is the "true believer" - they will swallow anything Darwinians spoon feed them.

I can see you're frustrated, but generic insults merely make you look foolish.

Birds have always been birds just as dinosaurs were always dinosaurs.

Comes down to evidence. Science has it. You don't.

 

[zeke]

You have to explain why this "bird" has more dinosaur features than bird features.

Again, I will go with Feduccia - he says it is a 'true bird' not a dinosaur. If you want to keep digging you will need to provide the evidence that Feduccia is wrong - remember, he is the bird expert not you. Will Barb keep digging - my money says he will.

Science has it.

And you can't find it - or have you found your evidence that therpods were transformed into birds? You're up - don't blow it again.

 

[Barbarian]

My employers and clients have always thought so. So do the Universities from which I got my degrees. I've made a living at it for nearly 45 years.
Really? What kind of "scientist" would that be - political?

As an undergraduate, I did primarily microbiology and zoology, mostly anatomy, systematics, and physiology, but I had minors in chemistry and immunology. I finally got enough hour in bacteriology to get a degree in that, also. My graduate degree is in systems in biology, including human factors and population biology.

I got drafted after I got my bachelors, and was stationed where there wasn't much to do but drink or go to night school, so I have about 25 hours of history. Turns out, I was good at it. All "A"s, not bad for a biologist, um?

And yes, as you learned, there is genetic, molecular, anatomical, and fossil evidence for birds evolving from dinosaurs. Feduccia, whom you endorsed, says dinosaurs and birds both evolved from reptiles as sister taxa.

It's too late for you to deny the evidence, now.

 

[zeke]

My employers and clients thought so. Mostly because of the Universities that awarded me degrees in science.

I have seen some of those degrees. What was your field of expertise - not birds - right?

 

[zeke]

I got drafted after I got my bachelors, and was stationed where there wasn't much to do but drink or go to night school, so I have about 25 hours of history. Turns out, I was good at it. All "A"s, not bad for a biologist, um?

Well, you completely missed the historical record of Augustine when you thought he supported your Darwinian time-line - you must have been absent the day they covered church history.

 

[Barbarian]

I'm merely familiar with the anatomy and physiology of birds, and the fossil record of birds and their transitionals.

Yes, I had to study birds to get my degree. But I'm not an ornithologist. I do agree with most ornithologists, who think birds evolved from dinosaurs, even if I think there's a small chance Feduccia's maverick position could be right.

Tell me about your degrees in ornithology or whatever you think qualifies you to talk about it.

Well, you completely missed the historical record of Augustine when you thought he supported your Darwinian time-line

No, you just made that up. I merely pointed out that Augustine, like most Christians, understood that Genesis was not a literal history.

you must have been absent the day they covered church history.

Surprise. If you'd like to learn what the early theologians thought about the issue, you might want to find a copy of Augustine's De Genesi ad Litteram.

 

[zeke]

But I'm not an ornithologist.

Obviously.

Tell me about your degrees in ornithology or whatever you think qualifies you to talk about it.

I collect and catalog scientific facts and fiction and I find more misconceptions in Darwinism than all other sciences combined - most of Darwinism is based on circularity, speculation and assumption. But you already know this.

I merely pointed out that Augustine, like most Christians, understood that Genesis was not a literal history.

<snip>

If you'd like to learn what the early theologians thought about the issue, you might want to find a copy of Augustine's De Genesi ad Litteram.

In De Civitate Dei Augustine wrote that world chronology based on Holy Writ led him to place Creation around 5600 BC - literally. That doesn't work very well with your dino-bird chronology - does it? Again, Augustine is not on your side as you previously presented.

 

[zeke]

And yes, as you learned, there is genetic, molecular, anatomical, and fossil evidence for birds evolving from dinosaurs. Feduccia, whom you endorsed, says dinosaurs and birds both evolved from reptiles as sister taxa.

You are mistaken again--genetics, molecular evidence, etc supports common design. You have provided nothing from science that 'proves' dinos morphed into birds - it is all about science and you missed the boat once again. In you 45 years did you not have to provide any science or was hands waiving in the air the only 'evidence' required?

 

[Adam]

Not now, because the First Cause observed those initial Quantun Particles at the first split second of the Big Bang:



The Inflation Era

Part of the Universe expanded from billions of times smaller than a proton to something the size of a football field. This eras lifespan was a hundred billionth of a yoctosecond and was approximately 1,000 trillion trillion degrees centigrade.
The Quark Era

This period saw vast number of quark and anti quark pairs forming from energy and then annihilating back to energy.
Gluons and other elementary particles also appeared. This eras lifespan was about 100 millionth of a yocto second and was approximately 10 billion billion degrees centigrade.


Read more: http://scienceray.com/philosophy-of-science/step-by-step-guide-to-the-big-bang/#ixzz1xKtQJZ00

Get back to me when you figure out what a wavefunction is.

 

[lordkalvan]

You are mistaken again--genetics, molecular evidence, etc supports common design.

How? Please support your assertion with reasoned argument that explains this.

You have provided nothing from science that 'proves' dinos morphed into birds - it is all about science and you missed the boat once again.

They didn't 'morph', they evolved from ancestral species, the evidence for which evolution exists in the lines of evidence you have been referred to. Did you even know a boat was leaving?

In you 45 years did you not have to provide any science or was hands waiving in the air the only 'evidence' required?

This rather seems to be a case of black pots making noises about kettles.....

 

[Barbarian]

(Barbarian admits to having studied ornithology)
But I'm not an ornithologist.

Obviously.

You'd have no way of knowing, since you don't know anything about it.

Barbarian, earlier:
Tell me about your degrees in ornithology or whatever you think qualifies you to talk about it.

I collect and catalog scientific facts and fiction...

... and can't tell the difference. It's possible, if you're willing to put in the time, to learn about things without formal study. But you clearly haven't done either. As soon as you were asking about my credentials, it became clear that you had none at all.

Barbarian observes:
I merely pointed out that Augustine, like most Christians, understood that Genesis was not a literal history.

If you'd like to learn what the early theologians thought about the issue, you might want to find a copy of Augustine's De Genesi ad Litteram.

In De Civitate Dei Augustine wrote that...

Genesis wasn't a literal history. As I told you. But since you're resisting actually reading it, here's a summary:

"Seven days by our reckoning, after the model of the days of creation, make up a week. By the passage of such weeks time rolls on, and in these weeks one day is constituted by the course of the sun from its rising to its setting; but we must bear in mind that these days indeed recall the days of creation, but without in any way being really similar to them" (ibid., 4:27).

"[A]t least we know that it [the Genesis creation day] is different from the ordinary day with which we are familiar" (ibid., 5:2).

"For in these days [of creation] the morning and evening are counted until, on the sixth day, all things which God then made were finished, and on the seventh the rest of God was mysteriously and sublimely signalized. What kind of days these were is extremely difficult or perhaps impossible for us to conceive, and how much more to say!" (The City of God 11:6 [A.D. 419]).

"We see that our ordinary days have no evening but by the setting [of the sun] and no morning but by the rising of the sun, but the first three days of all were passed without sun, since it is reported to have been made on the fourth day. And first of all, indeed, light was made by the word of God, and God, we read, separated it from the darkness and called the light ‘day’ and the darkness ‘night’; but what kind of light that was, and by what periodic movement it made evening and morning, is beyond the reach of our senses; neither can we understand how it was and yet must unhesitatingly believe it" (ibid., 11:7).

As you see, Augustine indeed was among the many Christian theologians who knew that the days of Genesis were not literal ones.

Surprise.

 

[Barbarian]

This rather seems to be a case of black pots making noises about kettles.....

Lord Kalvan, good to see you back. As you see, Zeke has entered meltdown, and is now simply denying everything.

But he makes a nice foil for the lurkers.

 

[zeke]

They didn't 'morph', they evolved from ancestral species, the evidence for which evolution exists in the lines of evidence you have been referred to. Did you even know a boat was leaving?

kalvan - where have you been hiding my friend? Why don't you provide your "evidence for which evolution exists" on this thread. Remember, we are not talking about beak size on finch populations (biological evolution) - we are discussing man-chimp common ancestry (evolutionary mythology).