Missing bird-dinosaur link found?
- Thread starter CCGR
- Start date
Ultima Avatar
New Member
Har har har. We have some morons in this world. Read Jurassic Park.
M
Mr_Eon
Guest
What do you find moronic?
Eon
Eon
G
Guest
Guest
I don't put to much stock in such stories. Is a four-winged bird possible? Maybe.Did it evolve from animals who flapped their limbs figorously? Nope.
Alien2385
Alien2385
M
Mr_Eon
Guest
Boy you must have a serious problem with flying foxes and bats then...
Eon
Eon
Saxamaphone
New Member
ROFLMAO
Thats a big stretch of reality.
That is a 130Million year old fossil. Lets just say for a moment, this is correct. All life on earth, according to evolustionists, died about 60 million years ago. So, even if they did evolve to birds, they didn't evolve into modern day birds.
Thats a big stretch of reality.
That is a 130Million year old fossil. Lets just say for a moment, this is correct. All life on earth, according to evolustionists, died about 60 million years ago. So, even if they did evolve to birds, they didn't evolve into modern day birds.
Hey people. I haven't done the forum in so long I'm almost forgotten! LOL. Anyway, this "missing-link" thing is a bunch of hogwash. There is not ONE PIECE OF HARD-CORE EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION! All of nature supports the idea of Creation! I would challenge the people that call themselves evolutionists to seriously consider the facts. Now, I'm not nocking anyone, but I pray for those who reject God, and I'm just trying to live up to my name; a Christian.
M
Mr_Eon
Guest
There's not a seriously hard core piece of evidence for Creationism, man. You seem to have things on a little backward - evolution is visible, it's demonstrable in the lab. Expose bacteria to an antibiotic that didn't even exist previously and within a number of generations you have a mutated form of that bacteria that is resistant to that anti-biotic.
Dolphins have genetic code that tells them how to smell, when they don't even have noses! We have pseudocode for the formation of Vitamin C!
Eon
Dolphins have genetic code that tells them how to smell, when they don't even have noses! We have pseudocode for the formation of Vitamin C!
Eon
Saxamaphone
New Member
You have given great examples of adaptive evolution. Everbody and everything evolves. In so far as evolution is nothing more than change over time. We all evolve from fetus to carcass.[b said:
There is no evidence that a fish turned into an amphibian. Or that a mammal turned into an archnid. This type of evolution fails at the molecular and biochemical level. Cells die when they are mutated. This is also shown in the very same labs you talk about. If a cell that has the genetic code to create a lung is mutated in any form (even if the mutation is to increase lung capacity, a change for the good) that cell dies and the evolution does not take place. What we have when cells do mutate and survive are children with Down Syndrome, CF, MS. Mutations do not create stronger beings within a species, they create weaker more dependant ones.
If the strongest do survive, then it is the status quo that goes onto the next generation, not mutations. The genes that are mutated rarely get into the next generation. If they do, it becomes if more unlikely they get into the next. In the animal world, it is observed over and over again, that those individuals with these mutations are rare to never selected as breeding partners.
This is just one weakness of evolution.
Saxamaphone
New Member
Getting a little further, I think it is best said by C.S. Lewis:
C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1970), p. 52-53
This is again, represents a problem to atheists. If we are all accidents, or by products of accidents, then how is it that an accident could ever explain another accident. The arguement is often offered that an unknown (and often un-named force) has been guiding evolution, with the ultimate goal of evolving man (ego) to become self aware and able to describe the process of their being. In my opinion, this force takes on the property of a God. And us such, an atheist using this arguement becomes a "theist" and becomes trapped in a self condradiction.
Back to this bird. Scientists have a serious problem with putting it into the evolution scale. They have put it at 130Million years, a full 20 million years after Archaeopteryx. This is significant. Why?
This type of Microrapter could not fly. It jumped and soared much like the flying squirrel and not capable of actual flight, (I am getting this right out of that article) and had flight feathers (hmm, all flight birds have developed flight feather, birds without flight feathers could not fly). They say it is a phenonamal find and say they have nothing that resembles it. They say this find is adding fuel to the dinosaur to bird theory.
Archaeopteryx also had flying feathers (asymmetric vanes and ventral, reinforcing furrows as in modern flying birds), the elliptical wings of modern birds, large wish bone for the attachment of muscles responsible for the downstroke of the wings. It had the brain of a bird, like other birds both its upper jaw and lower jaw moved (In most vertebrates, including reptiles and dinosaurs, only the lower jaw moves). And this animal actually flew. It is not an intemediary, it came onto the fossil record completely able to fly, 20 million years before this new find could fly!!! By modern day definition of a bird, Archaeopteryx was a bird.
Two fossis were found in Northern China that are claimed to be feathered theropods (meat eating dinosaurs). The fossils are of Protarchaeopteryx robusta and Caudipteryx zoui. Scientist advocate that these are "the immediate ancestors of the first birds."
(Ji Qiang, P.J. Currie, M.A. Norell, and Ji Shu-an, "Two Feathered Dinosaurs from Northeastern China," Nature, 393 (6687):753-761, June 25, 1988, Perspective by K. Padian, same issue, p. 729-730)
Important information. You see, Archaeopteryx is essentially a bird by all counts. Its dated at 150 Million years BC. This new find of a flightless bird (which is refueling the dabate of dinosaurs evolving into birds) is dated to, 130 Million years BC, 20 million years after Archaeopteryx. And these two other finds of flightless birds, touted as "the immediate ancestors of the first birds," are date to 120 Million years BC, a full 30 million years after the first bird, 10 million years after this new find. This makes the bird ancestors far younger than their descendants.
Is evolution going backwards? Did birds devolve into dinosaurs? This find says that they did.
I love this recent find, because it does not back up the theories the scientists are trying to push onto the public. It not only does not back it up, it actually refutes it.
It will be interesting to see how the scientific community will back track this.
[b said:
C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1970), p. 52-53
This is again, represents a problem to atheists. If we are all accidents, or by products of accidents, then how is it that an accident could ever explain another accident. The arguement is often offered that an unknown (and often un-named force) has been guiding evolution, with the ultimate goal of evolving man (ego) to become self aware and able to describe the process of their being. In my opinion, this force takes on the property of a God. And us such, an atheist using this arguement becomes a "theist" and becomes trapped in a self condradiction.
Back to this bird. Scientists have a serious problem with putting it into the evolution scale. They have put it at 130Million years, a full 20 million years after Archaeopteryx. This is significant. Why?
This type of Microrapter could not fly. It jumped and soared much like the flying squirrel and not capable of actual flight, (I am getting this right out of that article) and had flight feathers (hmm, all flight birds have developed flight feather, birds without flight feathers could not fly). They say it is a phenonamal find and say they have nothing that resembles it. They say this find is adding fuel to the dinosaur to bird theory.
Archaeopteryx also had flying feathers (asymmetric vanes and ventral, reinforcing furrows as in modern flying birds), the elliptical wings of modern birds, large wish bone for the attachment of muscles responsible for the downstroke of the wings. It had the brain of a bird, like other birds both its upper jaw and lower jaw moved (In most vertebrates, including reptiles and dinosaurs, only the lower jaw moves). And this animal actually flew. It is not an intemediary, it came onto the fossil record completely able to fly, 20 million years before this new find could fly!!! By modern day definition of a bird, Archaeopteryx was a bird.
Two fossis were found in Northern China that are claimed to be feathered theropods (meat eating dinosaurs). The fossils are of Protarchaeopteryx robusta and Caudipteryx zoui. Scientist advocate that these are "the immediate ancestors of the first birds."
(Ji Qiang, P.J. Currie, M.A. Norell, and Ji Shu-an, "Two Feathered Dinosaurs from Northeastern China," Nature, 393 (6687):753-761, June 25, 1988, Perspective by K. Padian, same issue, p. 729-730)
Important information. You see, Archaeopteryx is essentially a bird by all counts. Its dated at 150 Million years BC. This new find of a flightless bird (which is refueling the dabate of dinosaurs evolving into birds) is dated to, 130 Million years BC, 20 million years after Archaeopteryx. And these two other finds of flightless birds, touted as "the immediate ancestors of the first birds," are date to 120 Million years BC, a full 30 million years after the first bird, 10 million years after this new find. This makes the bird ancestors far younger than their descendants.
Is evolution going backwards? Did birds devolve into dinosaurs? This find says that they did.
I love this recent find, because it does not back up the theories the scientists are trying to push onto the public. It not only does not back it up, it actually refutes it.
It will be interesting to see how the scientific community will back track this.
CCGR
Member
awesome reply saxamaphone many interesting points.
M
Mr_Eon
Guest
What about the Lungfish, Sax? There's a fish that has modified its swimbladder into a rudimentary lung!
Regarding your comments about the four winged "bird" - I don't think that Scientists have ever pretended that there was a clean interface between dinosaur and mammal. We still have some very primitive creatures alive today, after all, so maybe the lines bleed into each other more than is commonly thought?
The questions you ask in your piece are valid and, you know, they convince me that we don't know everything and that the picture isn't clear, and that the theory of evolution is innaccurate in detail, and needs to be refined.
But there is nothing that proves YOUR theory is right. You have to do more than prove individual inconsistencies in evolution to prove creationism right.
Eon
Regarding your comments about the four winged "bird" - I don't think that Scientists have ever pretended that there was a clean interface between dinosaur and mammal. We still have some very primitive creatures alive today, after all, so maybe the lines bleed into each other more than is commonly thought?
The questions you ask in your piece are valid and, you know, they convince me that we don't know everything and that the picture isn't clear, and that the theory of evolution is innaccurate in detail, and needs to be refined.
But there is nothing that proves YOUR theory is right. You have to do more than prove individual inconsistencies in evolution to prove creationism right.
Eon
Saxamaphone
New Member
This is the first I have heard of the lungfish, I will certainly look into it. before commenting any further. I only discussed the bird issue because I do sometimes :0 try to keep the posts on topic, so I wasn't going to delve to deep either way.
A quick study on the lungfish shows that it has remained unchanged for about 250Million years. Which hardly adds credence to any form of evolution. Fossils found in the Permian age (290 to 248 million years ago) and some fossils have been found in the Devonian age (417 to 354 million years ago). Because they remain largely unchanged in hundreds of millions of years, I find it hard to beleive that they would lend credence to evolution. But like I said, this is a quick study on the topic. I live very close to the Royal Tyrrel Musuem of Paleontology and I can dig up some records on so called ancestors and descendants.
I will also provide arguements for creationism shortly. Be patient, I am just runing a few last checks on the verifiability of the facts and cross checking a few references with outside sources.
A quick study on the lungfish shows that it has remained unchanged for about 250Million years. Which hardly adds credence to any form of evolution. Fossils found in the Permian age (290 to 248 million years ago) and some fossils have been found in the Devonian age (417 to 354 million years ago). Because they remain largely unchanged in hundreds of millions of years, I find it hard to beleive that they would lend credence to evolution. But like I said, this is a quick study on the topic. I live very close to the Royal Tyrrel Musuem of Paleontology and I can dig up some records on so called ancestors and descendants.
I will also provide arguements for creationism shortly. Be patient, I am just runing a few last checks on the verifiability of the facts and cross checking a few references with outside sources.
I just wanted to clarify what I meant by "Evolution":
MICRO EVOLUTION is the change of a kind of animal( dog, cat, etc.) over time into different species. This is scientific; it can observed, tested, and demonstrated. For example, a dog can be bred with another to produce a smaller dog, etc. I have no problem with this.
MACRO EVOLUTION, on the other hand, states that given enough TIME, a species can turn into another species( i.e. rock turns into a dog, etc.). This is NOT SCIENTIFIC, since it cannot be observed, tested, or demonstrated. Therefore, MACRO EVOLUTION must be accepted on the grounds of FAITH, and therefore it is not scientific.
MICRO EVOLUTION is the change of a kind of animal( dog, cat, etc.) over time into different species. This is scientific; it can observed, tested, and demonstrated. For example, a dog can be bred with another to produce a smaller dog, etc. I have no problem with this.
MACRO EVOLUTION, on the other hand, states that given enough TIME, a species can turn into another species( i.e. rock turns into a dog, etc.). This is NOT SCIENTIFIC, since it cannot be observed, tested, or demonstrated. Therefore, MACRO EVOLUTION must be accepted on the grounds of FAITH, and therefore it is not scientific.
Ultima Avatar
New Member
And hey, there are dragons who are rumored to be feathered. The standard fire-breathing one is not the only type: there are wyrms, and besats like behemoths and Leviathan as well.
Feathered dragons......
Yeah don't forget about the archaeopteryx: a feathered dinosaur.
AND btw Eon: bats, flying squirrels: mammals. Dinoes: supposedly reptile. Birds: uh, birds. Not mammals.
Feathered dragons......
Yeah don't forget about the archaeopteryx: a feathered dinosaur.
AND btw Eon: bats, flying squirrels: mammals. Dinoes: supposedly reptile. Birds: uh, birds. Not mammals.
M
Mr_Eon
Guest
See the thing about Dino's is that they were probably not cold-blooded - which seperates them out from Reptiles straight away. I don't think anyone has ever claimed that mammals derived from dinosaurs - there seem to have been mammals well before the ELE that wiped out most everything over 60lbs in bodyweight, and there were mammals afterwards.
Here's the question for you - if God made everything perfect and in six days then why is there even what you call Micro-Evolution?
Eon
Here's the question for you - if God made everything perfect and in six days then why is there even what you call Micro-Evolution?
Eon
CCGR
Member
The surroundings change. The weather changes, food supply changes. If one can't adapt they are dead. I think that it's awesome that God's creation can adapt real well. I mean look at cockroaches.
Ultima Avatar
New Member
Ahem, ahem. Thank you for that question Eon.
God made everything perfect in six days, we believe. Everything.
Sin is not perfect. God did not create sin. We helped to create it for ourselves. Satan did it for himself.
This world is a constant state of entropy because of sin: we are dying, not living. God had made everything perfect: we were all excellently formed. Everything was okay. Then sin entered the world. And sin equals death. Romans 3:23a states that "For the wages of sin is death".
However, let's look at something. Most people believe the Hebrews kept a pretty good chronological order up there, right? The years of their kings, of their ancestors, what happened during their reigns, and what not.
In Genesis 5, you see something pretty remarkable: their ages. Adam: died at 930. Seth, died at 912. Enosh: died at 905. Wow. That's a long time. ANd they finally had kids when there were in their older years, 90-140, on the average! Most people have kids between 15 and 40!
Here's an interesting thought-provoking question: when do the negative results that spring off of inbreeding occur? After the sixth generation or so of it. These guys waited til they were almost old to go looking for wives, and by that time, their wives would have bore many kids already: so they would be marrying some far-removed cousin, or a far-removed niece, and for the first generation, direct relatives.
After all, Cain went away didn't he? Adam and Eve had Seth, and then sons and daughters. OF course, as time went on, their sons and daughters would have kids together and then their brothers and sisters would look at their nieces and marry them, and cousins and the rabbits would continue this process until they got to where we are today: at about 7 billion, minus deaths from war and such.
Degeneration has occurred in us: God even said it would: he limited our years to about seventy around the time of the Flood, so we wouldn't live out our sins so much. And look at today: most people die anywhere between 60-80.
Micro-evolution continues to keep up with the limited levels we have set upon ourselves. This is the result of sin: the Flood changed our atmosphere, oceans and land. Everything about man's sin is destructive: it caused the total genocide of mankind minus one righteous, though still sinful, family
God made everything perfect in six days, we believe. Everything.
Sin is not perfect. God did not create sin. We helped to create it for ourselves. Satan did it for himself.
This world is a constant state of entropy because of sin: we are dying, not living. God had made everything perfect: we were all excellently formed. Everything was okay. Then sin entered the world. And sin equals death. Romans 3:23a states that "For the wages of sin is death".
However, let's look at something. Most people believe the Hebrews kept a pretty good chronological order up there, right? The years of their kings, of their ancestors, what happened during their reigns, and what not.
In Genesis 5, you see something pretty remarkable: their ages. Adam: died at 930. Seth, died at 912. Enosh: died at 905. Wow. That's a long time. ANd they finally had kids when there were in their older years, 90-140, on the average! Most people have kids between 15 and 40!
Here's an interesting thought-provoking question: when do the negative results that spring off of inbreeding occur? After the sixth generation or so of it. These guys waited til they were almost old to go looking for wives, and by that time, their wives would have bore many kids already: so they would be marrying some far-removed cousin, or a far-removed niece, and for the first generation, direct relatives.
After all, Cain went away didn't he? Adam and Eve had Seth, and then sons and daughters. OF course, as time went on, their sons and daughters would have kids together and then their brothers and sisters would look at their nieces and marry them, and cousins and the rabbits would continue this process until they got to where we are today: at about 7 billion, minus deaths from war and such.
Degeneration has occurred in us: God even said it would: he limited our years to about seventy around the time of the Flood, so we wouldn't live out our sins so much. And look at today: most people die anywhere between 60-80.
Micro-evolution continues to keep up with the limited levels we have set upon ourselves. This is the result of sin: the Flood changed our atmosphere, oceans and land. Everything about man's sin is destructive: it caused the total genocide of mankind minus one righteous, though still sinful, family
M
Mr_Eon
Guest
Interesting argument except for one tiny flaw. God created Sin, so he created it perfect according to his plan. That means he created the necessity for entropic change into it, which means he created the necessary tools for evolution into all the animals and so forth, which means God INTENDED us to evolve, which means you shouldn't have such a big issue with MACRO evolution.
That also means that you should just embrace cloning - since science is a part of his plan too, and cloning is the next big technology for scientific exploration.
Eon
That also means that you should just embrace cloning - since science is a part of his plan too, and cloning is the next big technology for scientific exploration.
Eon
T
Tom Kazansky
Guest
[b said:
That also means that atheists should stop using evolution as a weapon to dismiss Christianity(no, I'm not saying you're atheist Eon
......actually I'm not even exactly sure what you beliefs are heh).[b said:
Nah, cloning is pretty stupid.