Posted on 02/02/2005 6:19:41 PM PST by curiosity
I already spammed this thread with a huge post, I'll only respond with small ones...
WHAT WOULD NEED TO CHANGE FOR A DINOSAUR TO EVOLVE INTO A BIRD?
- BTG No. 135b March 2000
by John D. Morris, Ph.D.*
© Copyright 2004 Institute for Creation Research. All Rights Reserved.
"A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree
bring forth good fruit." (Matthew 7:18)
Evolutionists have expended great effort in trying to establish that birds evolved from dinosaurs. Some skeletal similarities do exist—encouraging them to minimize the differences and to champion any possible clue (like hints of feathers in theropod dinosaurs) that the two classes might be related. Now it appears that some would even resort to fraud to establish such a lineage. It behooves us to step back and take a look. What structural and physiological transformations must occur to change one into the other? The following abridged list of evolutionary obstacles might be helpful.
Wings: The proposed ancestors of birds are thought to have walked on their hind legs. Their diminutive forelimbs had digits similar to a hand, but consisting only of digits one, two, and three. Bird forelimbs consist of digits two, three, and four. Today, most hold that ground-dwelling theropods learned to run fast and jump to catch insects and eventually used arms with frayed scales to fly. But flight requires fully formed, interlocking feathers and hollow bones, not to mention the flight muscles and keeled sternum to anchor the muscles.
Feathers: Feathers are not at all similar to scales. Even if scales were frayed, they would not be interlocking and impervious to air as are feathers. Actually, feathers are more similar to hair follicles than scales. Could such precise design arise by mutation? In all the recent discoveries of dinosaur fossils with "feathers," the "feathers" are merely inferred. What is actually present is better described as thin filaments which originate under the skin.
Bones: Birds have delicate, hollow bones to lighten their weight while dinosaurs had solid bones. The placement and design of bird bones may be analogous to those in dinosaurs, but they are actually quite different. For example, the heavy tail of dinosaurs (needed for balance on two legs) would prohibit any possible flight. And besides, the theropods were "lizard-hipped" dinosaurs, not "bird-hipped" as would be expected for bird ancestors.
Warm blooded: Birds are warmblooded with exceptionally high metabolism and food demands. While dinosaur metabolism is in question, all modern reptiles are cold-blooded with a more lethargic life style.
Lungs: Birds are unique among land-dwelling vertebrates in that they don't breathe in and out. The air flows continually in a one-directional loop supporting the bird's high metabolism. Reptilian respiration is entirely different, more like that in mammals.
Other organs: The soft parts of birds and dinosaurs, in addition to the lungs, are totally different. A recent "mummified" dinosaur, with soft tissue fossilized, proved to be quite like a crocodile, and not at all like a bird.
Thus, the dinosaur-to-bird transition is blocked by many major obstacles, not just the acquisition of feathers. It gets even worse, for in order to make the transition, most if not all of the definitive characteristics must be acquired simultaneously. They all must be present or else none serves a valid purpose. Evolutionary stories don't fit the facts.
*Dr. John Morris is President of ICR.
http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-b/btg-135b.htm
"When a number comes before the word "day," it almost always refers to a literal 24 hour day"
In Hebrew the number in all the "days" comes after yom "day". So I guess this rule doesn't apply here.
Also, I don't know who proposed this rule, but it is not always the case.
No this is not good. It's a false portrayal of creationist's proofs of God, creationism and the conflict with evolution as well as the certainty of evidence supporting evolution.
Yes some creationists have sought proof of God in the unexplained such as the flower. But discovering how God did something does not unprove God. The point is that God did these things, structured the flower long before man knew what DNA was or even had a clue how to look into creation that God made. But that has not been and never will be the primary proof of God. A personal relationship one on one with the Almighty remains the primary proof. Other proofs exist, like the prophecies which are proof of God's foreknowledge and miracles which are proof of God's power. Someday we may understand how to do some of the miracles, or maybe even have foreknowledge, but that won't unprove God.
The conflict with evolution is not about finding God in the unexplained. The conflict with evolution is about whether the Word of God, the Bible is in fact the Word of God. There are some who try to reconcile Genesis with evolution. I can not.
There are a couple of gap theories, and maybe there were gaps, I doubt it, but I'm not 100% certain.
There are theories that say the six day creation was not actual days. Again I doubt it seriously. The wording certainly seems to reinforce literal days, and I believe God is that powerful. If God can create a billion galaxies each with a billion stars or listen to the prayers of 6 billion people at the same time, heal the ear of the guard instantly, and heal others instantly, and even raise the dead out of the tomb after they are already stinking (Lazarus), then surely this God can form man from the dust of the earth without resorting to evolution.
But when Genesis says God formed man before the animals, then either the scripture is not true or evolution is not true. There can be no other conclusion.
When Genesis says God formed woman from Adam's rib, then either scripture is not true or evolution is not true. There can be no other conclusion.
If Genesis is not true, then we must ask what happened and how much if any of the scripture we can count on. God confirmed Moses with mighty miracles in front of millions and many nations. That is how we know Moses was a true prophet. If Genesis is not true are any of the five books of Moses true? And if the books of Moses are not true, which give us the tests of a prophet, then how do we know any of the other prophets are true? And if we can't count on the prophets, then can we count on the prophecies that confirmed Jesus? And Jesus spoke of the books of Moses as authoritative. If Jesus could be wrong then could He be God? And if not God, then by his own admission, Jesus could not be good and we have worshipped a con man or a loon.
But.... Those prophet's words did confirm Jesus and Jesus was confirmed by miracles in front of thousands also. And by fulfilling those prophecies, Jesus confirmed those prophets as true. And if those prophets were true, then can we not take Jesus' reference to the books of Moses as authority? And if Jesus claims the books of Moses were authoritative, then we can rest assured that the testimony of the Miracles confirming Moses were true and that the books are indeed what God told Moses to record.
But if Genesis is true, then evolution is false.
And there is much reason to doubt evolution.
All of these reasons and many more should cause us to cast an ever critical eye towards the claims of evolution, while trusting the scripture. Investigate DNA, and cell function, and flowers and the universe. But before you count scripture wrong, you better have a really strong case.
Evolution doesn't have a really strong case
This is simply an argument from personal incredulity. It is unscientific and fallacious.
The scientific evidence supports birds coming from certain lines of dinosaurs. I believe there is still a debate over which line.
As a theistic evolutionist, I find the article to be excellent.
Why continue to post this propaganda promoting this fairy tale for athiests here?
"In most people's minds, fossils and Evolution go hand in hand. In reality, fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation. If Evolution were true, we should find literally millions of fossils that show how one kind of life slowly and gradually changed to another kind of life. But missing links are the trade secret, in a sense, of paleontology. The point is, the links are still missing. What we really find are gaps that sharpen up the boundaries between kinds. It's those gaps which provide us with the evidence of Creation of separate kinds. As a matter of fact, there are gaps between each of the major kinds of plants and animals. Transition forms are missing by the millions. What we do find are separate and complex kinds, pointing to Creation." (Dr Gary Parker Biologist/paleontologist and former ardent Evolutionist.)
"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils." Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University), 'Evolution's erratic pace'. Natural History, vol. LXXXVI(5), May 1977, p. 14
"The search for these transitional forms (missing links) by paleontologists has not been very successful. Each major group of organisms appears abruptly in the fossil record without any transitions. (J. K. Andersn and H. G. Coffin Fossils in Focus (Grand Rapids: Zonderban/Probe, 1977) pg 16)
"...if man evolved from an apelike creature he did so without leaving a trace of that evolution in the fossil record." Lord Solly Zuckerman, M.A.,M.D.,D.Sc., (Anatomy) in Beyond the Ivory Tower, Taplinger Pub. Co., New York, 1970, p. 64
That is absolutely false.
There is zero evidence a bird came from a dinosaur.
"When Genesis says God formed woman from Adam's rib, then either scripture is not true or evolution is not true. There can be no other conclusion."
If your statement were true, then the Bible is false and there is no God. For human DNA indicates that man and woman must have always existed from the splt with apes or there would be no humans on Earth.
There are other conclusions. The reasonable conclusion for Christians to hold is that God created evolution. To pose a false alternative is nothing more than a rhetorical trick.
Yes. I wasn't sure at first that this was a thread for a science list, but as I read the article, I thought it was useful. The unfortunate antagonism between science and religion (or perhaps it's a one-sided antagonism) needs to be addressed.
Oh, I am always here, but lurking. Thank you very much for keeping me on the ping lists. I learn a lot.
Oh? And how does the air exit the bird? Through the rear end? Or does Morris think that birds simply inhale until they pop like little feathered balloons?
C'mon - bird respiration is different than in mammals, but he can't even summarize the differences in a halfway reasonable manner. Bring out the hook.
You all might enjoy this.
Please keep reading, this is explained in full.
But here is an expansion on that anyways::
(Heb 1:1 KJV) God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers
by the prophets,
(Heb 1:2 KJV) Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of
all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
(Heb 1:3 KJV) Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and
upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on
the right hand of the Majesty on high;
Genesis doesn't have to be written as a science textbook, all it has to be is true.
The story of Creation is one of teaching us that there is a creator, and some small points on how He
crteated, so that we realize that we are humans created specially by God, and therefore here for a
reason.
Genesis does not have to be a science book to teach us the order of days that Creation was, nor
does it have to be a science book to describe what came first, the chicken or the egg.
God made it clear in Genesis that we are specially created beings, that ALL life is specially
created, and that therefore any attempts to infuse evolution into the argument is false.
And there is no twisting of the creation accounts between Genesis 1 and 2.
Genesis 2 clearly starts with saying that the creation is complete. Gen 2:4 is clearly spoken as a
metaphor, while the days of Genesis 1 are CLEARLY added to with modifiers to make them
known as single, 24 hour days.
Someone brought this up on another thread a couple days ago. Here was my response to him::
have no idea where you got that from, but here is what the Bible actually says in Genesis 2::
(Gen 2:1 KJV) Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
(Gen 2:2 KJV) And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on
the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
(Gen 2:3 KJV) And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested
from all his work which God created and made.
(Gen 2:4 KJV) These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created,
in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
(Gen 2:5 KJV) And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field
before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a
man to till the ground.
(Gen 2:6 KJV) But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
(Gen 2:7 KJV) And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his
nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
;
;
Notice there is NO MENTION of the Creation days as singular events. It is an overview of the
events written in a way that some scholars call the geneology pattern listing the origin of some
kingdoms of the Mid-East (See Gleason Archer and others). Nor is there any mention of Adam
being around before plants existed. In fact, Genesis 2:5 clearly says plants were there BEFORE
there was a man.
The only way you can get confused is if you twist Gen 2:4, IN THE DAY.
WE USE THAT type of speech today, referring to In the days of Clinton, the Day of our
revolutionary fathers and such, and we dont mean a single day, we mean a time period.
If a person just reads it plainly, like it was written to be read, it is obvious Gen 2:4 means a time
period, not an individual day referring to the whole Creation week.
As for the lack of a literal day, if there was no literal day in the description of Evening, Morning,
and then the term DAY, then we have no reason to believe any word day means a day.
The days of Genesis 1 are the most clearly defined 24 hour periods in the Bible, and it is only those
who wish to do away with the meaning of the word day who try to say otherwise.
And the evening and the morning were the first day.
And the evening and the morning were the second day.
And the evening and the morning were the third day.
And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and
the morning were the sixth day.
You must observe what you are trying to say when you deny the days of Genesis 1 are not 24 hour
days:
Day 1, the creation of the Heavens and the Earth took an undetermined time, possible what we
would call a million years
day 2, the firmament separating the waters above from the waters below took an indeterminate
length of time, possible what we would call a million years
day 3, the creation of plants and herbs took an indeterminate length of time, possible what we
would call a million years
day 4, Stars, the sun and moon took an indeterminate length of time, possible what we would call a
million years
WHICH CAN ONLY MEAN GOD HAD PLANTS THAT WERE CREATED ON DAY 3 EXIST
FOR MAYBE A MILLION YEARS WITHOUT SUNLIGHT, something we KNOW cannot
happen today!
day 5, all the whales, the sea monsters, the birds, the fish took an indeterminate length of time,
possible what we would call a million years
day 6, all the cattle, beasts including dinosaurs and cows, crickets and mice and MAN took an
indeterminate length of time, possible what we would call a million years
day 7, God's REST took an indeterminate length of time, possible what we would call a million
years
And what you need to notice, that order of Creation is DIFFERENT from an evolutionist order of
events.
SO, if you call the Bible a lie because you dont want to believe the LITERAL DAY of Genesis::
And the evening and the morning were the first day.
And the evening and the morning were the second day.
And the evening and the morning were the third day.
And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and
the morning were the sixth day.
IF you dont believe that a DAY means a DAY when it clearly has modifiers next to the word DAY
EXPLAINING it is a 24 hour day, then you have no reason at ALL to believe that the word day
means a 24 hour period anywhere in the Bible.
You also call GOD Himself a liar, for GOD HIMSELF said 6 days was the length of Creation::
(Exo 20:8 KJV) Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
(Exo 20:9 KJV) Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
(Exo 20:10 KJV) But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do
any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle,
nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
(Exo 20:11 KJV) For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is,
and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
If the days were not LITERAL DAYS, then there was no reason for GOD HIMSELF to use the
word DAY here, was there? You are calling God a liar when you do that...
"There is zero evidence a bird came from a dinosaur."
From talk origins- Evidence for dino bird transition-
There is zero evidence a bird came from a dinosaur.""Transitional" does not mean "ancestral." It means that the transitional fossil shows a mosaic of features from organisms before and after. It is wrong to say that Archaeopteryx was ancestral to modern birds. But it is also wrong to say that it is not transitional. It is indisputable that Archaeopteryx is intermediate between dinosaurs and modern birds. That makes it transitional and gives evidence of the relatedness between dinosaurs and birds.
Several other recently discovered dinosaur, bird, and intermediate dinosaur/bird fossils are starting to fill in the gaps and are providing further evidence that the interpretation of Archaeopteryx was correct.
Many new bird fossils have been discovered in the last couple decades, revealing several intermediates between theropod dinosaurs (such as Allosaurus) and modern birds:
Sinosauropteryx prima. A dinosaur covered with primitive feathers, but structurally similar to unfeathered dinosaurs Ornitholestes and Compsognathus [Chen et al. 1998; Currie and Chen 2001].
Ornithomimosaurs, therizinosaurs and oviraptorosaurs. The oviraptorosaur Caudipteryx had a body covering of tufted feathers and, on wings and tail, feathers with a central rachis [Ji et al. 1998]. Feathers are also known from the therizinosaur Beipiaosaurus [Xu et al. 1999a]. Several other bird-like characters appear in these dinosaurs, including unserrated teeth, highly pneumatized skulls and vertebrae, and elongate wings. Oviraptorids also had birdlike eggs and brooding habits [Clark et al. 1999].
Deinonychosaurs (troodontids and dromaeosaurs). These are the closest known dinosaurs to birds. Sinovenator, the most primitive troodontid, is especially similar to Archaeopteryx [Xu et al. 2002]. Byronosaurus, another troodontid, has teeth nearly identical to primitive birds [Makovicky et al. 2003]. Microraptor, the most primitive dromaeosaur, is also the most birdlike; specimens have been found with undisputed feathers on their wings, legs and tail [Hwang et al. 2002; Xu et al. 2003]. Sinornithosaurus also was covered with a variety of feathers and had a skull more birdlike than later dromaeosaurs [Xu et al. 1999b, 2001; Xu and Wu 2001].
Protarchaeopteryx, alvarezsaurids, Yixianosaurus and Avimimus. These are birdlike dinosaurs of uncertain placement, each potentially closer to birds than deinonychosaurs. Protarchaeopteryx has tail feathers, uncompressed teeth and an elongate manus (hand/wing) [Ji et al. 1998]. Yixianosaurus has an indistinctly preserved feathery covering and hand/wing proportions close to birds [Xu and Wang 2003]. Alvarezsaurids [Chiappe et al. 2002] and Avimimus [Vickers-Rich et al. 2002] have other bird-like features.
Archaeopteryx. This famous fossil is defined to be a bird, but it is actually less birdlike in some ways than some genera mentioned above [Paul 2002; Maryanska et al. 2002].
Shenzhouraptor [Zhou and Zhang 2002], Rahonavis [Forster et al. 1998], Yandangornis and Jixiangornis. All these birds are slightly more advanced than Archaeopteryx, especially in characters of the vertebrae, sternum, and wing bones.
Sapeornis [Zhou and Zhang 2003], Omnivoropteryx, and confuciusornithids (e.g. Confuciusornis and Changchengornis) [Chiappe et al. 1999]. The first birds to possess large pygostyles (bone formed from fused tail vertebrae). Other new bird-like characters include seven sacral vertebrae, a sternum with a keel (some species), and a reversed hallux (hind toe).
Enantiornithines, including at least 19 species of primitive birds such as Sinornis [Sereno and Rao 1992; Sereno et al. 2002], Gobipteryx [Chiappe et al. 2001] and Protopteryx [Zhang and Zhou 2000]. Several birdlike features appeared in enantiornithines, including twelve or fewer dorsal vertebrae, a narrow V-shaped furcula (wishbone), and reduction in wing digit bones.
Patagopteryx, Apsaravis and yanornithids [Chiappe 2002; Clarke and Norell 2002]. More birdlike features appeared in this group, such as changes to vertebrae and development of the sternal keel.
Hesperornis, Ichthyornis, Gansus and Limenavis. These birds are almost as advanced as modern species. New features include loss of most teeth and changes to leg bones.
Modern birds.
References:
Chen, P., Z. Dong and S. Zhen, 1998. An exceptionally well-preserved theropod dinosaur from the Yixian Formation of China. Nature 391: 147-152.
Chiappe, L. M., 2002. Osteology of the flightless Patagopteryx deferrariisi from the Late Cretaceous of Patagonia (Argentina). In Chiappe and Witmer, pp. 281-316.
Chiappe, L. M. and L. M. Witmer (eds.), Mesozoic Birds: Above the Heads of Dinosaurs. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.
Chiappe, L. M., M. A. Norell and J. M. Clark, 2001. A new skull of Gobipteryx minuta (Aves: Enantiornithes) from the Cretaceous of the Gobi Desert. American Museum Novitates 3346: 1-15. http://diglib1.amnh.org/novitates/i0003-0082-346-01-0001.pdf
Chiappe, L. M., M. A. Norell and J. M. Clark, 2002. The Cretaceous, short-armed Alvarezsauridae. In: Chiappe and Witmer, pp. 87-120.
Chiappe, L. M., S. Ji, Q. Ji and M. A. Norell, 1999. Anatomy and systematics of the Confuciusornithidae (Theropoda: Aves) from the Late Mesozoic of northeastern China. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 242: 1-89. http://diglib1.amnh.org/bulletins/i0003-0090-242-01-0001.pdf
Clark, J. M., M. A. Norell and L. M. Chiappe, 1999. An oviraptorid skeleton from the Late Cretaceous of Ukhaa Tolgod, Mongolia, preserved in an avianlike brooding position over an oviraptorid nest. American Museum Novitates 3265: 1-36.
Clarke, J. A. and M. A. Norell, 2002. The morphology and phylogenetic position of Apsaravis ukhaana from the late Cretaceous of Mongolia. American Museum Novitates 3387: 1-46. http://diglib1.amnh.org/novitates/i0003-0082-3387-01-0001.pdf
Currie, P. J. and P. Chen, 2001. Anatomy of Sinosauropteryx prima from Liaoning, northeastern China. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 38: 1705-1727.
Forster, C. A., S. D. Sampson, L. M. Chiappe and D. W. Krause, 1998. The theropod ancestry of birds: New evidence from the Late Cretaceous of Madagascar. Science 279: 1915-1919.
Hwang, S. H., M. A. Norell, Ji Q. and Gao K., 2002. New specimens of Microraptor zhaoianus (Theropoda: Dromaeosauridae) from northeastern China. American Museum Novitates 3381: 1-44. http://research.amnh.org/users/sunny/hwang.et.al.2002.pdf
Ji, Q., P. Currie, M. A. Norell and S-A. Ji, 1998. Two feathered dinosaurs from northeastern China. Nature 393: 753-761.
Makovicky, P. J., M. A. Norell, J. M. Clark and T. Rowe, 2003. Osteology and relationships of Byronosaurus jaffei (Theropoda: Troodontidae). American Museum Novitates 3402, 1-32. http://diglib1.amnh.org/novitates/i0003-0082-3402-01-0001.pdf
Maryanska, T., H. Osmólska and M. Wolsan, 2002. Avialan status for oviraptorosauria. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 47(1): 97-116. http://app.pan.pl/acta47/app47-097.pdf
Paul, Gregory S., 2002. Dinosaurs of the Air. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Sereno, P. C. and C. Rao, 1992. Early evolution of avian flight and perching: New evidence from the Lower Creates of China. Science 255: 845-848.
Sereno, P. C., C. Rao and J. Li, 2002. Sinornis santensis (Aves: Enantiornithes) from the Early Cretaceous of Northeastern China. In: Chiappe and Witmer, pp. 184-208.
Vickers-Rich, P., L. M. Chiappe and S. Kurzanov, 2002. The enigmatic birdlike dinosaur Avimimus portentosus. In: Chiappe and Witmer, pp. 65-86.
Xu, X. and X. Wang, 2003. A new maniraptorian dinosaur from the Early Cretaceous Yixian Formation of Western Liaoning. Vertebrate Palasiatica 41(3): 195-202.
Xu, X. and X-C. Wu, 2001. Cranial morphology of Sinornithosaurus millenii Xu et al. 1999 (Dinosauria: Theropoda: Dromaeosauridae) from the Yixian Formation of Liaoning, China. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 38: 1739-1752.
Xu, X., Z. Tang and X. Wang, 1999a. A therizinosaurid dinosaur with integumentary structures from China. Nature 399: 350-354.
Xu, X., X-L. Wang and X-C. Wu, 1999b. A dromaeosaur dinosaur with a filamentous integument from the Yixian Formation of China. Nature 401: 262-266.
Xu, X., Z. Zhou and R. O. Prum, 2001. Branched integumental structures in Sinornithosaurus and the origin of feathers. Nature 410: 200-204.
Xu, X., M. A. Norell, X. Wang, P. J. Makovicky and X. Wu, 2002. A basal troodontid from the Early Cretaceous of China. Nature 415: 780-784.
Xu, X., Z. Zhou, X. Wang, X. Kuang, F. Zhang and X. Du, 2003. Four-winged dinosaurs from China. Nature 421: 335-340. http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/course/zo501/4WingedDino.pdf
Zhang, F. and Z. Zhou, 2000. A primitive enantiornithine bird and the origin of feathers. Science 290: 1955-1959.
Zhou, Z. and F. Zhang, 2002. A long-tailed, seed-eating bird from the Early Cretaceous of China. Nature 418: 405-409.
Zhou, Z. and F. Zhang, 2003. Anatomy of the primitive bird Sapeornis chaoyangensis from the Early Cretaceous of Liaoning, China. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 40: 731-747.
Further Reading:
Paul, Gregory S., 2002. Dinosaurs of the Air. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Chiappe, L. M. and G. J. Dyke, 2002. The Mesozoic radiation of birds. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 33: 91-124. (technical)
Dingus, L. and T. Rowe, 1997. The mistaken extinction: dinosaur evolution and the origin of birds. New York: Freeman and Company.
Padian, K. and L. M. Chiappe, 1998. The origin of birds and their flight. Scientific American 278(2) (Feb.): 38-47.
Looks like there is a lot of evidence to me. I guess you just thought there was no evidence because you didn't check the science.
As all Biblical literalists, he is adding to the word of God.
"If the days were not LITERAL DAYS, then there was no reason for GOD HIMSELF to use the
word DAY here, was there? You are calling God a liar when you do that... "
They are not literal days or the Bible contradicts itself. It looks like you are the one calling God a liar.
Human DNA doesn't indicate that at all! That man and woman split with apes and that man and woman existed from such a split are entirely assumptions. There is no evidence that man and woman split from apes.
Man and woman were created by God before the animals just like Genesis said. That we share a lot of Genes with the rest of God's creation doesn't mean that we came from them. We share 50% of our genes with a banana. But that doesn't mean we came from a banana. It means we had a common designer. Nothing more.
So, you didnt read any of what I just posted, did you?
Degenerating thread placemarker.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.