Skip to comments.Ho-Hum, Another Feathered Dinosaur
Posted on 09/27/2009 2:04:48 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Ho-Hum, Another Feathered Dinosaur
Last January when the most recent flap about feathered dinosaurs made the rounds (01/21/2009), we listed 18 questions that should be asked before believing the claims made about bird and feather evolution. It would be a good time to review those again (see also footnote 3). The rush to judgment and eagerness to prove dinobird evolution should raise red flags...
(Excerpt) Read more at creationsafaris.com ...
This is a conclusive as stating that both a horse and a cow have a tail.
Currently, on Earth, there are bare-skinned animals, feathered animals, fur covered animals, scale covered animals.
Why would anyone think that millenia ago there was not the same variety?
[. . . most important, evolution has already been falsified, so Darwin has nothing to say about this fossil. The Cambrian Explosion renders all Darwinian explanations for the origin of animal body plans superfluous. That applies to birds and dinosaurs as well. And since soft tissue and blood vessels have been recovered from dinosaur bone, the dating of specimens labeled Jurassic and Cretaceous has been falsified, too. ]
It used to be argued by creationists that the known transitional fossils were too few to support evolution theory, particularly in the area of dinosaurs to birds. Now that there are so many dinosaur to bird fossils known, are the critics actually using this abundance as another argument against evolution?
In any case, the critics defaulting to the above quote is impossible to argue against rationality as it goes against any kind of scientific reasoning accepted not just in basic biology but in basic physics, chemistry, geology and other areas.
All it takes to be an evolutionist is a vivid imagination, and a strong willingness to deceive.
From there, the sky’s the limit ;o)
More true now than ever! Zero transitional fossils is a tough lump to overcome.
" Now that there are so many dinosaur to bird fossils known..."
None is 'so many?'
It’s called wishful thinking. If the evolutionists want to prove common descent, they have to show a pattern of that variety emerging over time, as whole kingdoms and families of creatures branch off from each other. The problem lies in the fact that they can produce no clear transitional species, they only find species fully developed, distinct, and uniform in the fossil record.
To explain this away, they say that the transitional forms must have only lived a short while in terms of geological time before adapting into the commonly recognizable species they were evolving into. If this is true, they reason, then the fossils from the transitional forms would be rare. However this contradicts the Darwinian tenet of gradualism, that changes to species accumulate at a slowly, but fairly uniform pace, over long periods of time. If that were true, we would expect to see a wealth of transitional forms in the fossil record, and very few distinct species which remain for the most part unchanged over long periods of time.
To explain one contradiction, they’ve trapped themselves into another, which often happens when you are building a web of lies.
Right on cue just the needed fossils appear. Surprise, surprise!
What came first the feather or the bird.
It is so cornfusing?
Flying feathered dinosaurs. Sure why not. Anythings possible with evolution.
I would think some mid-evil film makers will get a little upset that they will have to make feathered flying dragons in future mid evil dragon slaying movies, instead of the traditional leathery winged lizard skinned variety.
Naked bald birds.
It stands to reason that they "evolved" feathers after a few centuries of freezing.
Just out of curiosity, how old is the earth and human beings according to the latest Creationist theory?
parsy, who is curious
I would argue that most of them (the vast, vast majority) are completely honest, but are self-deceived as Paul described in Romans 1.
Depends on who you ask. Some say as few as 6,000 years or so, but it could be much longer.
The bottom line, however, is that the alternate theory boils down to "I found a book over here, so it must be the result of an explosion in a print shop."
I was just curious where all Creationists agreed on 6,000 years or whether there were different sects who disagreed about dates.
parsy, who wonders
...or that humans have a vestigial one?
I don’t know many Darwinists, despite how the charlatans try to confuse laymen into believing that “evolutionist” is the same as “Darwinist.” It serves as a handy strawman.
That's why it's wonderful that science progresses, and scientific understanding adapts to the evidence and reality. "Darwin's Dilemma" was 150 years ago. Isn't it great that we have learned a lot since then and can realize that it doesn't mean evolution is wrong?
Yes, there are several camps amongst Creationists. What is probably the more traditional view, is that the Earth isn’t much older than 6,000 years old. That is the date that seems to correspond to the most straightforward reading of the Bible, and the calculation of it preceded the whole Evolution vs. Creation debate.
Of the other theories, one is that the 7 day “creation week” of Genesis may not have been literal 24 hour days, but “prophetic days”, following the rule that a day to the Lord is like unto a thousand years. So this camp can make the case that the creation may have taken place up to 13,000 years ago (or even longer in some theories which think each “day” of creation was an entire epoch of uncertain duration).
Another theory is the “Gap Theory”, which says that there is an unknown period of time that transpired between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. Under this theory, the creation which is described after those verses was subsequent to a previous creation event which was followed, after some unknown duration of time, by a cataclysmic destruction, which made the earth “formless and void”.
Generally the first group is referred to as YEC (Young-Earth Creationists), and the last group is referred to as OEC (Old-Earth Creationists). I guess the middle group is probably closer to YEC but I’m not sure if that’s how they are usually designated.
Oh yeah, and then you also have the “Guided Evolution” folks, who believe that the creation narrative in Genesis is symbolic and that the history proposed by modern science is accurate, except that God was guiding the natural forces in order to create life instead of them progressing blindly. This group is usually not lumped in with the rest of Creationists though.
I assume that you are referring to the “punctuated equilibrium” branch of evolutionists? In my estimation, these types are merely abandoning some of the more untenable propositions of Darwin but still clinging to the rest of his flawed theory. No matter how many limbs they lop off, the patient is still terminally ill!
Jer 17:9 The heart [is] deceitful above all [things], and desperately wicked: who can know it?
I am a HS Science teacher and consider myself about as CONSERVATIVE on political, social, economic, foreign affairs, etc.; as one could get. I am a consumate reader and like to think that my opinion is informed.
It is distressing to see some of my fellow conservatives become so vocal and adamately opposed to evolution. Evolution is the core, unifying, theme on which the science of biology is based. Without it, biologists would have to wander aimlessly. With it, biology makes sense.
Chemistry has Rutherford’s atom, math has Euclid’s geometry and Newton’s calculus, physics has Newton’s laws and Einstein’s relativity. Biology has Darwin’s evolution. Without them we’d all take a giant step backwards for our way of life. Modern, informed, biology is on the cutting edge of medicine, nutrition, vaccines, reproduction, animal and plant husbandry...you name it.
Conservatives do themselves and their OTHER causes no favors when the seek to discredit evolution. In fact, they embarrass me.
Inform yourself. The local public library probably has copies of Darwin’s On the Origin of Species and The Descent of Man. They are good reads. The man was very thorough.
No. You can be a perfectly expert biologist without adopting any of the evolutionary trappings. All you have to do is pay attention the the subject under study, and not blindly accept dogma about how species and functionality came to be. Reject the mythology and embrace the science, it is that simple. The scientists who recently discovered that the Monarch Butterfly navigates by circadian clocks housed in their antennae, did they need evolution to find this out? No, they performed experiments, not unlike J. Henri Fabre, by cutting and painting antennae and observing results. They challenged the status quo which maintained that the circadian clock function was somewhere in the brain. Without this nav aid, these butterflies would not be able to fly their ridiculously long migration. Love the scientist, hate the mythology.
Yes another transitional fossil that Creationist claim don't exists is found!!! Don't you always hate being proved wrong.
But why would any God make this/these dino/bird mix if he/she/it already had made "full" birds and "full" dinos
Evolution wise they make sense, the dino/birds were transitioning into a (then) new unoccupied niche.
Creation wise it's silly to believe God would create these mixed creatures along side modern ones which would easily out compete them and quickly drive them to extinction.
There is no such thing as a “Creationist Theory”. Creationism isn’t a scientific theory, it is a belief, much like the mythology of evolutionary origins.
You could ask what is the latest mythology of evolutionary origins. It changes each time they find something new.
Well, maybe the “year of Darwin” was a mistake for the evolutionsts then — if they don’t believe what Darwin taught.
Sometimes if you worship a guy with a big anniversary celebration, you just might be accused of having some affinity with him.
I managed to understand biology perfectly well without having to make up some story about origins.
I find it no harder to understand the error of evolutionist pretending to be scientific than I do the global warming scientists pretending to be scientific.
Science has a history of political and cultural corruption.
The history of the world as written by evolutionists is in fact the natural product if your premise is that everything had to happen without any external force.
On what basis do you declare this particular find transitional? Trasitional from what to what (exactly)?
In my experience, Creationist and ID scientists are generally far more knowledgable about evolution then their neo-Darwinian counterparts.
Having said that, the evolutionists who do understand the subject are abandoning the neo-Darwinian synthesis in droves. Darwin has lost his more important prediction, his so-called "tree of life."
But it doesn't stop there, your neo-Darwinian co-religionists also had to abandon their prediction that some 97-98.5% of the genome is functionless or "junk" DNA leftover from our supposed evolutionary past. As it turns out, the genome is almost entirely functional, just as Creation and ID scientists predicted.
I could go on and on. The long and short of it, is that the HMS Beagle is sinking and sinking fast. Even the die-hard of the die-hard evos are starting to abandon ship in search of a new God-denying explanation for our origins.
Indeed, except for the obligatory Heil Darwins from the Temple of Darwin faithful, most evos are well aware that Darwin's evo-religious creation myth has very little to do with real biological research:
While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhanskys dictum that Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution, most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas, the editor wrote. Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superflous one. The annual programs of science conventions also tell the story. When the zoologists met in 1995 (and changed their name to the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology), just a few dozen of the 400 academic papers read were on evolution. The North American Paleontological Convention of 1996 featured 430 papers, but only a few included the word evolution in their titles. The 1998 AAS meeting organised 150 scientific sessions, but just 5 focused on evolutionas it relates to biotechnology, the classification of species, language, race and primate families.' Larry Witham, Oxford University Press, 2002
I should have used the more general “red herring,” but I had hit Post right as I realized that. Sorry.
Huh? Dino birds? Where? Transitioning? How? and where is there any evidence of this?
An "Unoccupied niche?" LMAO! What the HECK is that? Evolution works like a roulette table; unorganized premadoral goo rolls round and round, till it falls in an "unoccupied niche". LMAO!
It's not easy when you have too few bones, and too many opinions.
Intelligent people would realize that a person can be celebrated without (a) believing everything he said, and (b) believing only what he said. Are you saying you don't realize that?
This method of refuting something of Darwin and then claiming that invalidates anything he said or any theory that incorporates part of his work is akin to the tactic of saying that because George Washington was a slaveholder, he and America are without moral grounding.
They can drag the red herrings all around, but it just stinks up the place and doesn't change reality.
Well, not all evolutionists do...so you can stop now. Your use of the term refers only to those who describe themselves thus, but that’s irrelevant to discussions of, for example, Modern Evolutionqry Synthetics.
you’re catching on....
More facts not in evidence.. Bible thumpers created the word ‘darwinist’ as a slur, and you damn well know it.
Trolling again I see, Gauche Gnomo.
Thanks for the ping!
So, no, my use of the term DOES NOT refer just to the self described and since you are not in control of the vocabulary, I will continue to use the term “Darwinist” quite properly applied to evolutionists, thank you.
Modern Evolutionary Synthetics is just the triple knit lime green bell bottoms with white patent leather shoes repackaged as the new and improved Darwinism.
making up words to make some kind of a point?
I don’t make things up for any reason, it just went over your head.
Trying to understand modern biology without understanding evolution is like trying to understand the state of the modern world without any knowledge of history.
Sure you can gather all the pertinent facts of what exactly is happening right now all around the world, but rather difficult to understand those facts without any historic context.
...shortly after it flew out of your @$$
An “unoccupied niche” is like that job I’m going to make for myself, it’s there in theory but no one will be able to see it except in hindsight and then everyone will say how clearly they saw it right from the beginning, it being so obvious and all.
In short it’s unoccupied because it doesn’t exist and it only exists when it becomes occupied. Clear? If yes, I’ll explain again, If no, I’ll stop.
This evolution is great fun!
Just have to face it, anti-evolutionism is to conservatives what socialism is to the Left...beliefs held despite the overwhelming evidence.