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.