When did dinosaurs turn into birds?

[Hoghead1]

I am not smarter. But I admit my bias. I fully biased towards creationism. I believe that the Biblical account of creation is accurate. And I fully admit that neither I nor any other human alive witnessed it. I also admit that the human author of Genesis was not there either. I simply believe based on faith that that's The way it iccurred.

The problem with evolutionists is they won't admit What I admit. That evolutionary theory is based upon a belief system, because they can't prove any of it. They say it's fact, but by any scientific measurment it can't be proven. All they do is driven by The dogma that evolution is true therefore all fossils prove it. The fact remains they can do,nothing but point to fully formed fossils and they evolved from other fully formed fossils with no actual,proof that they did. It's supposition because it cannot be duplicated. And they can't prove that each creature is not their own unique creature. Its evolution is true therefore these must have evolved from these.


Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

Look, if you are thinking of taking up a second career as a scientific critic, please don't leave your day job. Yes, based on the fossils alone, they can rove all that. Read the literature. Also, yes, there is a degree of speculation in all science. That is the nature of the beast.Even with the finest scientific instruments we have a very limited glimpse into the universe and back into the distant past. So yes, we must also speculate. In science, we don't deal in absolute truth, we deal in degrees of probability of our assumptions being right or wrong. To date, the highest possibility of being right goes with the evolutionary theory.

 

[rjs330]

Look, if you are thinking of taking up a second career as a scientific critic, please don't leave your day job. Yes, based on the fossils alone, they can rove all that. Read the literature. Also, yes, there is a degree of speculation in all science. That is the nature of the beast.Even with the finest scientific instruments we have a very limited glimpse into the universe and back into the distant past. So yes, we must also speculate. In science, we don't deal in absolute truth, we deal in degrees of probability of our assumptions being right or wrong. To date, the highest possibility of being right goes with the evolutionary theory.

Well at least you are admitting it is based on supposition and assumption. Just what I've been saying. I've read the literature by the way. Been looking into this theory for nigh 30 years. There's been some really cool discoveries of new dinosaurs and some really interesting changes in theory. But none of it proves evolution. Thoughts ideas assumptions and supposition galore. All very interesting stuff. But theory not fact. If they would just admit it's guesswork and admit they have clue if they are right about it I would take no issue with them. But it's taught as fact.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[Hoghead1]

Well at least you are admitting it is based on supposition and assumption. Just what I've been saying. I've read the literature by the way. Been looking into this theory for nigh 30 years. There's been some really cool discoveries of new dinosaurs and some really interesting changes in theory. But none of it proves evolution. Thoughts ideas assumptions and supposition galore. All very interesting stuff. But theory not fact. If they would just admit it's guesswork and admit they have clue if they are right about it I would take no issue with them. But it's taught as fact.

But do you understand that it is not all guesswork? Do you understand and appreciate that there are tons of solid, hard evidence here, which is what the scientists are working from? Do you understand that science does not deal in absolutes? Do you understand that even if science found a more favorable approach, that this would not entail a step backward, to the natural theology of the nineteenth century?

 

[DogmaHunter]

I am not smarter. But I admit my bias. I fully biased towards creationism. I believe that the Biblical account of creation is accurate. And I fully admit that neither I nor any other human alive witnessed it. I also admit that the human author of Genesis was not there either. I simply believe based on faith that that's The way it iccurred.

Why?
Faith is not a pathway to truth.

The problem with evolutionists is they won't admit What I admit.

Because there is nothing to admit. Science is an evidence based method of inquiry. "Faith" is not part of that equation.

That evolutionary theory is based upon a belief system, because they can't prove any of it.

That's just false.

They say it's fact

It is. Common ancestry is a genetic fact.

, but by any scientific measurment it can't be proven.

False. All you need is a couple of genomes to compare and map out on a family tree, and there it is. Common descend.

All they do is driven by The dogma that evolution is true therefore all fossils prove it.

Fossils don't prove evolution, they merely support it.
If anyting can be said to "prove" evolution, then it is genetics.

Well, to be fair, genetics proves common ancestry.
Evolution is the mechanism on how species diversify.
The theory explains the facts.

The fact remains they can do,nothing but point to fully formed fossils and they evolved from other fully formed fossils with no actual,proof that they did.

Why do you continue to put emphasis on "fully formed fossils"?
What does that even mean? Did you think that we should be finding "half" organisms or something? Crockoducks and such?

It's supposition because it cannot be duplicated.

It is duplicated every day in every farm on the planet.
Speciation has also been observed in the lab as well as in the lab.
There isn't a single aspect from the basic mechanism of evolution that hasn't been observed.

And they can't prove that each creature is not their own unique creature.

DNA can.

Its evolution is true therefore these must have evolved from these.

Nope. It's more like "if these evolved then we should find such and such".
And after investigating it, lo and behold, we do find such and such.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Well at least you are admitting it is based on supposition and assumption. Just what I've been saying. I've read the literature by the way. Been looking into this theory for nigh 30 years.

And yet, you have still NO understanding whatsoever on what a transitional fossil is...

But theory not fact

Theories explain facts. Theories never become facts.

For a guy who claims to have been "looking into" a scientific branch for 30 years, it's rather strange that you don't know this.

But it's taught as fact.

No. It's thought as a very solid theory. Just like germ theory, plate tectonic theory, atomic theory, theory of relativity, etc etc etc.

Off course, there are also the facts of evolution, like common ancestry.

 

[Simmo11]

Wrong, it can't.

This is religion in a nutshell.

 

[rjs330]

And yet, you have still NO understanding whatsoever on what a transitional fossil is...



Theories explain facts. Theories never become facts.

For a guy who claims to have been "looking into" a scientific branch for 30 years, it's rather strange that you don't know this.




No. It's thought as a very solid theory. Just like germ theory, plate tectonic theory, atomic theory, theory of relativity, etc etc etc.

Off course, there are also the facts of evolution, like common ancestry.

Nice try. If evolution were only taught as a theory then why All the angst about the idea that it's a faulty theory. Whenever I hear any evolutionist talk about he never mentions that they could be,completely wrong on the issue. They say thing like 6000000 years ago this happened that happened. Or they use the common ancestry nonsense as fact.

No it's not fact it's a theory that could be utterly and completely false.


Again it's based on supposition and assumptions of an unproven and unprovable hypothesis. Its guesswork disguised as science and utter nonsence. Its really quite laughable.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[DogmaHunter]

Nice try.

What "try" would that be?

If evolution were only taught as a theory then why All the angst about the idea that it's a faulty theory.

It's not a faulty theory. It's a very solid scientific theory.

Whenever I hear any evolutionist talk about he never mentions that they could be,completely wrong on the issue.

Well... they can't be completely wrong on the issue.
The theory has become FAR to solid and accurate for it to be "completely" wrong.

Just like plate tectonics, atomic theory, germ theory,... have become FAR to solid and accurate for it to be "completely" wrong.

They say thing like 6000000 years ago this happened that happened. Or they use the common ancestry nonsense as fact.

Common ancestry IS a fact. A genetic fact, to be precies.
Humans and chimps, for example, demonstrably share ancestors.

No it's not fact it's a theory that could be utterly and completely false.

Theories explain facts.
There are the facts of evolution and there is the theory of evolution.
Just like there are the facts of gravity and the theory of gravity.

And, again, no... these theories can not be "utterly and completely false".
They're way past that stage.

Again it's based on supposition and assumptions of an unproven and unprovable hypothesis.

That's just false. Evolution theory makes a boatload of testable predictions.

 

[Simmo11]

That's just false. Evolution theory makes a boatload of testable predictions.

Creationists already know that they just don't like it or want to believe it, so they try and lie to themselves, very few actually convince themselves but others just keep repeating the lies about evolution over and over again in the hope that they will perhaps eventually manage to believe them.

 

[rjs330]

So it's not a fact but it is a fact. Got it.

A theory is what we think something is, then by provable experimentation and observation it no longer becomes something we think. It becomes a fact.

The fact is evolution is unproven and unprovable. No one observed it and it can't be reproduced or tested. Why? Because it's a theory of chance. You can't test evolutionary chance.

See if it's way past the stage of being false it must be true. Baloney. It's unproven. Its still only a belief system disguised as science because scientists are doing it. Since no one has been able to observe or test or reproduce evolution it is far from fact. It's still supposition and assumption.

Chimps and humans do not share common ancestors. What a joke. Again supposition and assumption.
If it weren't why can't we reproduce a monkey turning into a human by chance?

Hmm because we can't reproduce evolution.










Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[Hoghead1]

So it's not a fact but it is a fact. Got it.

A theory is what we think something is, then by provable experimentation and observation it no longer becomes something we think. It becomes a fact.

The fact is evolution is unproven and unprovable. No one observed it and it can't be reproduced or tested. Why? Because it's a theory of chance. You can't test evolutionary chance.

See if it's way past the stage of being false it must be true. Baloney. It's unproven. Its still only a belief system disguised as science because scientists are doing it. Since no one has been able to observe or test or reproduce evolution it is far from fact. It's still supposition and assumption.

Chimps and humans do not share common ancestors. What a joke. Again supposition and assumption.
If it weren't why can't we reproduce a monkey turning into a human by chance?

Hmm because we can't reproduce evolution.










Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

I realize you are sincere and mean well, but this and other posts tell me you have little understanding of science. I also think it is the epitome of hubris when uneducated, scientifically untrained laity think they know it so much better than the scientists do.

 

[Hoghead1]

What "try" would that be?



It's not a faulty theory. It's a very solid scientific theory.




Well... they can't be completely wrong on the issue.
The theory has become FAR to solid and accurate for it to be "completely" wrong.

Just like plate tectonics, atomic theory, germ theory,... have become FAR to solid and accurate for it to be "completely" wrong.




Common ancestry IS a fact. A genetic fact, to be precies.
Humans and chimps, for example, demonstrably share ancestors.



Theories explain facts.
There are the facts of evolution and there is the theory of evolution.
Just like there are the facts of gravity and the theory of gravity.

And, again, no... these theories can not be "utterly and completely false".
They're way past that stage.



That's just false. Evolution theory makes a boatload of testable predictions.

Nice try. But sorry, no takers on my end of it. I am not interested in hearing from the sidelines, from backseat drivers and bar-stool quarterbacks. I want to hear from the experts. That is my way of maintaining quality control in my belief system. Every one has an opinion, and everyone assumes his is right and everyone else is wrong. I'm not interested in opinions, what any Tom, Dick, or Harry with the mike thinks; I'm interested in what those truly educated and expertise have to say.

 

[AV1611VET]

Nice try. But sorry, no takers on my end of it. I am not interested in hearing from the sidelines, from backseat drivers and bar-stool quarterbacks. I want to hear from the experts. That is my way of maintaining quality control in my belief system. Every one has an opinion, and everyone assumes his is right and everyone else is wrong. I'm not interested in opinions, what any Tom, Dick, or Harry with the mike thinks; I'm interested in what those truly educated and expertise have to say.

So you would have rejected Jesus and His apostles in favor of the Pharisees?

How would you have handled this:

Acts 4:13 Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus.

 

[USincognito]

No there aren't. Evolutionists use fully formed fossils and claim they are transitions because they believe in evolution. They don't know they are transitional fossils cause they were not there to observe the changes necessary for the offspring to evolve into something else. Its supposition and assumption. They don't know the creatures were not always the creatures for as long as they existed. Fossil evidence is only evidence that that particular creature existed at that time. It is not proof that it evolved from anything else. Unless you believe in evolution. Of so then everything is proof of evolution. Evolution is a dogma. It is not science.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

And this post is nothing but vacuous rhetoric. It is not a substantive objection.

 

[USincognito]

Well at least you are admitting it is based on supposition and assumption.

I saw no such admission in Hohead's post. And no matter how many times you use Creationist magical words like there to try and poof away the evidence, the evidence remains.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Nice try. But sorry, no takers on my end of it. I am not interested in hearing from the sidelines, from backseat drivers and bar-stool quarterbacks. I want to hear from the experts. That is my way of maintaining quality control in my belief system. Every one has an opinion, and everyone assumes his is right and everyone else is wrong. I'm not interested in opinions, what any Tom, Dick, or Harry with the mike thinks; I'm interested in what those truly educated and expertise have to say.

Did you accidentally hit the wrong quote button, or was this really a response to my post?

I'm not really following...

 

[DogmaHunter]

So it's not a fact but it is a fact. Got it.

It seems like you didn't get it though.

Theories explain facts.
There are facts of evolution:
- living things share ancestry (a genetic fact, infered from comparing DNA)
- during reproduction, DNA mutates
- off spring inherit traits of their parents
- patterns in geographic distribution of species
- ...

Then there is the theory of evolution. Which is a model, a process, that explains those facts and makes a bunch of predictions about what other facts we should be able to find (or not find).

There are also facts of gravity:
- things fall towards earth
- in the ISS, things don't fall, but float
- on the moon, things fall down, but with less force then on earth
- ...

Gravitation theory explains these facts.

Facts are observations, data points.
Theories are explanations of sets of facts within a certain scope.

A theory is what we think something is, then by provable experimentation and observation it no longer becomes something we think. It becomes a fact.

No.
It seems you have no idea how science works.

Facts: data
Laws: abstractions / generalisations of data
Hypothesis: proposed explanations of sets of data
Theories: hypothesis that have been successfully tested and accepted as the best explanations.

"Theory" in science is the graduation stage of an idea, an explanation.
Theories never become facts or laws. They always and forever remain theories. Theory is the end-stage of any explanatory model.

The fact is evolution is unproven and unprovable. No one observed it and it can't be reproduced or tested. Why? Because it's a theory of chance. You can't test evolutionary chance.

Google "observed speciation".
Also, natural selection is not "chance".

See if it's way past the stage of being false it must be true. Baloney. It's unproven. Its still only a belief system disguised as science because scientists are doing it. Since no one has been able to observe or test or reproduce evolution it is far from fact. It's still supposition and assumption.

Again, evolution is observed in the lab as well as the wild.
We literally witnessed speciation first hand.

Chimps and humans do not share common ancestors. What a joke. Again supposition and assumption.

No. Genetic fact.

If it weren't why can't we reproduce a monkey turning into a human by chance?

For the same reason that if your parents would make another child, that child will not be a clone of you.

 

[Jimmy D]

So you would have rejected Jesus and His apostles in favor of the Pharisees?

How would you have handled this:

Acts 4:13 Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus.

Focus AV..... Birds and dinosaurs.

 

[AV1611VET]

Focus AV..... Birds and dinosaurs.

... were both on the Ark.

 

[Herman Hedning]

Birds and dinosaurs ... were both on the Ark.

Cool story, but where you there to see it?