When did dinosaurs turn into birds?

[AV1611VET]

Cool story, but where you there to see it?

No ... but my faith is.

 

[PsychoSarah]

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

Personally, I only feel angst about people disagreeing with it if they don't know what the heck they are talking about. It's pretty annoying when people have issues with any theory based on stuff that is flat out wrong. It's annoying for people to claim that transitional fossils have never been discovered when we have found thousands upon thousands of them. It's annoying for people to think abiogenesis is a part of evolutionary theory. It's annoying for people to think evolution has a philosophy. It's annoying when people do stuff like this with any theory. You'd probably be equally annoyed if someone were to claim "Christianity is wrong because it is polytheistic" or some other complete nonsense claim that just shows how little they understand Christianity. You'd be even more annoyed if they stubbornly kept asserting it even when you presented evidence that they were wrong, and that even if they were right, their argument makes no sense.

BTW, it is taught as a scientific theory. Unfortunately, science has this annoying and terrible habit of using preexisting terms to label something with a different definition, which I hate. It just makes it easier for people to get confused. A theory in science is something different than the layman term, and the layman's term actually comes closer to what a scientific hypothesis is rather than a scientific theory. In science, a theory not only has been tested, but it has been tested thousands of times, been supported with an immense amount of evidence, and withstood scrutiny. In terms of reliability for science, a theory is at the top. Stupid, I know, you'd think people would know better than to call the most trusted and evidenced concepts in science by a word commonly used for concepts that haven't even been tested, and I agree. But, it is what it is.

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

I forget, have we conversed? Because I have said that too many times to count. But you must understand, even if evolution was disproved, it wouldn't make creationism right by default.

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

I am sure you know presenting evidence for something, even if you view it as wrong, is a reasonable thing to do. I agree that if people don't provide sources for stuff that you should be very wary of their claims (or if they provide dubious sources), but observed evidence is not nonsense.

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

The observed changes in organisms across generations is the fact. The why and how of it is the theory. Theories explain facts. Unfortunately, both aspects often get called by the same name, another annoyance. Don't even get me started on meiosis and mitosis, and "fitness", and all the other horrible habits in the terminology.

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.

Proof is not a thing in science. Evidence is what is used to support theories. If you want some evidence for evolution, I would gladly provide upon request. Pick a species you want me to provide the evidence of evolution for, ask for an explanation of how mutations work, whatever you want, though I would like you to narrow it down (least we end up on a topic so broad it'd take pages to even summarize).

 

[Simmo11]

Cool story, but where you there to see it?

Story being the operative word.
How would you explain to a child where all the animals came from? you would tell them a story.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Story being the operative word.
How would you explain to a child where all the animals came from? you would tell them a story.

I'm too blunt to lie to kids, though not quite blunt enough to say sex.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm too blunt to lie to kids, though not quite blunt enough to say sex.

Just tell them, "Go ask your mother."

 

[rjs330]

Personally, I only feel angst about people disagreeing with it if they don't know what the heck they are talking about. It's pretty annoying when people have issues with any theory based on stuff that is flat out wrong. It's annoying for people to claim that transitional fossils have never been discovered when we have found thousands upon thousands of them. It's annoying for people to think abiogenesis is a part of evolutionary theory. It's annoying for people to think evolution has a philosophy. It's annoying when people do stuff like this with any theory. You'd probably be equally annoyed if someone were to claim "Christianity is wrong because it is polytheistic" or some other complete nonsense claim that just shows how little they understand Christianity. You'd be even more annoyed if they stubbornly kept asserting it even when you presented evidence that they were wrong, and that even if they were right, their argument makes no sense.

BTW, it is taught as a scientific theory. Unfortunately, science has this annoying and terrible habit of using preexisting terms to label something with a different definition, which I hate. It just makes it easier for people to get confused. A theory in science is something different than the layman term, and the layman's term actually comes closer to what a scientific hypothesis is rather than a scientific theory. In science, a theory not only has been tested, but it has been tested thousands of times, been supported with an immense amount of evidence, and withstood scrutiny. In terms of reliability for science, a theory is at the top. Stupid, I know, you'd think people would know better than to call the most trusted and evidenced concepts in science by a word commonly used for concepts that haven't even been tested, and I agree. But, it is what it is.


I forget, have we conversed? Because I have said that too many times to count. But you must understand, even if evolution was disproved, it wouldn't make creationism right by default.



I am sure you know presenting evidence for something, even if you view it as wrong, is a reasonable thing to do. I agree that if people don't provide sources for stuff that you should be very wary of their claims (or if they provide dubious sources), but observed evidence is not nonsense.


The observed changes in organisms across generations is the fact. The why and how of it is the theory. Theories explain facts. Unfortunately, both aspects often get called by the same name, another annoyance. Don't even get me started on meiosis and mitosis, and "fitness", and all the other horrible habits in the terminology.


Proof is not a thing in science. Evidence is what is used to support theories. If you want some evidence for evolution, I would gladly provide upon request. Pick a species you want me to provide the evidence of evolution for, ask for an explanation of how mutations work, whatever you want, though I would like you to narrow it down (least we end up on a topic so broad it'd take pages to even summarize).

Funny thing about the evidence. There isn't any. I think it's quite funny how evolutionists use this or that as evidence, when it's really not. Oh look we have an animal, oh look we have another animal that similar, proof! This animal has feathers or at least we think it had feathers proof! Look monkeys have five fingers and so do we! Proof!

Ha! I'm poking fun! Seriously though I love it when science makes all kinds of claims about something when there really is no evidence of it. Like I said, I've been looking at this For 30 years. Man thinks he's so smart, when the truth is he is quite dumb really.

All the theories of science remain guess work until it is proven by actual observation or experimentation. Since science has not been able to duplicate Evolution by chance it's remains a theory and nonsense. It's a joke on all mankind perpetuated by false assumptions and false science.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[46AND2]

SMH.

 

[46AND2]

Funny thing about the evidence. There isn't any. I think it's quite funny how evolutionists use this or that as evidence, when it's really not. Oh look we have an animal, oh look we have another animal that similar, proof! This animal has feathers or at least we think it had feathers proof! Look monkeys have five fingers and so do we! Proof!

Ha! I'm poking fun! Seriously though I love it when science makes all kinds of claims about something when there really is no evidence of it. Like I said, I've been looking at this For 30 years. Man thinks he's so smart, when the truth is he is quite dumb really.

All the theories of science remain guess work until it is proven by actual observation or experimentation. Since science has not been able to duplicate Evolution by chance it's remains a theory and nonsense. It's a joke on all mankind perpetuated by false assumptions and false science.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

Fine. This topic: http://www.christianforums.com/threads/the-new-retrovirus-thread.7942101/ is THE smoking gun for evolution. Since you are so sure about the lack of evidence for evolution, you should be able to refute Loudmouth's argument without any problem.

 

[AV1611VET]

Funny thing about the evidence. There isn't any. I think it's quite funny how evolutionists use this or that as evidence, when it's really not. Oh look we have an animal, oh look we have another animal that similar, proof! This animal has feathers or at least we think it had feathers proof! Look monkeys have five fingers and so do we! Proof!

Evolution is nothing more than a game of connect-the-dots.

Here is my favorite example:

 

[Hoghead1]

Funny thing about the evidence. There isn't any. I think it's quite funny how evolutionists use this or that as evidence, when it's really not. Oh look we have an animal, oh look we have another animal that similar, proof! This animal has feathers or at least we think it had feathers proof! Look monkeys have five fingers and so do we! Proof!

Ha! I'm poking fun! Seriously though I love it when science makes all kinds of claims about something when there really is no evidence of it. Like I said, I've been looking at this For 30 years. Man thinks he's so smart, when the truth is he is quite dumb really.

All the theories of science remain guess work until it is proven by actual observation or experimentation. Since science has not been able to duplicate Evolution by chance it's remains a theory and nonsense. It's a joke on all mankind perpetuated by false assumptions and false science.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

You say that man thinks he is so smart when he is really dumb. Then you claim that you, as an unqualified layperson, know far, far more about it than all these scientists. How convenient you somehow manage to escape your own charges.

 

[Hoghead1]

Evolution is nothing more than a game of connect-the-dots.

Here is my favorite example:

[/QUOT
Why don't you explain it in your own words? I'm not talking to them, I'm talking to you. When people blow me off this way, I automatically assume it is because they cannot explain it in their own words and so refer you on to some site they really don't understand.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Funny thing about the evidence. There isn't any. I think it's quite funny how evolutionists use this or that as evidence, when it's really not. Oh look we have an animal, oh look we have another animal that similar, proof! This animal has feathers or at least we think it had feathers proof! Look monkeys have five fingers and so do we! Proof!

You're doing this to mess with me, aren't you? Fossilized feathers have been observed many times https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/af/Microraptor_gui_holotype.png
http://www.jsg.utexas.edu/news/files/02microraptor-fossil2-sm.jpg
http://41.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mad3ufGOA71r6rtc9o1_1280.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-0uXv9OpX7...W6yFAFODk/s1600/Microraptor_gui_with_fish.png these are all different microraptor fossils, with some variation in how well the feathers are preserved, but even the untrained eye can pretty easily see the ones on the tail.
http://i.livescience.com/images/i/000/023/842/original/archaeopteryx-feather-fossil.jpg?1327413450
https://static-secure.guim.co.uk/sy.../5/1233857620698/Archaeopteryx-fossil-001.jpg
http://blog.hmns.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/MNS-fossil-cropped.jpg
some for archaeopteryx, do you want more? I could fill more than a page with fossils like these, each with various degrees of having more dinosaurian traits or more avian traits.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c5/Sinosauropteryxfossil.jpg you wanna tell me this is a bird?
https://qph.is.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-3a326d7939e464163256fe2242d62f02?convert_to_webp=true just going to shrug these off? Say they aren't real? Use all your "expertise" in anatomy to demonstrate how these aren't feathers? Because the latter would be great. That would mean you have an actual valid, scientific reason to not view these fossils as evidence that birds evolved from dinosaurs. I doubt that is the case, but I would be thrilled if you went beyond my expectations and absolutely floored me with your background of paleontology and anatomy that you would need in order to know enough to identify feathers in fossilized remains... or disprove such claims.

And before you're all "but Sarah, what's your expertise, huh, what makes you so qualified to identify anything in a fossil?", my degree actually required me to take anatomy classes, and I took anthropology as one of my electives. True, not the same as paleontology, and I wouldn't claim expert status in that topic by any means, but my background helps a lot. Especially with the fossils that relate to human evolution, of which there are thousands.

Ha! I'm poking fun! Seriously though I love it when science makes all kinds of claims about something when there really is no evidence of it. Like I said, I've been looking at this For 30 years. Man thinks he's so smart, when the truth is he is quite dumb really.

Looking at what for 30 years? People presenting evidence for evolution? Or actually looking at the material for yourself? Have you ever tried to do an evolution experiment? True, I've only been a seeker for about 8 years, but in that time, I have seen absolutely no reason to think that evolution is even relevant to the possible existence of deities, and I certainly haven't seen any evidence for creationism that doesn't turn out to be a hoax. All I can tell from your sentence is that you've been doing something you think is productive relating to evolution and creationism for 30 years.

All the theories of science remain guess work until it is proven by actual observation or experimentation.

No, they remain a HYPOTHESIS until that happens. If you have an actual reason to doubt my statement that the scientific definition of theory is different from the layman use, say so, or admit that you are just doubting me because it would be really inconvenient for you if I was right. It would make a lot more sense to try to doubt evolution's theory status than to try to claim all theories are like the layman use. Gravity is a theory. Diseases being caused by bacteria, viruses, etc, is a theory. The Earth orbiting the sun is a theory. The Earth being round is a theory. That chemical elements exist is a theory. I could go on. Would you place the Earth being round as something that is untested? But again, evidenced, not proven. Yes, even the Earth being round has a chance of being wrong.

Since science has not been able to duplicate Evolution by chance it's remains a theory and nonsense. It's a joke on all mankind perpetuated by false assumptions and false science.

Nah, we can duplicate it, and I have in lab before. You just probably wouldn't count it arbitrarily, because bacteria. As if humans evolving and bacteria evolving are somehow different.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why don't you explain it in your own words?

Sure.

Evolution is a game of connect-the-dots.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Just tell them, "Go ask your mother."

XD they ask me because they want to confirm their mother's answers. Even amongst children, I have a reputation for honesty. My bluntness and lack of sugarcoating or compromising is nigh legendary XD. The only reason I am that way, is because my mother, in all her now regret, raised her kids to be open with what they thought. And autism makes me a terrible liar. Not a whole lot of point in lying when it never works. I even such at lies of omission, which are withholding information, not saying an untruth.

 

[AV1611VET]

XD they ask me because they want to confirm their mother's answers. Even amongst children, I have a reputation for honesty.

You wouldn't have that reputation if you told them, "Go ask your mother."

 

[PsychoSarah]

You wouldn't have that reputation if you told them, "Go ask your mother."

And then they'd say: "we already have, but we want your answer" XD. You act like I haven't tried dodging answering before. Thankfully, no little kid has asked me how babies are made, but cartoons have lead me to asking it when I was a little kid. My mom said a stork -_- I didn't buy that for a second. Sorry mom, but you can't mention the fact that pregnancy is a thing, and then drop the stork lie on me.

 

[rjs330]

You're doing this to mess with me, aren't you? Fossilized feathers have been observed many times https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/af/Microraptor_gui_holotype.png
http://www.jsg.utexas.edu/news/files/02microraptor-fossil2-sm.jpg
http://41.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mad3ufGOA71r6rtc9o1_1280.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-0uXv9OpX7...W6yFAFODk/s1600/Microraptor_gui_with_fish.png these are all different microraptor fossils, with some variation in how well the feathers are preserved, but even the untrained eye can pretty easily see the ones on the tail.
http://i.livescience.com/images/i/000/023/842/original/archaeopteryx-feather-fossil.jpg?1327413450
https://static-secure.guim.co.uk/sy.../5/1233857620698/Archaeopteryx-fossil-001.jpg
http://blog.hmns.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/MNS-fossil-cropped.jpg
some for archaeopteryx, do you want more? I could fill more than a page with fossils like these, each with various degrees of having more dinosaurian traits or more avian traits.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c5/Sinosauropteryxfossil.jpg you wanna tell me this is a bird?
https://qph.is.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-3a326d7939e464163256fe2242d62f02?convert_to_webp=true just going to shrug these off? Say they aren't real? Use all your "expertise" in anatomy to demonstrate how these aren't feathers? Because the latter would be great. That would mean you have an actual valid, scientific reason to not view these fossils as evidence that birds evolved from dinosaurs. I doubt that is the case, but I would be thrilled if you went beyond my expectations and absolutely floored me with your background of paleontology and anatomy that you would need in order to know enough to identify feathers in fossilized remains... or disprove such claims.

And before you're all "but Sarah, what's your expertise, huh, what makes you so qualified to identify anything in a fossil?", my degree actually required me to take anatomy classes, and I took anthropology as one of my electives. True, not the same as paleontology, and I wouldn't claim expert status in that topic by any means, but my background helps a lot. Especially with the fossils that relate to human evolution, of which there are thousands.


Looking at what for 30 years? People presenting evidence for evolution? Or actually looking at the material for yourself? Have you ever tried to do an evolution experiment? True, I've only been a seeker for about 8 years, but in that time, I have seen absolutely no reason to think that evolution is even relevant to the possible existence of deities, and I certainly haven't seen any evidence for creationism that doesn't turn out to be a hoax. All I can tell from your sentence is that you've been doing something you think is productive relating to evolution and creationism for 30 years.


No, they remain a HYPOTHESIS until that happens. If you have an actual reason to doubt my statement that the scientific definition of theory is different from the layman use, say so, or admit that you are just doubting me because it would be really inconvenient for you if I was right. It would make a lot more sense to try to doubt evolution's theory status than to try to claim all theories are like the layman use. Gravity is a theory. Diseases being caused by bacteria, viruses, etc, is a theory. The Earth orbiting the sun is a theory. The Earth being round is a theory. That chemical elements exist is a theory. I could go on. Would you place the Earth being round as something that is untested? But again, evidenced, not proven. Yes, even the Earth being round has a chance of being wrong.


Nah, we can duplicate it, and I have in lab before. You just probably wouldn't count it arbitrarily, because bacteria. As if humans evolving and bacteria evolving are somehow different.

I am kinda messing with you. I like using common terminology like theory and species etc because most folks understand what I am talking about. When one begins to parse words you lose sight of the main argument. Just keep it simple and most people can follow you.

Again I am messing with you on feathers. I'm sure there were dinosaurs with feathers. There were all kinds in very interesting creatures back then. It just shows the awesomeness of God's creative genious. But none of them prove evolution. They were all fully formed creatures however. They are only evolutionary because scientists want them to,be. There is no proof they evolved. Its guesswork and assumption at best.

And bacteria in a lab is supposed to be proof of Evolution? So,man in a controlled environment is able to show bacteria evolving into something completely different? Evolutionary hypotheses says creatures evolved from something completely different by chance. When you can get bacteria to evolve by chance into a,fish let me know. Because that is what evolution says happened. I know bacteria specifically isn't used in the hypothesis but you get my,point.



Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[rjs330]

You say that man thinks he is so smart when he is really dumb. Then you claim that you, as an unqualified layperson, know far, far more about it than all these scientists. How convenient you somehow manage to escape your own charges.

When it comes,to,brain power I am way dumber than the evolutionary scientists. I couldn't hope to,outsmart those guys. I'm lucky to outsmart my kids sometimes. But evolution is not about brains. Its about belief. Evolutionists believe in evolution and that drives their work. Even though they have never seen actual evolution in progress nor have they been able to duplicate it or test it. How can they. By their own admission it takes a really long time. And no one has lived long enough to catalog or observe it. They just assume it because they believe it.

I choose however to believe God. Yep I fully admit I didn't see it either nor did anyone else. And creation obviously cannot be,duplicated. But the Bible says the wisdom of man is foolishness to God. We think we are,so smart when we contradict God, when in fact we are just being foolish. But then that has always been our way.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[rjs330]

Fine. This topic: http://www.christianforums.com/threads/the-new-retrovirus-thread.7942101/ is THE smoking gun for evolution. Since you are so sure about the lack of evidence for evolution, you should be able to refute Loudmouth's argument without any problem.

https://releasingthetruth.wordpress...troviruses-evidence-of-evolution-think-again/

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[Hoghead1]

I am kinda messing with you. I like using common terminology like theory and species etc because most folks understand what I am talking about. When one begins to parse words you lose sight of the main argument. Just keep it simple and most people can follow you.

Again I am messing with you on feathers. I'm sure there were dinosaurs with feathers. There were all kinds in very interesting creatures back then. It just shows the awesomeness of God's creative genious. But none of them prove evolution. They were all fully formed creatures however. They are only evolutionary because scientists want them to,be. There is no proof they evolved. Its guesswork and assumption at best.

And bacteria in a lab is supposed to be proof of Evolution? So,man in a controlled environment is able to show bacteria evolving into something completely different? Evolutionary hypotheses says creatures evolved from something completely different by chance. When you can get bacteria to evolve by chance into a,fish let me know. Because that is what evolution says happened. I know bacteria specifically isn't used in the hypothesis but you get my,point.



Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

I think it was you who asked for laboratory evidence of evolution. OK, fine. Bacteria evolving into new species in the lab is a prime example here. Now you duck out and claim you want to see something else. Also, evolution definitely does not work in the way you think it does. It doesn't go directly from bacteria into fish. There were leads of intermediate steps. Your request shows you have a poor understanding of how evolution is understood to work.