Man and dinosaur coexisting

[lasthero]

Take a small dinosaur and a billion years later it's relative is a bird... or whatever. If you could find species that was the great grand kid of the dinosaur and the great grand father of the bird, it would be transitional. How's that?

Doesn't really tell me anything. What features should it have?

Nothing I say here has not been posted ad nauseum before.....

I missed it, then. What's a kind?

Yes, infinite is a lot.
Your point?

Bit more than a lot.

And........zero slack was given. Really? your going to pick at that? Like it had any bearing on the point being made.

A transitional fossil would be impossible. You would need that to be plural.... as in transitional fossils. And thousands of them.

Give us some idea what you expect a transitional fossil to look like, then we can work from there

 

[dougangel]

I understand your view now. Evolution, to me, would cultivate the outlook that we came from nothing, we are here for nothing, we mean nothing and there is nothing for us when we die. Absolutely no purpose at all. We exist because we exist, then, we die, end of story.

Correct. Evolution without a God that is. Give that man a cigar (ooops not really that's a saying don't take that literally. Smoking's not healthy ) Sorry bit of a dig at literalists both YEC and some Atheist's

 

[justlookinla]

Doesn't really tell me anything. What features should it have?





I missed it, then. What's a kind?






Bit more than a lot.

And........zero slack was given. Really? your going to pick at that? Like it had any bearing on the point being made.







Give us some idea what you expect a transitional fossil to look like, then we can work from there

Nothing but the usual attempt to place the burden of proof on someone other than the person making the claim of transitional fossils.

 

[Gene2memE]

Take a small dinosaur and a billion years later it's relative is a bird... or whatever. If you could find species that was the great grand kid of the dinosaur and the great grand father of the bird, it would be transitional. How's that?

Caudipteryx
Protarchaeopteryx
Sinosauropteryx
Jeholornis
Microraptor
Sinornithosaurus
Cryptovolans
Archaeopteryx
Pedopenna
Xiaotingia
Aurornis
Anchiornis

You know what, you might want to look up the whole paraves, avialae and tetrapterygidae clades. All of them contain exactly what you're looking for...

 

[JacksBratt]

Give us some idea what you expect a transitional fossil to look like, then we can work from there

What would you expect a perfect tree to look like? It's the same thing, you cannot look at two pieces of bone from different holes and say "gosh, the animal this bone is from looks similar to that bone, that means that this animal turned into that animal over time, lots and lots of time"
You cannot prove the whole of a concept when you only have punctuated examples of the animals. Transition is not observable, testable or repeatable. Therefore it will remain an assumption.

 

[JacksBratt]

I missed it, then. What's a kind?

I'm sure there is a method to search old threads by topic....especially one that big.

 

[lasthero]

What would you expect a perfect tree to look like? It's the same thing, you cannot look at two pieces of bone from different holes and say "gosh, the animal this bone is from looks similar to that bone, that means that this animal turned into that animal over time, lots and lots of time"
You cannot prove the whole of a concept when you only have punctuated examples of the animals. Transition is not observable, testable or repeatable. Therefore it will remain an assumption.

If you don't know what a transitional fossil looks like, how can you know there aren't thousands of them?

 

[lasthero]

I'm sure there is a method to search old threads by topic....especially one that big.

Can't find it.

What's a kind?

 

[AV1611VET]

A kind is a person, plant or animal whose DNA can create viable offspring in its own image & likeness.

Genesis 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

 

[dougangel]

A kind is a person, plant or animal whose DNA can create viable offspring in its own image & likeness.

Genesis 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Yes but that doesn't explain how God put them in there kinds and how long it took.

Can you explain Kiwi's, Flying Fish, Flying foxes, to name a few.
Is a dog a wolf or a wolf a dog.
It does seem over a long period of time things are morphing changing evolving.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes but that doesn't explain how God put them in there kinds and how long it took.

The technical term is: creatio ex materia.

The Biblical term is: And God spake.

Can you explain Kiwi's, Flying Fish, Flying foxes, to name a few.

Not as well as Wikipedia can.

Is a dog a wolf or a wolf a dog.

Both are classified as dogs.

It does seem over a long period of time things are morphing changing evolving.

Thanks to the Fall, after which the second law of thermodynamics was instituted, they are trickle-down changes.

 

[USincognito]

The way I see it is... if evolution is true and it took place over billions of years and each organism has a link to the original organism(even several original organisms) there would have to be infinite transitional species, kinds and organisms. Just to go from say a lizard to a bird.... there should be innumerable fossils of gradual change for just one simple macro evolutionary step. In order to account for the hundreds of different kinds of animals we have today and the ones that have become extinct for various reasons, there would have to be thousands upon thousands of fossils of minute changes.

Your hyperbole ("infinite" and "innumerable") indicates that you don't know as much about this subject as you think you do.

That you appear to think fossilization occurs to most or even many representations of a population indicates that you don't know much about fossilization at all.

 

[dougangel]

The technical term is: creatio ex materia.

The Biblical term is: And God spake.
Well the creation poem isn't literal or Scientific. It illustrates spiritual points and introduces the 7 day week and Sabbath for the Hebrew calendar and is Gods clock for the prophecies. A jubilee year is an example of this. You'll notice there are environmental reasons for a day, a month, a year. But not for a week that is a Hebrew invention. The poem is very important for that
But you could say God spoke and planned and correct science put it all into action. Because all I see around me is the Universe running on science and the natural world.

Not as well as Wikipedia can.


Honorary mammals
Kiwi’s habits and physical characteristics make them unbird-like in many ways. Sometimes they are referred to as an honorary mammal.

They build burrows like a badger, and sleep standing up.

The kiwi’s body temperature is lower than most birds, which range from 39ºC – 42ºC. The kiwi is more like a mammal, with a temperature between 37ºC and 38ºC.

The kiwi’s powerful muscular legs are heavy and marrow-filled, like a mammal, with skin as tough as shoe-leather. They make up a third of the bird’s weight. The skeletons of most birds are light and filled with air sacs to enable flight.

The eye sockets of most birds are separated by a plate, but in kiwi they are divided by large nasal cavities – just like most mammals.

While most birds depend on sight, the kiwi relies on a highly developed sense of smell and touch.

The kiwi’s sense of hearing is also well developed. Its ear openings are large and visible, and it will [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] its head to direct its ear toward soft or distant noises.

Unlike most birds, which have one ovary, a female kiwi has two – like a mammal. If she produces more than one egg in a clutch, ovulation occurs in alternate ovaries.

The chick emerges from its enormous egg as a mini adult, fully feathered and able to feed itself – which is very unusual for a bird.

And finally, a kiwi’s plumage is shaggy and hair-like, and it has cat-like whiskers on its face and around the base of its beak. These super-sensitive way-finding whiskers are likely to have evolved to help the bird feel its way through the dark.

A kiwi is morphing into a mammal. Give it a few million more years.

Both are classified as dogs.

Who classified them ?
Some dogs now look more like rats than wolves But my point was that the domestic dog has adapted over a small period of the earths history
Thanks to the Fall, after which the second law of thermodynamics was instituted, they are trickle-down changes.
There have been radical changes

 

[AV1611VET]

Who classified them?

Scientists, of course.

Remember Nebraska Man?

That guy that scientific methodists swear they were suspicious of all along?

Yet he was somehow given a binomial and a branch on Darwin's tree of life.*

* A term from the Bible that points to Jesus Christ, not Charles Darwin.

 

[Hoghead1]

True, Jacksbratt, many accounts of evolution make it appear we have no ultimate significance, that we all but freaks of nature in universe consisting of cold, dead passive matter. However, before giving the finger to evolution, we need to ask whether or not this is also true with traditional Christianity. The classical model of God argues that God is void of body, parts, compassion, wholly immutable, utterly unaffected by creation. It sure seems to me that if God is the Unmoved Mover, then our lives are worth nothing to him. Saint or sinner, it would all the same for the Unmoved Mover. So, is classical Christianity any better at it than evolution? Therefore, I have a view of God and the universe that is much different. I believe that God is continually changing, as God is affected by everything that happens in the world. I think of the universe as God's body, because this well highlights God's sensitivity to creation. I feel this model better addresses the question of how our lives have any real significance. A problem, the evil of all evils, that we have is that the past fades. We gain a satisfaction, only to quickly loose it. What is the point of doing anything, if it is all gong to go up in smoke soon enough? My answer is that God, as the ultimate empathic experiencer of the universe, preserves all our past experiences forever in his or her eternal memory to enjoy forever. Hence, everything we do, even the smallest, all our feelings, have eternal significance. Let me add that I see evolution as evidencing a continual direction, continually moving up from the less sensitive to the more sensitive. In order for there to be evolution, there must be the birth of the novel, and that means the reality of a transcendental imagination continually presenting new possibilities for actualization,i.e., God.

 

[JacksBratt]

I think flexible people, rather than simpler people, might be a better term. Simple is often used as a polite way of referring to someone as having a lesser intelligence than is the norm. Stubborn people are unlikely to be open to new ideas, and flexible people are, so I find that comparison to be a bit better, personally.

Sarah, my posts on this subject were the result of a question by BrriKerr, shown below. They were the ones stating that God reaches out to the less intelligent.

Then why does God mainly reach out to the not so intelligent people of earth instead of the intelligent? why are the most religious countries always the most backward countries? even in the US the most religious areas are mostly where the not so intelligent people live,

 

[JacksBratt]

Your hyperbole ("infinite" and "innumerable") indicates that you don't know as much about this subject as you think you do.

That you appear to think fossilization occurs to most or even many representations of a population indicates that you don't know much about fossilization at all.

Then you are admitting that there is very few fossils compared to the number of animals that once lived?

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

Scientists, of course.

Remember Nebraska Man?

That guy that scientific methodists swear they were suspicious of all along?

Yet he was somehow given a binomial and a branch on Darwin's tree of life.*

* A term from the Bible that points to Jesus Christ, not Charles Darwin.

More hot air (still searching for a term other than lie). The truth was that Henry Fairfield Osborn thought that 2 tooth fragments sent to him in 1922 were from an ape he wanted to call "Hesperopithecus haroldcookii." The translation is roughly "Western Ape found by Harold Cook." It was never in the science literature as an early man (Hominid). Osborn then sent a competent field excavator to work at the discovery location. When a fictional drawing of a "proto-man family" was published in a London magazine, Osborn called it, "only a figment of the imagination of no scientific value, and undoubtedly inaccurate."

The competent field work by Osborn's junior colleague William King Gregory showed that the tooth belonged to an extinct Ice Age pig, and that their similarity to an ape tooth was an artifact of poor preservation. If you want the long version, see; "The role of "Nebraska man" in the creation-evolution debate."

 

[JacksBratt]

True, Jacksbratt, many accounts of evolution make it appear we have no ultimate significance, that we all but freaks of nature in universe consisting of cold, dead passive matter. However, before giving the finger to evolution, we need to ask whether or not this is also true with traditional Christianity. The classical model of God argues that God is void of body, parts, compassion,

Gotta stop you there. Compassion is paramount to the character of God. Right from forming Adam with His own hands, in HIS image and personally breathing live into Adams nostrils.... to John 3:16, which is the personification of compassion.

wholly immutable, utterly unaffected by creation. It sure seems to me that if God is the Unmoved Mover, then our lives are worth nothing to him. Saint or sinner, it would all the same for the Unmoved Mover.

This statement is not in line with:
Joh 10:14 I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. 15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.
and:
Romans 5:8
But God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
and:
1 John 4:10 ESV / 109 helpful votes
In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

So, is classical Christianity any better at it than evolution? Therefore, I have a view of God and the universe that is much different. I believe that God is continually changing, as God is affected by everything that happens in the world.

Hebrews 13:8 ESV / 146 helpful votes
Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.
James 1:17 ESV / 31 helpful votes
Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change.
Psalm 102:25-27 ESV / 28 helpful votes
Of old you laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you will remain; they will all wear out like a garment. You will change them like a robe, and they will pass away, but you are the same, and your years have no end.
Malachi 3:6New International Version (NIV)
6 “I the Lord do not change. So you, the descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed.

I think of the universe as God's body, because this well highlights God's sensitivity to creation. I feel this model better addresses the question of how our lives have any real significance. A problem, the evil of all evils, that we have is that the past fades. We gain a satisfaction, only to quickly loose it. What is the point of doing anything, if it is all gong to go up in smoke soon enough? My answer is that God, as the ultimate empathic experiencer of the universe, preserves all our past experiences forever in his or her eternal memory to enjoy forever. Hence, everything we do, even the smallest, all our feelings, have eternal significance. Let me add that I see evolution as evidencing a continual direction, continually moving up from the less sensitive to the more sensitive. In order for there to be evolution, there must be the birth of the novel, and that means the reality of a transcendental imagination continually presenting new possibilities for actualization,i.e., God.

Interesting view.

 

[AV1611VET]

The truth was that Henry Fairfield Osborn thought that 2 tooth fragments sent to him in 1922 were from an ape he wanted to call "Hesperopithecus haroldcookii." The translation is roughly "Western Ape found by Harold Cook." It was never in the science literature as an early man (Hominid).

1. Henry Fairfield Osborn was a scientist.

2. What do you mean 'he wanted to call'? Was it called that or not?

3. From Wikipedia:

Although Nebraska man was not a deliberate hoax, the original classification proved to be a mistake.

4. If it was never in the science literature as an early man,* where did it get its binomial?

* I notice you didn't say, 'It was never in the science literature'. You said, 'It was never in the science literature as an early man.'