Where did the laws of nature come from?

[KCfromNC]

The problem is that if we actually go by the fossil record, birds (Avian species) existed nearly 100,000 years BEFORE the "dinosaurs" they allegedly evolved FROM

If this were true, what difference does it make? Does the fact my grandparents are alive mean that I couldn't have descended from them?

 

[pshun2404]

If this were true, what difference does it make? Does the fact my grandparents are alive mean that I couldn't have descended from them?

No, but it means YOU could not have caused THEM...they did not become because of you (they already were)...Avian fossils have been found which pre-exist the fossils of this type of raptor...therefore they did not evolve FROM these raptors...

I almost choked when I heard Neil Degrasse Tyson (a person I so previously respected), on national TV, say "birds are Dinosaurs"...

You see when one holds to a primary invalid derivation following conclusions always contain a seed of the invalid derivation...the second false conclusion only follows if one accepts the primary false conclusion.

I mean even by definition birds are NOT giant lizards . Observation and experience (two factors implicit when something is truly empirical) demonstrate that this is not true and then no matter how many experiments I can do on birds I can NEVER get "reptilian" as a result (unless one shiftily changes the common understanding of the terms in order to support the failed hypothesis...which has indeed happened many times)

 

[Derek Meyer]

The problem is that if we actually go by the fossil record, birds (Avian species) existed nearly 100,000 years BEFORE the "dinosaurs" they allegedly evolved FROM...

Really? I think that you are not telling the truth here. Could you provide any evidence from the fossil record that "birds (avian species) existed nearly 100 000 years BEFORE the "dinosaurs" they allegedly evolved FROM". I think that you are not telling the truth here.

 

[Derek Meyer]

The problem is that if we actually go by the fossil record, birds (Avian species) existed nearly 100,000 years BEFORE the "dinosaurs" they allegedly evolved FROM...

Why do creationists always have to tell untruths and think that nobody will notice?

 

[Derek Meyer]

I mean even by definition birds are NOT giant lizards .

Yeah, we know. Komodo dragons are not birds. What's your point?

 

[stevevw]

Even if any of these vague claims and questions led somewhere, why do you think the answers have anything to do with a supernatural creator such as the one proposed by Intelligent Design?

How are they vague. I have linked scientific evidence for them. They state clearly why darwinian evolution is in question and show the evidence for that. Plus ID doesn't propose a supernatural creator. It tries to establish support through science for intelligent design in nature. Rather then keep trying to undermine the person and the source why not respond to the content. As I have said before on a number of occasions now the supernatural is for another debate and cannot be verified scientifically because it is beyond the science parameters. The vague claims as you call them don't have to prove a supernatural creator or any supernatural agent.

 

[stevevw]

Why do creationists always have to tell untruths and think that nobody will notice?

Why do you think everyone who disagrees with the Darwinian story of life are creationists. If you notice many are still talking about very long periods of time ie 100s of thousands or millions of years. How do you think life started. Did God create the first bacteria or create the conditions for life and existence. There would have been some creation involved. Or do you not count that as creation.

 

[VirOptimus]

Why do you think everyone who disagrees with the Darwinian story of life are creationists. If you notice many are still talking about very long periods of time ie 100s of thousands or millions of years. How do you think life started. Did God create the first bacteria or create the conditions for life and existence. There would have been some creation involved. Or do you not count that as creation.

And your belif is? YEC? OEC?

 

[stevevw]

This one is funny. Actually, natural selection is a conclusion based on the existence of nested hierarchies. Nested hierarchies are the facts. Nested hierarchies exist whether you like them or not.

Mutations and natural selection are the explanations for the existence of nested hierarchies.

Yes but Darwinian evolution interprets the links made by nested hierarchy are the results of mutations and natural selection and nothing else. They interpret and use the observational evidence of similar features to make these connections. But the molecular trees dont support this.

 

[stevevw]

And your belif is? YEC? OEC?

I certainly think the earth and universe are very old based on the evidence. As for the creation story in the bible this is not a scientific event. It is based on the interpretations of ancient people on a divine event with a divine message. So it is hard to say what exactly it means as far as the literal meanings. The important thing is it is about God being the creator of life and existence and not some self creating naturalistic process.

 

[stevevw]

Nope. All designers we know of are naturally occurring. Not God. Therefore I find the whole Intelligent Design movement and the so-called arguments they present as completely silly.

So I'm a bit confused, you say your a Christian and the bible is full of references to God being the creator or in modern terms the designer of life. Even if things naturally occur, they dont just naturally occur without some process. Even if that process is naturally occurring it didn't produce those codes for life out of thin air as atheists state. Even if you believe in theistic evolution the beginning of things which to some was the code for life created in a single cell. Or the code for life created in nature itself to be utilized is from God.

As a believer you would believe that God created/designed the code for life or the process that allowed the code for life one way or another. But it doesn't matter how it happened as a Christian you believe that God was originally responsible. I dont subscribe to all the ideas of ID as a science. But they do have some good logical evidence for some of the things they say which is also said by none ID supporters.

 

[KCfromNC]

No, but it means YOU could not have caused THEM...they did not become because of you (they already were)...Avian fossils have been found which pre-exist the fossils of this type of raptor...therefore they did not evolve FROM these raptors...

OK. And?

I almost choked when I heard Neil Degrasse Tyson (a person I so previously respected), on national TV, say "birds are Dinosaurs"...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monophyly

I mean even by definition birds are NOT giant lizards

Neither are many dinosaurs. What's your point?

 

[KCfromNC]

They state clearly why darwinian evolution is in question and show the evidence for that. Rather then keep trying to undermine the person and the source why not respond to the content.

Because as I said before, the content does nothing to establish a need for the kind of supernatural designer proposed by ID.

 

[KCfromNC]

So I'm a bit confused, you say your a Christian and the bible is full of references to God being the creator or in modern terms the designer of life. Even if things naturally occur, they dont just naturally occur without some process. Even if that process is naturally occurring it didn't produce those codes for life out of thin air as atheists state.

Here's a good example of a god of the gap getting pushed into smaller and smaller gaps the more we learn. It is interesting to see it in a single post, but I guess creationists are evolving.

 

[stevevw]

It is accepted now, Vir, that birds did evolve from dinosaurs and exhibit many dinosaur features.

That’s the point they exhibit or observation informs us that they seem to have similar features to dinosaurs. But exhibit and observe are not the basis for scientific verification. It is assumption and open to interpretation. If you are looking for links to prove a theory then that’s what you are going to interpret everything as. But as we have seen many times with observational evidence it can be wrong. As with the skulls at Georgia discovered recently they covered several so called different species already in existence. So the same features on past skulls were interpreted as making new species when they were actually a wide variation within the same species.

We have seen how a similarity in a feature was pin pointed as showing the transitional link between related creatures only to be found later through genetic evidence to be wrong. Archaeopteryx has been used as an example of bird dino evolution because it seemed like a dino with feathers, wings and teeth. Yet it has been shown that some of the features on Archaeopteryx are too bird like. It has a wish bone and bird like feet. This means it’s not just a feathered dino but something quite different. Bird feet have reversed toes used for perching in branches and something no dinosaurs has been seen to have. Dinosaurs had a characteristic joint in their lower jaws for grasping prey and this has never been found in birds. Its like it suddenly appeared with these features. Had they ever considered it may have been a bird that happened to have a couple of dino features. Just like some of the animals today which are unrelated and have similar features.
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/280/5362/355.full

Another difference in Dino and birds is the digits of dinos forelimbs which are 1, 2 and 3 and in past and present birds the same limbs are 2, 3 and 4 digits. The homology between the bird forelimb and the dinosaur forelimb are not the same. Then there are the differences in dinos and bird respiratory systems and structures which make it near impossible for birds to have evolved from dinos.

Discovery Raises New Doubts About Dinosaur-bird Links
The implication, the researchers said, is that birds almost certainly did not descend from theropod dinosaurs, such as tyrannosaurus or allosaurus. The findings add to a growing body of evidence in the past two decades that challenge some of the most widely-held beliefs about animal evolution....
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090609092055.htm

In the following study the scientists show how birds have a unique bone structure that supports the many air sacs it needs for its respiratory system for flying from collapsing.
There a stark difference in these features including an immobilized thigh bones. These features are different to all other animals including dinos. If birds evolved from dinos (theropods) then they say you would think there would be some evidence of these features somewhere in the fossil records.
Cardio-pulmonary anatomy in theropod dinosaurs: Implications from extant archosaurs.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19459194

There are similarities in all living things which can also be interpreted as other things like common ancestry, developmental biology and design such as the similarities with cars or any human design. But similarities alone don’t mean that one creature evolved from another. There are many animals with very similar features which are on different branches of Darwin’s tree of life. In fact the tree of life has many molecular contradictions. There are different features in supposed linked creatures that have evolved from each other and there are similarities in distant related creatures as well.

Then there is the fact that modern birds with powered flight have been found in fossils with dinos and even in the stomachs of the very dinos which they were supposed to have evolved from. There is even evidence for birds predating dinos. So it’s a bit hard for birds to have evolved from dinos when they were either there before them or very modern even when dinos were around considering evolution takes a long time.
Scientists Say Birds Predated Dinosaurs
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=98819&page=1
Winged Victory: Modern Birds Now Found to Have Been Contemporaries of Dinosaurs
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/winged-victory/

 

[stevevw]

Because as I said before, the content does nothing to establish a need for the kind of supernatural designer proposed by ID.

ID doesn't propose a supernatural designer. That would defeat the entire purpose of ID being a based on science. ID is a science and whether you think what they say is supported by the science doesn't matter. They dont go into supernatural things because it simply is not science.

 

[stevevw]

If this were true, what difference does it make? Does the fact my grandparents are alive mean that I couldn't have descended from them?

I think if you check what pshun2404 is saying is that birds were around before dinos existed. So its not a case of of your grand parents still being alive while you are. Its a case that you were born before your grand parents. There is some evidence for birds being around before dinos and at the very least modern birds with powered flight being around with dinos from an early stage. When you consider that evolution takes a long time and the amount of changes that are needed to morph a dino into a bird it is a little hard to believe it could happen so quick if at all. Plus the fact that there isn't much evidence in the fossil records and what there is is up for interpretation or goes against the dino bird transition.

 

[stevevw]

Here's a good example of a god of the gap getting pushed into smaller and smaller gaps the more we learn. It is interesting to see it in a single post, but I guess creationists are evolving.

Yes its a very small hole as I have supplied scientific support for all I have said. What I was saying relates to how things came about originally and not the processes for life itself. What does an atheistic scientific world position say about this. They try and make out that something can come from nothing and that nothing isn't really nothing because its something. or that time is the great god that can make the impossible happen. In fact if you look at some of the ideas they have come up with like multiverses and hologram worlds and that somehow a primeval soup can magically produce life then God aint such a bad idea after all.

 

[stevevw]

Because as I said before, the content does nothing to establish a need for the kind of supernatural designer proposed by ID.

The content doesn't need to do that because its irrelevant to this debate. No you take the debate down the road of a false dilemma by making out its only about a supernatural idea and science when there's a whole lot of content in between which you dont talk about. Its about that content thats in between which established proof or lack of for an intelligent design. But if you dont establish that then how can you talk about who that Intelligent designer is. Because there wouldn't be any design for anyone to talk about that an intelligent designer was suppose to have made.

I have rarely used the supernatural and have supplied plenty of scientific content for intelligent design in nature. But you choose to avoid that and turn it back into a religion verses science thing. By doing that you can then use the good old tactics of God of the gaps and the supernatural hasn't been verified position which cannot be done through science.

 

[KCfromNC]

ID doesn't propose a supernatural designer.

It's creators do, at least when they're under penalty of perjury for lying. It is strange their story changes when that penalty isn't a threat, though.