Guardians of Science...

[Loudmouth]

Archaeopteryx, the so-called ancestor of modern birds according to evolutionists, lived approximately 150 million years ago. The theory holds that some small dinosaurs, such as Velociraptors or Dromaeosaurs, evolved by acquiring wings and then starting to fly. Thus, Archaeopteryx is assumed to be a transitional form that branched off from its dinosaur ancestors and started to fly for the first time.
However, the latest studies of Archaeopteryx fossils indicate that this explanation lacks any scientific foundation. This is absolutely not a transitional form, but an extinct species of bird, having some insignificant differences from modern birds.

http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/07/31/archeopteryxs-evolutionary-humuliation-continues/

How about National Geographic?

An extinct bird with dinosaur features not found in modern birds is transitional by definition. A transitional fossil will necessarily fall into the bird or dinosaur group, so saying that it is a bird in now way indicates that it is not transitional. The hard line between bird and dinosaur is just a human invention.

 

[Loudmouth]

"Another fact that was revealed by the structure of Archaeopteryx's feathers was its warm-blooded metabolism. As was discussed above, reptiles and dinosaurs are cold-blooded animals whose body heat fluctuates with the temperature of their environment, rather than being homeostatically regulated. A very important function of the feathers on birds is the maintenance of a constant body temperature. The fact that Archaeopteryx had feathers shows that it was a real, warm-blooded bird that needed to retain its body heat, in contrast to dinosaurs."

Yay for the progression of science, eh?

A transitional would also be a bird. Archae had many dinosaur features not found in any modern bird which makes it transitional.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html#reptile-features

 

[Armoured]

"Another fact that was revealed by the structure of Archaeopteryx's feathers was its warm-blooded metabolism. As was discussed above, reptiles and dinosaurs are cold-blooded animals whose body heat fluctuates with the temperature of their environment, rather than being homeostatically regulated. A very important function of the feathers on birds is the maintenance of a constant body temperature. The fact that Archaeopteryx had feathers shows that it was a real, warm-blooded bird that needed to retain its body heat, in contrast to dinosaurs."

Yay for the progression of science, eh?

Reptiles are cold blooded, dinosaurs were warm blooded.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Archaeopteryx, the so-called ancestor of modern birds according to evolutionists, lived approximately 150 million years ago. The theory holds that some small dinosaurs, such as Velociraptors or Dromaeosaurs, evolved by acquiring wings and then starting to fly. Thus, Archaeopteryx is assumed to be a transitional form that branched off from its dinosaur ancestors and started to fly for the first time.
However, the latest studies of Archaeopteryx fossils indicate that this explanation lacks any scientific foundation. This is absolutely not a transitional form, but an extinct species of bird, having some insignificant differences from modern birds.

http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/07/31/archeopteryxs-evolutionary-humuliation-continues/

How about National Geographic?

I've been 100% that National Geographic should be called a scientific source, since it covers things that aren't science like world history and world politics.

Also, I just noticed that you haven't answered my original request of you, so I'll repeat it again: Perhaps you can show me what features the archeopteryx has that only birds have that therapods don't have.

 

[pshun2404]

Besides we have fossils of Avian species that pre-date Arche so may be Arche evolved from birds...(thats the logic right?)

 

[Loudmouth]

Besides we have fossils of Avian species that pre-date Arche so may be Arche evolved from birds...(thats the logic right?)

Transitional does not mean ancestral.

 

[pshun2404]

Reptiles are cold blooded, dinosaurs were warm blooded.

Dinosaur means giant lizard and lizards are reptilian...topical characteristics depicted in artistically contrived assumptions can be misleading all "dinosaurs" are reptiles. Non-reptilian "dinosaurs" is a contrived twisting of terms.

 

[JacksBratt]

I wonder when Ken Ham plans to update his dinosaurs in his Man vs Dinosaur exhibition, reflecting the latest research, with feathered dinosaurs. Or do Ken Ham plan to continue with his denial that dinosaurs has feathers until honest creationists starts wonder why this Last Outpost of Science does not present "all the evidence" so we can "judge for ourselves" - I mean nobody wants to believe in evolution, we want evidence right?

View attachment 171966

Fossils are static snapshots of a certain animal or organism. Similarities with said animal and others does not prove that one was the ancestor or the other. It only proves that they existed and were similar.

Evolutionists assume the transformation, which is necessary for their "theory" to work. In all actruallity, nobody was there to see the generations of one type morph or gradually change into the other. It is wishful thinking and extrapolation. Not fact.

So, cool bird thing, not transitional.

 

[Loudmouth]

Dinosaur means giant lizard and lizards are reptilian...

Dinosaurs are not lizards. On top of that, "reptile" is a paraphyletic group which means that it is not a valid classification. You need to use monophyletic groups. Here is a nice page describing the separate groups for lizards and dinosaurs.

http://tolweb.org/Diapsida/14866

topical characteristics depicted in artistically contrived assumptions can be misleading all "dinosaurs" are reptiles. Non-reptilian "dinosaurs" is a contrived twisting of terms.

Mammals are as much reptiles as dinosaurs are. Mammals have reptilian ancestors, just like dinosaurs do.

 

[Loudmouth]

Fossils are static snapshots of a certain animal or organism. Similarities with said animal and others does not prove that one was the ancestor or the other. It only proves that they existed and were similar.

The important part is that the theory of evolution predicts which mixtures of characteristics you should see in the fossil record, and which you should not see. The theory predicts that there were species in the past that had a mixture of bird and dinosaur features. It also predicts that there were not species with a mixture of bird and mammal features. When all of the fossils fits the pattern predicted by the theory, the fossils are evidence for the theory of evolution.

Evolutionists assume the transformation,

No such assumption is made. The conclusion is that the transformation occurred because the pattern of features in the fossil record is consistent with what evolution would produce. It is a conclusion founded on evidence.

 

[JacksBratt]

The important part is that the theory of evolution predicts which mixtures of characteristics you should see in the fossil record, and which you should not see. The theory predicts that there were species in the past that had a mixture of bird and dinosaur features. It also predicts that there were not species with a mixture of bird and mammal features. When all of the fossils fits the pattern predicted by the theory, the fossils are evidence for the theory of evolution.

This is a theory. It is not observable, repeatable and certainly not testable. It predicts things that should or should not be. Predictions are not proof.

Then, they call it evidence when in actual fact these patterns are evidence for a common designer to the same extent that they are evidence of common ancestor. Therefore they are not proof. They are a hope, a wing and a prayer and take as much faith in the thoughts of the men and women that dreamed them up as any religion.

There is no proof. It is all assumption, extrapolation and speculation.

Static snap shots of any ongoing event are never going to prove or give enough information to fill in the absolutely huge gaps in the true events of the actual story.

You have a bunch of fossils that represent, in your mind, billions of years. There should, in fact, be a staggering line of infinite animals for each step in this "transition" you are claiming took place. Think about it. Billions of years, hundreds of thousands of steps and stages in each of the thousands of different organisms on this planet. Yet, a depressing few fossils of pointed times in these seemingly infinite fluid transformations....

No such assumption is made. The conclusion is that the transformation occurred because the pattern of features in the fossil record is consistent with what evolution would produce. It is a conclusion founded on evidence.

Evidence of a common designer.

 

[Loudmouth]

This is a theory. It is not observable, repeatable and certainly not testable.

I just showed you how to test it.

Also, it is observations that are required to be repeatable, not theories.

Perhaps you don't understand how science or the scientific method works?

It predicts things that should or should not be.

That's what makes it testable.

Predictions are not proof.

Predictions that match observations are evidence, however. It is the exact type of evidence that the scientific method requires.

Then, they call it evidence when in actual fact these patterns are evidence for a common designer to the same extent that they are evidence of common ancestor.

I already disproved that claim in this thread:

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/common-design-and-phylogenies.7935135/

Common design does not produce phylogenies. Only common ancestry and evolution does that.

There is no proof. It is all assumption, extrapolation and speculation.

As already shown, it is observable evidence.

Static snap shots of any ongoing event are never going to prove or give enough information to fill in the absolutely huge gaps in the true events of the actual story.

Funny how creationists claim that evolution is false because there are no transitional fossils. As soon as they are shown those transitional fossils, all of the sudden the transitional fossils don't mean anything. Seems a bit dishonest to me.

You have a bunch of fossils that represent, in your mind, billions of years. There should, in fact, be a staggering line of infinite animals for each step in this "transition" you are claiming took place. Think about it. Billions of years, hundreds of thousands of steps and stages in each of the thousands of different organisms on this planet. Yet, a depressing few fossils of pointed times in these seemingly infinite fluid transformations....

Notice how you switch between animals and fossils. That is also extremely dishonest. Just because there are billions of animals does not mean that there should be billions of fossils for those animals.

Evidence of a common designer.

A common designer does not produce phylogenies. Only common ancestry and evolution produce phylogenies.

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/common-design-and-phylogenies.7935135/

 

[Armoured]

Dinosaur means giant lizard and lizards are reptilian...topical characteristics depicted in artistically contrived assumptions can be misleading all "dinosaurs" are reptiles. Non-reptilian "dinosaurs" is a contrived twisting of terms.

Amazing thing, sometimes scientific understanding gets updated. When dinosaurs were first identified, it was believed they were essentially "big lizards ". Now we know more about them, we know there's more to it.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Reptiles are cold blooded, dinosaurs were warm blooded.

We don't know if dinosaurs were warm-blooded or not, or if this would apply to all of them.

 

[pshun2404]

Dinosaurs are not lizards. On top of that, "reptile" is a paraphyletic group which means that it is not a valid classification. You need to use monophyletic groups. Here is a nice page describing the separate groups for lizards and dinosaurs.

http://tolweb.org/Diapsida/14866


Mammals are as much reptiles as dinosaurs are. Mammals have reptilian ancestors, just like dinosaurs do.

That is what the word meant until very recently some want to add new meaning so the theory can appear to be true...(so they can include creatures like birds in the definition....this is a standard technique of propaganda)....obviously THERE IS A DIFFERENCE between lizards and other reptiles...it was a replacement for the word "dragon"

True dinosaurs can (and are) only be reptiles...next they will be widening their vagueness to include prehistoric insects and maybe ancient extinct mammals...

 

[Loudmouth]

That is what the word meant until very recently some want to add new meaning so the theory can appear to be true...(so they can include creatures like birds in the definition....this is a standard technique of propaganda)....obviously THERE IS A DIFFERENCE between lizards and other reptiles...it was a replacement for the word "dragon"

More accurate terminology is not propaganda. It is science.

True dinosaurs can (and are) only be reptiles...

Since reptile is a paraphyletic group, you can include or exclude whatever you want. That's the problem with the term, and why science has moved to cladistics and monophyletic classifications.

 

[AV1611VET]

Science does not claim to be omniscient, but I'll take the bait. Which animals were you thinking of?

Just off the top of my head:

1. satyr
2. unicorn
3. straw-eating lions
4. four-legged grasshoppers
5. fish whales
6. behemoth
7. leviathan

 

[AV1611VET]

Why would science need to explain mythical creatures?

They can't.

And so they can keep their mouths shut about it, as far as I'm concerned.

For example, the Bible says Jonah was swallowed by a ...

Jonah 1:17 Now the LORD had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.

Yet Jesus calls it a ...

Matthew 12:40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

Let's see science explain that without disrespecting the Scriptures.

 

[Chris B]

.
For example, the Bible says Jonah was swallowed by a ...
Jonah 1:17 Now the LORD had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.
Yet Jesus calls it a ...

Matthew 12:40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly...;

Let's see science explain that without disrespecting the Scriptures.

I'd have to do some work to even make a case there was something needing any explaining.
If the word translated into English as "fish" and the one translated as "whale" had, in Jesus' time, overlapping meanings there isn't an issue at all.
That we, nowadays, distinguish aquatic mammals from fish isn't of itself relevant.

Words do odd things across languages, and in a single language across time.
That makes attempting to score points by variation in translation, given language drift over hundreds of years and variations in culture over thousands of years, something to be attempted slowly and carefully if it's to be attempted at all.

Similarly anyone picking issues with "brass" instead of (very probably) "bronze" in the KJV is not on such safe ground as to instantly make a deeply telling point.
That would take work, and there's a fair chance the "issue" would simply vanish with better understanding of what words meant then and now.

Chris

 

[PsychoSarah]

Just off the top of my head:

1. satyr

1. unicorn
2. straw-eating lions
3. four-legged grasshoppers
4. fish whales
5. behemoth
6. leviathan

Unicorn = rhino seen at a distance... which is the best way to see these walking tanks and survive the encounter.

fish whale = language changes over time, so where previously there wasn't a specific word for whale, there was one later.

behemoth = actual creature, with size exaggerated. Perhaps a woolly mammoth or an elephant.

leviathan = actual sea creature, with size exaggerated.

straw eating lions = while carnivory doesn't predate Noah's flood in the bible, the lions only explicitly eat straw during the end times, and could have eaten something else before the flood. Something I am shocked that no creationist ever suggests: that there used to be plants with fruit much like meat (in terms of nutrients) that depended on animals that would later become predators to pollinate them, which went extinct when those animals became pure carnivores. There are plants even now that are dependent upon single species to pollinate them. One that is at risk of going extinct is a long-lived plant that relied upon dodoes to spread its seeds (which require being passed through the gut of a dodo to germinate). Now, human intervention is the only way this plant can survive long term.

4-legged grasshoppers: I don't know, the legs might have been miscounted.