Bible and science?

[nolidad]

No. It's a modern revision of scripture, no older than the last century. In the early years of the 20th century, most creationists were old Earth creationists. In the 19th century, the creationist Baptist Charles Spurgeon wrote:
"But if you will look in the first chapter of Genesis, you will see there more particularly set forth that peculiar operation of power upon the universe which was put forth by the Holy Spirit; you will then discover what was his special work. In Ge 1:2, we read, “And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” We do not know how remote the period of the creation of this globe may be—certainly many millions of years before the time of Adam. Our planet has passed through various stages of existence, and different kinds of creatures have lived on its surface, all of which have been fashioned by God"
Sermon No. 30 The Power of the Holy Ghost



Nothing in Genesis rules out billions of years. Nor has thousands of years ever been Christian orthodoxy.

You are simply wrong! Israel has its own calendar based on the supposed date of creation! the early church held to Jewish beliefs well into the dark ages! Ages old earth is the new concept. It was just a given that he universe was fairly young. It did not become a vocal issue until the naturalists started attacking Christian orthodoxy!

I love Spurgeon- He still is the preacher of preachers, but He was affected by the new found belief system of evolution. Also he is a man and not Scripture.

Even giving the most liberal misinterpretation of Genesis 1:1-2 (gap or ruin/restoration theory) That would give the universe and earth billions of years- but life as only thousands! Even giving the largest gaps hypothesized in the genealogies it would place creation of life at the oldest as 10K years!

I haven't forgotten answering the larger post in the other thread. As it will take quite a bit of time- I have to place it on hold till I have enough of a block of time to answer.

 

[The Barbarian]

You are simply wrong!

No, I'm correct. You've assumed your wishes are the same as God's word.

Israel has its own calendar based on the supposed date of creation!

But they now recognize that it no more reflects reality than their former believe that the sky is a solid dome with holes in it for rain to fall through.

the early church held to Jewish beliefs well into the dark ages!

But by 400 AD, they realized that the "yom" of Genesis did not represent literal days.

Ages old earth is the new concept.

As is a literal creation week. The early Christians had no evidence for a very old Earth. That came later. But they already recognized that the creation "days" were not literal ones.

This didn't become an issue until the Seventh Day Adventists invented YE creationism in the last century. Prior to that time, most creationists recognized an old Earth.

I love Spurgeon- He still is the preacher of preachers, but He was affected by the new found belief system of evolution.

Since the Bible did not say how old the Earth is, Spurgeon merely accepted the evidence that scientists had uncovered. I do not know if he also recognized evolution. They are two entirely different things.

Also he is a man and not Scripture.

As were the Adventists who invented YE creationism. The difference is, Spurgeon did not have to change scripture to fit his belief in millions of years, while the Adventists had to revise scripture to make it fit their YE beliefs.

Even giving the most liberal misinterpretation of Genesis 1:1-2 (life ex nihilo YE), the evidence from scripture itself won't fit you new doctrines.

I haven't forgotten answering the larger post in the other thread.

The best defense Christians have against the creationist's Gish Gallop, is to take the time to refute the mass of erroneous claims at once. It takes some time, but the creationist posting them, is generally unwilling to follow up. Perhaps you should pick one of those and try to defend it.

 

[nolidad]

Wasn't the ocean. However, we do see that happening to other fish, today. There are fish today that leave salt water, and walk on land, even climb trees. There happens to be a niche open, and some of them evolved to fill it.



You were misled, once again. Technically, the birdlike dinosaurs were mesotherms, capable of regulating their temperatures when active, and lowering their temperatures when inactive, somewhat like monotreme mammals today:
The work stakes out a rare middle ground in the long-running debate over whether dinosaurs were ‘cold-blooded’ ectotherms, which use the environment to adjust their internal temperature, or ‘warm-blooded’ endotherms, which regulate their body temperature from within. “There’s a third way,” says John Grady, a biologist at the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque.


Today, that middle ground is occupied by animals including tuna, lamnid sharks and leatherback turtles. Studying how those creatures control their body heat might help to reveal how dinosaurs did it millions of years ago, Grady says. Mesotherms burn energy from within to regulate their body heat, but not to a constant temperature as a mammal or bird would do. Tuna, for instance, stay up to 20 °C warmer than the surrounding water, except when they dive deep into colder waters, when their metabolic rate can also plunge.
Dinosaurs neither warm-blooded nor cold-blooded

Primitive mammals are mesotherms:

Here's another interesting fact about echidnas: they're not warm-blooded! At least, they're not warm-blooded in the sense of most mammals. But they're not cold-blooded either. In fact, they're classified as mesotherms. Mesothermic animals are rather rare today, but, by a more layman definition, are animals rather in between warm and cold-blooded.



Finding of quill knobs on fossilized velociraptor bone demonstrates that even large dinosaurs were feathered and may have descended from animals capable of flight. Scientists have known for years that many dinosaurs had feathers. Now the presence of feathers has been documented in velociraptor, one of the most iconic of dinosaurs and a close relative of birds.
Velociraptor Had Feathers



Birds evolved from dinosaurs, most paleontologists agree. But there are big questions about just how similar the large dinosaurs really were to today's eagles and hawks.


Experts still argue whether dinosaurs were hot-blooded, agile and active like the cunning predators in "Jurassic Park" or, as scientists at U.C. Berkeley phrase the old conventional view, "sluggish and stupid."


A new study finds an important bird trait embedded in dinosaur bones that argues for the more nimble view.


Big meat-eating dinosaurs had a complex system of air sacs similar to the setup in today's birds, according to an investigation led by Patrick O'Connor of Ohio University. The lungs of theropod dinosaurs -- carnivores that walked on two legs and had bird-like feet -- likely pumped air into hollow sacs in their skeletons, as is the case in birds.


"What was once formally considered unique to birds was present in some form in the ancestors of birds," O'Connor said.
Dinosaurs Breathed Like Birds



Discoveries in the last quarter-century have not been kind to Al Feduccia's ideas. Even most ornithologists don't accept his ideas now.



The movement of the upper limbs in bipedal predators aided balance. The same muscles and movements in birds permit flight. Like so many other things, evolution used what was already there.

But nature and natural selection and environmental pressure cannot direct mutations. They have no thought processes. They are concepts to describe unintelligent actions.

As for meso therms- they cannot prove that. You need a living sample to know! And if and that is still a big if there were feathered dinos (there still is a huge debate among-st evolutionary ornithologists) that just kicks the can down the road! somewhere there had to be that long slow micro mutation process over eons of time and changing from scales to feathers would kill the host! Once the follicle was formed sub dermally and a quill broached the derma- the scales would no longer be an active exothermic heat absorption method as there are now tears and rips in the scales. It also could not survive as an endothermic creature as the feathers were not formed and sealed to trap heat in the body (if it had changed its metabolism that is). Also scales and feathers are two different types of keratin- so we need them extinct little buggers to first change keratin production!

You: "Discoveries in the last quarter-century have not been kind to Al Feduccia's ideas. Even most ornithologists don't accept his ideas now."

Is there some poll you have seen that is out there? Granted he is retired but I have not heard his work greatly overturned.



You: "You were misled, once again. Technically, the birdlike dinosaurs were mesotherms, capable of regulating their temperatures when active, and lowering their temperatures when inactive, somewhat like monotreme mammals today:"

That is simply incorrect. There is debate, but there will not ever know this until they find living dinosaurs. They interject their presuppositional concepts without actual evidence! Because they know that gong from cold blooded (as evidenced by scales) to wart blooded (as evidenced by feathers) is lethal to the creature!


You: "The lungs of theropod dinosaurs -- carnivores that walked on two legs and had bird-like feet -- likely pumped air into hollow sacs in their skeletons, as is the case in birds.

You have been lied to!

Short and sweet: "The avian respiratory system is different from that of other vertebrates, with birds having relatively small lungs plus air sacs that play an important role in respiration (but are not directly involved in the exchange of gases). The air sacs permit a unidirectional flow ofair through the lungs."

The hollow bone of avians are for flight- the air sacs are in the lungs not the bones!
And fossilized bones do not give us knowledge of inner anatomy! You should know that! Only conjecture based on presuppositional bias.

 

[The Barbarian]

So the cool of the day in creation week creation was was really billions of cool years.

You're confusing the creation parable with the parable of man's fall. That reference is not part of the creation story. One way to improve your understanding, would be to occasionally read from the Bible.

Were men really men

If they were Texans, they were. Hope you figure it all out.

 

[The Barbarian]

But nature and natural selection and environmental pressure cannot direct mutations.

They can only determine which creatures will tend to live long enough to reproduce. Which is all that is necessary for evolution to work.

As for meso therms- they cannot prove that.

They have. It's not arguable.

You need a living sample to know!

Nope. Haversian canals indicate a vigorous high-energy lifestyle. Bipedal dinosaurs build for running would have been mesotherms. The presence of avian respiratory systems would indicate a need for lots of oxygen.

And if and that is still a big if there were feathered dinos

We have numerous fossils of them. No point in denying the fact.

(there still is a huge debate among-st evolutionary ornithologists)

You probably don't want to endorse their ideas. They think dinosaurs had feathers because dinosaurs are birds that lost the ability to fly. In Feduccia's view, birds and dinosaurs had a common thecodont ancestor.

somewhere there had to be that long slow micro mutation process over eons of time and changing from scales to feathers would kill the host!

In fact, scutes (scales found on birds, dinosaurs, and crocodiles) can be induced to form feathers. Feathers and scutes are genetically, chemically, and anatomically very similar, and now we know that they are just variations of the same feature.

It has been thought that feathers evolved from the scales of reptiles, but while recent research suggests that while there is a definite relationship between these structures, the exact origin of feathers remains uncertain (Prum and Brush 2002). Experiments show that the same protein (when missing before birth) that causes bird feet to stay webbed, causes bird scutes and scales to become feathers (Poling 1996).
Feather - New World Encyclopedia


Once the follicle was formed sub dermally and a quill broached the derma- the scales would no longer be an active exothermic heat absorption method as there are now tears and rips in the scales. It also could not survive as an endothermic creature as the feathers were not formed and sealed to trap heat in the body (if it had changed its metabolism that is). Also scales and feathers are two different types of keratin- so we need them extinct little buggers to first change keratin production

You've been given some false information:

J Submicrosc Cytol Pathol. 2006 Jun-Sep;38(2-3):175-92.
Beta-keratin localization in developing alligator scales and feathers in relation to the development and evolution of feathers.
Abstract
Beta-keratins form large part of the corneous material of scales and feathers. The present immunocytochemical study describes the fine distribution of scale- and feather-keratins (beta-keratins) in embryonic scales of the alligator and in avian embryonic feathers. In embryonic scales of the alligator both scale-keratin and feather-keratin can be immunolocalized, especially in the subperiderm layer. No immunolabeling for feather keratin is instead present in the adult scale after the embryonic epidermis is lost. The embryonic epidermis of feather folds into barb ridges while subperiderm or subsheath cells are displaced into two barbule plates joined to the central ramus. Subperiderm cells react with an antibody against feather keratin and with lower intensity with an antibody against scale keratin. The axial plate is colonized by barb ridge vane cells, which surround subperiderm cells that become barb/barbule cells. The latter cells merge into a branched syncitium and form the micro ramification of feathers. The lengthening of barbule cells derives from the polymerization of feather keratin into long bundles coursing along the main axis of cells. Keratin bundles in feather cells are however ordered in parallel rows while those of scales in both alligator and birds are irregularly packed. This observation indicates a different modality of aggregation and molecular structure between the feather keratin of subperiderm cells versus that of barbule/barbs. Barb vane ridge cells among barbule cells degenerate at late stage of feather development leaving spaces that separate barbules. Barb vane ridge cells contain alpha-keratin and lipids, but not beta-keratin. Cells of marginal plates do not contain beta-keratin, and later degenerate allowing the separation of barbs. The latter become isolated only after sloughing of the sheath, which cells contain bundle of keratin not reactive for both scale- and feather-keratin antibodies. The study confirms morphological observations and shows that subperiderm or subsheath cells differentiate into barb and barbule cells. The morphogenesis of barb ridges has to be considered as an evolutionary novelty that permitted the evolution of feathers from a generalized archosaurian embryonic epidermis.


Barbarian observes:
Discoveries in the last quarter-century have not been kind to Al Feduccia's ideas. Even most ornithologists don't accept his ideas now."

Is there some poll you have seen that is out there? Granted he is retired but I have not heard his work greatly overturned.

The evidence was compelling and it certainly looked as if paleontologists finally had the evidencethey dreamed of to prove that birds were directly related to dinosaurs. But as if in a predictable fashion,not all scientists were convinced and some notable ornithologists were left very skeptical that the featherycovering was real. Even when a second specimen of Sinosauropteryx turned up again with the feathery covering, a dissenting few remained outspokenly critical.
http://dinosaur-museum.org/featheredinosaurs/Are_Birds_Really_Dinosaurs.pdf

Barbarian observes:
You were misled, once again. Technically, the birdlike dinosaurs were mesotherms, capable of regulating their temperatures when active, and lowering their temperatures when inactive, somewhat like monotreme mammals today

That is simply incorrect.

Nope. You're completely wrong. Physiologists are quite capable identifying features that warm-blooded organisms have. And we see them in fossil birds and dinosaurs.

The lungs of theropod dinosaurs -- carnivores that walked on two legs and had bird-like feet -- likely pumped air into hollow sacs in their skeletons, as is the case in birds.

You have been lied to!

Nope. But you have:

Short and sweet: "The avian respiratory system is different from that of other vertebrates, with birds having relatively small lungs plus air sacs that play an important role in respiration (but are not directly involved in the exchange of gases). The air sacs permit a unidirectional flow ofair through the lungs."

The hollow bone of avians are for flight- the air sacs are in the lungs not the bones!

Nope:
Respiratory air sacs often form air pockets within the semi-hollow bones of the bird's skeleton. ... Penguins, loons, and puffins are without pneumatized bones entirely. Flightless birds, such as ostriches and emus, have pneumatized femurs and, in the case of the emu, pneumatized cervical vertebrae.
Bird anatomy - Wikipedia

And fossilized bones do not give us knowledge of inner anatomy!

You're wrong once again...

"Bones that are in contact with air sacs exhibit a unique structure composed of very fine and densely packed fibers," Filippo Bertozzo, a researcher at the University of Bonn, said in a news release. "After it turned out that this was true both in modern birds and extinct dinosaurs, we proposed to name this special kind of bony tissue 'pneumosteum.'"


Follow-up studies revealed the presence of the unique bony tissue on the cervical vertebrae of gigantic sauropods.


"Such cavities had already previously been hypothesized as potential locations of air sacs, but only our microscopic analysis now provides convincing arguments for this," said Markus Lambertz, a researcher at Bonn's Institute for Zoology.
Pneumatized bones help scientists study the evolution of breathing in birds and dinsoaurs

Your presuppositional bias once again has let you down.

 

[dad]

You're confusing the creation parable with the parable of man's fall. That reference is not part of the creation story. .

Parable? Adam was a parable..or real? Be clear.

The creation story includes what happened to created life and the world after being created.

 

[The Barbarian]

Parable? Adam was a parable..or real? Be clear.

So your confusion is in supposing that real people can't be in parables?

 

[dad]

So your confusion is in supposing that real people can't be in parables?

No. I am pointing out that you are not clear. Why even mention parables regarding Adam or the garden or creation etc? If your idea of some parable exists or not it doesn't change the facts. You seem to feel that a tree or a man or a day can be whatever you think you need it to have been, and when pressed, you mention parables..as if that helps you.

You ain't deep you just ain't clear.

 

[nolidad]

"No, I'm correct. You've assumed your wishes are the same as God's word."

No I know Scripture, the ante nicene fathers works and the jewish mindset- you are absolutely wrong and saying you are right over an over only makes you more wrong!


"But they now recognize that it no more reflects reality than their former believe that the sky is a solid dome with holes in it for rain to fall through."

I do not care what they think now- I just proved you were wrong that a Young Earth was not orthodoxy.


"But by 400 AD, they realized that the "yom" of Genesis did not represent literal days."

Thanks to Augustine and the introduction of the allegorical interpretation.

I will stand by Scripture- "there was an evening and a morning a first "yom". God made it clear to protect us from deception.



"As is a literal creation week. The early Christians had no evidence for a very old Earth. That came later. But they already recognized that the creation "days" were not literal ones.

This didn't become an issue until the Seventh Day Adventists invented YE creationism in the last century. Prior to that time, most creationists recognized an old Earth. "

Wrong again! It was the accepted norm. It came to teh forefront becaue of the naturalists launching attacks against teh plain reading of Scripture.



"Since the Bible did not say how old the Earth is, Spurgeon merely accepted the evidence that scientists had uncovered. I do not know if he also recognized evolution. They are two entirely different things."

Alleged to have uncovered.


"As were the Adventists who invented YE creationism. The difference is, Spurgeon did not have to change scripture to fit his belief in millions of years, while the Adventists had to revise scripture to make it fit their YE beliefs.

Even giving the most liberal misinterpretation of Genesis 1:1-2 (life ex nihilo YE), the evidence from scripture itself won't fit you new doctrines."


Wong again! Spurgeon had to if he believed in millions of years! I guess you are not reading the Bible for your Scripture. For it clearly shows life sprang ex-Deo when He called it into existence!


"The best defense Christians have against the creationist's Gish Gallop"

Ah I have missed that old worn out phrase! I see you have been drinking at talkorigins.

 

[nolidad]

"ou were misled, once again. Technically, the birdlike dinosaurs were mesotherms, capable of regulating their temperatures when active, and lowering their temperatures when inactive, somewhat like monotreme mammals today:
The work stakes out a rare middle ground in the long-running debate over whether dinosaurs were ‘cold-blooded’ ectotherms, which use the environment to adjust their internal temperature, or ‘warm-blooded’ endotherms, which regulate their body temperature from within. “There’s a third way,” says John Grady, a biologist at the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque."


Wrong again. first off "mesotherms" are extremely rare. We do not have the organs and living dinos to research that! that is just conjecture by an evolutionist without empirical evidence. Your article is filled with hypothetical without evidence.


You: "Finding of quill knobs on fossilized velociraptor bone demonstrates that even large dinosaurs were feathered and may have descended from animals capable of flight. Scientists have known for years that many dinosaurs had feathers. Now the presence of feathers has been documented in velociraptor, one of the most iconic of dinosaurs and a close relative of birds."

They may indicate and may be indirect evidence of feathers in dinos! May is a big guess word.
Once Again Feduccia in 2009 did experiments and showed that the filament like structures found on fossils that "could be" protofeathers are more inclined to be frayed and decayed skin!

 

[The Barbarian]

No. I am pointing out that you are not clear. Why even mention parables regarding Adam or the garden or creation etc?

Because if you try to change them into literal history, you get logical absurdities like mornings and evenings without a sun to have them.

Your denial of parables doesn't change the facts. You're neither deep nor clear. Obfuscation is the creationist's friend.

 

[The Barbarian]

You were misled, once again. Technically, the birdlike dinosaurs were mesotherms, capable of regulating their temperatures when active, and lowering their temperatures when inactive, somewhat like monotreme mammals today:

The work stakes out a rare middle ground in the long-running debate over whether dinosaurs were ‘cold-blooded’ ectotherms, which use the environment to adjust their internal temperature, or ‘warm-blooded’ endotherms, which regulate their body temperature from within. “There’s a third way,” says John Grady, a biologist at the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque."

Wrong again.

As you just learned, I'm right.

first off "mesotherms" are extremely rare.

No, you're wrong once again...

While extant mesotherms are relatively rare, good examples include tuna, lamnid sharks (e.g., the Great White Shark), the leatherback sea turtle, some species of bee,[4], naked mole rats, the hyrax, and the various monotremes.
Mesotherm - Wikipedia

We do not have the organs and living dinos to research that!

As you learned, dinosaur bones show warm-bloodedness, and the anatomy of many dinosaurs show a vigrous, high-energy lifestyle. Some even fly. So you're wrong once more.

Barbarian observes:
Finding of quill knobs on fossilized velociraptor bone demonstrates that even large dinosaurs were feathered and may have descended from animals capable of flight. Scientists have known for years that many dinosaurs had feathers. Now the presence of feathers has been documented in velociraptor, one of the most iconic of dinosaurs and a close relative of birds."

They may indicate and may be indirect evidence of feathers in dinos!

Direct evidence. Only feathered organisms have quill knobs. They may have descended from animals capable off flight.

May is a big guess word.

But "demonstrates" is not . Nice try.

Once Again Feduccia in 2009 did experiments and showed that the filament like structures found on fossils that "could be" protofeathers are more inclined to be frayed and decayed skin!

I asked you to show us what these supposed "experiments" were and you declined to support your claim. So we concluded that you made the story up.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
No, I'm correct. You've assumed your wishes are the same as God's word."

No

Yes. Your new revision of scripture is not God's word.

Barbarian observes:
But they now recognize that it no more reflects reality than their former believe that the sky is a solid dome with holes in it for rain to fall through.

I do not care what they think now

Nor do Christians care what you think. As you learned, YE was never Chrsitian orthodoxy.

I will stand by Scripture

You're standing by your modern revision of scripture.

This didn't become an issue until the Seventh Day Adventists invented YE creationism in the last century. Prior to that time, most creationists recognized an old Earth. "

It was the accepted norm.

Nope. Prior to the Seventh-Day Adventists changing scripture, most creationists were OE creationists. Like Spurgeon. The creationism presented at the Scopes Trial was OE.


YE came to the forefront because of the Adventists launching attacks against the plain reading of Scripture.

The Lords believed that capitulation to modern geology with its call for long ages undermined biblical authority and the Christian faith. Also significant were the teachings of Ellen Gould White (1827-1915), the founder of Seventh-day Adventism, who claimed to have visions from God about the creation of the world in six literal days as well as of a global Deluge that buried all life and produced the fossils. [White, Spiritual Gifts (1864)] White’s teachings and attitudes toward geology profoundly shaped not only Seventh-day Adventist thought but also the twentieth-century young-Earth creationist movement
...
The Flood geology movement in America has steadily gathered momentum throughout the twentieth century. Ronald Numbers, a historian of science at the University of Wisconsin and a former Seventh-day Adventist, has shown that much of the impetus for the resurgence of Flood geology can be traced to the influence of Seventh-day Adventist founder Ellen Gould White (1827-1915). The major spokesman for Flood geology in the early decades of the century was self-taught Seventh-day Adventist “geologist” George McCready Price (1870-1963), who authored several books that defended catastrophic geology and attacked standard geologic theory.
The Bible, Rocks, and Time: Christians and an Old Earth - Articles

Since the Bible did not say how old the Earth is, Spurgeon merely accepted the evidence that scientists had uncovered. I do not know if he also recognized evolution. They are two entirely different things.

Alleged to have uncovered.

Honest creationists admit the fact.

Q. What information would you think of that
would lead you to conclude as a scientific matter that
the earth was millions of years old?

A. What information can I think of that would
lead me to think that the earth was millions of years
old?

Q. Yes.

A. Radioactive dating.

Q. I'm sorry. That would lead you to believe that the earth was
millions of years old?

A. That could lead me to believe that.
...
Q. Do you believe it has been in existence for
less than 500 million years?

A. My personal belief is that. As far as scienti-
fic evidence is concerned, there wouldn't be any direct
evidence on it.

Q. And there is no direct evidence that it's less
than 500 million years?

A. That is right.
...

"Q: The Burgess Shale is said to be 500 million years old, but you think it is only 5,000 years old, don't you?

COFFIN: Yes.

Q: You say that because of information from the Scriptures, don't you?

COFFIN: Correct.

Q: If you didn't have the Bible, you could believe the age of the earth to be many millions of years, couldn't you?

COFFIN: Yes, without the Bible."
YE creationist Harold Coffin
(Trial transcript, McLean v Arkansas, cited in Berra, 1990, p. 135)

The difference is, Spurgeon did not have to change scripture to fit his belief in millions of years, while the Adventists had to revise scripture to make it fit their YE beliefs.

Even giving the most liberal misinterpretation of Genesis 1:1-2 (life ex nihilo YE), the evidence from scripture itself won't fit you new doctrines."

Spurgeon had to if he believed in millions of years! I guess you are not reading the Bible for your Scripture. For it clearly shows life sprang ex-Deo when He called it into existence!

You must not have the Bible used by Christians. It says that earth, water, and air brought forth living things, as God willed.

The best defense Christians have against the creationist's Gish Gallop is to patiently take down their false claims one at a time.

 

[nolidad]

Barbarian observes:
No, I'm correct. You've assumed your wishes are the same as God's word."



Yes. Your new revision of scripture is not God's word.

Barbarian observes:
But they now recognize that it no more reflects reality than their former believe that the sky is a solid dome with holes in it for rain to fall through.



Nor do Christians care what you think. As you learned, YE was never Chrsitian orthodoxy.



You're standing by your modern revision of scripture.

This didn't become an issue until the Seventh Day Adventists invented YE creationism in the last century. Prior to that time, most creationists recognized an old Earth. "



Nope. Prior to the Seventh-Day Adventists changing scripture, most creationists were OE creationists. Like Spurgeon. The creationism presented at the Scopes Trial was OE.


YE came to the forefront because of the Adventists launching attacks against the plain reading of Scripture.

The Lords believed that capitulation to modern geology with its call for long ages undermined biblical authority and the Christian faith. Also significant were the teachings of Ellen Gould White (1827-1915), the founder of Seventh-day Adventism, who claimed to have visions from God about the creation of the world in six literal days as well as of a global Deluge that buried all life and produced the fossils. [White, Spiritual Gifts (1864)] White’s teachings and attitudes toward geology profoundly shaped not only Seventh-day Adventist thought but also the twentieth-century young-Earth creationist movement
...
The Flood geology movement in America has steadily gathered momentum throughout the twentieth century. Ronald Numbers, a historian of science at the University of Wisconsin and a former Seventh-day Adventist, has shown that much of the impetus for the resurgence of Flood geology can be traced to the influence of Seventh-day Adventist founder Ellen Gould White (1827-1915). The major spokesman for Flood geology in the early decades of the century was self-taught Seventh-day Adventist “geologist” George McCready Price (1870-1963), who authored several books that defended catastrophic geology and attacked standard geologic theory.
The Bible, Rocks, and Time: Christians and an Old Earth - Articles

Since the Bible did not say how old the Earth is, Spurgeon merely accepted the evidence that scientists had uncovered. I do not know if he also recognized evolution. They are two entirely different things.



Honest creationists admit the fact.

Q. What information would you think of that
would lead you to conclude as a scientific matter that
the earth was millions of years old?

A. What information can I think of that would
lead me to think that the earth was millions of years
old?

Q. Yes.

A. Radioactive dating.

Q. I'm sorry. That would lead you to believe that the earth was
millions of years old?

A. That could lead me to believe that.
...
Q. Do you believe it has been in existence for
less than 500 million years?

A. My personal belief is that. As far as scienti-
fic evidence is concerned, there wouldn't be any direct
evidence on it.

Q. And there is no direct evidence that it's less
than 500 million years?

A. That is right.
...

"Q: The Burgess Shale is said to be 500 million years old, but you think it is only 5,000 years old, don't you?

COFFIN: Yes.

Q: You say that because of information from the Scriptures, don't you?

And it is still ex-Deo! god commanded the waters to bring forth and they did

COFFIN: Correct.

Q: If you didn't have the Bible, you could believe the age of the earth to be many millions of years, couldn't you?

COFFIN: Yes, without the Bible."
YE creationist Harold Coffin
(Trial transcript, McLean v Arkansas, cited in Berra, 1990, p. 135)

The difference is, Spurgeon did not have to change scripture to fit his belief in millions of years, while the Adventists had to revise scripture to make it fit their YE beliefs.

Even giving the most liberal misinterpretation of Genesis 1:1-2 (life ex nihilo YE), the evidence from scripture itself won't fit you new doctrines."



You must not have the Bible used by Christians. It says that earth, water, and air brought forth living things, as God willed.

The best defense Christians have against the creationist's Gish Gallop is to patiently take down their false claims one at a time.

You just love being wrong!



I do not let my wishes be Gods Word
]


And yet you have no ancient believers writings to show that they believed the same way the pagan cultures do which we have writings. They did not have todays complex understanding, nor did they have a large vocabulary.


You are simply wrong! The standard orthodoxy was a young earth. It wasn't until the 19th century that old earth started to become popular at all! But you know that already.


At scopes 7 day creation was defended.


I can't speak for Ellen White- I can acknowledge that Henry Morris is the modern founder of Scientific Creationism.


Spurgeon accepted the "apparent" evidence. Even Rev. Grey did and started the theistic evolution movement.

Show where the 7th day adventists changed Scripture. if you make an allegation cite the evidence.
Genesis 1 clearly shows 6 24 hour days of creation! As the Jews believed and the church held until the birth of naturalism in the 19th century.

Young-Earth Creationist View Summarized And Defended


I noticed you picked a trial before the discoveries that radio dating is fatally flawed as a chronometer by empirical research.

Some Creationists believed in an old earth. But the science done by both YEC and evolutionary scientists all confirm radio decay is easily accelerated!

And I am sure you can find creationists today that would accept the ruin/restoration theory and thus acknowledge an old earth despite the evidence.


And it is still ex-Deo! God commanded the waters to bring forth abundantly and they did- Water did not create life-God did! I use the same bible- I just recognize the prime cause-God! But nice try!

 

[The Barbarian]

You just love being wrong

Well, let's take a look at that...

I do not let my wishes be Gods Word

You have declared your wishes to be God's word.

And yet you have no ancient believers writings to show that they believed the same way the pagan cultures do which we have writings.

As you learned, even in 450 AD, Christians knew that Genesis was not a literal history.

They did not have todays complex understanding, nor did they have a large vocabulary.

Yes. Although Augustine and his fellow Christians knew that Genesis was not a literal history, he did not realize how old the Earth was. However, he cautioned his fellow Christians to be willing to amend their interpretations of scripture, if new knowledge showed them to be wrong.

You are simply wrong!

As you learned, Augustine tried for a long time to interpret Genesis as a literal history, and finally admitted that it could not be done.

It wasn't until the 19th century that old earth started to become popular at all!

St. Augustine is a highly respected theologian in Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant branches of Christianity. They took his advice, and when the evidence clearly showed an ancient earth, they adjusted their interpretations of Genesis accordingly.

At scopes 7 day creation was defended.

Nope:

The trial judge had prohibited the defense from using scientists as witnesses. So, on the trial's seventh day, the defense team called Bryan to testify as an expert on the Bible. Darrow subjected Bryan to a withering cross-examination. He got Bryan to say that Creation was not completed in a week, but over a period of time that "might have continued for millions of years."
Digital History

I can't speak for Ellen White- I can acknowledge that Henry Morris is the modern founder of Scientific Creationism.

No, that's wrong. Morris was proselytized by George McCready Price, an adventist missionary, and taught the Seventh-Day Adventist doctrine of YE. Morris then spread this new doctrine among evangelicals:

The central foundation behind the “science” of creation science is a specific kind of flood geology where all of the layered sedimentary rocks around the world are remnant global flood deposits. All of today’s young earth creationists hinge their entire arguments in the evolution/creation controversy around this claim, which can be traced directly to Henry Morris’ and John Whitcomb’s 1961 book, The Genesis Flood. The following are excerpts from my book discussing this and revealing Morris’ deception upon fellow Christians:

Ellen G. Harmon (1827-1925) with her soon-to-be husband, James White, teamed up with Joseph Bates, and founded the Seventh-day Adventist Church, an offshoot of the Millerites. …Ellen White quickly became the spiritual leader of the church, and today is revered as a prophet. Ellen White claimed to have upwards of 2,000 visions from God with her first occurring just after The Great Disappointment in 1844. One particular vision was the beginning of creation. She states,


“I was then carried back to the creation and was shown that the first week, in which God performed the work of creation in six days and rested on the seventh day, was just like every other week.”


She then states that fossils were the result of the flood,


“[humans, animals, and trees] were buried, and thus preserved as an evidence to later generations that the antediluvians perished by a flood. God designed that the discovery of these things should establish faith in inspired history; but…the things which God gave them [i.e., to us humans] as a benefit, they turn into a curse by making a wrong use of them [scientists].”

Spurgeon accepted the "apparent" evidence. Even Rev. Grey did and started the theistic evolution movement.

One particular early twentieth century creationist, George McCready Price (1870-1963), was the key anti-evolution creationist most influential to today’s young earth anti-evolution creationist movement even though his beliefs were considered on the fringe by fundamentalists at the time. Price promoted what he called Flood Geology. He claimed that geologists were completely wrong about the geologic history of the layered sedimentary rocks and the fossils they contained. While geologists were claiming that sedimentary rocks are the result of sediment (sand, clay, mud, etc.) being deposited and buried over millions of years, Price was claiming that they were flood sediments from Noah’s global deluge approximately 4,000 years ago. The fossils were remnants of creatures that died during the global flood. He believed the Earth was created in 4004 BC just as Ussher had calculated using biblical chronology.
...
“At last, in the late 1950’s, a breakthrough occurred. John C. Whitcomb, Jr. (b. 1924), a theologian at Grace Theological Seminary (Winona Lake, Indiana) of the Grace Brethren denomination, and Henry M. Morris (b. 1918), a hydraulic engineer of Southern Baptist background, had each been moving in a creationist direction for quite a while before finding confirmation in Price’s work. Each was also disturbed by a book published in 1954 by the evangelical Baptist theologian, Bernard Ramm, The Christian View of Science and Scripture… Soon after Whitcomb and Morris met each other they published The Genesis Flood (1961), an updating of Price’s work, but one that, because of Whitcomb’s theological contribution and Morris’ scientific expertise, made Price’s points more persuasively.”

Morris and Whitcomb repackaged Prices’ discarded flood geology creationism into something that the fundamentalist and evangelical community finally embraced. The Genesis Flood was an instant success with 29 reprints and sales in excess of 200,000 by the 1980’s. It became the scientific support and justification for the belief in young earth creationism, especially since this movement was named creation science. One reason for its success, besides the more refined methods of persuasion in the book, is because Morris came from the mainline Baptist community rather than the fringe Seventh-day Adventist community as did Price. This made it more palatable for mainstream evangelicals.
Henry Morris' Deception

Show where the 7th day adventists changed Scripture.

See above. They changed the way many evangelicals interpreted Scripture. YE is a Seventh-Day Adventist belief.

if you make an allegation cite the evidence.

Genesis 1 clearly shows 6 24 hour days of creation!

As you now realize, that was never Christian orthodoxy. Even in 450 AD, they knew better.

I noticed you picked a trial before the discoveries that radio dating is fatally flawed as a chronometer by empirical research.

You've already seen that it's accurate and that the "flaws" supposedly discovered by creationists were actually their apparently deliberiate inclusion of ancient rock in their samples to make them inaccurate. On the other hand, argon/argon testing accurately dated the eruption that buried Pompeii. C'mon.

Some Creationists believed in an old earth. But the science done by both YEC and evolutionary scientists all confirm radio decay is easily accelerated!

You were already shown that if decay had been accelerated at rates that would significantly shorten the Earth's lifetime, the resulting increase in radiation would have killed all life. And the only increases in rates found so far, involve huge energies only found in labs. You already know this; why continue with that story?

(Barbarian notes that the YEC story of "life ex nihilo" is false)

And it is still ex-Deo!

God created all things. He created you, for example. He just uses nature to create life. That's what He says in Genesis. The earth, waters, and air brought forth living things, as He intended.

Water did not create life

It brought forth life, as God created it to do. That's what He says in Genesis. C'mon.

 

[nolidad]

Well, let's take a look at that...



You have declared your wishes to be God's word.



As you learned, even in 450 AD, Christians knew that Genesis was not a literal history.



Yes. Although Augustine and his fellow Christians knew that Genesis was not a literal history, he did not realize how old the Earth was. However, he cautioned his fellow Christians to be willing to amend their interpretations of scripture, if new knowledge showed them to be wrong.



As you learned, Augustine tried for a long time to interpret Genesis as a literal history, and finally admitted that it could not be done.



St. Augustine is a highly respected theologian in Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant branches of Christianity. They took his advice, and when the evidence clearly showed an ancient earth, they adjusted their interpretations of Genesis accordingly.



Nope:

The trial judge had prohibited the defense from using scientists as witnesses. So, on the trial's seventh day, the defense team called Bryan to testify as an expert on the Bible. Darrow subjected Bryan to a withering cross-examination. He got Bryan to say that Creation was not completed in a week, but over a period of time that "might have continued for millions of years."
Digital History



No, that's wrong. Morris was proselytized by George McCready Price, an adventist missionary, and taught the Seventh-Day Adventist doctrine of YE. Morris then spread this new doctrine among evangelicals:

The central foundation behind the “science” of creation science is a specific kind of flood geology where all of the layered sedimentary rocks around the world are remnant global flood deposits. All of today’s young earth creationists hinge their entire arguments in the evolution/creation controversy around this claim, which can be traced directly to Henry Morris’ and John Whitcomb’s 1961 book, The Genesis Flood. The following are excerpts from my book discussing this and revealing Morris’ deception upon fellow Christians:

Ellen G. Harmon (1827-1925) with her soon-to-be husband, James White, teamed up with Joseph Bates, and founded the Seventh-day Adventist Church, an offshoot of the Millerites. …Ellen White quickly became the spiritual leader of the church, and today is revered as a prophet. Ellen White claimed to have upwards of 2,000 visions from God with her first occurring just after The Great Disappointment in 1844. One particular vision was the beginning of creation. She states,


“I was then carried back to the creation and was shown that the first week, in which God performed the work of creation in six days and rested on the seventh day, was just like every other week.”


She then states that fossils were the result of the flood,


“[humans, animals, and trees] were buried, and thus preserved as an evidence to later generations that the antediluvians perished by a flood. God designed that the discovery of these things should establish faith in inspired history; but…the things which God gave them [i.e., to us humans] as a benefit, they turn into a curse by making a wrong use of them [scientists].”

Spurgeon accepted the "apparent" evidence. Even Rev. Grey did and started the theistic evolution movement.

One particular early twentieth century creationist, George McCready Price (1870-1963), was the key anti-evolution creationist most influential to today’s young earth anti-evolution creationist movement even though his beliefs were considered on the fringe by fundamentalists at the time. Price promoted what he called Flood Geology. He claimed that geologists were completely wrong about the geologic history of the layered sedimentary rocks and the fossils they contained. While geologists were claiming that sedimentary rocks are the result of sediment (sand, clay, mud, etc.) being deposited and buried over millions of years, Price was claiming that they were flood sediments from Noah’s global deluge approximately 4,000 years ago. The fossils were remnants of creatures that died during the global flood. He believed the Earth was created in 4004 BC just as Ussher had calculated using biblical chronology.
...
“At last, in the late 1950’s, a breakthrough occurred. John C. Whitcomb, Jr. (b. 1924), a theologian at Grace Theological Seminary (Winona Lake, Indiana) of the Grace Brethren denomination, and Henry M. Morris (b. 1918), a hydraulic engineer of Southern Baptist background, had each been moving in a creationist direction for quite a while before finding confirmation in Price’s work. Each was also disturbed by a book published in 1954 by the evangelical Baptist theologian, Bernard Ramm, The Christian View of Science and Scripture… Soon after Whitcomb and Morris met each other they published The Genesis Flood (1961), an updating of Price’s work, but one that, because of Whitcomb’s theological contribution and Morris’ scientific expertise, made Price’s points more persuasively.”

Morris and Whitcomb repackaged Prices’ discarded flood geology creationism into something that the fundamentalist and evangelical community finally embraced. The Genesis Flood was an instant success with 29 reprints and sales in excess of 200,000 by the 1980’s. It became the scientific support and justification for the belief in young earth creationism, especially since this movement was named creation science. One reason for its success, besides the more refined methods of persuasion in the book, is because Morris came from the mainline Baptist community rather than the fringe Seventh-day Adventist community as did Price. This made it more palatable for mainstream evangelicals.
Henry Morris' Deception



See above. They changed the way many evangelicals interpreted Scripture. YE is a Seventh-Day Adventist belief.





As you now realize, that was never Christian orthodoxy. Even in 450 AD, they knew better.



You've already seen that it's accurate and that the "flaws" supposedly discovered by creationists were actually their apparently deliberiate inclusion of ancient rock in their samples to make them inaccurate. On the other hand, argon/argon testing accurately dated the eruption that buried Pompeii. C'mon.



You were already shown that if decay had been accelerated at rates that would significantly shorten the Earth's lifetime, the resulting increase in radiation would have killed all life. And the only increases in rates found so far, involve huge energies only found in labs. You already know this; why continue with that story?

(Barbarian notes that the YEC story of "life ex nihilo" is false)



God created all things. He created you, for example. He just uses nature to create life. That's what He says in Genesis. The earth, waters, and air brought forth living things, as He intended.



It brought forth life, as God created it to do. That's what He says in Genesis. C'mon.

Yes C,mon the water did not create the life- as it cannot. God created the life and brought it forth. without the command from God there would still be no life.

And your lack of understanding of this verse is obvious!

Gen 1:20

¶
And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

Bring forth abundantly is the Hebrew "sharats" which means to teem or multiply! He caused the watrers and air and land to multiply with creatures buy calling them forth at His command!


You : "You've already seen that it's accurate and that the "flaws" supposedly discovered by creationists were actually their apparently deliberiate inclusion of ancient rock in their samples to make them inaccurate. On the other hand, argon/argon testing accurately dated the eruption that buried Pompeii. C'mon."

No I haven't already seen deliberate deception by creationists. You just make unfounded allegations.
And ar/ar if it can measure accurately a 1200 year old event then it is not the replacement for K/Ar as an article you posted said. for that was used to date supposedly out to 1.25 billion years! That 1200 years = .000000096% of its far date range. You cannot be so naive to believe that that is within its MOE. Now if Ar/Ar is used for short term dating that is a different matter.


You: "You were already shown that if decay had been accelerated at rates that would significantly shorten the Earth's lifetime, the resulting increase in radiation would have killed all life. And the only increases in rates found so far, involve huge energies only found in labs. You already know this; why continue with that story?"

Well there is much about the preflood world that all of us do not know. What we do know is that all life except those on the ark were destroyed (the fossil record). The massive volcanic and water flooding just simply could have washed away the radiation to safe levels. We know both can disperse radioactivity quite quite well. C'mon!

You: "Yes. Although Augustine and his fellow Christians knew that Genesis was not a literal history, he did not realize how old the Earth was. However, he cautioned his fellow Christians to be willing to amend their interpretations of scripture, if new knowledge showed them to be wrong"

And Augustine also introduced the church to the heretical allegorical interpretation of Scripture! His Work helped bring in the dark ages

Archbishop Ussher in the 1600's calculated creation to be approx 4004 B.C. RCC under Popery may have allowed the naturalists to convince them, but within Bible believing movements they were young earthers. The Adventists were the first to mount a solid defense for young earth against the naturalists and OE.

The Jews were young earthers, the early chuch was young earthers. I twasn't until Constantine and the unholy marriage of church and stqate that some of the pagan concepts were granted sway in teh church. By the time of Augustine- there was much much heresy in the state sanctioned Roman Church.


YOu : " Morris and Whitcomb repackaged Prices’ discarded flood geology creationism into something that the fundamentalist and evangelical community finally embraced. The Genesis Flood was an instant success with 29 reprints and sales in excess of 200,000 by the 1980’s. It became the scientific support and justification for the belief in young earth creationism,"

Good to see you seeing truth! The genesis flood has loads of scientific support.! I have the book as well as many others from ICR!

One of my favorite scientific treatises is"In the Minds of men, Darwin and the New World Order" by Ian T. Taylor
The whole book is here: Full text of "Darwin And The New World Order nwo illuminati freemasons"


You: "You were already shown that if decay had been accelerated at rates that would significantly shorten the Earth's lifetime, the resulting increase in radiation would have killed all life. And the only increases in rates found so far, involve huge energies only found in labs. You already know this; why continue with that story?"

You conclusion is incorrect , but you know that already. Many instances of decay increase have been verified in natural settings. But remember- this is still a young field because the dogma held by believers in evolutionism has been nothing could alter radio decay rates!

You: "As you now realize, that was never Christian orthodoxy. Even in 450 AD, they knew better."

Sorry- but I studied church history in bible college and you are just plain wrong! Why persist in trying to promulgate a lie?

You: "Morris was proselytized by George McCready Price, an adventist missionary, and taught the Seventh-Day Adventist doctrine of YE. Morris then spread this new doctrine among evangelicals"

And the point is?? Is this supposed to be a problem? The modern creation science movement is loaded with over 2,500 scientists with PHDS and Masters. There are thousands of teachers who hold to YEC on a scientific basis. I have a biography of Morriss and he was not a proselyte of Price. Prices work had influence as did other YE believers, but Morris considered correctly the 7th Day church a cult.
Stop looking at talkorigins or rational wiki- their bias is way too obvious.

I started as an ardent evolutionist. When I became a Christian I slowly went ot theistic evolution, to progressive creationism, then after studying the works of YEC scientists and comparing them to the laws of science- I became a young earth creationist.

You : "You have declared your wishes to be God's word." Once again you are wrong, but I am now getting accustomed to you being so.

 

[nolidad]

They can only determine which creatures will tend to live long enough to reproduce. Which is all that is necessary for evolution to work.



They have. It's not arguable.



Nope. Haversian canals indicate a vigorous high-energy lifestyle. Bipedal dinosaurs build for running would have been mesotherms. The presence of avian respiratory systems would indicate a need for lots of oxygen.



We have numerous fossils of them. No point in denying the fact.



You probably don't want to endorse their ideas. They think dinosaurs had feathers because dinosaurs are birds that lost the ability to fly. In Feduccia's view, birds and dinosaurs had a common thecodont ancestor.



In fact, scutes (scales found on birds, dinosaurs, and crocodiles) can be induced to form feathers. Feathers and scutes are genetically, chemically, and anatomically very similar, and now we know that they are just variations of the same feature.

It has been thought that feathers evolved from the scales of reptiles, but while recent research suggests that while there is a definite relationship between these structures, the exact origin of feathers remains uncertain (Prum and Brush 2002). Experiments show that the same protein (when missing before birth) that causes bird feet to stay webbed, causes bird scutes and scales to become feathers (Poling 1996).
Feather - New World Encyclopedia


Once the follicle was formed sub dermally and a quill broached the derma- the scales would no longer be an active exothermic heat absorption method as there are now tears and rips in the scales. It also could not survive as an endothermic creature as the feathers were not formed and sealed to trap heat in the body (if it had changed its metabolism that is). Also scales and feathers are two different types of keratin- so we need them extinct little buggers to first change keratin production

You've been given some false information:

J Submicrosc Cytol Pathol. 2006 Jun-Sep;38(2-3):175-92.
Beta-keratin localization in developing alligator scales and feathers in relation to the development and evolution of feathers.
Abstract
Beta-keratins form large part of the corneous material of scales and feathers. The present immunocytochemical study describes the fine distribution of scale- and feather-keratins (beta-keratins) in embryonic scales of the alligator and in avian embryonic feathers. In embryonic scales of the alligator both scale-keratin and feather-keratin can be immunolocalized, especially in the subperiderm layer. No immunolabeling for feather keratin is instead present in the adult scale after the embryonic epidermis is lost. The embryonic epidermis of feather folds into barb ridges while subperiderm or subsheath cells are displaced into two barbule plates joined to the central ramus. Subperiderm cells react with an antibody against feather keratin and with lower intensity with an antibody against scale keratin. The axial plate is colonized by barb ridge vane cells, which surround subperiderm cells that become barb/barbule cells. The latter cells merge into a branched syncitium and form the micro ramification of feathers. The lengthening of barbule cells derives from the polymerization of feather keratin into long bundles coursing along the main axis of cells. Keratin bundles in feather cells are however ordered in parallel rows while those of scales in both alligator and birds are irregularly packed. This observation indicates a different modality of aggregation and molecular structure between the feather keratin of subperiderm cells versus that of barbule/barbs. Barb vane ridge cells among barbule cells degenerate at late stage of feather development leaving spaces that separate barbules. Barb vane ridge cells contain alpha-keratin and lipids, but not beta-keratin. Cells of marginal plates do not contain beta-keratin, and later degenerate allowing the separation of barbs. The latter become isolated only after sloughing of the sheath, which cells contain bundle of keratin not reactive for both scale- and feather-keratin antibodies. The study confirms morphological observations and shows that subperiderm or subsheath cells differentiate into barb and barbule cells. The morphogenesis of barb ridges has to be considered as an evolutionary novelty that permitted the evolution of feathers from a generalized archosaurian embryonic epidermis.


Barbarian observes:
Discoveries in the last quarter-century have not been kind to Al Feduccia's ideas. Even most ornithologists don't accept his ideas now."



The evidence was compelling and it certainly looked as if paleontologists finally had the evidencethey dreamed of to prove that birds were directly related to dinosaurs. But as if in a predictable fashion,not all scientists were convinced and some notable ornithologists were left very skeptical that the featherycovering was real. Even when a second specimen of Sinosauropteryx turned up again with the feathery covering, a dissenting few remained outspokenly critical.
http://dinosaur-museum.org/featheredinosaurs/Are_Birds_Really_Dinosaurs.pdf

Barbarian observes:
You were misled, once again. Technically, the birdlike dinosaurs were mesotherms, capable of regulating their temperatures when active, and lowering their temperatures when inactive, somewhat like monotreme mammals today



Nope. You're completely wrong. Physiologists are quite capable identifying features that warm-blooded organisms have. And we see them in fossil birds and dinosaurs.

The lungs of theropod dinosaurs -- carnivores that walked on two legs and had bird-like feet -- likely pumped air into hollow sacs in their skeletons, as is the case in birds.



Nope. But you have:



Nope:
Respiratory air sacs often form air pockets within the semi-hollow bones of the bird's skeleton. ... Penguins, loons, and puffins are without pneumatized bones entirely. Flightless birds, such as ostriches and emus, have pneumatized femurs and, in the case of the emu, pneumatized cervical vertebrae.
Bird anatomy - Wikipedia



You're wrong once again...

"Bones that are in contact with air sacs exhibit a unique structure composed of very fine and densely packed fibers," Filippo Bertozzo, a researcher at the University of Bonn, said in a news release. "After it turned out that this was true both in modern birds and extinct dinosaurs, we proposed to name this special kind of bony tissue 'pneumosteum.'"


Follow-up studies revealed the presence of the unique bony tissue on the cervical vertebrae of gigantic sauropods.


"Such cavities had already previously been hypothesized as potential locations of air sacs, but only our microscopic analysis now provides convincing arguments for this," said Markus Lambertz, a researcher at Bonn's Institute for Zoology.
Pneumatized bones help scientists study the evolution of breathing in birds and dinsoaurs

Your presuppositional bias once again has let you down.

Barbarian observes:
You were misled, once again. Technically, the birdlike dinosaurs were mesotherms, capable of regulating their temperatures when active, and lowering their temperatures when inactive, somewhat like monotreme mammals today


Technically that is their hypothesis. Show where they have validated their idea by the scientific method.

"You're wrong-once again...

"Bones that are in contact with air sacs exhibit a unique structure composed of very fine and densely packed fibers," Filippo Bertozzo, a researcher at the University of Bonn, said in a news release. "After it turned out that this was true both in modern birds and extinct dinosaurs, we proposed to name this special kind of bony tissue 'pneumosteum.'"


Follow-up studies revealed the presence of the unique bony tissue on the cervical vertebrae of gigantic sauropods."

HMM? Seems natural selection wasn't so kind to nonflying critters.

Lungs: Birds are unique among land-dwelling vertebrates in that they don't breathe in and out. The air flows continually in a one-directional loop supporting the bird's high metabolism. Reptilian respiration is entirely different, more like that in mammals.

Other organs: The soft parts of birds and dinosaurs, in addition to the lungs, are totally different. A recent "mummified" dinosaur, with soft tissue fossilized, proved to be quite like a crocodile, and not at all like a bird.

similar in design- but not for purpose!

andBTW alligator scales and bird feathers are similar but differing types of Beta Keratin.

Also your long article just shows that while chemicals are near identical in differing creatures- they code for totally differing products when not tampered with.

They have tried growing feathers in alligators and failed- all they got were elongated scales!


You: "
Barbarian observes:
Discoveries in the last quarter-century have not been kind to Al Feduccia's ideas. Even most ornithologists don't accept his ideas now."



The evidence was compelling and it certainly looked as if paleontologists finally had the evidencethey dreamed of to prove that birds were directly related to dinosaurs. But as if in a predictable fashion,not all scientists were convinced and some notable ornithologists were left very skeptical that the featherycovering was real. Even when a second specimen of Sinosauropteryx turned up again with the feathery covering, a dissenting few remained outspokenly critical."

Still the same old stuff. No feathers, but feathery like growths. Feduccias repeated experiments (you know the scientific method) showed that those fuzzy outgrowths were better answered by fraying decayed skin. If they can falsifiy his research I am all ears.

You : " Nope. You're completely wrong. Physiologists are quite capable identifying features that warm-blooded organisms have. And we see them in fossil birds and dinosaurs."

And what are they in fossil bones? I am all ears!

 

[dad]

Because if you try to change them into literal history, you get logical absurdities like mornings and evenings without a sun to have them.

No more absurd than not needing the sun at all in the new earth. The Lord God lights the city. (maybe you think the New Jerusalem is just a parable also?)

Just because you have some unbelief/personal incredulity about God being the Light of the world before the sun was here doesn't mean you get to rewrite creation and insert billions of years to please science.

Your denial of parables doesn't change the facts.

Adam was not a parable. Your attempt to wave away the realities of the bible by calling whatever you like a 'parable' does not change anything at all.

 

[nolidad]

For Barbarian:

As I told Myst- the language of Genesis does not warrant a parabolic message nor mere stories told!

We have the genealogies from Adam to Christ.

We have the geologic evidence to validate the flood!

We have the linguistic root languages to verify Babel.

We also see the rise of the Euro-Asian nations verified by Genesis!

 

[The Barbarian]

No more absurd than not needing the sun at all in the new earth.

That's another reason we know it's not a literal history. Earth wouldn't have existed without the sun.

The Lord God lights the city.

It's a planet, not a city. Here, you confused different books of the Bible. (maybe you think the New Jerusalem is just a place on Earth?)

Just because you have some unbelief/personal incredulity about God using parables in the Bible doesn't mean you get to rewrite creation and insert your new doctrines to please yourself.

Adam was not a parable.

Here, your error is to suppose God can't mention a real person in a parable. Why do you think that?

Your attempt to wave away the realities of the bible by inventing whatever you like, does not change anything at all.