Birds before Dinosaurs???

[SuperSaint4GodDBZStyle]

Hey guys. I haven't been on this thread for a long time cuz I couldn't find it unfortunantly, but now I did. I got a topic to be discuessed by both YEC's and TE's.
I have found this out, that evolutionists beleive that some dinosaurs evolved into the birds we have today. I have noticed that in the book of Genesis God made the birds a day before he made the land animals. So theologically speaking you can't have dinosaurs turn into birds because they would have been already made. I have learned this from www.answersingenesis.org . To view this click on media and watch the video on "The Intricasies of Flight". It will only take about an hour of your time. So be good boys and girls.

 

[Mallon]

So theologically speaking you can't have dinosaurs turn into birds because they would have been already made.

How does the relative appearance of birds and dinosaurs affect our theology?

 

[shernren]

I agree - I don't get why we have to be "theologically speaking" to talk about birds and dinosaurs.

 

[juvenissun]

I agree - I don't get why we have to be "theologically speaking" to talk about birds and dinosaurs.

It is obvious:

According to Bible: birds appeared first. This is the theology.
According to evolution: dino appeared first. This is anti-theology.

That is the relation.

 

[Mallon]

It is obvious:

According to Bible: birds appeared first. This is the theology.
According to evolution: dino appeared first. This is anti-theology.

That is the relation.

Evolution isn't anti-theology. It is simply anti-YEC theology. Believe it or not, there is more than one way to understand Genesis. (Nevermind the fact that Genesis 2 implies birds and dinosaurs were created on the same day.)
So again, I ask: How does the relative appearance of birds and dinosaurs affect our theology of God? What does it matter? Are we really going to hinge our faith on something as inconsequential as whether birds or dinosaurs came first?

 

[SuperSaint4GodDBZStyle]

I just brought it up for simple discussion. It has very little to do with our faith in God.

 

[Mallon]

I just brought it up for simple discussion. It has very little to do with our faith in God.

In that case:

'Nuff said.

 

[SuperSaint4GodDBZStyle]

I believe it's 100% bird. Probably an extinct species.

 

[SuperSaint4GodDBZStyle]

Is it possible to find dinosaur bones in like less than 10 feet of dirt and it had not fossilized?

 

[Dannager]

It is obvious:

According to Bible: birds appeared first. This is the theology.
According to evolution: dino appeared first. This is anti-theology.

That is the relation.

Only in the mind of a fundamentalist does "birds appeared first" even come close to passing as theology.

 

[Dannager]

I believe it's 100% bird. Probably an extinct species.

Your beliefs are irrelevant in light of reality. Adjust them accordingly.

 

[Mallon]

I believe it's 100% bird. Probably an extinct species.

What about the teeth, claws, and bony tail? No bird today has those features. Are you willing to admit these are very dinosaurian features? Because for all intents and purposes, these fossils look just like dinosaurs with feathers on them.

 

[Mallon]

Is it possible to find dinosaur bones in like less than 10 feet of dirt and it had not fossilized?

Sorry, I didn't understand that question. Can you please rephrase it?

 

[juvenissun]

What about the teeth, claws, and bony tail? No bird today has those features. Are you willing to admit these are very dinosaurian features? Because for all intents and purposes, these fossils look just like dinosaurs with feathers on them.

Could it also look like a bird with teeth, claws and bony tail?

 

[Dannager]

Could it also look like a bird with teeth, claws and bony tail?

Yes, that's another way of looking at it. Either way, an explanation is needed for why this creature exhibits traits found in both groups. The dinosaur-to-bird evolutionary progression explains the evidence far better than anything else.

 

[juvenissun]

Yes, that's another way of looking at it. Either way, an explanation is needed for why this creature exhibits traits found in both groups. The dinosaur-to-bird evolutionary progression explains the evidence far better than anything else.

Then try to compare skeletons of birds of a few concurrent species, large and small, would you suggest these species have evolved from one to another because of their similarities?

 

[Mallon]

Then try to compare skeletons of birds of a few concurrent species, large and small, would you suggest these species have evolved from one to another because of their similarities?

Not at all, because the similarities between, say, a duck and a platypus are clearly superficial. A detailed look at their beak morphology shows they are obviously very different structures, being made of completely different bones (i.e., they are analogous structures).
The similarities between theropod dinosaurs and birds are homologous, however. That is, they are alike in the finest details, being derived from the same structures. Fact is, these fossils I've posted are perfect candidates for transitional fossils, and the only YEC response to date has been "I just don't believe it! God simply must have been feeling uncreative and opted to combine traits from different 'kinds' when He made Microraptor. "
Let's face it: fossils like these are predicted by the theory of evolution. Creationism doesn't predict anything like this (if it even predicts anything at all). So anti-evolutionary creationist reaction to such fossils is just that -- reactive, and typically, ad hoc.

 

[Assyrian]

Let's face it: fossils like these are predicted by the theory of evolution. Creationism doesn't predict anything like this (if it even predicts anything at all).

They predicted there wouldn't be any transitional sequences.

Henry M. Morris & Gary E. Parker
What is Creation Science, 1982 revised 1987, p.221

The Creation model, on the other hand, postulates that all the basic types of plants and animals were directly created and did not evolve fromother type at all. Consequently the Creationist predicts that no transitional sequences (except within each created type) will ever be found, either in the present array of organisms or in the fossil record.

 

[gluadys]

They predicted there wouldn't be any transitional sequences.

Consequently the Creationist predicts that no transitional sequences (except within each created type) will ever be found, either in the present array of organisms or in the fossil record.

Now, if they were doing real science, they would then acknowledge that:

whenever a transitional sequence IS found, it is evidence that the taxa linked by the transition fall within the same created type.

So the evidence of transition from dinosaur to bird would necessitate the conclusion that birds and dinosaurs are both descendants of the same originally created type.

Instead, they assume in advance that they know where the boundaries of the created type are and deny the existence of the transitional sequence.

 

[juvenissun]

Now, if they were doing real science, they would then acknowledge that:

whenever a transitional sequence IS found, it is evidence that the taxa linked by the transition fall within the same created type.

So the evidence of transition from dinosaur to bird would necessitate the conclusion that birds and dinosaurs are both descendants of the same originally created type.

Instead, they assume in advance that they know where the boundaries of the created type are and deny the existence of the transitional sequence.

Give 10 bones and ask to arrange them by any criteria. So you arranged them into a sequence.

Give the 11th bone, ask to insert it into the sequence.

You can always do that.

That is your evolution theory: a game of classification.