Dinosaur Duck Discovered!!

[Speedwell]

Are you sure that's not a duckagator?

 

[loveofourlord]

Are you sure that's not a duckagator?

Close I think the official nickname is duckcroc

 

[morse86]

How do you prove a duck and a crocodile didn't die in the same place???? By the layers? So many things can affect it, floods, soil erosion. Do you use laughably flawed carbon dating (the carbon decay which can be affected easily by things such as the atmosphere)??!?

What a joke. This shouldn't even be a science. We need to be more skeptical and scientific. Just accepting these rubbish "articles" just because they came from a paper certificate holder and "accepted" by their "$cience phd paper certificate holding colleagues" doesn't mean it's scientific.

 

[Arius]

Lol! that's like saying I don't need to worry about the lack of brakes on your elevator because you have a cushion to stand on...

Your faith is built on an elevator, your theories go up and down. My faith is built on Christ, the Rock, his truth never changes.

 

[loveofourlord]

How do you prove a duck and a crocodile didn't die in the same place???? By the layers? So many things can affect it, floods, soil erosion. Do you use laughably flawed carbon dating (the carbon decay which can be affected easily by things such as the atmosphere)??!?

What a joke. This shouldn't even be a science. We need to be more skeptical and scientific. Just accepting these rubbish "articles" just because they came from a paper certificate holder and "accepted" by their "$cience phd paper certificate holding colleagues" doesn't mean it's scientific.

right because you know scientists don't think about such things, only joke here is the excuses people will give to remain anti science.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Your faith is built on an elevator, your theories go up and down. My faith is built on Christ, the Rock, his truth never changes.

And while you sit there on your rock, be thankful that the elevator will keep bringing you all the advantages of modern life - water, power, medical services, internet, cars, computers, etc.

 

[DogmaHunter]

In that scenario most fossils should be transitional forms in between groups.

Why?
And what would that look like?

The vast majority of fossils should be transitional mistakes and mashups.

Why?

 

[Tom 1]

Duck-like dinosaur with crocodile teeth and clawed flippers so 'peculiar' researchers thought it was fake
Updated Thu at 12:49pmThu 7 Dec 2017, 12:49pm


With a bill like a duck but teeth like a crocodile, a swanlike neck and killer claws, a new dinosaur species uncovered by scientists looks like something Dr Seuss could have dreamed up.

It also had flippers like a penguin, and while it walked like an ostrich it could also swim.

more.....





Is it possible that scientists have actually found the infamous Crocoduck proposed by Creationist Ray Comfort as the required, ultimate proof of the Theory of Evolution?


Probably not - but this weird little collection of biological bits and pieces does demonstrate that species can diverge into new and exotic creatures.

Evolution actually happens.
OB

What a beast. Anyone know what Mongolia was like during that time period?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Which should result mainly in transitional forms.

And it does.
Every individual, fossil or otherwise, is transitional between its ancestors and its descendants.

 

[DogmaHunter]

So then no evolutionist should have a problem producing millions of examples

They do all the time. And then you guys just handwave them away.
And when asked what you guys understand under a "transitional", you end up describing something like a crockoduck.

I agree that if evolution proceed randomly by unintelligent mutations then all of biology would be on a spectrum of species. But biologists don't seem to find that, which calls into question their claim of random mutations.

Please, don't pretend as if you care about what biologists do and don't find.

 

[DogmaHunter]

.. yes, the fossil of a lizard and a bird shown next to each other 'proves' they are in continuous transition. Just look at one, then the other, .. see how fast they transition!?

What this juvenile comment supposed to be making some point?

Here is actual photos of transitioning species:

Time 0:21 .. right there, .. that's where the Gorilla split, and one transitioned into a chimp, and the other into this white suburban Christian housewife.

I tell you it would upset me much if someone put my photo in a monkey family album and went on a tour showing it! How is it that people put up with this mans mockery of humanity?

Well, it's easy, really...
The trick is, to not allow your emotions or a priori faith-based beliefs to dictate how reality actually works. And to instead, simply go by what the evidence demonstrates.

And that gets us to the reality of evolution, where all living things are related and it's a harsh reality indeed. It's a cruel reality where the suffering of one creature is required for the feeding of another. Where a lion runs exactly fast enough in order to catch the antilope that is just a tiny bit slower then his/her peers.

Indeed, it does not reflect some kind of reality where after you die, you get to spend eternity in candy land playing bingo with your long deceased grand mother.

You might not like that, but the universe isn't here for you to like it.

Here he is telling this School girl that she is distant cousin of rats! Time 3:34

We are distant cousins of all living things.
Including banana trees.

Regardless of your emotional objections.

 

[USincognito]

The actual proof of evolution would be transitional fossils, of which none have been found.

We have 10s of thousands of transitional fossils from hundreds of lineages and fossils aren't even the best evidence. We have such overwhelming evidence from genetics that even if we didn't have a single fossil we reconstruct the history of life on earth.

This is why they came up with the theory of punctuated equilibrium, to explain why we don't find any...

Actually PE was proposed to explain the dearth of transitional fossils at the species level and the abundant plethora of them above the species level.

A previously unknown swimming lizard. Nice. Not exciting. Not thrilling...

And not a lizard.

Here he is telling this School girl that she is distant cousin of rats! Time 3:34

Humans are euarchontoglires along with our fellow primates, and the glires (rodents and lagomorphs). Dawkins is 100% correct by telling her that fact.

2. The best ones have been proven to be frauds.

That never happened. In all of paleontology there have been two frauds of note. Piltdown which was held on to by British supporters largely due to chauvinism until legitimate hominid fossils rendered it untennable and Archaeoraptor which was a case of overzealous publishers wanting to sell issues. Interestingly enough, the fossils that comprised Archaeoraptor have proven to be quite informative and valuable as separate pieces.

 

[DogmaHunter]

1. Then why does the national academy of sciences call evolution a fact?

The theory of evolution explains the facts of evolution.
Just like the theory of gravity explains the facts of gravity.

The theory of evolution explains the process (in short, descend with modification followed by selection) by which the fact of evolution occurs.

2. The best ones have been proven to be frauds. There isn't a single one that fits the bill.

That's just a straight up lie.

3. Technically every living being is a special creation of God and disproves evolution.

Good luck demonstrating that.

The point of PE is to explain why they can't find any transitional fossils

No. It is in fact, the opposite.

The point of PE is to explain why during certain periods, a lot more variation is found then in others. Or, to put it in other words, why during certain periods we find MORE TRANSITIONALS then in others.

And the answer is simply natural selection. In a stable environment, natural selection will favour the status quo. In a rapidly changing environment, selection parameters would change just as rapidly. This will put the amount of evolutionary change in a higher gear. Ie: natural selection will favour change over status quo.

1. You can produce multiple examples of speciation, which creationists do not deny, and which doesn't prove that all life descended from a common ancestor.

True.
Comparative genetics (and anatomy) however, along with a couple dozen other independend lines of evidence, DO demonstrate common ancestry.

What you cant find are any examples of one kind turning into another;

What do you think speciation is?

reptiles to birds, whales to land animals, dogs into aardvarks, etc.

lol, owkay then.
So what are you saying, that in order to accept evolution, you want to see a dog give birth to aardvark? Seriously?

You are not aware that if that would happen, evolution theory would be falsified?
I guess not.

I always die a little inside when a creationist smugly demands X as evidence of evolution, while X would actually disprove it instead.

Don't you find that curious?

I don't find it curious that creationists generally are extremely ignorant on what evolution theory is really all about, as you just confirmed once again.

 

[SkyWriting]

Please, don't pretend as if you care about what biologists do and don't find.

I'm afraid you might affect what I care about?

 

[DogmaHunter]

I'm afraid you might affect what I care about?

If you actually cared about what biologists have to say about biology, you wouldn't be a creationist. It's as simple as that.

 

[thesunisout]

The theory of evolution explains the facts of evolution.
Just like the theory of gravity explains the facts of gravity.

The theory of evolution explains the process (in short, descend with modification followed by selection) by which the fact of evolution occurs.

This was in reply to someone else who said that science doesn't prove anything. Facts would constitute proof, no?

That's just a straight up lie

A lie, hmm? How about Piltdown man, Nebraska man, and Java man? Archaeoraptor?

To say that the modern examples of evolution, like whale or horse evolution, stretch credulity would be kind. There aren't any smoking guns, just a collection of just-so stories that don't come close to proving all life descended from a common ancestor. The lack of a transitional fossils is a continued source of embarrassment to the scientific community which is why they've "moved on" with PE and other explanations to try to cover up the fact that the emperor has no clothes.

Good luck demonstrating that.

The creation speaks for itself:

Psalm 19:1-3

The heavens declare the glory of God;
And the firmament shows His handiwork.
2 Day unto day utters speech,
And night unto night reveals knowledge.
3 There is no speech nor language
Where their voice is not heard.

Romans 1:18-23

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things

No. It is in fact, the opposite.

The point of PE is to explain why during certain periods, a lot more variation is found then in others. Or, to put it in other words, why during certain periods we find MORE TRANSITIONALS then in others.

And the answer is simply natural selection. In a stable environment, natural selection will favour the status quo. In a rapidly changing environment, selection parameters would change just as rapidly. This will put the amount of evolutionary change in a higher gear. Ie: natural selection will favour change over status quo.

If that's true then it is strange then that Stephen Gould said this:

"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils"

So, in other words, most of our evolutionary understanding is based not on hard evidence but on the imagination of scientists.

True.
Comparative genetics (and anatomy) however, along with a couple dozen other independend lines of evidence, DO demonstrate common ancestry.

Comparative genetics and anatomy demonstrate evidence of a common design, not common ancestry. Without the fossil record to back it up, there is no reason to favor evolutionary theory as an explanation over a Designer, which has much better explanatory power.

What do you think speciation is?

Change within kinds, not between them.

lol, owkay then.
So what are you saying, that in order to accept evolution, you want to see a dog give birth to aardvark? Seriously?

You are not aware that if that would happen, evolution theory would be falsified?
I guess not.

I always die a little inside when a creationist smugly demands X as evidence of evolution, while X would actually disprove it instead.

That isn't what I meant. Not a dog giving birth to an aardvark, but seeing animals transitioning between different kinds today. Seeing the inbetween forms, you know..the transitions? According to PE it can happen fairly rapidly, but it isn't happening at all. One part of the theory is right which is that everything is in stasis and doesn't change; amazing how evolutionists overlook that as positive evidence for creation.

I don't find it curious that creationists generally are extremely ignorant on what evolution theory is really all about, as you just confirmed once again.

It's when I was extremely ignorant of the theory that I believed it. I accepted it as fact because that is what I was taught my entire life. It was when I started to investigate the evidence the theory was based on that I found out it was intellectually bankrupt.

Evolution from a common ancestor is the secular creation myth. You believe it because it explains the world to you without God. Yet, even if it were true it doesn't explain how life got here in the first place. You fill in the gaps of your knowledge with evolution, just as atheists accuse creationists of doing. You say it must have been evolution, and that is your faith.

 

[Speedwell]

This was in reply to someone else who said that science doesn't prove anything. Facts would constitute proof, no?

No. In inductive logic, which what science is based on, facts only constitute confirmation (or disconfirmation) not "proof."

Evolution from a common ancestor is the secular creation myth. You believe it because it explains the world to you without God. Yet, even if it were true it doesn't explain how life got here in the first place. You fill in the gaps of your knowledge with evolution, just as atheists accuse creationists of doing. You say it must have been evolution, and that is your faith.

This discussion is not about whether God exists. The theory of evolution certainly does not deny it.
It's about the Bible, in particular about an interpretation of the Bible adhered to primarily by a minority of Evangelical Protestants. If you try to make it a contest between theism and atheism you will only fool yourself.

 

[thesunisout]

No. In inductive logic, which what science is based on, facts only constitute confirmation (or disconfirmation) not "proof."

Okay, so we could say then evolution is not a proven fact.

This discussion is not about whether God exists. The theory of evolution certainly does not deny it.
It's about the Bible, in particular about an interpretation of the Bible adhered to primarily by a minority of Evangelical Protestants. If you try to make it a contest between theism and atheism you will only fool yourself.

No. In inductive logic, which what science is based on, facts only constitute confirmation (or disconfirmation) not "proof."

This discussion is not about whether God exists. The theory of evolution certainly does not deny it.
It's about the Bible, in particular about an interpretation of the Bible adhered to primarily by a minority of Evangelical Protestants. If you try to make it a contest between theism and atheism you will only fool yourself.

I don't think it is a contest between theism and atheism, I was just noting the "evolution of the gaps" thinking that is prevalent in atheists.

You're also wrong about creationism being believed by a minority of believers. Over 1/3 of the country believes in creationism:

For Darwin Day, 6 facts about the evolution debate

 

[Speedwell]

Okay, so we could say then evolution is not a proven fact.

Evolution, per se, is an observable fact. We observe that there are species alive on the Earth today which have not always been here, and species once alive which are here no longer. Speciation has been observed both in the field and in the lab. Those are facts. The theory of evolution is not a fact. It is a scientific theory which puprorts to explain the facts of evolution. As a parallel, consider gravity: we observe gravity in action; things fall. It's a fact. Einstein's theory of gravitation is not a fact. It's a theory which purports to explain how gravity works.

I don't think it is a contest between theism and atheism, I was just noting the "evolution of the gaps" thinking that is prevalent in atheists.

What gaps?

You're also wrong about creationism being believed by a minority of believers. Over 1/3 of the country believes in creationism:

For Darwin Day, 6 facts about the evolution debate

Most of those in the Bible Belt. What about the rest of the world? There are almost two billion professed Christians out there, hardly any of them right-wing conservative Evangelical Protestants.

 

[Astrophile]

Here he is telling this School girl that she is distant cousin of rats! Time 3:34

The trouble is that we are all much closer cousins of Adolf Hitler. I think that I'd rather be related to rats.