Dinosaur Duck Discovered!!

[Arius]

When people like you make that sort of comment, all it does is show how you really think. Nothing else.

Umm, thank you, that was my whole point in saying it.

One World Rule under the guidelines of Evolution; without gender, without free will (as I have pointed out Richard Dawkins saying "The human-animal only thinks it has free will, but its actions, responses, their very mind is dictated by their environment and what these animals eat" (paraphrasing).. without a plan, or the understanding of true love, .. instead, animal-empathy is the ONLY thing these apes will be allowed to understand to have. Evolutionists view our "sub-human" social structure like love and caring as simple animal survival, and sometimes that survival instinct gets short circuited, .. mixed up and confused, .. like in this video:

This is how the human animals "love" is viewed from an Evolutionary standpoint, animal empathy, that's all. Humans building hospitals, schools, care centers, talk about a Creator God etc. is just the brain being short circuited, and Dawkins (like Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao, Bushes') are all just hoping desperately to put the human animal back on their evolutionary track, Evolution alone where no one or nothing planned any of this, it happened, and man must accept that, and move back to nature before it destroys itself. Back to allowing Mother Nature to guide our walk, and the human animal must reconnect with Eywa, and help them kill 6.5 billion of us leaving room for other animals (see; Georgia Guide Stones):

 

[Ovlov90]

Are you really suggesting that you would just start raping and murdering should you lose your faith? If so then please try as hard as you can to never leave your faith since you are a very dangerous individual.

I hope you are aware that an impaired ability to feel empathy and remorse is part of a certain dangerous personality disorder.

ARE YOU KIDDING?? The only successful people in this world are those who have no empathy or remorse or hide behind the facade of posessing it!! These ARE the famous, the powerbrokers, the ones who define empathy and decide just what remorse is. Its fluid, ever evolveing is it not? How does Richard Dawkins KNOW but I cannot? Just because I may share a carbohydrate utilization technique with a maple tree does not prove we have a common ancestor. Thats an impossible assumption. My victrola and my electric guitar share certian basic design systems but developed totally unrelated. Just because I have teeth and dino duck have teeth. Just means teeth work. Im not the dupe! Who or what guided these developments? How did a species know that teeth would be more successful than a gizzard full of rocks? Just random mutation. That seems very unprobable given even billions of years. How did these organisims “know” when and what change to make? The perfect mutation at the critical moment? Its a fantasy fairytale if ever one was written. Maybe change within a species but never one specie into another.

 

[Skreeper]

ARE YOU KIDDING?? The only successful people in this world are those who have no empathy or remorse or hide behind the facade of posessing it!! These ARE the famous, the powerbrokers, the ones who define empathy and decide just what remorse is. Its fluid, ever evolveing is it not? How does Richard Dawkins KNOW but I cannot? Just because I may share a carbohydrate utilization technique with a maple tree does not prove we have a common ancestor. Thats an impossible assumption. My victrola and my electric guitar share certian basic design systems but developed totally unrelated. Just because I have teeth and dino duck have teeth. Just means teeth work. Im not the dupe! Who or what guided these developments? How did a species know that teeth would be more successful than a gizzard full of rocks? Just random mutation. That seems very unprobable given even billions of years. How did these organisims “know” when and what change to make? The perfect mutation at the critical moment? Its a fantasy fairytale if ever one was written. Maybe change within a species but never one specie into another.

Uh-huh. I recommend first learning what evolution is before going on a rant about how it isn't true. A Biology 101 class would be a good place to start. You have schools where you live, right?

 

[Occams Barber]

ARE YOU KIDDING?? The only successful people in this world are those who have no empathy or remorse or hide behind the facade of posessing it!! These ARE the famous, the powerbrokers, the ones who define empathy and decide just what remorse is. Its fluid, ever evolveing is it not? How does Richard Dawkins KNOW but I cannot? Just because I may share a carbohydrate utilization technique with a maple tree does not prove we have a common ancestor. Thats an impossible assumption. My victrola and my electric guitar share certian basic design systems but developed totally unrelated. Just because I have teeth and dino duck have teeth. Just means teeth work. Im not the dupe! Who or what guided these developments? How did a species know that teeth would be more successful than a gizzard full of rocks? Just random mutation. That seems very unprobable given even billions of years. How did these organisims “know” when and what change to make? The perfect mutation at the critical moment? Its a fantasy fairytale if ever one was written. Maybe change within a species but never one specie into another.

Sorry Ovlov.

Unfortunately @Skreeper is right. You're so wide of the mark in your understanding of evolution basics that it's impossible to know where to start.

This presentation, Welcome to Evolution 101, is put together by UCLA Berkeley. It's short sharp and readable and the diagrams are excellent. Start with An Introduction to Evolution.

OB

 

[Jimmy D]

Thank you.



OK, so you too ay? It's that population of animals called "Common Ancestor" that got you, isn't it?

I know you are not allowed to answer this, but what the heck, I'll ask you anyways: "Have you any idea what 'species' that 'population of animals' who Evolutionists call Common Ancestor were?"



I spelled it out, .. and it's the same thing I am asking all of you Evolutionists: "What species of animals were the creatures that walked the earth that Evolutionists refer to as "common ancestor"?

Example: Were they gorilla, lizard, human, Nephilim, .. what?

OK here is a documentary, you guys say that man did NOT evolve from gorillas, so what gorilla/human looking creatures were these shown in this video?

I believe she is referring to them as Neanderthals, .. but what "species" were they? Human or gorilla, .. or what? See the skull the lady is holding, she believes these were our ancestors, so for Pete sake, what "species" were these "common ancestors"???

Is "common ancestor" a species between every species before they turn into a completely different species?
Is "species" a type of species? How else could I put this?

Dawkins says: "More distantly related are gorillas" and points to a 'T', and calls this evolving gorilla "Common Ancestor" Time 0:43

What "species" was this common ancestor??

You are perfectly entitled to your opinion.

I've got no desire to get into a lengthy discussion of human origins, especially as you seem slightly confused about the issue.

This article reflects and sums up the general scientific consensus on the subject, if you care to have a read through it it may help clear up your misconceptions it reflects also my understanding of human evolution.

human evolution | Stages & Timeline

We certainly don't know every detail in the story of human evolution but the pieces of evidence we do have all point towards the undeniable conclusion we evolved from an ape-like ancestor.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I was quoting your scientists and what they say, .. that is what my part of the debate is about, what "they say", .. so what is it that they say, .. I'm still waiting??

I pointed out "what he, the most famous Evolutionary scientist of your day" said in the above video when he pointed to a branching off, a "T" which comes from gorillas, then branches off, one goes to human, and the other to chimp and bonobo.
He called this "T" (aka branching off) a "Common Ancestor". He did not provide a Peleoartist rendered image of this creature, which is why I'm asking you; what does your Religion say that this creature, this animal or whatever it is that you call "Common Ancestor" is? Is it human, is it a gorilla, is it a puma, a rat, a Jew (we have been labeled many different species many times over the thousands of years), so .. what is the "T" that Dawkins is pointing at??

Wait, .. maybe Dawkins means it is not even an animal, but maybe an alien creature from Tatooine! You know, that New planet NASA just discovered in the pile of artist rendered paintings!?



Coming from a member of this Religious Cult called "Evolution", .. I say that is a complement. A step down from calling me an animal of the ape family, who's "not so distant" cousins are gorillas and rats. Have you seen Dawkins depiction of that white middle-aged woman's "Family photo collage" amongst apes and chimps and other hairy animals? If that lady was a real person, I suggest she sue the pants of Dawkins. Why didn't he put 'his' picture in there, with his ape wife and kids, .. huh?

Hasn't this Religion degraded, humiliated and sacrificed enough innocent lives over its relatively short existence?
Do you want me to show you more evidence what believers of this Religion have done throughout its History? Because I can!

Umm, thank you, that was my whole point in saying it.

One World Rule under the guidelines of Evolution; without gender, without free will (as I have pointed out Richard Dawkins saying "The human-animal only thinks it has free will, but its actions, responses, their very mind is dictated by their environment and what these animals eat" (paraphrasing).. without a plan, or the understanding of true love, .. instead, animal-empathy is the ONLY thing these apes will be allowed to understand to have. Evolutionists view our "sub-human" social structure like love and caring as simple animal survival, and sometimes that survival instinct gets short circuited, .. mixed up and confused, .. like in this video:

This is how the human animals "love" is viewed from an Evolutionary standpoint, animal empathy, that's all. Humans building hospitals, schools, care centers, talk about a Creator God etc. is just the brain being short circuited, and Dawkins (like Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao, Bushes') are all just hoping desperately to put the human animal back on their evolutionary track, Evolution alone where no one or nothing planned any of this, it happened, and man must accept that, and move back to nature before it destroys itself. Back to allowing Mother Nature to guide our walk, and the human animal must reconnect with Eywa, and help them kill 6.5 billion of us leaving room for other animals (see; Georgia Guide Stones):

You type so much and yet you really say so little, if anything at all.

 

[stevevw]

Did they have to make it white? It wouldn't be so hideous if it didn't look like a demented swan.

Lol, yeah its a bit freaky. Imagine that coming out of the water running after you.

 

[stevevw]

Lie.
Untruth.
Falsehood.

Why do we, as Christians, give people a "pass" on such outright falsehoods? Are we afraid to say anything critical at all about our fellow Christians no matter how outright zany their claims?

Just to set the record straight on this with, you know, actual facts. From Scientific American:

Actually, paleontologists know of many detailed examples of fossils intermediate in form between various taxonomic groups. One of the most famous fossils of all time is Archaeopteryx, which combines feathers and skeletal structures peculiar to birds with features of dinosaurs. A flock's worth of other feathered fossil species, some more avian and some less, has also been found. A sequence of fossils spans the evolution of modern horses from the tiny Eohippus. An amazing fossil creature from 375 million years ago named Tiktaalik embodies the predicted and long-sought transition of certain fishes to life on land. Whales had four-legged ancestors that walked on land, and creatures known as Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus helped to make that transition. Fossil seashells trace the evolution of various mollusks through millions of years. Perhaps 20 or more hominins (not all of them our ancestors) fill the gap between Lucy the australopithecine and modern humans.

Creationists, though, dismiss these fossil studies. They argue that Archaeopteryx is not a missing link between reptiles and birds—it is just an extinct bird with reptilian features. They want evolutionists to produce a weird, chimeric monster that cannot be classified as belonging to any known group. Even if a creationist does accept a fossil as transitional between two species, he or she may then insist on seeing other fossils intermediate between it and the first two. These frustrating requests can proceed ad infinitum and place an unreasonable burden on the always incomplete fossil record.

Nevertheless, evolutionists can cite further supportive evidence from molecular biology. All organisms share most of the same genes, but as evolution predicts, the structures of these genes and their products diverge among species, in keeping with their evolutionary relationships. Geneticists speak of the “molecular clock” that records the passage of time. These molecular data also show how various organisms are transitional within evolution.

I am not a creationists and I dispute some of these fossil transitions. For one thing Eohippus to horse is not that great a transition. Eohippus seems every bit a horse and probably had all the genetic info to develop into a horse and may just be a variation of a horse just like a wolf is to a modern dog. The loss of some toes is not a gain of info but loss and within the ability of existing biological development programs that can switch on and off genes.

There is evidence that Archaeopteryx is unlikely a dino to bird transition a) becuase the repiratory system is completely different requiring different bone setups in the chest which has never been found in any transition. b) the digits are different on birds which have digits 2 to 4 and dinos have digits 1 to 3 which cannot be reconciled c) there have been more developed birds found in the fossil records well before any tetrapod dinos with feathers were found. Archaeopteryx cannot be the first or even erly bird to dino showing the transitions beuase there were fully formed modern birds arround before it.

The discovery of a new bird-like dinosaur from the Jurassic period challenges widely accepted theories on the origin of flight. A new paper describes a new feathered dinosaur about 30 centimeters in length which pre-dates bird-like dinosaurs that birds were long thought to have evolved from.

"This discovery sheds further doubt on the theory that the famous fossil Archaeopteryx -- or "first bird" as it is sometimes referred to -- was pivotal in the evolution of modern birds," says Dr Dyke, who is based at the National Oceanography Centre, Southampton.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130124091532.htm
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature10288
Researchers have made a fundamental new discovery about how birds breathe and have a lung capacity that allows for flight -- and the finding means it's unlikely that birds descended from any known theropod dinosaurs.

The conclusions add to other evolving evidence that may finally force many paleontologists to reconsider their long-held belief that modern birds are the direct descendants of ancient, meat-eating dinosaurs, OSU researchers say.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature10288
The implication, the researchers said, is that birds almost certainly did not descend from theropod dinosaurs, such as tyrannosaurus or allosaurus. The findings add to a growing body of evidence in the past two decades that challenge some of the most widely-held beliefs about animal evolution.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature10288
"For one thing, birds are found earlier in the fossil record than the dinosaurs they are supposed to have descended from," Ruben said. "That's a pretty serious problem, and there are other inconsistencies with the bird-from-dinosaur theories.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090609092055.htm

Developmental Patterns and the Identification of Homologies in the Avian Hand
Developmental Patterns and the Identification of Homologies in the Avian Hand

 

[Ovlov90]

Sorry Ovlov.

Unfortunately @Skreeper is right. You're so wide of the mark in your understanding of evolution basics that it's impossible to know where to start.

This presentation, Welcome to Evolution 101, is put together by UCLA Berkeley. It's short sharp and readable and the diagrams are excellent. Start with An Introduction to Evolution.

OB

No sir, I DO understand the premise. I dont BELIEVE it is proven or how life came to be on earth. It is a faith system I choose not to believe. Matter of fact, Im biting my tongue as I type at your arrogant assumption of ignorance. What I find truely entertaining is the juvenile actions, attitudes and behaviors of proponents of evolution when you disagree with them. It is a well reasoned theory thats as absurd as tenable. Reality 101~ He CREATED them EACH after their own KIND.

 

[Skreeper]

No sir, I DO understand the premise.

Evidently based on your posts you do not.

I dont BELIEVE it is proven or how life came to be on earth.

Nothing in science is proven. Proof is for math and alcohol.

It is a faith system I choose not to believe.

Faith is believing in something when you don't have a good reason to. The theory of evolution is based on empirical data and therefore no faith required.

Reality 101~ He CREATED them EACH after their own KIND.

This has yet to be demonstrated. You wanna be the first?

 

[HitchSlap]

ARE YOU KIDDING?? The only successful people in this world are those who have no empathy or remorse or hide behind the facade of posessing it!! These ARE the famous, the powerbrokers, the ones who define empathy and decide just what remorse is. Its fluid, ever evolveing is it not? How does Richard Dawkins KNOW but I cannot? Just because I may share a carbohydrate utilization technique with a maple tree does not prove we have a common ancestor. Thats an impossible assumption. My victrola and my electric guitar share certian basic design systems but developed totally unrelated. Just because I have teeth and dino duck have teeth. Just means teeth work. Im not the dupe! Who or what guided these developments? How did a species know that teeth would be more successful than a gizzard full of rocks? Just random mutation. That seems very unprobable given even billions of years. How did these organisims “know” when and what change to make? The perfect mutation at the critical moment? Its a fantasy fairytale if ever one was written. Maybe change within a species but never one specie into another.

You should look into the ToE. It's obvious you have questions, but no understanding.

 

[HitchSlap]

No sir, I DO understand the premise. I dont BELIEVE it is proven or how life came to be on earth. It is a faith system I choose not to believe. Matter of fact, Im biting my tongue as I type at your arrogant assumption of ignorance. What I find truely entertaining is the juvenile actions, attitudes and behaviors of proponents of evolution when you disagree with them. It is a well reasoned theory thats as absurd as tenable. Reality 101~ He CREATED them EACH after their own KIND.

Accepting a 6,000 year old creation myth for anything more than man's attempt to explain the unknown, over 159 years of solid scientific observation, is well, mind-numbing.

 

[Arius]

You type so much and yet you really say so little, if anything at all.

LOL, now that is funny, and I caught you empty handed. You call my posts long, and say so little??

Here is a brief view of Darwin's rhetoric something about all the different animals he was watching, obviously you never read this right?

On the Origin of Species - Wikipedia

Talking about typing much and not saying anything, .. Yawn!

 

[Arius]

You are perfectly entitled to your opinion.

I've got no desire to get into a lengthy discussion of human origins, especially as you seem slightly confused about the issue.

This article reflects and sums up the general scientific consensus on the subject, if you care to have a read through it it may help clear up your misconceptions it reflects also my understanding of human evolution.

human evolution | Stages & Timeline

We certainly don't know every detail in the story of human evolution but the pieces of evidence we do have all point towards the undeniable conclusion we evolved from an ape-like ancestor.

First line from your reference: " .. the process by which human beings developed on Earth from now-extinct primates.", .. how convenient, they went extinct, but the human evolved?
How do you know they didn't do one of those macro-evolution-jumps and are out there in your big-banged universe floating on Space fabric, creating planets like Tatooine and populating planet Kolob?

Come on Jimmy, why don't you tell me what "species" this, .. umm, so many different names for it:
*Common Ancestor
*Missing Link
*Neanderthal
*Humanlike ape
*Lucy
*Ota Benga
.. oops that one was a mistake, they released him back into the human population, but unfortunately he shot himself.
*Jawbone of the missing link (found out it was just a jawbone of a freshly roasted pig)

.. was?

I mean what species could it be really, .. it's either a gorilla, or a human. It's between these two.

OK, so if you guys don't want to play, I'll pick a species for it! In the Peleoartist depiction it looks like a handsomest gorilla, or the ugliest human I have ever seen, so I'll just toss a coin: Heads human, tails gorilla.

1. Heads, it was a human. - not missing then is she?
2. heads, human
3. heads human again
4. tails, it was a gorilla, and since we still have gorillas, it's not missing either.

Now you know why they say it's a missing link, so they don't have to say what species it was, .. LOL.

 

[Arius]

@Ovlov90 said: ↑

Reality 101~ He CREATED them EACH after their own KIND.

​

This has yet to be demonstrated. You wanna be the first?

I'll let Ovlov90 answer, but I just have to say that for an Evolutionist who can't even tell us what species, or what creature the "Common Ancestor, or Missing link" was to ask to "demonstrate God creating animals after their kind" is hilarious.

That is the ONLY scientific evidence that we have on the 8 million living animal species, each species, no matter how many different varieties we have of them, are after their own kind! From the Great Dane down to a teacup poodle, they are all dogs.

Do you want him to prove that, .. to demonstrate that?[/QUOTE]

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

LOL, now that is funny, and I caught you empty handed. You call my posts long, and say so little??

Here is a brief view of Darwin's rhetoric something about all the different animals he was watching, obviously you never read this right?

On the Origin of Species - Wikipedia

Talking about typing much and not saying anything, .. Yawn!

2 questions:

1) Have you ever read On The Origin of Species?

and 2) Even if you answered yes or no to the above question, what makes you qualified to say that Darwin was incorrect?

 

[Jimmy D]

First line from your reference: " .. the process by which human beings developed on Earth from now-extinct primates.", .. how convenient, they went extinct, but the human evolved?
How do you know they didn't do one of those macro-evolution-jumps and are out there in your big-banged universe floating on Space fabric, creating planets like Tatooine and populating planet Kolob?

Come on Jimmy, why don't you tell me what "species" this, .. umm, so many different names for it:
*Common Ancestor
*Missing Link
*Neanderthal
*Humanlike ape
*Lucy
*Ota Benga
.. oops that one was a mistake, they released him back into the human population, but unfortunately he shot himself.
*Jawbone of the missing link (found out it was just a jawbone of a freshly roasted pig)

.. was?

I mean what species could it be really, .. it's either a gorilla, or a human. It's between these two.

OK, so if you guys don't want to play, I'll pick a species for it! In the Peleoartist depiction it looks like a handsomest gorilla, or the ugliest human I have ever seen, so I'll just toss a coin: Heads human, tails gorilla.

1. Heads, it was a human. - not missing then is she?
2. heads, human
3. heads human again
4. tails, it was a gorilla, and since we still have gorillas, it's not missing either.

Now you know why they say it's a missing link, so they don't have to say what species it was, .. LOL.

Do you really want a reasonable discussion? It doesn't sound like it.

We have plenty of examples of hominid fossils although none of these are claimed to be our direct descendants.

Fossil Hominid Skulls

These are creatures that show intermediate morphology between humans and chimps.

 

[Skreeper]

I'll let Ovlov90 answer, but I just have to say that for an Evolutionist who can't even tell us what species, or what creature the "Common Ancestor, or Missing link" was to ask to "demonstrate God creating animals after their kind" is hilarious.

That is the ONLY scientific evidence that we have on the 8 million living animal species, each species, no matter how many different varieties we have of them, are after their own kind! From the Great Dane down to a teacup poodle, they are all dogs.

Do you want him to prove that, .. to demonstrate that?

[/QUOTE]

Kind isn't a useful classification and isn't used in biology. Is a wolf and a dog the same kind? Is a gorilla and chimp the same kind?

 

[Ophiolite]

First line from your reference: " .. the process by which human beings developed on Earth from now-extinct primates.", .. how convenient, they went extinct, but the human evolved?
How do you know they didn't do one of those macro-evolution-jumps and are out there in your big-banged universe floating on Space fabric, creating planets like Tatooine and populating planet Kolob?

Come on Jimmy, why don't you tell me what "species" this, .. umm, so many different names for it:
*Common Ancestor
*Missing Link
*Neanderthal
*Humanlike ape
*Lucy
*Ota Benga
.. oops that one was a mistake, they released him back into the human population, but unfortunately he shot himself.
*Jawbone of the missing link (found out it was just a jawbone of a freshly roasted pig)

.. was?

I mean what species could it be really, .. it's either a gorilla, or a human. It's between these two.

OK, so if you guys don't want to play, I'll pick a species for it! In the Peleoartist depiction it looks like a handsomest gorilla, or the ugliest human I have ever seen, so I'll just toss a coin: Heads human, tails gorilla.

1. Heads, it was a human. - not missing then is she?
2. heads, human
3. heads human again
4. tails, it was a gorilla, and since we still have gorillas, it's not missing either.

Now you know why they say it's a missing link, so they don't have to say what species it was, .. LOL.

When you remove the snide remarks, the unpleasant gloating and the total lack of respect for fellow members I shall be pleased to engage with you. Until then I'll just feel sorry for you. Looking forward to a change in your approach.
Ewan

 

[USincognito]

When you remove the snide remarks, the unpleasant gloating and the total lack of respect for fellow members I shall be pleased to engage with you. Until then I'll just feel sorry for you. Looking forward to a change in your approach.
Ewan

This.