Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Nightson said:Yes indeed they did.
Just look at the way birds are shaped and move today.
Uphill Battle said:hmmm, I can just see a T Rex hopping from branch to branch like a sparrow, or an Allosaurus swooping down from the sky to grab a rabbit like a hawk. or a velociraptor slamming its head into a tree in stacatto fashion, looking for bugs.
yep, the similarities are stunning.
Uphill Battle said:yep, the similarities are stunning.
TooCurious said:They are, if you take even a cursory look at the underlying skeletal structure. Try a Google search for "archaeopteryx."
Uphill Battle said:you think I haven't looked at archy before? come now.
TooCurious said:What means do I have to determine the extent and direction of your academic inquiry into the topic? I mentioned the archaeopteryx because it is a clear example of an organism with both dinosaurlike and birdline qualities. I thought it would be helpful to you, as you seemed to have some difficulty with the concept.
Uphill Battle said:no, no difficulty. I just don't see the evidence as pointing to the same thing as you would claim it does.
Phred said:Then Ostriches must not be birds either. After all, they can't hop from branch to branch or swoop out the the sky.
.
Uphill Battle said:no, no difficulty. I just don't see the evidence as pointing to the same thing as you would claim it does.
Jury is still out. It IS a rather unique specimin. It's a bird, I'd wager, but the arguments are thick around it. I don't want to be a fool and say categorically it's one thing or another, because the only thing that gets me is someone jumping down my throat telling me what it REALLY is (their interpretation of it...) but I see how it fits a bird (and YES, birds HAVE had teeth, though it's not something you find in modern era birds.) I haven't looked at archy notes in a long while though.TooCurious said:I suppose it's fair that different people interpret the same evidence differently. Out of curiosity, when you look at a fossilized archaeopteryx skeleton, what do you see it as indicating?
Nightson said:So numerous fossils showing a chronological movement from dinosaurs to birds is interpeted differently how?
Mocca said:Numerous meaning more than 9.
Uphill Battle said:Jury is still out. It IS a rather unique specimin. It's a bird, I'd wager, but the arguments are thick around it. I don't want to be a fool and say categorically it's one thing or another, because the only thing that gets me is someone jumping down my throat telling me what it REALLY is (their interpretation of it...) but I see how it fits a bird (and YES, birds HAVE had teeth, though it's not something you find in modern era birds.) I haven't looked at archy notes in a long while though.
TooCurious said:Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
Another question, if you don't object: Do you consider it categorically impossible for birds to have evolved from dinosaurs, or are you simply not yet sufficiently persuaded that such is the case?
Mocca said:
Uphill Battle said:Unless I found something beyond what has been forwarded on the subject, now I will not be persuaded. I have found no reason not to believe in YEC, as I do. (waiting for the wisecracks.)
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?