Dinosaurs evolved into birds.

[Uphill Battle]

You won't get wisecracks from me on the subject. Even if I strongly disagree with the conclusions another person has reached, I respect his right to hold his own opinions for as long and to the same extent as he respects my right to do the same. Thank you for your willingness to respond to my curiosity.

not you specifically. Thanks though. I used to debate on this quite some time ago... I got busy with work, haven't been on for many months. Standard reply to those who don't agree with ToE is mockery, though.

 

[Baggins]

. Standard reply to those who don't agree with ToE is mockery, though.

Not at first, only when they have shown themselves deserving of mockery by their actions.

Attacking strawmen, attacking evolution without actually understanding what it is , PRATT lists, all lead eventually and inevitably to mockery.

I have never read a single post on here which had cogent argments against evolution.

I'd respect someone who said, "I disbelieve in evolution for religious reasons, and nothing you can say will change my mind". Fair enough no arguing with that.

What I can't respect is people who will twist science to try to get it to seemingly support their unsupportable position.

If you hold a position due to faith isn't that good enough? Why do some need to try and twist science so it seems to uphold their position? That deserves mockery because it is often transparent dishonesty ( viz Ken Ham etc ), or if not it is ignorance being paraded with some kind of misbegotten pride.

Often mockery is the last resort of the terminally hacked off

 

[Uphill Battle]

Not at first, only when they have shown themselves deserving of mockery by their actions.

Attacking strawmen, attacking evolution without actually understanding what it is , PRATT lists, all lead eventually and inevitably to mockery.

I have never read a single post on here which had cogent argments against evolution.

I'd respect someone who said, "I disbelieve in evolution for religious reasons, and nothing you can say will change my mind". Fair enough no arguing with that.

What I can't respect is people who will twist science to try to get it to seemingly support their unsupportable position.

If you hold a position due to faith isn't that good enough? Why do some need to try and twist science so it seems to uphold their position? That deserves mockery because it is often transparent dishonesty ( viz Ken Ham etc ), or if not it is ignorance being paraded with some kind of misbegotten pride.

Often mockery is the last resort of the terminally hacked off

have to disagree with you. I have found that mockery is often the first tactic used. And you have heard an argument against evolution because the same reason that religious people don't give up their beliefs. Convinced, nothing will change it. I've been through the arguments on PRATTS, strawmen et. al, and have no desire to get in to it again, I for once would like to see the honesty of someone who supports the ToE display their same lack of willingness to be swayed, regardless of what is discussed.

 

[Baggins]

If evidence was found that falsified the theory of evolution, and that evidence was clear and unambiguous, I can't believe a single scientist on earth would hold to the theory in the face of the evidence. It is not dogma it is a scientific theory. When Einstein falsified Newtonian mechanics with general relativity the scientific world did not go into shock and refuse to accept the change, it was embraced and Einstein was hailed as the greatest scientist since Newton.

The same would happen to anyone who falsified the Theory of Evolution, it would be one of the greatest scientific leaps forward in my lifetime, I would be immensely excited by it.

I don't think it will happen but I am prepared to admit that it may because the Theory of Evolution cannot be proved it can only be falsified, therefore we have to allow that it may be falsified.

The only way I can see it being falsified is in the same way that Newton was, i.e. it becomes a special case in a greater theory. That is because it has been known of now for ovewr 150 years and every single bit of evidence that has turned up since then whether it was genetics, the fossil record or the sequencing of genomes has provided additional evidence for the theory rather than falsified it.

It is now one of the most robust and well supported theories in science, but that does not mean that a fossil will not turn up today that will cast doubt on the theory or even fallsify it completly.

Imagine for a moment that we sequenced human DNA and Chimp DNA and we had found they were startlingly different, that would have started down the road of falsification of common ancestry and would have undermined the ToE.

But we didn't did we, that piece of evidence like every other we have found in the last 150 years further supported the theory.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I just bumped Aggie's Recent Thread on Bird evolution. Here is a link.

 

[Aggie]

Hey, thanks. I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s now the most popular thread I’ve ever posted here.

It’s too bad God Fearing Atheist isn’t around here much anymore. I don’t have a problem with being this board’s authority on the origin of birds, but he knows a lot more about it than I do.

 

[JohnR7]

I don’t have a problem with being this board’s authority on the origin of birds, but he knows a lot more about it than I do.

The best authority is the Bible. The "birds" were created when God created the fish in the ocean, on the fifth day. The land animals were not created untill the sixth day. So the birds were created long before the dinos.

If evos would just read their Bible, then they would not make some of the mistakes they make.

 

[Baggins]

The best authority is the Bible. The "birds" were created when God created the fish in the ocean, on the fifth day. The land animals were not created untill the sixth day. So the birds were created long before the dinos.

If evos would just read their Bible, then they would not make some of the mistakes they make.

And if you'd only read a palaeontology text book, you wouldn't make the mistakes you make.

The geological record clearly and unambiguously shows that dinosaurs evolved before birds.

Which means that outside of "JohnR7world" the biblical record of creation is falsified.

You are a sad case John, the evidence is laid in front of you and yet you prefer to live in your fantasy world.

 

[TK2005]

What purpose would be served by big lizards taking flight? Or growing feathers? What brought these things about?

It's like the theory that all life emerged from the oceans. Why would the animals leave the ocean if that is where the food was in the first place? Would they not have starved to death?

 

[Baggins]

What purpose would be served by big lizards taking flight? Or growing feathers? What brought these things about?

Mutation and natural selection. Also big lizards didn't "take flight" small lizards did. Feathers have many uses beyond flight, warmth and display spring immediately to mind

It's like the theory that all life emerged from the oceans. Why would the animals leave the ocean if that is where the food was in the first place? Would they not have starved to death?

Animals left the oceans because there was an unexploited food source on land, namely; land plants.

Plants left the ocean because there were unexploited niches on land.

All the above is is an argument from ignorance.

You have questions, why not answer them by reading up on what evolution is, how it works, and how it has worked in the past of the life we see in the geological record.

 

[Aggie]

What purpose would be served by big lizards taking flight? Or growing feathers? What brought these things about?

First of all, they weren’t “big”. The two most obvious transitional forms between dinosaurs and birds, Microraptor and Archaeopteryx, were both smaller than the size of a cat.

But in answer to your question about feathers, they probably originated as a way for warm-blooded dinosaurs to retain heat during cold weather. The advantage brought by early forms of flight would have been to help these animals escape from larger predators. If you had read my thread from November that Frumious Banderstantch just linked to, you wouldn’t have needed to ask this.

 

[BigRed11]

The best authority is the Bible.

Ah yes, let's turn to a millenia-old book for the answers to our questions.

 

[dlamberth]

The best authority is the Bible. The "birds" were created when God created the fish in the ocean, on the fifth day. The land animals were not created untill the sixth day. So the birds were created long before the dinos.

If evos would just read their Bible, then they would not make some of the mistakes they make.

I wonder how things would look if YEC's understood that they are believing in a very, very old creation myth that was used by an ancient middle-eastern ancient warrior tribe of people as their explanation for the beginning of life and human beings.

When used as an authority to know God and to make human beings more human, the Bible is second to none. But when used as an authority for geology and how life grew to be how it is today, the Bible doesn’t come even close to reality.

.

 

[correlationrevelation]

lol!!

 

[Uphill Battle]

Ah yes, let's turn to a millenia-old book for the answers to our questions.

why not? Where is it written in stone (pardon the pun) that Older is worse, that something newer is definitively "more right?"

 

[Mocca]

Well, the "older is worse" rule doesn't really apply to a belief that shoehorns new information onto the same beliefs.

But in science, theories adapt to new information; scientists are always developing their understanding, and generally a newer theory is better as it takes into account newer evidence and information found since.

 

[Gracchus]

why not? Where is it written in stone (pardon the pun) that Older is worse, that something newer is definitively "more right?"

Nowhere. The stones, after all, are older than the bible, and the truth of geology, written in the stones, shows Genesis to be a Bronze Age myth.

 

[Nightson]

Nowhere. The stones, after all, are older than the bible, and the truth of geology, written in the stones shows Genesis to be a Bronze Age myth.

*cough*

It shows a literal reading of Genesis to be wrong, although it is nothing more than a myth.

 

[underthesouthercross]

yeah thats what scientist think happen l wouldnt be surprise, good call thats how thick scientist are and decieved they are

 

[Nightson]

yeah thats what scientist think happen l wouldnt be surprise, good call thats how thick scientist are and decieved they are

Right....

Remember kids, if someone disagrees with you, they've been decieved by the Devil.