Evolution conflict and division

[River Jordan]

Even if your above assertions are true, it simply means that to date, dino fossils with presumed feathers have been found earlier than bird fossils. Which could change overnight, regarding more fossil finds. Which shows the actual flimsiness of the theory of evolution as a whole, as so much of it is completely dependent upon evolutionary definitions of the most recent fossil finds. Which fossil finds have and will no doubt continue to flip the story over again and again as newer evidence is found. How many times must the evolutionary story change, before the theory begins to be seriously questioned as any kind of actual observed and therefore factual science? Rather than just theoretical historical unobserved science? Mind you, I speak only relating to fossils, not the many other changing and morphing teachings of evolution which have occurred over time.

Apart from this is the differing opinions even of evolutionists as to what is a bird, and what is not. Even what is a feather and what is not. What advantage do you propose, a dino with undeveloped feathers and or feathers which do not equal flight, has over dino's without feathers? Since survival of the fittest is supposed to play such a crucial roll in evolution? This is not to mention the fact that these fossils may just represent some extinct creatures that actually did resemble a cross between birds and dinosaurs, rather than some missing link between dinosaurs and birds. Evolutionists continually act as though finding similarities equates to evolution, while to this date lacking countless transitional forms in the fossil record, including for this very topic of dino to bird. The few examples suggested by evolutionists do not come anywhere near representing the very huge number of changes needed in dino to bird transformation. There are no examples anywhere of anything even nearly at all, actually revealing such a transformation without huge unexplainable gaps between suggested or supposed stages, but by presumption and great faith among those who wish evolution to be true. This according the their world view, not established at all by observable, or in any way shape or form demonstrated science. Rather theoretical historical science, dealing with what cannot be observed at all.

If you think paleontologists and evolutionary biologists have it all wrong, then go do better! Show everyone how your brand of science works better!

It's one thing to throw rocks from the sidelines; anyone can do that. It's something else entirely to actually get in the game and make a meaningful difference.

 

[Job 33:6]

Even if your above assertions are true, it simply means that to date, dino fossils with presumed feathers have been found earlier than bird fossils. Which could change overnight, regarding more fossil finds. Which shows the actual flimsiness of the theory of evolution as a whole, as so much of it is completely dependent upon evolutionary definitions of the most recent fossil finds.

Id agree with what is noted above by Jordan. Science is based on evidence. If you think you can demonstrate better, then go right ahead. That's the beauty of it. It's based on evidence.

And if you find bird fossils in older Paleozoic stràta, call me, and I'll be the first one supporting your claim to fame. I'd love to find such a fossil. But despite looking at many rocks, as a professional geologist, and despite looking at many fossils, I have yet to see such a thing.

And what advantage would feathers be to a dinosaur that cannot fly? Warmth in the cold perhaps. Beauty toward potential mates. There are lots of flightless birds with feathers today, perhaps we could just look at how they use their feathers.

And it's interesting to note. The theory of evolution has been around since the 1800s. There's been a fair amount of time for someone (anyone at all) on planet earth to find a devonian bird. Yet here we are. To date, we still don't have a single bird fossils predating feathered dinosaurs.