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.

 

[Amo2]

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.

It is a little late for me to become a paleontologist. Nor are the vast majority of people believing in Evolution, Creation, YEC, or ID actual scientists in the field. Most of us must read and examine the claims of the scientists of these different disciplines, and choose what seems most reasonable according to logic, world view, and or faith. As these fundamental preconceptions will likely greatly affect our choices.

We are all in the game, as these different views are constantly vying for acceptance or acknowledgment as the truth. It may be a bummer, but regardless of your discipline, the world at large will rightfully examine and critique your claims. As it should be, unto rightful establishment, defense, and recognition of truthfulness or not. Evolution has had and still has a major advantage over all the other disciplines being taught basically as fact, in all public schools by law, and most Colleges or Universities as well. So you will have to pardon my lack of sympathy for evolutionists who cry no fair, when critiqued by those of other disciplines from the far fewer venues they have available than evolutionists.

The theory of evolution is far from being factual science, regardless of the claims put forth by that discipline. There are many, and will continue to be many very good reasons to reject this theory to date.

 

[River Jordan]

It is a little late for me to become a paleontologist. Nor are the vast majority of people believing in Evolution, Creation, YEC, or ID actual scientists in the field. Most of us must read and examine the claims of the scientists of these different disciplines, and choose what seems most reasonable according to logic, world view, and or faith. As these fundamental preconceptions will likely greatly affect our choices.

We are all in the game, as these different views are constantly vying for acceptance or acknowledgment as the truth. It may be a bummer, but regardless of your discipline, the world at large will rightfully examine and critique your claims. As it should be, unto rightful establishment, defense, and recognition of truthfulness or not. Evolution has had and still has a major advantage over all the other disciplines being taught basically as fact, in all public schools by law, and most Colleges or Universities as well. So you will have to pardon my lack of sympathy for evolutionists who cry no fair, when critiqued by those of other disciplines from the far fewer venues they have available than evolutionists.

That's all interesting talk but what exactly is it based on? Just how much have you studied paleontology and genetics? If you're going to "fairly evaluate" those fields of science I assume you've spent a good amount of time studying up on them, otherwise your evaluation isn't really "fair" or informed, is it?

The theory of evolution is far from being factual science, regardless of the claims put forth by that discipline. There are many, and will continue to be many very good reasons to reject this theory to date.

See? Here you speak as if you're an authority in evolutionary biology, someone who's studied the subject in depth and therefore whose views on it actually carry weight.

Is that an accurate assessment? Are you such an authority and expert in evolutionary biology that when you declared "evolution is far from being factual science" everyone else should take it as true based on nothing more than your say so?

 

[Amo2]

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.

Thank you for just demonstrating the effects of world view or faith upon our supposed purely scientific theories or beliefs. You actually refer to the fact that perhaps no one has found a bird fossil old enough to disprove dinosaurs to bird evolution, which as I have pointed out others disagree with, and think this actually proves your point. Meanwhile according to my own faith and as already stated, there is not one example anywhere at any time to date, of actual fossil evidenced evolution from one species to another with any kind of complete record of such at all. Only and ever suggested evolution of this type based upon presumptions concerning similarities, translated as evidence for such by evolutionists who wish this to be true. There should be an unnumbered amount transitionary fossils being found right along with the rest, if the theory of evolution be true. They simply are not there.

Yet you will reverse the reality of this situation, and try to put the burden upon others to find one specific type of fossil to disprove evolution, built upon the flimsy observable evidence you have for such. To the contrary my friend, evolutionists have a very serious lack of evidence problem when it comes to fossils of at this point, obviously imagined transitionary states among "evolving" creatures. As already stated, the best evolutionists have come up with, are suggested transitionary forms with incredibly huge gaps of development between actual evolution from one species to another.

As far as your reference to flightless birds today, why would you presume this is more suggestive of evolution from dino to bird, than that both have always existed together, perhaps in more variety in the past than today. As we know there was much greater variety, size, and by extension probably longevity in the past. Undeveloped feathers of course, would provide none of the benefits you listed above. I think it highly likely though, that whatever the suggested feathers evolutionists refer to actually were, they had specific function and benefit. As we continue to learn about a great many things we once thought had not function and or were just "evolutionary" left overs or junk. As the following video addresses concerning what evolutionists once proposed about our DNA.