Scientists find first bird beak.

[dad]

Actually, that development first occurred in the Stegosaurus lineage 150 million years ago, as is obvious by this artistic recreation

Alas, it is a trait that remained restricted to quadrupeds, as is seen in the modern giraffe

A trait retained in the modern Sableye

How diamond eyes function for sight remains a modern mystery, but scientific investigations continue.



As we now know, all therapods entirely consisted of 100 dollar bills in US currency, evolving from the less valuable Canadian currency

Thanks for the writing prompts, dude.

Nice to see a fable presented in a fablish way.

 

[ripple the car]

Evolutionary speculation always sounds cool, but is still basically just massive amounts of scientific-sounding guessing against a backdrop of several thousand assumptions.

 

[ripple the car]

Kind of like what Dougal Dixon does in his books. Cool sounding, but essentially imaginary.

The New Dinosaurs - Wikipedia

 

[DogmaHunter]

Actually, the way they connect what fossil was related (ancestor) to what..is no secret.

It indeed isn't a secret. It's rather public and easily accessible information.

Which is exactly why it is kind of bizar that you're having trouble getting it right.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Evolutionary speculation always sounds cool, but is still basically just massive amounts of scientific-sounding guessing against a backdrop of several thousand assumptions.

Genetics is anything but speculative or based on assumption.

Genetics is pretty factual.

 

[ripple the car]

Genetics is anything but speculative or based on assumption.

Genetics is pretty factual.

Genetics exist, but what they are telling us is, ultimately, debatable.

 

[Gene2memE]

Isn't it a little presumptuous to call it the "first bird beak?"

I agree. It's hyperbole.

"Earliest known transitional bird beak progenitor" doesn't really sell a headline though.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Genetics exist, but what they are telling us is, ultimately, debatable.

It's not.

Mix your DNA and that of your biological dad or siblings with other random samples, and labs will pick your dad or siblings out, every single time.

 

[dad]

Genetics exist, but what they are telling us is, ultimately, debatable.

As far as what they tell us about the days of Adam and Noah...yes, totally.

 

[dad]

It indeed isn't a secret. It's rather public and easily accessible information.

Which is exactly why it is kind of bizar that you're having trouble getting it right.

I have no trouble seeing what Hansel and Gretel were said to have done, or seeing what modern nature science says fossils mean. Really. The thing is, they are foolish stories.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I have no trouble seeing what Hansel and Gretel were said to have done, or seeing what modern nature science says fossils mean. Really. The thing is, they are foolish stories.

Irony.

 

[dad]

Irony.

That is why knowing truth from fables comes in handy. Even if science cannot attain that bar, I do ask that they at least know that their religion is all about pumping out fables.

 

[DogmaHunter]

That is why knowing truth from fables comes in handy. Even if science cannot attain that bar, I do ask that they at least know that their religion is all about pumping out fables.

You wouldn't know truth from fable if both came up while holding a 50 feet tall sign.

 

[dad]

You wouldn't know truth from fable if both came up while holding a 50 feet tall sign.

Guess we would just ask you which was which, and hide the bibles in the closet?

 

[AirPo]

That is why knowing truth from fables comes in handy. Even if science cannot attain that bar, I do ask that they at least know that their religion is all about pumping out fables.

Birony, binary irony? Nah, I don't think so.

Dirony, double irony? Better.
D'dirony, doubling down on the irony?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Guess we would just ask you which was which, and hide the bibles in the closet?

Here's an insane idea: ask about the evidence, instead of simply following the word of someone.

 

[dad]

Here's an insane idea: ask about the evidence, instead of simply following the word of someone.

OK, I'll do that. Give evidence for your religion that you call science. Especially, give evidence for the origin claims/old ages. The pattern of folks from your religion thus far has been to offer belief based circular arguments only.

You 'know' that radioactive decay existed in the far past on earth, and was responsible for all isotopes/ratios we now see...because...you believe it was the same nature in effect always.
You know that time exists the same out in unknown deep space, because....you see light from the stars IN our tie here near earth, and believe it should be the same out there.

Etc.

On the other hand, if I look at the evidence of Christ rising from the dead, and His life and direct effects on lives today and through time...you want to say that is not evidence. Let's face it, origin sciences are a jealous and petty little narrow minded religion. A religion that delights in denying facts and evidence as well as making up dark and strange fables.

 

[Jimmy D]

On the other hand, if I look at the evidence of Christ rising from the dead, and His life and direct effects on lives today and through time...you want to say that is not evidence. Let's face it, origin sciences are a jealous and petty little narrow minded religion. A religion that delights in denying facts and evidence as well as making up dark and strange fables.

Funniest thing I've read today, thanks!

 

[AirPo]

OK, I'll do that. Give evidence for your religion that you call science. Especially, give evidence for the origin claims/old ages. The pattern of folks from your religion thus far has been to offer belief based circular arguments only.

You 'know' that radioactive decay existed in the far past on earth, and was responsible for all isotopes/ratios we now see...because...you believe it was the same nature in effect always.
You know that time exists the same out in unknown deep space, because....you see light from the stars IN our tie here near earth, and believe it should be the same out there.

Etc.

On the other hand, if I look at the evidence of Christ rising from the dead, and His life and direct effects on lives today and through time...you want to say that is not evidence. Let's face it, origin sciences are a jealous and petty little narrow minded religion. A religion that delights in denying facts and evidence as well as making up dark and strange fables.

Let's face it. Origin sciences are a creationist caricature of the real world. But when you live in the fishbowl, everything else looks warped and you don't realize where you are. Science is a great first step for getting out of the fishbowl. Meaning you have to grow legs and learn how to breath air.

 

[DogmaHunter]

OK, I'll do that. Give evidence for your religion that you call science.

Science is not religion. Planes fly because they were build on scientific evidence-based knowledge. Praying won't make a plane fly.

Especially, give evidence for the origin claims/old ages.

Why? You would just dismiss it with your Last Thursday fantasy.
But if you insist, I'll give you a single easy one to start with: +100.000 layers of snow ice in ice-cores taken from the north pole. That accounts for +100.000 winter/summer cycles.

So, how does that fit into your YECism?
Did seasons only last for 12 hours Last Thursday?

The pattern of folks from your religion thus far has been to offer belief based circular arguments only.

No idea what you are talking about. I even doubt if you even know yourself.

You 'know' that radioactive decay existed in the far past on earth, and was responsible for all isotopes/ratios we now see...because...you believe it was the same nature in effect always.

There's no reason to think otherwise. Your Last Thursday-ism notwithstanding, off course...

You know that time exists the same out in unknown deep space, because....you see light from the stars IN our tie here near earth, and believe it should be the same out there.

Again, why would you assume otherwise?
ow, right.... Last thursday fantasies.

On the other hand, if I look at the evidence of Christ rising from the dead, and His life and direct effects on lives today and through time...you want to say that is not evidence

That indeed is not evidence. That's a claim - and a religious one at that. A claim, which is not supported by evidence.

Let's face it, origin sciences are a jealous and petty little narrow minded religion. A religion that delights in denying facts and evidence as well as making up dark and strange fables.

Projecting, much?
See you next Thursday.