Should We Teach Creation As Science In Public Schools?

[Resha Caner]

I don't understand your fluid or "ethereal substance?"

My point is that you are trying to read things into the text that just aren't there. I knew I never should have commented on that post. Now we're off track. I would prefer to hear your response to post #95.

 

[jamesbond007]

I think I can conclude we've narrowed it down to at least these two: science and education. I was hoping we could narrow it to just one. For example, are you more concerned with how actual scientists are practicing their discipline or are you more concerned with how curricula are selected for schools?

But maybe those two are inseparable in your mind. You're concerned about science education. Would that be fair?

No, you provided a list and asked me what was fundamental to my concern of teaching and I gave you three -- science, education, and the created world. Why should it be one? Moreover, I gave you water vapor as one of the early gases present. That's based on science and the created world, i.e. in first two books of Genesis. What gases were present in the early atmosphere to you?

 

[Resha Caner]

Why should it be one?

Because you're all over the place.

What gases were present in the early atmosphere to you?

I have no idea. Why does it matter, and what does this have to do with science education?

You can call your comments whatever you like, but as far as I'm concerned, they have nothing to do with science and do not in the least help your case.

 

[jamesbond007]

I have no idea. Why does it matter, and what does this have to do with science education?

You can call your comments whatever you like, but as far as I'm concerned, they have nothing to do with science and do not in the least help your case.

Then you are ignorant of science, education, and the created world. There you go.

 

[Resha Caner]

Then you are ignorant of science, education, and the created world. There you go.

Mmm. Really? You want to compare resume's?

 

[Brightmoon]

Why not just show the kids the theory of evolution including all the problems with it?

Teaching them a young earth creationists biblical interpretation should stay in the church.

. What problems with it?

Blasphemy? Seriously? That term is usually used in this context:

Definition of blasphemy

1a : the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God accused of blasphemy

b : the act of claiming the attributes of a deity for a mere man to suggest that he was … divine could only be viewed … as blasphemy— John Bright †1889

I hardly think that creation as YEC believe could be considered "blaspheming" as it is actually in total agreement with:
1/What God is capable of.
2/ What God told us that He did.

If some guy, a created being of the creator, looks around this earth and concludes some other view.. I think I will take the words of the one who created, over the words of one who was created.

There are a lot of things, in science, that were once held as dear as your view... and later, were found to be impossible due to some new knowledge gained...

This is the exact case with Darwinian view... He had no idea of the complexity of every living cell, DNA or the vast amount of information and it's complexity..

From there, it's a down hill slide that morphs into a free fall.

I was at Joggin's Fossil Cliffs in Nova Scotia.

There are layers of strata that are supposed to represent millions of years. Yet, there are trees right up through these layers..

These tress stand as exclamation points, of God, to prove that these layers were all formed while a tree was standing there..

Hardly millions of years.

View attachment 262024

I got an idea for a simple experiment from Pedals. This bear became fully bipedal because he injured his front paw. Can we tie one of an apes/chimps hands so it is disabled temporarily? Will it be forced to walk bipedal or will it have difficulties? Obviously, we cannot document it being passed on, but it would show whether it can be fully biped or not.

Here's an example of an ape

It's your "faith-based" science Brightmoon, so you can figure out and tie the great ape .

. Polystrate trees ? Really ! Why don’t you read a science book for middle schoolers and find out how they formed over maybe a few decades . You’ve demonstrated repeatedly that you don’t even understand middle school science but you’re questioning a major scientific theory like evolution

Bears can and do walk on their hind legs . It isn’t good for their backs to walk upright for long periods because their spines are straight. Human spines have an S shape because gradually over millions of years it evolved to adjust to upright walking .

Yes I consider a evolution denial and a young earth blasphemy because Nature says otherwise. God’s Creation cannot lie which makes it mostly understandable to someone willing to study nature to get answers about nature.

 

[Abraxos]

It's not just ToE, but evolutionary thinking and history. It goes back to ancient times. I used to believe in evolution until around 2011. Some things didn't add up like mutations, tree of life, common ancestor, Lucy, and so on. I became Christian in 2012 and ended up comparing evolution vs. creation. Before I could I had to get past the parts that confused me and all new converts like the people parts (God orders his people to kill all the Caananites including women, children, and babies), scientific parts like people living to long ages, and all the begots.

YEC can be taught without the religious parts. Basically, YEC is comprised of the first two books (chapters) of Genesis. If two perfect humans procreated from the time period of Noah's Flood, i.e. Noah's family, then it would match today's population.

Yeah, but that is basically what education is all about; it's divulging into the roots of the topics and understanding them enough to form one's own educated opinion on the matter.

I think to push a YEC narrative falls into choppy waters of less about education; It's like you have exchanged one indoctrination for another.

 

[jamesbond007]

Mmm. Really? You want to compare resume's?

It sound like you're feeling overwhelmed because I asked you a question and you didn't know. Comparing resumes, how much better looking I am that you (even my kids are better looking than you), how much more money I have than your entire family, comparing what accomplishments we have made in life does not mean squat. We cannot take any of it after we die. Even King Solomon could not take anything with him when he died. What counts is the type of argument you are making instead of trying to put words in my mouth.

In the OP, the video debunked Miller-Urey's chemistry experiment in 1952 claiming amino acids were produced because the pair of scientists assumed the wrong gases in the early atmosphere. One of them was water vapor; the experiment had a flask of boiling water to produce the vapor. Thus, it was to try and mix a variety of gases in and use electricity to simulate lightening in order to produce amino acids whether in space or on Earth to fall into a little pond.

Before that was Darwin and his ToE, which does not discuss origins. It already started with a cell. Darwin wanted to explain how evolution works. However, Darwin hinted at origin of life in a little pond based on popular theory that life began by spontaneous generation. Dr. Louis Pasteur already debunked spontaneous generation (precursor to abiogenesis), so a new theory was being formulated. The early gases and lightening produced amino acids that fell into the ocean to become primordial soup. Out of this was suppose to come life. Miller-Urey formulated an experiment that showed amino acids were created. That is still a long way to proteins and life. Yet, it would show how something could evolve from primordial soup. The experiment used methane, ammonia, water vapor, and hydrogen. However, a decade later scientists thought that was wrong and there was a little oxygen present. That would have caused an explosion with the experiment. They also didn't think much hydrogen was present in the early atmosphere. They thought it was like the gases that come out of a volcano -- water vapor, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen. I think you know that does not produce any amino acids. One has to have free hydrogen present and Miller-Urey tried to do that by adding H2 + O2.

 

[jamesbond007]

Yeah, but that is basically what education is all about; it's divulging into the roots of the topics and understanding them enough to form one's own educated opinion on the matter.

I think to push a YEC narrative falls into choppy waters of less about education; It's like you have exchanged one indoctrination for another.

Well, I am on the minority side. When any breakthroughs happen like experiments to debunk Miller-Urey, it is suppressed by secular and atheist scientists in power. We already know Darwin was wrong about many things with his theories, but changes over long time, tree of life, and common ancestor is still being promoted. The transitions do not happen. What happens is natural selection which is variations within a species. Even the argument of birds to dinosaurs uses the argument that birds are land animals. This contradicts what the Bible states. They will use birds that do not fly, but these birds developed from their environment and didn't have to fly. They ended up using their wings for balance and mating. It's unfair that creation science cannot present their theories as they are excluded from mainstream science. Mainstream science is geared to protect long time, common ancestor, and tree of life. Even the bushes of life theory and orchard theory is not accepted as the main theory when it has been demonstrated that it is. Creation science has baraminology, but there is only one college in the US that supports their research. Any breakthroughs will not be reported. Creation scientists have a hard time getting into Encyclopedia Britannica. This is why you believe what you do. The majority of people have been fooled and it is difficult to show they have been fooled.

The above vid is some measure of victory for creation scientists. It doesn't relate to what we have been discussing, but it shows that we have won in the court system. The other part is with Ark Encounter and the Creation Museum. It still is going after a rough 2016 beginning helped out by the debate.

 

[Resha Caner]

It sound like you're feeling overwhelmed because I asked you a question and you didn't know.

I'm not overwhelmed at all. I'm willing to admit what I know and what I don't know. That's what honest people do. It's the reason education is important. If it were relevant to the topic, I'd be happy to learn, but it's not relevant and I'm not interested in playing games. I was trying to figure out what you're talking about. Apparently there's nothing to discover.

Comparing resumes, how much better looking I am that you (even my kids are better looking than you), how much more money I have than your entire family, comparing what accomplishments we have made in life does not mean squat.

Is that supposed to be mockery? A rather odd thing to say. In a thread about science education - where you claim you want to improve education - you're going to mock education?

Yeah. I'm done here. God bless.

 

[jamesbond007]

God bless.

Well, I'm not done. One rule I use when discussing science with someone is to ask a question about their claim. An honest scientist will try and answer it. I'm not saying that Resha Caner was not being honest. He didn't know.

I found a website where you can play Miller-Urey. There is a beaker for water vapor. Thus, when the Bible describes water vapor in -- "6 And God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” 7 And God made the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse. And it was so. 8 And God called the expanse Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day." Genesis 1:6-8 --
God separated the water vapor in the atmosphere from the water in the oceans and seas. Now, do we know what other gases God created? It is not explained. The scientists after Miller-Urey thought the early atmosphere had different gases. You'll find that you cannot have free hydrogen and free oxygen when you light the spark in the experiment. I would think if you play enough with the mixture of gases, then you'll produce amino acids. However, you are probably making some tricky assumptions for the early gases.

Miller-Urey Experiment

However, if there was some oxygen present, then it would cause an explosive problems for the evos. They think the universe had a lot of free hydrogen because the stars exploded after the big bang. How did the stars get there? I don't know. Their explanations are usually about what happened during the big bang is sketchy. Anyway, they should assume there was some oxygen because it is found in rocks today and for evos the present is the key to the past.

"The primitive atmosphere
Theories of the origin of life initially assumed that the primitive atmosphere should be a reducing one in order to prevent oxidative destruction of the components of the "primordial soup".[3] So the evolutionists theorize an early atmosphere without oxygen. Oparin believed that the Earth's early atmosphere was composed of hydrogen (H2), methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3) and water vapor (H2O), containing no oxygen.[1] Haldane postulated the same theory and his most important conclusions were presented in a short article for the Rationalist Annual.[4] Other scientists who corroborated this model of atmosphere were Miller and Urey. They reasoned that a small but significant amount of H2 remained in the primordial atmosphere and reacted with atoms of carbon, nitrogen or oxigen forming this kind of atmosphere.[5] By sparking together hydrogen, methane, ammonia, and water vapor, they produced several amino acids, the building blocks of organic life.[6]

Nowadays there is almost universal agreement among specialists that the primitive atmosphere contained no reducing gases like methane, ammonia or hydrogen.[7] Instead, it is that the atmosphere contained carbon dioxide and nitrogen.[7] According Hubert Yockey, the modern view regarding the atmosphere of the early Earth is that it was neutral and composed of nitrogen (N2), carbon dioxide (CO2), water (H2O) and maybe some ammonia (NH3).[8]"

Reducing atmosphere - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

I also present this short video albeit it is obsolete. This is an obsolete video because the big bang is being questioned now, but at the time, it was exciting to hear that the eternal universe was pseudoscience due to the discovery of cosmic microwave background (CMB) and thinking we are closer to finding gravitational waves. It does compare what was written about big bang and Genesis. I think it gives one an idea of what the Earth looked like. Yet, on the second day, the atmosphere could have looked more primitive than shown. Was there oxygen present then? We don't know, but creation scientists thought it was the volcanic gases instead. However, if we go by a young Earth, then it certainly was present and it causes problems for the evos and Miller-Urey.

 

[Abraxos]

Well, I am on the minority side. When any breakthroughs happen like experiments to debunk Miller-Urey, it is suppressed by secular and atheist scientists in power. We already know Darwin was wrong about many things with his theories, but changes over long time, tree of life, and common ancestor is still being promoted. The transitions do not happen. What happens is natural selection which is variations within a species. Even the argument of birds to dinosaurs uses the argument that birds are land animals. This contradicts what the Bible states. They will use birds that do not fly, but these birds developed from their environment and didn't have to fly. They ended up using their wings for balance and mating. It's unfair that creation science cannot present their theories as they are excluded from mainstream science. Mainstream science is geared to protect long time, common ancestor, and tree of life. Even the bushes of life theory and orchard theory is not accepted as the main theory when it has been demonstrated that it is. Creation science has baraminology, but there is only one college in the US that supports their research. Any breakthroughs will not be reported. Creation scientists have a hard time getting into Encyclopedia Britannica. This is why you believe what you do. The majority of people have been fooled and it is difficult to show they have been fooled.

The above vid is some measure of victory for creation scientists. It doesn't relate to what we have been discussing, but it shows that we have won in the court system. The other part is with Ark Encounter and the Creation Museum. It still is going after a rough 2016 beginning helped out by the debate.

There is no such thing as creation science, there is only science. It's this young-earth creation/evolutionary narrative placed upon the scientific method one should be wary of placing upon children.

What is it you believe I believe to be so?

 

[stevevw]

I do not think many and perhaps the majority of people bother with or are even capable of understanding the science of creationism or evolution and therefore this is not imperative to their salvation. Salvation is not determined on what version of creation or whether a person may support some aspects of evolution. Evolution does not automatically equate to being excluded from God. It is all about a faith in him through Jesus and all else is on the fringes and in fact getting too caught up in the politics of creation and evolution can cause more confusion and harm if a person does not have the ability and understanding to discern things properly.

 

[stevevw]

Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools. Part of the problem is science today only accepts what is natural in the physical world. It is based on the philosophy of empiricism, but today's science does not follow it nor is it backed by the scientific method. What today's science of evolution is backed by is consensus and circumstantial forensic evidence. Why only evolution is taught in schools is because today's science does not allow for a supernatural creator to be involved in the "creation" of the universe, Earth, and everything in it. This is not science when evidence can be provided for the supernatural in creation through the Bible. It is part of Genesis and how God created the natural world. The assumption that there was no supernatural occurrence during the beginning is unscientific. One of the most basic arguments for a creator is the universe began to exist, not an eternal universe, and we have Kalam's Cosmological argument.

Furthermore, we are here -- the universe and everything in it exists! Now, if evolution and its big bang could explain in detail of how the electromagnetic spectrum, the Higgs field, the cosmic microwave background, and how amino acids formed into proteins in outer space from nothing or invisible quantum particles, then they would have a better explanation and argument with big bang. We need to have the theory fit the evidence instead of the evidence made to fit the theory. Science should not just be based on empiricism, but also on a priori reasoning in addition to the scientific a posteriori reasoning. This is all part of epistemology. We need to use facts, reasoning, and historical truths in science since not everything can be proven by scientific method.

I've read Dr. John Morris' explanation for a creator -- Should the Public Schools Teach Creation? -- and today we have a more updated version from Lee Strobel -- Strong case, but flawed by compromise (Review of Lee Strobel, Case for Creator) - creation.com. creation.com gives a brief overview without reading his book. Sorry, I haven't read his book, but have watched the video below.

Maybe not teach creation science as a subject but at least incorporate a philosophy subject that allows the questioning of the science method and paradigm. As noted in the Lee Strobel video science has shown that the universe has a beginning and through the Kalām cosmological argument logic would tell us that a universe that has a beginning must have a cause. If it has a cause then something outside of the universe was responsible. We don't have to say it is a Christian God but we can at least allow for consideration that there may be influences at play beyond the scientific method.

The problem I see is that only having a science subject without a religious or philosophical subject to balance things can allow science to be just as much as a brain washing influence as people say religion is. Scientism is an ideology that promotes science as the only objective means by which society should determine normative, epistemological values and reality. So people can become fixed in a certain way of thinking that excludes all else in the overall scheme of things and this can do just as much damage. We have seen this throughout history with scientific experimentation om people because of certain ideologies about what science can do.

 

[jamesbond007]

There is no such thing as creation science, there is only science. It's this young-earth creation/evolutionary narrative placed upon the scientific method one should be wary of placing upon children.

What is it you believe I believe to be so?

You should know better than to say there is no such thing as creation science. That is Satan's argument which I have another thread on in this forum. Why are you even in this forum when your creation scientists and creation science is real science and formidable? Where do you learn evolution from? Can you answer my questions?

Creationist scientist contributions - creation.com

Creation scientists - creation.com

I believe in the truth. I don't believe in lies. I validate what is being taught me. Like I said, I compared evolution to creation science. Lord, I didn't understand the Bible and Genesis. What does it all mean long lives and global flood. Do you believe in biblical longevity and Noah's Flood are real occurrences?

The Bible is God's word. Anyway, God bless. May you be able to find the answers and real science one day.

 

[jamesbond007]

Maybe not teach creation science as a subject but at least incorporate a philosophy subject that allows the questioning of the science method and paradigm. As noted in the Lee Strobel video science has shown that the universe has a beginning and through the Kalām cosmological argument logic would tell us that a universe that has a beginning must have a cause. If it has a cause then something outside of the universe was responsible. We don't have to say it is a Christian God but we can at least allow for consideration that there may be influences at play beyond the scientific method.

We can teach the following can't we -- Creationist scientist contributions - creation.com? As for the anti-evolution, it has come up since the 1850s from James Hutton's and Charles Lyell's uniformitarianism, i.e. the present is the key to the past, and Charles Darwin's ToE. Darwin was a pupil of Lyell. Hutton and Lyell were atheists. Darwin became one after he explained how evolution works. He did not invent the ToE as many people believe. Thus, I would state this is part of science, the first two books (chapters) of Genesis. It is the only supernatural part. You have to also have a priori thinking with the supernatural. This is using rational thinking, facts, reasoning, and historical truths. Finally, creation scientists today are formulating a curriculum to counter evolution with Baraminology. I agree with Kalam's cosmological argument because the of the finding of the CMB and accelerating expansion of the universe led to the big bang theory and the universe had a beginning. It got rid of the false science of eternal universe. Where is the accelerating expansion of the universe is explained in the Bible?

The problem I see is that only having a science subject without a religious or philosophical subject to balance things can allow science to be just as much as a brain washing influence as people say religion is. Scientism is an ideology that promotes science as the only objective means by which society should determine normative, epistemological values and reality. So people can become fixed in a certain way of thinking that excludes all else in the overall scheme of things and this can do just as much damage. We have seen this throughout history with scientific experimentation om people because of certain ideologies about what science can do.

I agree about your concerns, but those are not things I am proposing. I am proposing just taking the first two book of Genesis as hypothesis and go from there. That is basically listed in the chart above. Do you think that secular science discovering the universe had a beginning was a game changer? Now, they are wrong about evolution. How long will we be subjected to it? Nothing in evolution can help you with real science. People just spew answers by rote memory. Even the creation scientists of today have to learn evolution and spew the answers or else they do not get funded for their projects.

For example, Alan Feduccia who is against birds from dinosaurs wrote a book against it. He states he does not know the origin of birds and he's an ornithologist and evolutionary biologist. That's another book that can be used.

 

[jamesbond007]

I do not think many and perhaps the majority of people bother with or are even capable of understanding the science of creationism or evolution and therefore this is not imperative to their salvation. Salvation is not determined on what version of creation or whether a person may support some aspects of evolution. Evolution does not automatically equate to being excluded from God. It is all about a faith in him through Jesus and all else is on the fringes and in fact getting too caught up in the politics of creation and evolution can cause more confusion and harm if a person does not have the ability and understanding to discern things properly.

I would disagree with you vehemently. Why? It just seems like too much of a coincidence that evolutionary thinking and history since ancient times contradicted the Bible. The Bible took 1500 years to write and the pseudo-scientific evolution has been with us since. Are you surprised that evolution has been around that long? Evolutionary thinking was there when the Stoics and Epicureans took apostle Paul to the Areopagus -- If Paul Were Around Today, Would He Argue Against Evolutionists?.

The biggest thing in evolution today is probably birds from dinosaurs. It is the second example of macroevolution or a different species evolving from another species. The first was humans from monkeys. They will tell you and make you believe that birds are land animals (assuming you don't already) when God said he created flying animals.

Just look at the contradictions since the ancient times and after the Bible was put together. Every word of God has been contradicted by Satan and his rebellious nature. Can you think of anything in evolution that agrees with the Bible? Satan is quite powerful indeed. I have a healthy fear of God and pray Jesus protects me from Satan. They are equals and Satan is trying to become the antiChrist.

GOD >>>>> SATAN
Said it first (can't change) >>>>> Said it throughout the years (hypothesis and theories can change)
Universe >>>>> Multiverse
Creation ex nihilo (supernatural creation in 6 days) >>>>> Universe ex nihilo, i.e. big bang (defies laws of physics, infinite temp and density, all is set up in 20 mins); Before this, it was eternal universe
6,000 yrs old Earth and universe >>>>> 4.5 B yrs old Earth and 13.7 B yrs old universe
Created Adam and Eve >>>>> Humans evolved from monkeys
Created birds 4th day; dinosaurs 5th day >>>>> birds evolved from dinosaurs
Clear explanation of how universe and Earth formed and science backs it up >>>>> Wild hypothesis of infinitely hot and dense unseen particle called singularity; Some event called big bang triggered a cosmic expansion in microseconds that formed the basis for our universe; not clear explanation of what happened
Life can only create life >>>>> Life forms through abiogenesis (based on spontaneous generation that was proven false by creation scientist Dr. Louis Pasteur)
Started with void >>>>> Started with infinitely hot and dense unseen quantum particle
God is timeless and spaceless >>>>> Quantum particles pop in and out of existence
God is light, i.e. EMS or light >>>>> Things happen through dark energy, dark matter
Universe is bounded and has a center >>>>> Universe is boundless and does not have a center
Earth is special >>>>> There is nothing special about the Earth
Heaven (upward direction) >>>>> Hell (downward direction)

Sorry for the poor formatting. It did not take my spaces/tabs.

 

[Brightmoon]

We can teach the following can't we -- Creationist scientist contributions - creation.com? As for the anti-evolution, it has come up since the 1850s from James Hutton's and Charles Lyell's uniformitarianism, i.e. the present is the key to the past, and Charles Darwin's ToE. Darwin was a pupil of Lyell. Hutton and Lyell were atheists. Darwin became one after he explained how evolution works. He did not invent the ToE as many people believe. Thus, I would state this is part of science, the first two books (chapters) of Genesis. It is the only supernatural part. You have to also have a priori thinking with the supernatural. This is using rational thinking, facts, reasoning, and historical truths. Finally, creation scientists today are formulating a curriculum to counter evolution with Baraminology. ( snip)

For example, Alan Feduccia who is against birds from dinosaurs wrote a book against it. He states he does not know the origin of birds and he's an ornithologist and evolutionary biologist. That's another book that can be used.

. Another thing you’ve misunderstood. Feduccia think that birds are archosaurs . Dinosaurs are also archosaurs FYI. He just thinks birds are from another lineage of archosaurs. He thinks that because he thinks some fossils indicate that ( ya know that nasty word evidence ) . At this point it’s a very speculative hypothesis but there might be more than one lineage of birds, one extant and one extinct.

Baraminology is a pseudoscience pretty much like astrology or phrenology and has no relevance to real scientific inquiry. Just because YOU believe it doesn’t make it scientifically accurate. Evolution/ common descent has been responsible for most modern medical and agricultural breakthroughs over the last 150years . A pseudoscience like baraminology would destroy all of that

 

[jamesbond007]

. Another thing you’ve misunderstood. Feduccia think that birds are archosaurs . Dinosaurs are also archosaurs FYI. He just thinks birds are from another lineage of archosaurs. He thinks that because he thinks some fossils indicate that ( ya know that nasty word evidence ) . At this point it’s a very speculative hypothesis but there might be more than one lineage of birds, one extant and one extinct.

Baraminology is a pseudoscience pretty much like astrology or phrenology and has no relevance to real scientific inquiry. Just because YOU believe it doesn’t make it scientifically accurate. Evolution/ common descent has been responsible for most modern medical and agricultural breakthroughs over the last 150years . A pseudoscience like baraminology would destroy all of that

Last point first, baraminology isn't pseudoscience. One has to prove their claims instead of just making assertions. What it is is real science that has been systematically eliminated from secular science. Their hypothesis and theories are peer-reviewed by other creation scientists and published in their journals.

Second, I'll assume you cannot rebut what was found by OSU research as what I have been saying about the impossibility of birds from dinosaurs. When are you going to claim birds are land animals and not flying animals of the air like God stated in Genesis?

In regards to Feduccia, there are a considerable number of scientists who do not buy in to birds from dinosaurs. They back Feduccia and that birds are not dinosaurs. Feduccia wrote about the feather remains as skin follicles. Most of the fossils used to support theropods to birds are 20 million or more years YOUNGER than Archaeopteryx. Oops. Besides, they were runners and did not fly. Feduccia thinks birds descended from arboreal animals. Does the archosaur fit that description? The fossil record also show that feathers evolved in connection with gliding and flying, rather than to help catch insects.

http://stri-sites.si.edu/sites/publications/PDFs/Leigh_Feduccia.pdf

 

[Brightmoon]

Last point first, baraminology isn't pseudoscience. One has to prove their claims instead of just making assertions. What it is is real science that has been systematically eliminated from secular science. Their hypothesis and theories are peer-reviewed by other creation scientists and published in their journals.

Second, I'll assume you cannot rebut what was found by OSU research as what I have been saying about the impossibility of birds from dinosaurs. When are you going to claim birds are land animals and not flying animals of the air like God stated in Genesis?

In regards to Feduccia, there are a considerable number of scientists who do not buy in to birds from dinosaurs. They back Feduccia and that birds are not dinosaurs. Feduccia wrote about the feather remains as skin follicles. Most of the fossils used to support theropods to birds are 20 million or more years YOUNGER than Archaeopteryx. Oops. Besides, they were runners and did not fly. Feduccia thinks birds descended from arboreal animals. Does the archosaur fit that description? The fossil record also show that feathers evolved in connection with gliding and flying, rather than to help catch insects.

http://stri-sites.si.edu/sites/publications/PDFs/Leigh_Feduccia.pdf

. It would help a lot if you understood the fossils or the terminology you constantly ,unendingly and ignorantly complain about. Transitional doesn’t have to mean direct ancestors. It could mean distant cousin . Archaeopteryx is a transitional . It might or might not be a direct ancestor of modern birds. Arboreal just means that they lived in trees.