Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.
Baraminology is pseudoscience. They have these arbitrary breaks in the family tree . They break off humans at a few species and wrongly put other members of the Hominidae in another baramin. Even that is arbitrary as some creationists don’t consider Neanderthals to be human.
Genesis states there was a lot of water vapor surrounding the Earth Water is an universal solvent, so if abiogenesis is true, it does not want water. It's ironic that water is necessary for life, but to amino acids, it is the enemy. If we end up 2H2 and O2, then if we have free hydrogen, that is unstable and cause for an explosion. Thus, if we want abiogenesis, we do not want free hydrogen nor water. From the assumption that the early universe just had water vapor, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and methane, then the amino acids do not form under Miller-Urey.
https://evolutionnews.org/2012/11/on_the_miller-u_1/
That says science is not an efficient tool for the researching of one time events happened in the long past. However it could be the only tool humans have in the hope that it can help to make our past evident.
Overall, we humans don't have the capability to confirm a past, science as the only tool we have could possibly direct us to a wrong answer. What today's people failed to accept is the incapability of science in terms of reaching the truth of the one time occurrences happened in the long past.
We may try to get to an answer seems to be acceptable to us, however unlike the repeatable phenomenon, there could be a gap (possibly a huge one) between such an answer and the truth itself.
. ( sigh) this is exactly what I meant when I said you don’t understand scientific terminology .Why don't you answer my questions:
1. When are you going to claim birds are land animals and not flying animals of the air like God stated in Genesis?
2. Does the archosaur fit that description (of being arboreal)? You're the one who said Feduccia thinks birds are from another lineage of archosaurs.
3. Your reply does not fit my reply and questions to you. Thus, you'll have to explain what the transitions are. I explained that Fedducia said birds descended from arboreal animals. He found most of the theropod to birds fossils were 20 million or more years YOUNGER than Archaeopteryx. How could they be common ancestors then?
4. Feduccia also said birds feathers evolved in connection with gliding and flying, rather than to help catch insects. How is the latter related to dinosaurs?
You may not be able to answer all my questions because you're not an ornithologist.
To this post, what terminologies are you saying that I a misusing? Is it from the OSU study? I would think you would address what they found. When you say Archaeopteryx is a transitional, where does it fall in your transition from earlier to later? It would help to have an idea of a few of your transitions as earlier birds before Archaopteryx were found by Chinese discoverers.
( sigh) this is exactly what I meant when I said you don’t understand scientific terminology .
Archosaurs are dinosaurs , pterosaurs crocodilians and birds . Birds are also theropod dinosaurs. Archaeopteryx retained both the ancestral characteristics of dinosaurs and the more derived ones of birds . It’s mosaic traits makes it a transitional between the 2 lineages even though there might be birds older than it.
There are 2 main theories of how birds originally achieved real flight: 1 birds glided down from perches after climbing up. 2 birds got a running start while flapping on the ground which threw them into the air . They basically took longer and longer leaps .
Arboreal only means that it lives in trees . Squirrels are arboreal too
And the first part of your post , yes birds are land vertebrate tetrapods
. Every modern vertebrate that flies evolved from a land tetrapod. ( since you seem to not understand science terminology I’ll translate, tetrapods are vertebrates with 4 limbs) Birds, bats, and extinct pterosaurs had land vertebrate ancestors. The aquatic reptiles weren’t all dinosaurs but they were all diapsids ( vertebrate with 2 holes in the skull : dinosaurs including birds, crocodilians,lizards ,snakes ,tuataras ) . Aquatic reptiles all evolved from land vertebrates too. Neither the fossil record , geological layering nor the DNA of modern vertebrates agrees with biblical beliefs.Let's look at the evidence for God creating flying animals on the fifth day and land animals on the sixth day. This is based on the first two books of Genesis in the Bible as the Bible theory of creation.
We have aquatic reptiles, such as the plesiosaur, and the flying reptiles, such as the pteranodon. The plesiosaur are considered sea creatures and not fish, but Genesis states, "20 And God said, “Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens.” 21 So God created the great sea creatures and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” 23 And there was evening and there was morning, the fifth day." Genesis 1:20-23
The pteranodon are flying creatures, but not not classified as dinosaurs. Both the plesiosaur and pteranodon are not classified as dinosaurs which are land animals. Thus it fits the days of creation chart. Science backs up the Bible. Now, he did say "birds," but what classifies an animal as a bird? God states they are flying animals. How does this work for the evos?
Unfortunately, birds are dinosaurs does not.
As far as your last pointless complaint . Nat Geo discovered the problem with “archeoraptor” just before the magazine went to press but it was too late to change the cover . IIRC they did pull the article. They immediately put a retraction on the website BEFORE the magazine got mailed . In the following month’s issue they also printed a retraction. So why are you bringing this up? They goofed , they admitted that they goofed and they tried to correct it. I remember this because I had that particular magazine.” Archeoraptor “turned out to be at least 2 dinosaurs , one of which was new to science . So the fossils weren’t fake . The mistake was in having an amateur put the pieces together and in not waiting for that to be checked thoroughly .1. Last point first, that's another contradiction and fits my Satan's rebellious nature theory. Birds are flying animals.
2. The Archosaur fits the description of arboreal.
3. Since you avoided Fedducia "found most of the theropod to birds fossils were 20 million or more years YOUNGER than Archaeopteryx. How could they be common ancestors then?" I'll assume that he was right.
4. I'll assume you don't know.
Your bird theories about flight do not sound very scientific when compared to what creation scientists claim.
I found another fraud. This is getting embarrassing for you by the minute. I think you need to admit your erroneous thinking or get help.
How can you trust birds are dinosaurs when evolutionists have lied and committed fraud before? We had Piltdown Man and Haeckel's false embryo drawings based on Darwin's OoS book fool an entire generation.
Now, we had a Chinese farmer glue together fossils to create the fake Archaeoraptor. The composite fossil was purchased by a United States museum and was prominently written about in National Geographic in 1999 despite the evidence against it. The fake was not stopped. Can you explain why it was not stopped?
The 5 Greatest Palaeontology Hoaxes Of All Time #3. Archaeoraptor
No, it isn't. There is no way to scientifically test the claim that "God did this" or "God did that".Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools.
That's not a problem, it's a strength. As I said above, there is no way to test supernatural claims scientifically.Part of the problem is science today only accepts what is natural in the physical world.
Today's science is most definitely firmly based in empiricism. It can't be otherwise.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.
Science only "allows" what is testable. Perhaps you could demonstrate an empirical way to test the claim that God made the earth stand still for an day for Joshua's army?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.
Perhaps you've seen me say this before, but science only deals in what is testable in the natural world.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.
The Cosmological Argument is born of logic, not science.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.
"Historical truths" eh? Who decides which "historical truths" are correct? The Christian "truth" that the earth and all life is only 6,000 years old? The Hindu "truth" that the earth and life is trillions of years old? Something else? Who decides and what basis do they use to make that decision?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.
His premise is flawed from the third sentence on: "The basic assumption of modern evolutionary theory is that no Supernatural Being has ever been involved in this universe,"I've read Dr. John Morris' explanation for a creator -- Should the Public Schools Teach Creation?
Feel free to read a rebuttal of Stobel's ideas here:-- 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.
The only place to build faith -- the foundation for faith that Christ says we must have (or else will be destroyed) --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.
The only place to build faith -- the foundation for faith that Christ says we must have (or else will be destroyed) --
24 “Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock.
26 And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. 27 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it.”
So, if you are doing what Christ says to us to do: "Love one another", "forgive seventy times seven", "pray then this way..." and His instructions to us in general -- then you will make it. And if you don't do these, then you won't make it.
Notice there is nothing there about knowing a particular theory about how God created!
You don't need that knowledge to be saved. Not even 1%. But there is something we all need!
We should not teach religion as science or science as religion.
I agree.. 100%But God put it in His Word for us to know and learn. And He clearly told Adam that He created the universe and all that is in it in 6 days approx 6-10K years ago! The Wordl can believe what it wants but we who dare call on the name of Jesus as Savior should adhere to Gods Word instead of mans opinion!
Absolutely.Well as Evolution in the from microbe to man via mutations preserved by natural selection is untestable, unprovable and far far outside the scientific method of validation- it should not be taught as science either, no matter what some say!
A couple of the common assumptions (added ideas not in scripture) that young Earth theories in effect add on top of scripture:But God put it in His Word for us to know and learn. And He clearly told Adam that He created the universe and all that is in it in 6 days approx 6-10K years ago! The Wordl can believe what it wants but we who dare call on the name of Jesus as Savior should adhere to Gods Word instead of mans opinion!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?